User talk:GoodDay/Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Heads up on "format"

On ArbComm cases, you're never supposed to reply under someone else's post. You add your "reply" under your own statement, but put who it's directed towards. You'll want to move one of your recent replies there. You'll probably also want to defend yourself a wee bit better (there is no such thing, for example, as an "English Alphabet" - we borrow mostly from the "Roman Alphabet", but we cannot be naïve enough to believe that the English Dictionary is not full of characters with diacritics) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

RFAR

Hi GoodDay. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GoodDay. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 23:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#GoodDay and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I'm flabergasted that I'm being put through a RFAR, for attempting to promote usage of English on English Wikipedia. Let's hope that the Chinese or Japanese editors don't start demanding that bio articles of Japenses & Chinese have their titles changed. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If a Japanese, or Chinese, editor can document English usage with reliable verifiable sources than their edits will have Wikipedia's blessing. If we think that English reliable and verifiable usage is limited to the English alphabet, then we are mistaken. The common usage by established English sources is the standard, it seems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do sources with 'no diacritics' get pushed aside for sources with 'diacritics'? GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they are pushed aside, but when it comes to spelling a name, in general, one could say that sources that spell with diacritics prove that a name is spelled with diacritics, while sources that don't spell with diacritics do not disprove a spelling with diacritics, because the latter may not be able to reproduce them – or they just don't care. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

With a 'non dios' sources, there's no reason why we can't have non-dios article titles or atleast the non-dios version in the intro, along the dios version. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it is obviously a WP:POINTy suggestion? Reso lute 15:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If this wasn't English Wikipedia, I wouldn't be recommending 'non-dios' alternate versions in the article intros. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I see two issues with your edit to Zoë Baird: First, labeling the alternate spelling as "English" is probably unwise, given the lack of consensus on this issue. Second, there also has been some discussion if it is necessary to include alternate spellings that simply omit the diacritics. However, the key problem is your re-insertion of your edits after being reverted. I realize it can be frustrating for consensus to not agree with your interpretation, but it does no one any good to re-revert editors on this point. If you can yield on this, and avoid making edits simply to illustrate your point of view, knowing they will be contested, hopefully an arbitration case can be avoided. isaacl (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bold edits are discouraged yet bold page moves are encouraged? GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the move is reverted, moving it back without establishing a consensus is discouraged. Try to put yourself in the opposite position: let's say someone insisted on changing a reference to John Cabot in an article to Giovanni Caboto, since that's his original name. You revert it, since he has an established English name. I imagine you would like the person to then discuss the changes, rather than just make the edit again, and then move on to changing other people names, just to illustrate a point of view. But I'm pretty sure you know all this already, so I won't elaborate any further. I hope you will be able to put aside issues of contention and just demonstrate you will happily work on areas where your edits agree with consensus views. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There's still no explanation for why non-dios versions of names (with sources provided) are being censured from dios titled articles. Also, there's no explanation for why mass-page moves are being allowed (without benefit of RMs) concerning diacritics. Plus, there's no good reason for forcing diacritics on the birthplaces on NHL team roster Templates - when NHL & NHLPA sources don't use diacritics for those birthplaces. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Censored"? What on earth would be the point of showing a version without diacritics alongside a version with diacritics? Essentially, all it would do, is to say that "and this is how it looks without diacritics", something that most people, or even all, are able to visualize without even reflecting on it. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's common in English print & television etc, to 'not use' diacritics. Since this is English Wikipedia, it's not unreasonable to want to show the non-diacritics versions. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I used quite a bit of diacritics on several articles today. They are a fact of life, GoodDay. Accept it and get over it. Don't give yourself headaches when you don't have to.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are diacritics being forced on English Wikipedia? Even more disturbing, Why are 'non diacritics' version being censured from those articles intros? GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's ironic that you're worried about "foreign" diacritics marring the purity of the English language when in many European countries they lament over the steady encroachment of English words replacing their respective vocabularies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What galls me is that the diacritics push comes mostly from the home country/mother tongue pride of editors whom English isn't their 'first' or 'only' language. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not true. I happen to think this word hôtel looks perfectly lovely. And I love the English language with its vast and expanding vocabulary and colourful slang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-English editors shouldn't be running English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a highly-inflamatory statement and I would strike it ASAP if I were you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

By Non-English editors, I mean Non-English speaking/reading editors - the language not the people. English-first speaking/reading editors shouldn't remove diacritics from French Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipedia, Finnish Wikipedia etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been wanting to ask you this question for long, since you refer to editors who don't have English as their first language, and now you've opened the door. Is English your first language, or are you a Francophone Canadian? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm uni-lingual (i.e. English only). GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Are they doing that? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Most likely not, which is my point. If very little to no diacritics are being removed from those other Wikipedias, then why are those same diacritics being pushed on this Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably because that is the way the names are spelled. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But not in many English language print. I can easily provide sources for Zoe Baird, yet for some reason, it would be censured. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, all of us are aware that many sources leave out the diacritics, but, as I said above, that does not disprove the spelling with diacritics. It only proves that these sources don't care. It doesn't mean they are "censured", just that we don't rely on them for spelling accuracy. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But there's no reason for 'blocking' those alternate versions in the intros. Readers should be given the option of seeing how those names are spelt in English print. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is, because there's no point in adding some "English spelling". As I also said above, essentially, it would only be like saying "this is how it looks without diacritics" – and most people can visualize that. Btw, if Zoe Baird is the "English spelling", then what language is Zoë Baird? If you'd ask her, I'm pretty sure she'd insist that it's English. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope Baird made lots of money in her lawsuits against CNN & NY Times, for spelling her name wrong. Anyways, we're just going around in circles here. Further posts are just a waste of time. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're just running out of arguments. What language is "Zoë Baird"? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We're never going to agree on diacritics usage, so your posting here is merely to provoke & bait. Please, don't post herer (my talkpage) again. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to make In-Wikipedia links. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You have linked in your statement correctly. Is that what you meant ? --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not good at making internal links, particulary concerning archive material. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Retirement plans?

First the devolutionists force me off the British & Irish political articles. Now, the multi-liguistics are on the verge of forcing me from the diacritics topic. I hope there's no political or liguistic gnomes out there, sheesh. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum. Kauffner (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, GoodDay, it is astounding that you think that English lacks diacritics. Is your reading limited to Simple English Wikipedia and Reader's Digest? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps GoodDay reads newspapers or other news media, which generally follow AP style and strip off all diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, GoodDay has a limited understanding of English, and should cease and desist from labeling other editors as non-English. The typical Swede regards Shakespeare as an English writer and can recognize Shakespeare's use of diacritics, which gives Svensson Svensson an edge over GoodDay. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics usage needs to be limited on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Can not retire until you are 65; and I think the retirement age is being pushed up!! München should not be used if Munich exists. Catalunya or Cataluña when there is Catalonia. If there is no word in English, then there is no other choice. Raul17 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder: When will the pro-diacritics editors start to add their accents to the English alphabet article? GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be a stupid thing to point out, but the English alphabet article has had information on diacritics since 2005 only 14 months after the article was created. Worm^TT(talk) 08:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I wondering about the actual letters in that article, the A, B, C's. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The basic Latin alphabet is the same on , German alphabet, French alphabet and many other alphabet articles. They go on to say that there are diacritics, just as the English alphabet article does. Worm^TT(talk) 12:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, the letters in that article are 'non-diacriticized'. As for other Language Wikipedias? I was scolded for pointing out how 'non-diacritics'/'English' wasn't being used on the NHL team infoboxes at French Wikipedia, while 'diacritics'/'French' was being used on the Montreal Canadiens infobox at English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight here. We have WP:LEAD, which tells us to mention "significant" alternative names in the lede. As examples of alternative names it says: "These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages."

As far as I have seen there is no clear concensus whether such an "alternative name" should or should not be mentioned if it is an obvious alternative spelling (like diacritics removed). I think there is something to say for adding a significant alternative name, even when it is quite obvious. Why? Because the person may or may not have conducted significant part of his activities under that obvious alternative name. Let's say a person has a diacritics official name. If virtually no reliable sources mention the name without diacritics, then we don't need to add it as an alternative name. But if a significant chunk of reliable sources mention him without diacritics (or if the person conducts activities under his anglicized name), then I would add it as a significant alternative name (even though it may only differ in one letter). Yes, we try to be accurate, but we also try to be complete. I see no reason not to mention an alternative name if it appears in several of the sources used for the article. What's the harm? And on what basis is a piece of information being removed, when it is backed up by several of the sources for the article? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this, but labelling the alternative name as the "English name" is disruptive to say the least. Especially with the edit summary "Added English version of name to intro, alongside non-English version". Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. GoodDay's argument is that there are no diacritics on letters in the "English" alphabet, and therefore words (esp. in GD's case, people's names) that use diacritics are not "English". He is unmoving in his thinking. Which is why I expect he'll end up with a ban. His argument is clearly flawed as the many words with diacritics in the OED will testify. --HighKing (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he made a bad edit summary, but the edit itself was not completely bad and would have been fairly OK if he had written something like "(Also: Zoe Baird)", since that is backed up by several of the article's sources.

Whether he should be banned should not depend on making a bad edit (or edit summary), because then we were probably all banned by now, but on how often he made that kind of edits and whether he continued making them after being warned. But, I object to the idea that an editor should change their thinking. Editors can think in any way they want, and even express that on their Talk page, as long as they edit and participate on the basis of our policies and guidelines. I know a lot of editors who always vote "this is an encyclopedia" or "we should use diacritics in all names that have them" and they are also not changing their thinking (and why would they?). Are we going to ban them too? I am not used to watch arbitration cases, so I don't know what is usually going on there. But my sense is that a new low water mark is going to be set. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

By the time it gets to Arbcom, we're no longer looking at an individual edit but at the history of behaviour over a period of time - and most likely not just for diacritics either. It's not about GD's "thinking", it's about how GD conducts himself. It's fine to have a strongly held opinion, but it's not fine to express it over and over with one-liners such as "There's no place for diacritics in the English Wikipedia" or "When will the pro-diacritics editors start to add their accents to the English alphabet article?". --HighKing (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope it doesn't reach that stage where the banning of a veteran editor such as GoodDay becomes an option. I have attempted to get him to drop his one-man crusade but so far it has been to no avail. He needs to realise that there isn't a plot amongst editors whose first language is not English to undermine English Wikipedia by the use of diacritics when sources spell them as such.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to mention that "ban" doesn't necessarily mean "site ban" but could be "topic ban", preventing GoodDay from being involved in diacritics all together. Worm^TT(talk) 11:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming I won't be 'completely' banned from the diacritics stuff. I've been fairly quiet on the hockey articles & as for non-hockey articles, I haven't edit-warred (i.e over 3 reverts) on any article content or article page moves. I haven't used foul language in the discussions concerning diacritics -- even though I've pointed out (and continue to do so) that their usage is being back by editors 'first language' pride. As for WP:LEAD, I can easily use Alternate spelling in my edit summaries & merely put the non-diacritics name in the lead, next to the diacritics name. GoodDay (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And if you did that, the entire matter would cease to interest me ;) Worm^TT(talk) 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@GoodDay. Yes, you can do that, but make sure there are at least two English-language sources in the article that show the alternative spelling you add in the lede. Then on what grounds are other editors going to remove a piece of information for which there are adequate cites? Removing information that is properly sourced is also considered disruption. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no trouble finding non-diacritics among English sources, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I might recommend that you stop making diacritic related edits for the duration of the arbcom case, but it's your choice. Worm^TT(talk) 12:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@GoodDay. Be careful. I am not saying to add two non-diacritics sources in order to put the alternative spelling in. But if there already are several sources showing an alternative spelling, then that alternate spelling can certainly be mentioned in the lede. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to monitor North American-based hockey articles, though. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As Resolute has mentioned to you, this type of behavioural evidence (and what you plan to do in future) is exactly the type of evidence you need to post on your case evidence page. I hope you will include it. I don't believe your current evidence will affect the outcome of the case. isaacl (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Included. Also, I don't understand any of the instructions for 'inter-linking', particularly when it involves archived material. So, that's gonna be my huge handicap at the Arbcom case. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe you only added what you plan to do; you didn't add the evidence of what you have done in the past (as Resolute and you have mentioned). There seems to be a communication gap between us and I regret failing to be sufficiently clear. Regarding linking to diffs, perhaps you can point to specific phrases, sentences or passages in Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide that you do not understand, starting with the section "How to harvest a diff". I cannot promise I will be able to explain it adequately, but maybe someone else will be able to help out (any one willing to do a live demonstration, for example?). isaacl (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's too much hassle. I'd need a person in the same room with me, to learn how to link to archives. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's what I suggested: maybe someone will be willing to do a screen-sharing session with you over something like Skype or Google Hangout and demonstrate.

When a new change appears in your watchlist (assuming you use one), do you know how to display the diff for the change? Do you know how to see the history of an article and display the diff of any of the displayed edits? isaacl (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Via checking an article's contribs history, I can see where things were added or subtracted from an article. I just don't understand how editors link to them, in the manner that's required at the Arbcase. This lack of knowledge, is one of the reasons why I've rarely reported any editors to ANI. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, Hockey puck, ;)

You missed the point. Two reliable-sources suffice to sanction the use of diacritics, and you cannot censor them. Period.

If there are two reliable-sources (without correction or retraction in a later issue) that lack diacritics, then it's fine to mention that spelling also.

If both versions are represented in the quality press, then the preferred spelling must follow talk-page consensus, but both should be mentioned. If consensus favors one spelling (e.g. with diacritics) for the title of the article, then follow consensus and don't edit war or engage in POV-pushing.

C.f. Peter Orno

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

With non-diacritics sources backing, an alternate (non diacritics) version of a name can be added to an article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't have trouble adding a non-diacritics spelling, if one is indeed represented in high quality reliable sources. Unilaterally changing titles or switching the emphasis of spelling, despite consensus on a talk page would get anybody into trouble. Try avoiding commenting on other editors as "non-English" and see whether your editing is better received. This really doesn't sound like an ArbCom case. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been uni-latterally moving articles concerning diacritics, however. Something, that can't be claimed by certain other editors over the years. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Zoë Baird

She is the president of the Markle Foundation. At the President's Message page of that website, written by her, her name is spelled Zoë. You are, in effect, telling her that she doesn't know how to spell her own name. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete the diacritics version from the intro, nor did I put it in a secondary place. Readers, should be aware that her name has been written 'without' diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can easily find "sources" that spell the name of Condoleezza Rice with only one "z", just go to Google and use the "verbatim" option. For instance "Condoleeza Rice For President 2012" or this Esquire page. Why, her IMDb page even states: "Alternate Names: Condoleeza Rice". I am tempted to ask, rhetorically, "why don't you go and edit the Condoleezza Rice article in that case?"... except the last time that happened, you actually went and edited the Zoë Baird article. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in editing the former US Secy of State's bio article, at this time. BTW, you're free to add both spellings in her bio article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But the Google search using "verbatim" mode returns millions of results for "Condoleeza Rice" with one "z". Try it and see. The rationale you supplied for the Zoë Baird edit — numerous "sources" write it a different way, so it's more informative for readers to show that — is difficult to accept when it's applied inconsistently. Anyways, I don't think the Zoë Baird edit can stand, but I'll wait until tomorrow before I think about reverting it. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been advised in the past, to avoid consistency arguments & concentrate on 1 article-at-a-time. In this case a diacritics titled article. I'm not interesd in the Rice article, you can add what you wish in its lead. BTW, why isn't this being discussed at the article-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, fair enough, I posted an abbreviated version of the Condoleezza Rice argument there, we can see if anyone else wants to join the discussion. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If a consensus emerges there, to keep the multi-sourced alternative spelling out? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is extremely silly. GoodDay is, for reasons that I'm not sure he knows himself, fighting desperately to at least milk out some sort of concession from this dispute. Adding or Zoe Eliot Baird will in essence only tell the reader "and this is how it looks without diacritics", something that most people (if not all) are able to visualize without even reflecting on it. Imagine GoodDay adding that to every article with diacritics. It is proposterouos, and obviously WP:UNDUE. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with that and have explained why on the Zoe Baird talk page. It says more than "this is how it looks without diacritics". Mentioning it in the lede indicates that it is an alternative spelling that is also in common use (that is not guaranteed to be the case). If two or more sources used for the article mention a different spelling of the name, then there is no good reason to remove that information from the article lede. As I have said before: we try to be accurate, but we also try to be complete. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not going to get through the censors, MakeSense64. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Building a consensus

I think it would have been more prudent to allow more time for a consensus to build before proceeding to edit the "1993–94 NHL season" article. There is no urgency in removing the information in question, and a case can be made for its inclusion. (I am not strongly opinionated about having the statement there, but wanted to establish a consensus on its inclusion so it doesn't get moved in and out of the article based on a single editor's opinion.) isaacl (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

One has to be bold, sometimes. ~~Anyways, I didn't delete the 'sources' for the players who's birth country & current country were differant - just incase anybody chose to revert.~~ BTW: What's to be done with SNIyer12? he's not big on communicating & tends to ignore editors complaints. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are referring to something else. With less than twenty minutes between the opening of the discussion and your edit to the "1993–94 NHL season" article to remove the information about future Canadian teams appearing in the Finals, it seems a little quick to take any actions. At times your edits seem a bit rash or not well-considered (such as your quick response to me above), and it would be good if you could take a bit more time to review your changes. isaacl (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My blunder. Anyways, SNIyer12's been adding 'useless' trivia to sports articles for quite awhile & continues to ignore requests to stop. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In many ways, SNIyer12's and your behaviour are similar. Both of you make cleanup edits that are useful. Both of you make some edits related to pushing your pet points of view. While SNIyer12 seldom responds at all to conversation, you tend to repeat the same points and seemingly ignore the points made by others (such as below where it looks like you haven't considered the advice given to you by Resolute, me, and others on how to construct your defence for the arbitration case), so no real dialog occurs. A key difference is that SNIyer12's contested edits relate to adding trivia, and as far as I have experienced, most other editors disagree with their inclusion. In addition, the non-engagement does mean no long, drawn-out discussion results from the edits. Your problematic edits unfortunately foster roundabout discussions threads, fueled by your repeating the same points which then trigger the same responses. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

With the ever increasing over-usage of diacritics on English Wikipedia, perhaps this project has lost its appeal for me. I'll likely be content if the Arbitrators limit me to just gnoming. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello old timer.. I have been reading over your current situation. I agree with you that diacritics are unfounded here in English wiki. But do have a question as to if there is any harm with them and a need to systematically remove them. I dont see how this simple topic is worth a ban on your part. I ask because my wife is a Métis and we have always argued over the spelling - but see that having both is informative and appeals to both sides of the argument. Were would you stand on a case like this(Métis)?Moxy (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The article's title should be Metis people (Canada) (showing as Metis), with the intro as Metis or Métis. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree - is your agreement that diacritics spelling's should be omitted entirely .. or just for article space names. Do you think its ok to have the diacritics spelling in leads? I find your devotion to this topic remarkable and compelling. I want to learn more ....do you have any suggested reading? I am currently looking at Thomas Burns McArthur; Roshan McArthur (15 December 2005). Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press. pp. 445–. ISBN 978-0-19-280637-6. Retrieved 2 June 2012. and ... C. M. Millward; Mary Hayes (1 January 2011). A Biography of the English Language. Cengage Learning. pp. 231–. ISBN 978-0-495-90641-4. Retrieved 2 June 2012. Moxy (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted that there's going to be diacritics in some content. But IMHO, diacritics usage has gotten out of hand. It's as though (for examples) Patrik Elias, Francois Mitterand, Zoe Baird & Trebic, are treated as though they're non-existent spelling -- even though there are sources for them. You'll notice, that the dios are generally pushed on the European article titles, btw. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

WoW odd your having such trouble implementing these changes - from the books above you seem to be correct in there usage. I agree with your position simply on the fact I (and I assume most with a English keyboard) cant type these characters for a search. I have a secondary question then - I see that an internal wiki search finds the redirect but do external search engines see the redirects or see the diacritics usage? What about blind people - cant they search by voice for these diacritics titles?Moxy (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about external search engines or how things are for blind people. Anyways, one can see why I haven't been putting up much of a 'defence' at my Arbcom case. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I see we have guides like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#French names that seem to leave this question to regional expressions. I think I will look into this further. I find it odd we have no "set" rules for this that are clear and not contradictory or open to interpretation. What is the normal usage in Encyclopedias and Dictionaries is what I will be looking into. In the mean time I take it your not editing in this fashion as of now - am I correct? Perhaps I you and others that wish (if your allowed) can use this time to write an essay of the matter like WP:Diacritics usage in the English language. I think both refs above are pretty good and I plan to read more about the topic. Best way to do the right thing is to make the best case when possible - an essay is a first good step were the merits and flaws and be presented.Moxy (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My base argument has been that there's no diacritics in the English alphabet. An essay would be a great idea, though I'll likely not have time to contribute to it (as my fate is in the hands of the Arbitrators). Do be prepared for major resistance from 'pro-diacritics' editors. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello both of you. Speaking of essays, here's a good one, although you might not like it: User:Prolog/Diacritical marks. If you're gonna rebut that one, you've got work to do – especially if you're gonna reference it properly. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, HandsomeFella is a pro-diacritics editor, so you'll not get much cooperation from him. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

NO PROBLEM its a badly sourced essay that actually does not really talk about proper English one section called "English words" the rerst is not about the English language. - User:Prolog/Diacritical marks is just linked to old webpages and self referenced back to Wiki its self. We will use real books and scholarly pages see what we come up with.

There is no such thing as a pro-diacritics editor – but it's pretty obvious that there are anti-diacritics ones. I wish you good luck with your essay, I can't wait to read it. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My goodness there sure is. Editors who insist on diacritics regardless of a majority of English sources to the contrary, and editors who insist on diacritics even if the subject uses no diacritics when spelling (or signing) their own names in English or personal websites. Those are the pro-diacritic extremists. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence rebuttals

Hello GoodDay. If you so wish, please examine the evidence submitted thus far in your arbitration case, then post any rebuttal you wish to make in your own Evidence section. Your evidence word limit is 1000 words, to give you the opportunity to make a detailed response. The evidence phase closes in 3 days. Thank you, AGK [•] 20:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your recent post on your arbitration case: there may be a misunderstanding on your part. As the infobox says:

The purpose of this case is to examine GoodDay's conduct. Evidence and workshop submissions will relate only to whether or not GoodDay's behaviour has been a subject of disruption.

(my bold)

The arbitration case is about your actions only. What you think of one of my posts to the request for arbitration is irrelevant for the case. It's probably a better strategy to present defence for your actions than to attack others. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to defend myself at the Arbcase, as I don't find my conduct offensive. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to mention that you now realize – if that is the case – that it's better to try to build a consensus, when you see that you're reverted by different editors, than to keep re-adding. And when it's not possible to obtain a consensus for your suggested additions, then it's better to move on to other tasks, instead of wasting your own time – and others'. If you can move on, and change focus, you'll probably find that you feel much better, too. (This might sound a bit patronizing, but it is absolutely not meant that way.) HandsomeFella (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has changed quite a bit in the last 6+ years (since November 2005) & not for the better, concerning diacritics usage. I won't back down from my view: Diacritics serve no educational purpose. They're in place as a result of personal preferences. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I must say I'm really sorry to see you having this trouble. I wish there were such things as character witnesses on wikipedia - I've never seen you be anything but civil and helpful. Deb (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's mostly a biased case, IMHO. Most of my detractors are in favour of unlimited diacritics usage & have been in disputes with me over that issue. I hope that someday the Wikimedia members will put an end to the pro-diacritics nonsense & purge English Wikipedia. There's no excuse for using diacritics in article titles (for example), when there's non-diacritics sources, aswell as diacritics sources. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Bhumibol Adulyadej

Hi. I have reverted your removal of the length of reign at Bhumibol Adulyadej. We have already had a discussion on the Talk page, and the consensus was that, as he is the worlds longest reigning monarch, the length of reign should be included - see Talk:Bhumibol Adulyadej/Archive 3#Length of reign -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool, though only 3 editors particpated in that discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - maybe he's not as popular as people say ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

When he passes on, I assume the 'length of reign' thing will be removed. IMHO, it should be removed 'now', to be consistant with the other Monarchs infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Given current practice, when Bhumibol dies I'd expect it to be moved to the lead and removed from the infobox. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, the style won't be added to the next 'longest reigning' current monarch. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours :)

First off, I'm likely gonna get somekinda diacritics ban. Secondly, Daicaregos has returned to Wikipedia, after abruptly retiring in February & Thirdly, in the RL - it looks like the Kings are gonna win the Stanley Cup. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not do what I do? Some things - like just about everything - are beyond my control. I say "Well, that's the way it is," and get on with life. There are several different versions of English, and in some versions it's "colourise" and others it's "colorize". Some versions use diacritics, some don't and there's not a lot of order to the thing. Nobody is ever going to nail down English into one tidy version - the thing changes as we speak. Why wear yourself into a frazzle worrying about stuff that don't need to be fussed at? --Pete (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still hoping that English Wikipedia will someday be 'purged' of them, by the Wikimedia folks. BTW, I see you're still pushing the Governor General is Australia's Head of State argument. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes, not prescribes. Let me put it this way: Our view of what a perfect world should be cannot be correct, because other people have different ideas. As you note above, the ideal winner of the Stanley Cup differs according to the observer. Wikipedia's NPOV and RS policies resolve most of the difficulties associated with our attachment to our perception of perfection. They work, allowing editors to get on with things. --Pete (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, the non-diacritics sources tend to be ignored. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I don't care, it's just that I don't care enough to make myself and others unhappy over it. See above. --Pete (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a passionate fellow, to be sure. Would you believe, there was a time that I was a happy-go-lucky editor, affable to the point that it annoyed others? GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ton Up

Congratulations! You made it!. You are now an honorary member of a very exclusive club, and a good percentage of mainspace edits as well. Well done! Van Speijk (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For reaching the 100,000 edit milestone Van Speijk (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wowsers, that's alot of edits. But of course, it's been over 6 years. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Quebec exemption" on hockey articles

Per User:Resolute's post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Workshop and your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey (May 5th), where you mention that there is an exemption for LNAH & QMJHL articles, I hope that it would not cause a conflict if I edited pages like Baie-Comeau Drakkar and others. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not certain that there is an exemption. I'd recommend that you leave the hockey articles to the hockey editors, less it be seen as an attempt to cause disruption. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Except those particular articles aren't just wikiproject hockey articles, they're also wikiproject Quebec articles. So it's not just an "internal" matter for the hockey project, there's overlapping project scope and the established practices of the other project should be considered. Maybe right this moment isn't the best time, but I'll look into the history of the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey and maybe start a dialog with people there at some point. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you wait until the Arbcom case is done? Your bringing it up at WP:HOCKEY, while the case is opened, wouldn't look good. Remember, we've a (recent) history of disagreeing on diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I would wait. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is certain there is one. A discussion was had a few months ago about it. It is listed on the main page of WP:HOCKEY. "All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey)." -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW PT, Djsasso favours diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closed

Please note that I have closed the discussion on the evidence talk page as unhelpful and distracting. Please do not use the arbitration case to continue your personal disputes. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledge & in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Endashes, hyphens, and HTML markup

Hi GoodDay. I notice that you have been replacing hyphens with the HTML markup '–' instead of the actual character '–' ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I understand that this practice is suboptimal, because wherever possible editors should use the actual character (which can be inserted into the editbox using Wikipedia's special characters menu, if your keyboard only supports the typing of hyphens). Don't you think it would be more helpful to insert the proper character in your edits, rather than replacing one suboptimal character with another? I have been told by a knowledgeable editor that two gadgets exist to replace hyphens with a proper en-dash, which you may want to install and use instead:

Regards, AGK [•] 09:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it. But, if it's too much hassle, I'll gnome something else. GoodDay (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at both pages & neither make sense to me. Therefore, I'll have to drop changing endashes, hyphens & html markups. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 06:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain, as to how to transfer it to 'My Stuff' page. GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Daicaregos (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dai :) GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats GoodDay - fabulous - all those thousands of little edits make the project a better place. Youreallycan 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a gnome for years, but just didn't know it. Oddly enough, my 2 topic bans have been beneficial to me. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - congrats on the arbitration result as well - you are better off out of those diacritics is just a silly wiki nonsense - I noticed the arbs gave you kudos for you contributions and lack of block history - Kudos to you from me as well dude.Youreallycan 15:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks YRC. As for the 2 areas I've been barred from, the project will eventually balance itself out & get back on track. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hello GoodDay I appreciate your edits and corrections on the House of Saud-related articles all the day. So, thank you for your good work. Egeymi (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Links to common geographical entities

Please note that the style guides say not to do this. I see that you're linking "United States" and "Japan", and wonder what the justification is.

If you have questions about this, please ask me. Tony (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeepers, I thought by gnoming, I'd be left alone. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through a couple of pages of your contribs, and you really do impressive gnoming work. Thank you indeed! But please, all I propose is that you don't link a country-name or a "people/nationality" term unless it's likely to be unknown to most English-speakers. It's a hard line to draw sometimes, I admit, which is why we need editorial judgement. Somalia, Somali, well I'd appreciate a link there; but not Australians or Americans or French, etc. This issue was resolved some time ago, and linking the common ones is going in the opposite direction of many editors' work. Tony (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay closed

An arbitration case regarding User:GoodDay has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia. This includes converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics.
GoodDay is strongly warned that, in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged. GoodDay (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They need someone to "pick on", I am sorry it was you. "C'est La Vie" ... Take care eh, the Un-Named One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.160.130 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed & it's accurate. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, you replied to a robot :-) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wowsers, I must've been asleep that day. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY

I've only been banned from diacritics for a few weeks & already WP:HOCKEY is slipping at articles like Nashville Predators & Los Angeles Kings :( GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This activity appears to constitute a breach of GoodDay's topic ban regarding diacritics. I will be reporting this at WP:AE. — Rich wales 21:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit draconian on your part, but go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Draconian's one word for it, personally I'd go for "pathetic". — JonC ^ॐ 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I merely made a statement about WP:HOCKEY & whammo. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Some people have too much time on their hands. — JonC ^ॐ 21:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Reckon, I just gotta sit & wait. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can add your rebuttal here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GoodDay, but dude. Topic banned means topic banned. If you're looking for things to gnome about, I can give you some suggestions, but you need to simply forget the issue of diacritics entirely or you're going to fall on your sword fast. Reso lute 23:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather be perma-banned, then accept censurship from my own talkpage. For 'bleep' sakes, I made a statement about WP:HOCKEY 'here' & nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, then, what exactly did you mean when you said "I've only been banned for diacritics for a few weeks & already WP:HOCKEY is slipping"? A reasonable person, I believe, would be justified in concluding that your juxtaposing these two things constituted a reference to the guideline in WP:HOCKEY about avoiding diacritics in players' names. And you were banned by ArbCom, not only from making any edits involving diacritics, but also from "participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia" (emphasis mine). "Anywhere on Wikipedia" includes talk pages. And any comment, even on your own talk page, which directly or indirectly deals with diacritics is (as Resolute pointed out) not a wise thing for you to be doing now (or, perhaps, ever again). You do have many valuable skills, but in order for us to benefit from your abilities here, you are going to need to let go entirely of this one particular thing, and not even get close to it anymore, or even make people think that you're trying to get close to it again. — Rich wales 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not banned from mentioning diacritics on my own talkpage. Also, if somebody added diacritics to my User page, talkpage, sandbox or secondary page, I would remove them without hestitation. If I had contacted HandsomeFella? you'd have a case, but I didn't. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you were. "GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." - Your user pages are part of the English Wikipedia. Reso lute 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't cover one's Userpages. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it *does* include user talk pages, ever since WP:ARBCC#Climate Change topic bans. That was when Arbcom started banning discussion of the forbidden topic anywhere on Wikipedia. That includes user talk. Similar language was used in your case: "GoodDay is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well then, if that's the case, perma-ban or retirement is in my future. I won't be accepting censorship from my own pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is getting more Orwellian by the minute. GoodDay made a personal comment on his own talk page, stop breaking his balls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing...next we'll be bringing out the rack and thumbscrews on this guy. Gripes on ones own talk page should usually be let alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem Jeanne. GoodDay knew it was something he shouldn't do and did it anyways to push the edges and see what he could get away with. It is what he does every time he gets in trouble. And the reason why he thinks he can do it and get away with it is that he keeps having people like you basically encouraging him to do so by comments like this. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not encouraging him nor did I encourage his disruptive editing over on the British/Irish pages; however, if I see anyone being ganged up on, foe whatever reason, by God I won't join the crowd! This is not the Inquisition and we are not Torquemada!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By essentially telling him its ok to do things which he is banned from is encouraging him. He isn't being ganged up on. He has been asked repeatedly to drop a topic, so much so that it had to be made official at arbcom. His continued refusal to do so means stronger and stronger means of telling him that have to be used. He has brought this "gang up" on himself by refusing to listen to people when they tell him to stop. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, you've had your day in court, you've made your case, a decision has been given, and there's no appeal left. If you act against the clearly expressed wish of the community of editors, even on your own talk page, you are going to cause unhappiness and tension. In yourself as well as others, I suggest. Why not do as I do, tell yourself, "Well, that's the way it is," and get on with doing other stuff? You are actually good at this editing stuff, but sometimes we all get our heads down and go for it and don't heed the warning shouts from the crowd until it's too late and we've skated onto thin ice. --Pete (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's in the Arbitrators hands, now. I'm amazed that my pages were apparently included in the topic bans. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You need Holly Golightly to run your messages. --Pete (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I watch your talk page because I once made an edit here and it automatically gets added to my watchlist. Periodically I'll take pages off if I think they are boring, but GoodDay, you are never boring! --Pete (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am hiding this comment because I consider it very dangerous for you. Dude, you need to stop being on the computer and start doing more in the outside world. I have you on my watchlist because your are a good editor and I think you are a good person. I agree with you on most topics, but I can not agree with your methods. I think you and your rivals take this to irrational extremes and you all start sounding like mully children who all should be in time-out. Actually, you guys act worst than the Democrats & Republicans in congress! And sometimes worst than those guys on the other side of the pond!! Raul17 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been monitoring non-hockey articles & I'm amazed by the continuing PoV pushing. Anyways, as for my future status, I'm never going to retire. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean for you to retire! I meant for you to take a break from WP for a while. Are you still being mentored? Take Canada Day off & then go on from there Raul17 (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm still being mentored, but I'm not certain. It was one of my mentors who 'sorta' gave up on me & stood me before the Arbitrators. BTW, I'm limited to my userpage, until late July 7. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Arb Com enforcement

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Slp1 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

I disagree with the block, of course. GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak GoodDay. - Best wishes to you = Youreallycan 07:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, YRC. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I was accused by User:Timotheus Canens of dancing on your grave - User_talk:Timotheus Canens#Your grave dancing allegation - that upset me a bit - I have explained to them that we are good wiki friends and I would never do that to you - this place is so quick to judge - Youreallycan 14:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha, you're quite correct, this place is quick to judge. It's also become a place which discourages NPoV. But that's due to there being 'too many' agenda pushing editors :( GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hehehe - lol - ta GD - User talk:Dennis Brown#Editor retention related and interesting discussion - Youreallycan 15:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I won't need retention, as I've no retirement plans. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear it GD - keep away from your restrictions and you will be safe from restrictive administrative action - I avoid many users and many issues these days.Youreallycan 15:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I reckon I'll have to avoid those areas of interest. It's difficult to fly like an eagle, when surrounded by turkeys. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes my contributions give the appearance of an eagle that acts like a turkey ... - Here - the middle of summer , 24degreesC in the shade - lovely sunshine, festivals abound - Youreallycan 17:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the winter. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC

The Paul McCartney article has now been thoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors including User:Lfstevens, a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking a look, and hopefully, !voting. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban, prevents me from participating. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Republican & Democratic National Conventions

Report me for whatever you want. You have been consistently rude, have probably also violated the 3 revert rule, and have yet to make a good argument for the change you want to make. I have ignored everything you put on my page as it was mostly just rude. But I have better things to do than continue the fight, and you probably do as well, so I'll avoid editing the convention pages. Ratemonth (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You've made 4 reverts within an hour (let alone 5 reverts within 24hrs), what else would you expect? Don't you think that's going overboard a bit & making you come across as being spiteful? GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, I haven't breached 3RR on either of the those articles. Also, I don't wish to make this dispute personal either & so I'll not report you - even though you should be (4rs within an hour) reported. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This message is being sent to all users mentioned below. You are all engaged in an edit war on the 2012 Republican National Convention article. I am giving you all your only and/or final warning to stop edit warring, or you may be blocked in accordance with policy. Relevant diffs:

GoodDay removed at 16:55, 14 July 2012 UTC
Ratemonth added
Unfriend removed
Ratemonth added
GoodDay removed
Ratemonth added
GoodDay removed
Ratemonth added
GoodDay removed
Ratemonth added at 20:57, 14 July 2012 UTC

All edits were within a 24 hour period. Whether or not you break the "3 revert rule", blocks are still acceptable if a user continues to edit war despite warnings. I invite you all to take part in the discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus on these matters. I also see something similar going on at 2012 Democratic National Convention. Lets do the same there, please. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get through to some of the editors at those articles, is like trying to nail jello to a wall. In future, I must remember not to waste my time arguing with a bunch of idiots. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 HHoF inductees

Why are you insisting on removing the 2012 HHoF induction tag from the Sakic, Sundin, Oates and Bure pages? They will be inducted in 2012, that is a verifiable fact. Nothing indicates that it has already happened. What are you trying to hide? 70.30.135.52 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oates, Sundin, Sakic & P. Bure are not in the HHOF 'yet'. They've been elected to it, but haven't been inducted yet. If you went to the HHOF today, you wouldn't find their plaques there. GoodDay (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Meet you there on Thursday afternoon?

--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 22:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm broke. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispondent

Today's vindictive action by Djsasso, has left me discouraged with this Project. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of the way you've acted on this has been wrong, and I still don't see why you obsess about diacritics when doing so only hurts you, but this enforcement action is based on something that doesn't even fall under the stated terms of the topic ban, and the proposed six-month ban is so far beyond the pale that I still can't believe I read it right. Six-months for saying you are enjoying reading two talk pages when you aren't gnoming and for complimenting the efforts of two editors without saying why? That is absurd. It is also absurd that people take the name of the result, "topic ban", and substitute it for what the wording of the result actually says. If this continues the way it has been, I'll lose all respect for the Project's dispute resolution procedures. It's taken some knocks already with other things I have seen, but this is beyond disappointing. -Rrius (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Equally frustrating, is the timing of the report & the editor who made the report. Djsasso 'only' made the report after I reverted his posts on 'my' talkpage. He already knew, I didn't want him to contact me or have anything to do with me. I can't help but see his actions as being made in bad faith. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. The same Djsasso could see nothing "complaint worthy" when a well known editor had added a vote into my comment on a Talk page. The admins can see nothing wrong with changing other people's words anymore, and obstructing normal editing is now considered "part of how it goes".[5]. Well, that's good to know.

So, if you kill a mosquito you are dragged to ArbCom. Meanwhile, others can butcher a moose every day and it is not complaint worthy on ANI. That's how double the standards have become on WP.

Just enjoy the show. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie ;) GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

MyAwards replaces My stuff

For the time I had My stuff, I really enjoyed it. But, I'm going to have to delete the page, so that bad-intentioned editors can no longer have it on their watchlists. GoodDay (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just stop using it to comment on other editors... At any rate, since it is your user page, you wouldn't have to AFD it. If you want it removed, place a {{db-u1}} template on it and it will be speedy deleted. Reso lute 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not reporting me, concerning my secondary page content. As you've mentioned, what I had wasn't earth-shattering. It was just Djsasso being a biased ass. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I did notice it. I also noticed the bad-faith view of editors with whom you have disagreed in the past (e.g. on the Expos/Nationals debate). And I wont lie. If things had progressed to the point where I felt a need to file a complaint, I would have mentioned those same pages. I don't like that things have come to this point, but I did try to warn you of how close you were standing to the edge during the arbitration case. It seems inevitable that you will be blocked again. Whether it be one month or six, all I can hope is that when you come back, that you let the conflicts drop. I would always encourage you to express your viewpoint, but the key to surviving Wikipedia debates is to know when to admit defeat and move on. Believe me, there are a million things I would change if I was this site's dictator, but I can't. Ultimately, one just has to focus on doing what they can do, and let the other nonsense drift away. Reso lute 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read your post, but I can't respond to some of its content, due to restrictions apparently imposed on me. I will make a request though - You & Djsasso seem to get along well & so I would appreaciate it if you'd 'ask' him to stop contacting me from now on. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Reso lute 19:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't recognize any names from the Expos/Nationals discussions, other than Djsasso, yours, and mine (and I don't remember any references we've made to this topic in the arbitration case/enforcement requests). As far as I recall, at the original arbitration case, comments were mainly from the editors interested in diacritics and UK matters.

GoodDay, I've considered submitting a statement regarding the mildness of your infraction (oblique references on an obscure page not readily visible), but I feel that it might not end up helping your case. I think a statement on your willingness to work with other editors, even when consensus is against you, including avoiding making statements that promote an antagonistic environment (such as making ominous predictions about other editors) would be strongest if coming from you, and not someone else. You know you can easily create a blog on a site such as blogspot.com where you can express your views (though if you choose to do that, I'd suggest you avoid making any references to specific editors in a way that can identify them to someone aware of your Wikipedia editing history, in the interest of collegiality); you don't have to look for opportunities to state them on Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my secondary page to an Awards list & will be even more careful to avoid certain topics on my talkpage. TBH, I'm no longer certain as to what I can or can't do 'here', anymore. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Put yourself in the other person's shoes: what comments would you feel to be unnecessarily dismissive of you or positions you hold? (I realize that you've already experienced such comments, but fair or not, you're much better off taking the high road and not responding in kind.) isaacl (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the place on your honoree list, GoodDay, albeit for only for a brief shining moment. I'm not sure that this will necessarily cheer you up, but I want you to know that all that time you spent dealing with the RfC/User, Arbcom complaints, and whatnot was not wasted, and moreover is much appreciated. It turns out that you were my lightning rod. After reviewing the timeline, my sense is that the June 14 Arbcom finding unleashed an offensive against me. The vultures sift through my edit history, uncover long-forgotten incidents that no one cared about at the time, and start fulminating. Did you know that there is a rule against intentionally editing while logged out, even when the edits themselves are trivial? I certainly didn't. I was briefly blocked yesterday over a page move I made nine month ago. The editors responsible have no longstanding interest in Vietnam, so it's all about getting a scalp. Kauffner (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just remember, Wikipedia is a constantly changing place. One must be optimistic. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I just tried to add a comment in your case. Just want you to know that I appreciate people with the heart on the tongue more than those who always know when to slither away. There are too many snakes on wp and not enough dogs. The snake is tricky, the dog is honest and loyal. Why are you not allowed to bark? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

:) GoodDay (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Kangaroo Court is hell-bent on blocking your account. Always thought admins were supposed to have the ability to give a fair and balanced judgement but clearly that was not a requirement here. A lesson learned. They have shown no desire whatsoever to look at the facts of the case and are tripping over themselves to decide upon your punishment. In these situations there is unfortunately nothing that can be done except pointing this out like others and I have done. As you can see they can't even be bothered to address those concerns. So be it. Enjoy your 'vacation'. --Wolbo (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking you're right... Like locust in a grain field. Many seem to want to be the one with the emblazoned t-shirt that says "I give out the longest bans on wikipedia." We'll catch you on the flip side though I doubt anything will have changed for the better when you re-open the door. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Until the "good day" comes when the locusts look around and see their grain field empty... Any project that depends on volunteers, lives or dies with its volunteers. Scenes of a local inquisition producing botched logic to put the gnomes on a pillory, that's not exactly what keeps the volunteers happy. I actually hope that GoodDay can come out at the end of the month and tell them: look, you blocked me for one month, now my own arbitration team has decided to block you from my life indefinitely. Try to find somebody else who wants to do the work that I was doing. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

I've closed the discussion at the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard with a one month block, which is the smallest duration that had consensus. Please consider how that almost would have been six months; you have very nearly exhausted the community's patience.

While it has been suggested that your talk page editing privileges should also be revoked for the duration, I see no pressing need to do so. Note, however, that if you misuse it and comment in any way on the dispute over diacritics your block will be reset at the very least. — Coren ^(talk) 04:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I accept the decision. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wanna organize your user page?

Wanna organize your user page? I can show you how. Tonymax469 (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know it was disorganized. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How could it be?—It has a flag and seven words. -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks quite neat. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be perfect if it said never rather than someday. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The 21st century points towards republicanism. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, my Userpage was inspired by your Userpage. One's country flag as the sole image, makes for a neat & straightforward appearance. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not according to the polls i read ;), and yes a large flag and simple message works very well i think. The Canadian flag looks very good on there, is just that one line of text. Hope you are well GoodDay and not been getting into too much trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, lack of awareness in Canada of our country's monarchy, is the reason behind its support. I like the line under the Canadian flag. 'Some trouble' - I've been censored from some of the 'pedia, thanks to some agenda pushing editors. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Some things sadly never change on wikipedia, been back from a break a little while and already encountered some of that again. Hope you are going to avoid getting into too much more trouble, coz thats the way they win. Anyway bed time here, night. Good to know you are still about. =) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll stick to gnoming & won't ever retire. Nighty Night, BW. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that IP (whom you agree with) is correct about the content of a certain -sorry, I can't elaborate further- article ;) GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Love your User page! I and many other Canadians agree wholeheartedly. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 22:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have a suggestion for something you can do during your absence from Wikipedia: take some time to figure out how to sign up for a GMail account, which will also give you access to other Google services such as Google+ and Blogspot, which you can use as your soapbox for opinions. You can also use your email address to sign up for Facebook or other social networking services / online bulletin boards. There are whole other worlds of online interaction that you might enjoy. isaacl (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll consider it. Anyways, I'm going to be fully reformed in September. I'm eager to proove some skeptics wrong ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Gnoming on British & Irish articles

After 6-months, is it possible to get my British/Irish topic ban modified to allow me to apolitically gnome (after Sept 3) on those articles? GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You could likely request a lifting at the same venue where it was placed. However, is there a reason why you would want to? Why even open yourself up to the temptation, especially given how close you are to a long-term block/ban? Reso lute 03:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Why would you want to? Given the range of articles on English Language Wiki and the degree of work required of a 'gnome' to bring these up to a good standard, it begs the question why you feel the need to go where you are currently banned from entering? When you've been through every other subject area on the project and gnomed as much as is gnomingly possible, and no other improvement can be made anywhere else, then that would be the time to request to return to those articles. 81.154.109.211 (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you not prefer the peace of not being hounded? ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 09:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you build a six month plus history of not having your name raised at ANI in other areas before you even think of asking a ban to be removed. After the last 'event' you were lucky to escape without an indefinite ban. There is little doubt that any request now would not only be refused, but would be seen by many as indicated that you had not learnt from the previous sanctions and look unlikely too learn in the future. You might (and I say this with some trepidation) be able to get agreement to said gnoming, if you agreed to propose the nature of changes and have then agreed by other editors BEFORE you started to make edits. Propose a review committee of editors to check proposals first and it might gain acceptance. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Best to stay well away, in my view. What GD may consider "apolitical" is, on past evidence, unlikely to be always uncontentious. There are millions of other articles needing gnoming. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Response: Getting the said modification to the B&I topic ban, isn't an urgency for me. This is why I chose to bring up the idea 'here' & while my 1-month block is running. I wanted to 'dip my toe' in for a general view from others. Given the 'thumbs down' presented here, it's best I wait until 'perhaps' next year, to present my modification proposal again. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, Malaysian articles could use some serious gnoming. Or, you know, whatever takes your fancy! CMD (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm having one of those spy-thriller moments, where one thinks "GD knew this would be the response" and "he knew that we would know that he knew" and so forth, which kind of begs the question, why did he say this?? Do I detect a continuation of your need for attention on the sore spots, GD? Is there really nothing else you can do with your time? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been randomly gnoming articles until August 3 ;) I'm content to continue to do so, minus the British & Irish articles for the time being. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well GD, I'll say this for you, you certainly have a knack of bringing out the po-faced holier than thou tossers (of which I'm NOT one of course :)) as evidenced by the responses elicited here, and further up your talk page on other matters. So it seems from their responses that if you remove an errant comma from a British/Irish article you'll lay yourself open to being blocked. Well bollocks to the lot of 'em, I would say. Why do you bother? I know you maybe wind up these idiots, but really! Wikipedia has been taken over by a bunch of buffoons, but you carry on with what must surely be one of the most boring - but absolutely essential - wiki activities, and that's the thanks you get, viz none! Why don't you tell these bottom feeders to go and do some gnoming themselves and thereby make themselves useful? Of course they wouldn't do anything of the kind, because all they want to do is "manage", and boss people like you around and generally bugger about on anything but adding real, useful content. Why do't you just fuck 'em off and expend your energies on a more worthwhile project, like I've done. Good luck. Van Speijk (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No axe to grind whatsoever there, eh? 86.132.161.12 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

^ this — Jon C.^ॐ 21:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Howdy Van Speijk. I'm just gonna stick to gnoming, as I was mostly doing, up until August 3 :) GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)