User talk:GoodDay/Archive 40

Bloc Québécois
Bloc Québécois
Seats in the ; Senate	0 / 24
Seats in the ; House of Commons (Quebec seats)	10 / 78

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

Archive 35

←

→

Mike Pence

Sorry, I misread...I thought you were removing it, my mistake --rogerd (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Okie Doke. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:US Presidential Administrations

Template:US Presidential Administrations has been nominated for merging with Template:US Presidents. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Nevé –selbert 16:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather go with 2 separate Templates. But, I'll let you & others decide on that. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Resignation of Richard Nixon redirects

Since you commented, more redirects have been added to the nomination at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 3#Resignation of Richard Nixon so you may wish to take another look. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dana Boente

You'll find no objections from my quarters. I simply meant to highlight his current position as Acting Attorney General. That's all! Thank you! Javert2113 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No probs. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions

I'll need a source on that Sessions claim, if that's all right. In the meantime, sorry for editing it. Javert2113 (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Youtube, Sessions thanks Senate for his confirmation. Then, he announces he'll be retiring from the Senate, 11:55 pm EST. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a source that says it's already occurred, at 10:55 EST. If I'm mistaken, I apologize: I really haven't been keeping up in the last few hours. Javert2113 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Either way, it's only a matter of minutes. I won't be reverting anymore. BTW - Alabama might be in CST time zone. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No, no, you were right. My apologies. I don't mean to make you have to guide my every move. Have a good evening. Think I'll stay away from editing until tomorrow, at least. Can't risk releasing garbage into the world. And Alabama, my Canadian friend, is in EST. Javert2113 (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking of Texas for some reason. Again, it's down to minutes, so not really big problem. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

True. Still, I'm a bit out-of-sorts today, so I want to apologize if I sounded irascible or rude or something of that sort. I can't help but feel like I sounded like that. Again, apologies. Javert2113 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't come across as rude. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a good evening! Javert2113 (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You too. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Javert2113: Does that mean that List of time offsets by U.S. state § States, territories, etc. needs to be corrected? It shows Alabama in Central time, except for Phoenix City unofficially observing Eastern Time. YBG (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahah, though I was thinking of Texas, I was accidently correct about CST. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

By no means [should it be changed]. This was my mistake. Alabama is, by and large, in CST. I apparently was confusing it with Georgia. I should probably not allow myself to talk in public anymore. My apologies, again, for erring; and indeed you were. Javert2113 (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's about 10 minutes left in Sessions tenure as a US Senator. So, no big deal. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

President of the Federal Republic of Germany

Hey GoodDay!

First of all, I absolutely agree with you that the titles of office holders should be consistent through all articles in Wikipedia, which is a goal sometimes difficult to achieve in the community. The german term "Bundespräsident" is not really translateble into English, but the best possible translation is "President of the Federal Republic of Germany" (not "Federal President", this would mean "Föderaler Präsident" or "Bündischer Präsident" in german, by the way), because the prefix "Bundes-" is a genitive of the noun "Bund", which is a common short form of "Bundesrepublik" (in Germany the federal level of government is often just called "der Bund"). This translation has also the advantage that it prevents confusion with the Reich President (Weimar Republic) and even more important the President of the GDR (vulgo East Germany). So it offers the possibility to refer with a consistent title to all Presidents of the Federal Republic, from Theodor Heuss to President-elect Steinmeier, without using the unscientific term "West Germany" (such a state never existed, it is only a colloquial term for the Federal Republic before 1990). In the article "President of Germany" this is consensus, as far as I can see. I hope this is convincing to you; now, a presidential transition beeing under way in Germany, the articles of and about the german Presidents will be looked at more often than usual and we shouldn't start pointless edit-wars right now.

Greetings from Leipzig, Germany!

Yours Alektor89 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alektor89 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There should be no problem with using President of Germany for the unified German Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

But what will be done with the Presidents of the Federal Republic before reunification? We would have to create inconsitency in the use of titles, for example "President of West Germany" (this would be, as I said, unscientific), and they should all be refered to with the same title, because the reunification did not result in the formatian of a new german state: no question, it was an epochal event, but constitutionally it only meant, that five new states joined the Federal Republic, which kept on existing like before (would you call the US-Presidents of the early 19th century "Presidents of East America", just because the more western states had not yet joined the union?). So this is no option.

If we use "President of the Federal Republic..." we have two advantages: We use the most correct translation of the title and we can refer to all Presidents of the Fed. Rep. in the same, consistent, way.

An alternative would be "Federal President of Germany" but this is, as I have explaine above, not really a correct translation for "Bundespräsident". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alektor89 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

For our readership, we'd be better off showing the pre-union FRG presidents as Presidents of West Germany. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, because this would be unscientific (no german state was ever officially named "West Germany" and so there was never a "President of West Germany"), and Wikipedia should be a scientific encyclopedia and no Twitter-account ;-). I like the current compromise "President of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany)". It shows the correct title and avoids confusion for readers, who do not know that much about german history. We should keep it that way imho.

WP:COMMONNAME should be the decider. That's why we've got West Germany and East Germany, instead of Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic. I'm quite certain, if you were to attempt to merge 'West Germany' with 'Germany'? it would be overwhelmingly opposed. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, we use the term "West Germany" in the articles of the Presidents before reunification. I totally understand that FRG and GDR alone would not be enough, but I don't see the problem with "President of the FRoG (West Germany)". Here you have the correct title AND everyone knows, which Germany is meant. It can be so simple. I totally agree that we should not merge "Germany" and "West Germany", this was never my intention, the opposite is true, rather...

We should also not merge President of West Germany with President of Germany. East Germany & West Germany are treated as merging to become Germany. It's not treated as East Germany disappearing & West Germany becoming larger & being renamed Germany. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I really don't want to be offensive, but then I would recommend you to study more about this chapter of german history first. Constitutionally this is the way it worked, the GDR formed five "new" states, which joined the Federal Republic (vulgo "West Germany") on 3rd October 1990. It is still controversial in Germany, if this was the right decision or if the country would have been better off with a new constitution, but in the end of the day, this was the chosen procedure. I don't know, if you speak german, but if this is the case, I can highly recommend the german WP-article to the reunification: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Wiedervereinigung Once again, I hope, you don't consider this as impolite by me, I bet know nothing about canadian history compared to you ;-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alektor89 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. We should be showing the 1949 to 1990 presidents as President of West Germany, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

But this does not reflect the constitutional situation (and, by the way, the way the office is seen in Germany...for us in Germany, they are all just "Bundespräsidenten", from Heuss to Gauck, even here in the former GDR where I live...)

Perhaps we should have a discussion (in the appropriate place) as to what should be shown in the infoboxes-in-question: President of West Germany, President of Germany or President of the Federal Republic of Germany. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

.And "President of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany)" for the Presidents before 1990 ;-). So Wilhelm Pieck should be refered to as "President of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany)". But I agree, this maybe needs further discussion, but the facts of german constitutional law (and history) should play a decisive role in that debate imho.

If you open up such a discussion, let me know. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

For now, the articles all look the way they should look like (in my opinion): From Heuss to Carstens, they are called "President of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany)", and from von Weizsäcker to Steinmeier they are called "President of the Federal Republic of Germany" (von Weizsäcker is somehow a problem but really impersonates my point of view: he was elected in separated Germany, but after reunification stayed President, because the constitution was not changed and therfore there was no point of electing him again or something like that, his term just went on...). But if such a debate becomes necessary, I will let you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alektor89 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I would have Weizsacker shown as President of West Germany/Germany. But again, let me know if you start up a discussion on this & where. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I just looked into the Wilhelm Pieck-article, because I was curious (I'm not so active in GDR-related articles...this is a matter of it's own and I am more familiar with FRG-history), he is indeed also treated in the way I would have proposed ("President of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany)") So, at the moment everything looks consistent to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alektor89 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

They're all way too garbled. The readers would be better served with President of West Germany & President of East Germany. Again though, let me know 'if' you decide to begin a broad discussion on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I totally understand that, but sometimes german history can be very complicated, forbids simplifications and is really very garbled as a matter of fact...maybe the only constant in the history of this country...;-)...I will let you know!

Again, if you so choose, let me know if you begin a discussion on how to present these offices & where. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Canada

Brian J. Bow; Patrick Lennox (2008). An Independent Foreign Policy for Canada?: Challenges and Choices for the Future. University of Toronto Press. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-0-8020-9690-6.--Moxy (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, the wonders of being a Commonwealth realm. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup its clear the term was rejected by our fathers of confederation and by Elliott in 1982. As Canadians we have a legal term for what happens.-All that seen and said...I hAvent a real position on this....just hopeing people will read the source and get a bether understading oF what happend....we should addthis source tO the box....this way our readers can see why Canadians don use the term.-Moxy (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep using Independence. Also, I'd also go with deleting "from the United Kingdom", if that's done for all 15 Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, I just wanted to share a couple other sources with you that make use of the term 'independence' (even though you rightly accept the word): "The Dominions, however, were reaffirming publicly to the international community their political independence from the British government even though the Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, had granted the former colonies full legal independence and had declared that the British and Dominion parliaments were equal in status. Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms." [1]

"In the fall of 1929, Canada's Minister of Justice, Ernest Lapointe, traveled to England. He took with him Dr. O. D. Skelton, the country's top public servant. When they were done their negotiations, they had extracted an undertaking from their British hosts. Canada would have its independence from the British Empire." [2] NorthernFactoid (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject!

Hello, GoodDay! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I tend to avoid joining Political Party WikiProjects :) GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

United States elections, 2021 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United States elections, 2021. Since you had some involvement with the United States elections, 2021 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi This user vandalize the page and he didn't stop. urgent. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I put in a compromise. Note, that according to sources, Vice President Osinbajo is still discharging presidential powers & duties as Acting President. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Style debate

Hi GoodDay, there is a debate going on on the talk page of the "List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century" article. Please check and add your opinion if you are interested. ZBukov (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Martin Mcguinness

Every word in the English language is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, including the word deputy. This is just being pedantic. TedEdwards (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A discussion on topic was held in the past & the result was deputy First Minister. Not all positions conform to what we consider the norms. For example: the second position in the Scottish Nationalist Party is called Depute Leader, instead of Deputy Leader. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A discussion was held and the consensus was that, at the beginning of a sentence, the d is capitalised. TedEdwards (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

We're discussing the infobox. I've opened a 'new' discussion at the McGuiness, btw. Also, note that his predecessors have "d" in their infoboxes, too. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Style versus poor writing

MOS:TENSE is fairly clear. Perhaps it's time you personally fixed the other problems like this instead of edit warring over incorrect MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking this to WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Good. And I'll take it to the manual of style. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Go for it & let the rest of us know when you do. You've got thousands of sports team season articles to change. As they use "was" for past seasons. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject!

Hello, GoodDay! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Advice.

Hi I was wondering if you could give me some editing tips on how to add David Backes to the List of NHL Captains and Alternates. 50.204.110.251 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the List of current NHL captains and alternate captains article? then Backes should not be added. He merely wore an A, because one of the letter players (Chara, Bergeron, Krejci) was injured & out of the line up. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually David Backes is currently an Alternate. Backes and Krejci switch wearing the A. Backes is an alternate when the Bruins are home so it be (Chara, Bergeron and Backes). For the away games it's (Chara, Bergeron and Krejci).

50.204.110.251 (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Is not, according to the Bruins official website. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Israeli Prime Ministers

You reverted me in this edit with edit summary "Israel only counts their PMs via individual". Please see List of Prime Ministers of Israel, which seems at odds with that assertion. However, since there I saw Ben Gurion listed as 1st through 4th, and not just 1st and 3rd, I didn't undo your edit again. However, please be aware that according to WP:BRD, you should not have undone my revert without at least some discussion on the talkpage, and preferably a clear consensus. In any case, do you have a source for your statement regarding how Israel counts its prime ministers? Debresser (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Howdy @Debresser:, I recommend you check over the List of Prime Ministers of Israel again. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay, you looked at the other column called "No". :) Thanks. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. It's common among parliamentary systems, this numbering scheme. That's why (for example) Justin Trudeau is the 23rd Canadian prime minister, rather the the 29th. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Moon Jae-in

Doesn't matter if it looks stupid (don't worry, I can read words without them being italicized thank you very much). It's a technical thing, and the page can clarify the difference between 12th and 19th. In all Korean media and english articles, Moon is defined as 19th (which is why I included the sources). 000aert2 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)000aert2

Sources also defined him as the 12th President. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your edits and comments. 000aert2 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)000aert2

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your message. I wonder if you would care to share your sources regarding Moon Jae-in being the 12th rather than 19th President of South Korea. I cannot find much information in English from the Office of the President on the matter (the information in Korean is unambiguous for the position of him being the 19th President; http://www1.president.go.kr/president/intro.php). The electoral commission refers to the election of May 9 that elected Moon as the "19th Presidential Election": http://www.nec.go.kr/engvote_2013/04_news/02_02.jsp?num=488&pg=1&col=&sw= and several other press releases. Hope to hear from you soon. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a New York Daily link [3] which describes Park as the 11th President. GoodDay (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about me "messing it up", I am adjusting other presidents' order as well. Are you suggesting that a private news media article from a writer who may or may not be aware of different ordering system in a foreign country have more authority in this matter than the official documents from the government which the office in question is actually part of, including the words of the office-holder himself? Sydneyphoenix (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Use my compromise - 12th President (19th term). To english readers it looks silly having one individual numbered several times in his consecutive terms, as if he were different presidents. Syngman Rhee is a good example of what I'm posting about. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

David Paterson

See MOS:JOBTITLES. The word "governor" is a common noun. Since you've apparently reviewed every governor's page, which I have not, I suggest you follow suit and edit accordingly. X4n6 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you're the one who wants to decapitalize, then it's you who should do so for all the state governors & lieutenant governors articles, as well as all the presidents & vice presidents articles, etc etc. Consistency is more important, here. Best not to make one article stick out like a sore thumb. GoodDay (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What a curious response. It's not a question of what I "want," but simply what the style guide says. Take a look around and you'll find MOS:JOBTITLES in effect throughout this project. I fix it where I find it. Per WP:FIXIT, so should you. Also, take a look at MOS:CAPS. But if you're still unsatisfied, you're certainly free to discuss it at the article's talk. And if you're still unhappy, to utilize any dispute resolution processes you'd like to pursue. But 4 reverts? Despite my bringing this to your attention? That's just edit-warring. X4n6 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop being stubborn about this. All you're doing is making an article inconsistent with the other articles. Governor of New York is a title, which means it ought to be capitalized. I've pinged you at the MOS:Capital letters & yet so far, you've refused to respond there. GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. It's as though you're being intentionally obtuse. I have pointed you to the correct guidelines more than once and your only response is consistency throughout the project? So if something is wrong elsewhere, you demand that it be wrong everywhere? Really? If you can find any guideline or policy that supports that rather curious position - provide it - and I'll withdraw. However, since you mentioned consistency, kindly review the actual style guide for MOS:CONSISTENCY. There you'll find that the actual standard is consistency within articles. And within the Paterson article the term governor appears 132 times, routinely uncapitalized, with the exceptions of the beginning of sentences, or instances where "Governor Paterson" is used instead of simply Paterson, or a small handful of others which also fail the style guide. Even taken together they are in the minority in this article.

Additionally, you'll also see in the article that other job titles, like "lieutenant governor," "district attorney," "attorney general," etc., are all routinely not capitalized. I will also point out that the one instance that you're battling over says Paterson is the "55th Governor of New York." Surely, even you must realize that "55th Governor" is not a proper job title, so in that context, "of New York," is simply a prepositional phrase. So we have English grammar, the style guide, the article's consistency and common sense all pointing in one direction and you in the other. And you've already violated WP:3RR. You don't even deny it. And you've removed the edit-warring warning. So once again, if you'd like to RfC this or discuss at the article's talk, or any other DR, you can. But if you don't self-revert and fix this per WP:FIXIT and WP:CONSENSUS, I will. But if you continue to just battle? Enough. You will find yourself reported. Also, I never received the ping you claim to have sent, so it appears you did that incorrectly as well. X4n6 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There's is a discussion at MOS:JOBTITLES, concerning this topic. Please go there & note that Governor of New York is used in the intros of other New York governor articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill Weld

I reverted your edit under the MOS guideline MOS:LEGALNAME. The sentence: If a person has a well-known common hypocorism, used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper.

Do what yas want. I've already go a headache from the Minnesota governors articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RM you may be interested in

Hi GoodDay,

There's an RM on Talk:Kraków uprising that I thought you might be interested in.

Genealogizer (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Finally

Been waiting for a fuck up by the sockpupet. This odd cap edit was an odd mistake someone else use to make. Will fill a sock report in a few days when I have time. --Moxy (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, very interesting. Whoever it is, wish they'd be less combative. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Bloc Quebecois

I am not edit warring... there are not only 24 seats in the Senate of Canada. Those are the Quebec seats. Why on earth would you remove the words "Quebec seats" from the senate graph when only the 24 seats from Quebec are represented on that graph? And also when the words "Quebec seats" are shown under the House of Commons seats so why not the Senate? Charles lindberg (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

If you get a consensus for it at WP:CANADA? then I'll concede. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you realize this is what the infobox you keep reverting back to looks like, it still only shows the 24 seats in the Senate and the 78 in the House? I don't think you realize what you keep reverting back to. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it to 338 & 105. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Antipope Benedict XIII

In the lead of the Antipope Benedict XIII, you changed the denominator Avignon Pope to antipope. Although I understand the reasoning behind it, this gives some problems. The main problem is, that the lead now reads that "was an Aragonese nobleman and antipope during the Western Schism. He is considered by the Catholic Church to be an antipope." That is mentioning the same thing twice, which is not good. I believe there are two possible solutions:

We remove the last sentence;
We change "antipope" in the first sentence to "Avignon claimant to the Papal throne," or words of a similar meaning.

I would prefer the second option, since someone previously complained that the leads were too short, and thus we can keep in the "Avignon"-bit. But that is me. All the best,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made adjustment. The popes from 1309 to 1377, resided in Avignon, France & so it's called the Avignon papacy. It's not the same as the Anti-popes, who presided in Avignon, France from 1389-1417. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

South Korean presidents

Be careful with your reverts on these articles. You're at WP:3RR on Moon Jae-in. The numbering issue should be discussed on a talk page, not through edit summaries. clpo13_(talk) 18:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I won't be reverting again. Just wish the other fellow would bring consistency to all the South Korean presidents bio infoboxes, instead of the last two. He should read the intro of those articles as well. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits

I'm curious as to why you're removing all my links for List of Presidents of the United States? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Because, they're already in the article intros. Also, the majority don't use them in the infobox. I'm curious though, as to why you were restoring those links to only those few articles & not all the rest. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm sure there's a lot of other information on the infobox that's in the intro also, so why not remove everything? Also I do recall the majority of the articles having that link, but someone must've change the formatting and was too lazy to also restore the link, that's why they're gone. As to why I'm only restoring a few articles; it would be quite tedious to go through all 45 of them, that's why I edited only the most recent/prominent presidents. It also would help if you didn't undo them all. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If you'll link all of them, including the Veeps? then I wouldn't undo them. Consistency is best. Either that or open up a discussion on the matter in the proper place & see what the rest of the editors think. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Have a look

User talk:Dennis Brown#‎Charles lindberg ....will file a SPI tomorrow...been a long time since I have done one will have to read up on it first. Simply don't have time now....plus not all edits are bad......I guess I will take the time and review all tomorrow over just reverting because its by a block evader. --Moxy (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not very good a socking, is he/she. Going back to the same articles, is always a give away. GoodDay (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charles lindberg--Moxy (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

ref neded

regarding this edit Can you please give a reference for the change you made in the birthdate of Fernando Becerril¿ --Wuerzele (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Birthdate, was already in the infobox. Therefore, I added it to the article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

House of Representatives Special Election Winners

Do you have a source for your assertion that the term begins the day they win the election and not when they take the oath? I ask because it's come up multiple times before, with Ron Estes, Greg Gianforte, Jimmy Gomez in the past few months and Karen Handel/Ralph Norman know. There have been multiple edit wars over the parameter

 |term_start =

so I would like to close this discussion. JocularJellyfish (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any sources. I just went by past practices. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have cited precedent in support of your view, which I also hold, that Congressmen take office the day of the special election but others have disagreed and argued to be "bold". JocularJellyfish (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too concerned about it. Eventually, the correct dates (via latter sources) will appear & the problem will be settled. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Clark

She resigned already, no longer the Premier. globalnews.ca/news/3566878/christy-clark-resigns VivaSlava (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@VivaSlava: Her resignation hasn't taken effect yet. Check out the BC Premier website. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft!

Hey! I hope you are well. Would you kindly take a look at this article and help me on getting it improved? I will appreciate your assistance. Thank in advance! http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Draft:Geovanny_Vicente_Romero ComPol (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

List of people who have opened the Olympic Games

Hello, re List of people who have opened the Olympic Games, I didn't realise there had already been talkpage discussion, but I have now familiarised myself with that. I came to the article as a result of my work on the William Deane article. My issue is that the footnote that says Deane was "Representing Elizabeth II" is potentially misleading to the reader. To me, "representing" implies that the Queen sent someone in her place, like she has done at the some of the more recent Commonwealth Games when a member of the Royal Family has substituted. But according to the contemporary sources I came across yesterday [4] [5] John Howard never asked the Queen to have any involvement. (In fact he had originally planned to open the games himself, but changed his mind for political reasons less than a year beforehand.) I think the solution is more explanation to remove the ambiguity. I have changed the previous footnote to a longer one stating the exact relationship – "The Governor-General of Australia is the personal representative of the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II, the country's official head of state." – and done the same for Canada for consistency diff here. There is no need to preserve space because it's a footnote, and many of the other footnotes are similar in length (i.e. those more complicated than just "cabinet minister representing president", etc.). Let me know what you think, you can revert it again or make changes if need be. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I also re-removed the excessive references for the 2000 Olympics. I believe this is citation overkill as the facts are not in doubt, also all other editions having only a single reference and having five references expands the last column and thus affects readability. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

One final thing that I was wondering about: is it really necessary to state the long-form title of everyone who has opened the games? I.e. why not just say President of Mexico and Vice President of Brazil instead of President of the United Mexican States and Vice President of the Federative Republic of Brazil? It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than confusing the reader and taking up more space. I would remove it myself but I am not sure if it has been discussed already. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Ivar the Boneful: The Governor-General of Australia is the representative of the Australian monarch. Therefore, Dean represented Elizabeth II at the opening of the Games. The excessive references were put in place to stop 'one' editor from trying to remove any mention of Elizabeth II. As for long form, short form? Best to start a discussion there, concerning that particular issue. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Beatrix of the Netherlands

Nothing about the name "Beatrix of the Netherlands" suggests that this is Queen of the Netherlands. Otherwise "Catherine of Aragon" would mean Queen of Aragon, "Mary of Bethany" would mean Queen of Bethany, "Clemence of Barking" would mean Queen of Barking, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, linking [[Beatrix of the Netherlands|Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands]] does not, in any way, tell the reader that Beatrix was ever queen because a) see above, b) the reader sees only "Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands". Surtsicna (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

She's now known as Princess Beatrix again, since 2013. That's why I've been trying to work it so that our readers will know that she was Queen of the Netherlands from 1980 to 2013. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And so [[Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands]] is a valid link. There is no need to pipe to avoid redirects. Redirects are fine. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I put an explanation next to the link, so that readers won't be confused. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Jacob Crasta. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 AL East

Well I Thought that it was Decided but I Got ahead of myself sorry about that mistakes do happen. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Goveror of Oregon removal of age records

Hello, GoodDay. It looks like you have been around a long time, but I don't recall ever crossing paths with you.

I am curious why you deleted the age records section from Governor of Oregon‎‎. (And why didn't you provide an edit summary? Tsk tsk!) —EncMstr (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed it, because it wasn't sourced. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

I'm missing something here - perhaps you can help me. (It's no big deal, but I am puzzled.) Regarding some Labor PMs articles, your edit comment says "PM is a gov't office. Party leader, is a party position." Yes. But so what? i.e., what's your point, and what is it about your point that I'm missing? (No urgency for a reply - you're now on my watchlist - but I will be interested to read your reply.) Sorry to bother you, and thanks in anticipation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In Canada (which also has a parliamentary gov't) we don't number party leaders and opposition leaders. So adopted the same practice to the New Zealand & Australia pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If President, King or other head of states can different order number but PM not different number order. why??? The term office of PM are unlimited because existence motion of no confidence or snap election schedule from orginally election. Akuindo (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to be neutral about Catalan secession topic but you just acting not, regarding all nations favor pretty hypocritical Spanish government.

I know Catalan secedes from Spain 'illegally' (if they just reform their constitution, this won't happen) and other (reactionary) nations heavily side them but doesn't means pretending their secession "doesn't happen" from either non-Anti-Catalan or Spanish Nationalist/Unionist view is still considered politically de facto/disputed since if case to be short-lived nation. Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs) 19:20, October 27 2017 (UTC)

It's best not to add 'Catalan Republic' in any form, throughout the Catalan city articles. We should wait until the situation is resolved. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, If think this will help the near-future edit wars of this topic? Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs) 19:30, October 27 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, there's a discussion occurring at WP:AN about how to handle the current situation in Spain. Your input may be of help. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Now I feel you just being Pro-Spanish consern troll since I saw you just undo of Carles Puigdemont page (even I think about it, the previous edits from other Catalan Independence related pages are 'mostly' neutral) only favoring Pro-Spanish Nationalist/Unionists? Than caring only for undo only for cities until solution goes "well"? Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs) 20:30, October 27 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, Puigdemont doesn't hold any office. Again, please wait until the situation settles. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes under de jure International/Spanish law that he disqualified position as President of Catalonia, But wait if his de facto [separatist] Catalan law is counted/effected same or not. Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs) 20:30, October 27 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you're pro-independence for Catalonia. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm interest how goes well or not but I'm not ethnically or politically Catalan nationalist or Spanish nationalist/unionist to either sides of this issue. Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs) 20:44, October 27 2017 (UTC)

Do as you wish. I'm no longer interested. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok Chad The Goatman (talk) (contribs) 20:50, October 27 2017 (UTC)

Carles Puigdemont

Hi He have been dismissed by Rajoy. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The decret entered into a law in 28 October (midnight). @Impru20: --Panam2014 (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see the BOE. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet he was dismissed on October 27. All that BOE does, is retroactively change the date. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The dismissal only came into effect on the day of entry into force of the decree.--Panam2014 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, you folks are driving me nuts :) GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What BOE does is publishing the decrees. The decrees then come into effect. They don't come into effect until published, so on 27 October Puigdemont was still President. If anything, it would apply retroactively to the same day (this is, at 28 October 0:00) but that would still make it 28 October. Impru20 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Andorra

There's no point in starting an edit war over this, but please clarify "Do as you will on those articles, but not here". How is calling it "Spain" not inherently taking a side? Even if no UN members recognise the so-called Catalan Republic, Wikipedia should go with the neutral option. —mountainhead / ? 15:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan Republic, doesn't haven any recognition from any UN member & even their supposed president have run off to Belgium. Furthermore, it's 2017 parliamentary elections are being held this December, under orders from Spain. Also, a huge majority of Catalan's didn't even vote in the independence referendum. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

All of these statements are opinion-based. I agree with most of what you said, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia needs to take a neutral stance on the issue. —mountainhead / ? 15:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing opinionated about it. Theses are stated facts. Therefore, choosing to ignore these facts, might give the impression that you're promoting Catalan independence. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The Catalan Republic has yet to be (and likely will not be) recognised by any UN member, but that doesn't make it an undisputed territory. Puigdemont has run off to Belgium, but that doesn't make it an undisputed territory. Spain is holding parliamentary elections in Catalonia, but that doesn't make it an undisputed territory. A majority of Catalans did not vote in the referendum, but that doesn't make it an undisputed territory.

The conclusion that you're drawing from these statements is that Catalonia is indisputably Spanish. This is untrue and biased. Even if Spain has de jure and de facto control over the territory, the region's status is disputed, and while this can and should be mentioned in the article, Wikipedia should not be taking sides.

I am not promoting Catalan independence. None of my statements can be interpreted as such without you or anyone else making false assumptions or putting words in my mouth. I am not ignoring facts; if anything, I am taking the facts into account more than you are. The mere fact that you seem to be unable to separate your feelings on the topic from factual and unbiased reporting on the subject, and assume that this must be the case for me, doesn't make a good case for your neutrality. —mountainhead / ? 15:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You completely replaced Spain, that's the problem. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Leaving Spain there whilst the territory is disputed would inherently be biased, unless the Catalan Republic is also mentioned in the article and both are represented equally. However, I don't see a point in making the article about Andorra about the Catalonia crisis, so I went with the neutral option, which doesn't mention either, and thus also does not take a side. —mountainhead / ? 15:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to something more neutral: '"...either Catalan Republic or Spain...". GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nunavut MLAs

A retiring or defeated MLA's term in office is deemed to end as of the date of the writ drop that commences the election campaign, not the date of the public vote. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I was matching them, with the provincial MLAs. Recommend we remove the month/day & just leave the year. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

A provincial MLA's term in office ends on the date of the writ drop too. If there's any MLA's article anywhere in Canada that's using the election date itself as the end of their term, it's wrong and needs to be corrected. Federal MP's too, by the way. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Michael Del Zotto

Hey there. Curious as to why you removed the references to Michael Del Zotto serving as an alternate captain for the Vancouver Canucks across a number of articles. Del Zotto has played that role for the Canucks this season (here's an image of him wearing the 'A' against the Sabres earlier this year, for instance [6]). – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Because, he's only filling in for injured alternate captain Alexander Edler. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The Canucks have rotating alternate captains. Only Daniel Sedin is a permanent alternate. Del Zotto wore an A in the preseason as well in China, when Edler was healthy. Do you have a source to show that he's not part of the regular rotation? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the Canucks are going to rotate the second "A" among several players & who those players are? GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The Canucks have included the letters for their two permanent captains (Henrik 'C' and Daniel 'A') on their team roster, while the others have been rotating all season (Edler, Tanev, Sutter, Del Zotto...you can look at the game sheets on NHL.com if you'd like, or see photos on Getty, or watch the highlights). Here's a tweet indicating that the Canucks won't have set captains[7]. The Canucks haven't formally made any announcement naming captains for this season, so why didn't you delete the other guys? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United States gubernatorial elections, 2021

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on United States gubernatorial elections, 2021, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mélencron (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Saad Hariri

Hi He continues as caretaker until the formation of a new cabinet. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Need a source for that. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It is the case for the all prime ministers of Lebanon. The country is a parliamentary repubic. Please read the constitution. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

For all of the former PM of Lebanon, they left office several months after the resignation. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Do what ya want. I thought his resignation was immediate. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Prince Charles

Be careful. That's just unsolicited advice from an uninvolved observer. Do with it as you wish. -- Begoon 10:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of anybody breaching WP:NOTADVOCATE. The international community (rightly or wrongly) sees & describes Chuckles as heir-apparent to the British throne. The only reason why 'one' editor raised a big objection to the 'British throne' usage, was because he felt it overshadowed the Canadian throne. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

re: Barassi Line

I'd sure like to know what your thoughts are on the matter. It seems a lot like the IP editor is trying to game the system. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the mobile editor is likely evading his ban. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Hi The account vandalized two times my talk page and he continue to add his WP:OR. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Open up an Rfc on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, your opinion is welcome. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, could you explain him that the constitution quotes are not sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to let the Rfc work it out. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

But you know that it is obvious that taking into account what the constitution says does not prove that an individual has exercised power. Moreover, since November 14, Mphoko is on the run in Japan. And that it is ridiculous to pretend that he has exercised power. In the same way that the mandate of an elected president like Manuel Zelaya ends on the day of its overthrow. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with what happened in Zimbabwe. The Rfc will straighten things out. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

He continues to add fake news. Own interpretations. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's out of my hands. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

But what do I do? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Let the Rfc run its course, they last a month. Others will chime in there. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And for false information about the vice president? He is stubborn and he continues to add anything by referring to the constitution.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Let the Rfc run its course. The rest is up to you. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

But you can not explain to him that the constitution is not an acceptable source for such changes?--Panam2014 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it is or not. The Rfc will decide. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

But I mean, there is a rule on Wikipedia that prohibits the use of primary sources for such things as sources. For example, it is not because the constitution considers that a president has finished his mandate (see Palestine and Congo) that the mandate ends immediately if the president does not want to leave. But how to guide the RfC on the question of primary and secondary sources? Is there a place on the theme of politics? --Panam2014 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's up to the community now. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

But the community has to apply the rules like WP: PRIMARY, WP: SECONDARY, there is nothing to negotiate, and no one can make sure to override these rules. A consensus must respect the rules.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. It's not up to me. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There is not a discussion space where I can enforce respect for these rules?--Panam2014 (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you give your opinion, plz ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've lost interest in this topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)/::

the admin refuse to froze the page and him and his friend continue to impose their point. Could you only give your opinion that the constitution quotes and the de jure situation does not prove anything. It is very very bad when we have unreliables articles. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the topic, anymore. If you have any concerns about the behavior of editors around the topic? then take it to WP:ANI. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Charlottetown-Parkdale

I don't see why the PEI plebiscite is any different than any other referendum or plebiscite in any other province. The PEI government decided not to respect the outcome, but what if the yes side won the Quebec referendum, but nothing happened as a result? It doesn't make the result any less noteworthy. If the issue is me just including it on the Charlottetown-Parkdale article, I can add it to the other ridings. I was just expanding/cleaning up that article in particular because of the by-election. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Show me which Quebec & Ontario provincial districts that list referendums. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost all of them, actually. Too many to bother listing, but for example Ottawa South shows the MMP referendum result and Hull shows the Quebec sovereignty referendum result. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Ontario example: Those should be removed from the provincial district articles, as the MMP was put into effect. Besides, if it belongs anywhere, that would be at the 'previous' & 'next' Ontario general election articles.

The Quebec example: Shouldn't be in any of those Quebec provincial districts, as 'none' of the districts were going to leave Canada individually, anyway. Had it passed, it would've been likely put in the last Quebec general election article. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Including referendum results, if they're available for individual electoral districts, is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate thing to do in an electoral district's article regardless of whether the referendum passed or failed. It's entirely relevant and useful for people to know regional variations, like the fact that Gatineau/Hull is more strongly federalist and Saguenay/Chicoutimi is more strongly sovereignist, or what areas more strongly favoured or opposed an electoral reform proposal. It is information that we should include in riding articles if we have access to properly sourced riding-level breakdown data — personally I'd prefer to move it to a separate section of the article rather than nesting it between regular election results tables, but it's entirely reasonable for that kind of information to be present in the article somewhere. (Conversely, an example of a referendum where we don't have access to that kind of data would be the Nunavut creation referendum, 1992, where for obvious reasons Nunavut's contemporary electoral districts didn't even exist yet.) Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on this matter, at WP:CANADA. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

PEI electoral districts

It's not necessarily unreasonable for "old" districts to have separate standalone articles from "new" ones — it really depends on how different the new boundaries are from the old ones. There's no strict cutoff for how much they have to change to justify a separate article over a simple redirect to the new district, but it's not quite as simple as "new name automatically means separate article" either, as there have also been cases where a riding's name changed without any boundary adjustment at all or with boundary adjustments far, far too minor (e.g. the shifting of just a few city blocks) to warrant it. There are cases where it literally comes down to an arbitrary judgement call one way or the other. Although I did put some time into filling out the MLA tables for the old dual-member districts once I found the source to do it with, I'm far from knowledgeable enough about the geography of PEI's provincial districts to know whether they've changed enough to justify separate articles or not — so I don't necessarily have anything useful to contribute, other than to suggest that it if you want to dispute the result in any individual case it would be helpful to show some actual indicators of how much the boundaries did or didn't change. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't oppose the article creations. Hopefully, who ever created them, will do so for all 27 districts. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).== MLAs table ==

Also, the MLAs table in an electoral district's article doesn't need to always contain a vacancy line between a departing incumbent and the replacement. That's included if the vacancy crossed over into the new year, so that the new MLA's term started in a different year than the old one's ended in, and it's temporarily included if the seat is currently vacant, but once the byelection has happened it's not necessary to retain the vacancy line anymore if the end of Currie's term, the entire length of the vacancy and the beginning of Bell's term are all within the same year. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's done in PEI electoral district, concerning vacancies within a single year. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not supposed to be. People doing stuff wrong is a reason to fix the wrongness, not to extend it further. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Before you make your deletions to all 27 districts. Recommend you check over the districts in the other provinces. Consistency is paramount. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

In that particular context, we have no reason to care whether the outgoing member resigned before the general election or just didn't run again in the general election. The dates in their individual biographies should be kept accurate to the precise end dates of their terms, but for the purposes of the member results table in the district's article it's simply not important to make note of the distinction between a member retiring at the writ drop or a few weeks before the writ drop with no byelection because of the timing of the writ drop. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You should've left things the way they were. Since you didn't, I'm putting notes in the effected boxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I should not have left things the way they were, and no "special notes" are required as footnotes to the person's name given that the end of term information is already communicated by the years column. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Your changes necessitate the information for our readers. They ought to know that the previous MLA either resigned or died, thus necessitating a by-election & therefore I mid-term change. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The years column already makes that clear — by virtue of the fact that Doug Currie's term ends and Hannah Bell's term begins in the middle of a legislative session, the fact that the previous member resigned and a by-election took place has already been communicated by the existing table without needing a superfluous footnote on Currie's name or a superfluous vacancy line between them. The only reason we even need to leave a vacancy line in the table when the vacancy crossed into a new year is so that people don't think one or the other date is a typo — it's not strictly necessary as an indicator of the fact that a resignation/byelection occurred, because that is already communicated by the very structure of the table as it is. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly where (for example) in the Charlottetown-Parkdale article, does it say Currie resigned? GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly where in that article does it need to specifically clarify whether the vacancy resulted from his resignation or his death, when the table already provides a link to Currie's article that a person can click on for more information? Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Our readers should be able to get that information in the district article. Anyways, I'll follow whatever WP:CANADA decides. We two aren't going to agree on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't appreciate your acting as though you have the final say in all of this, via your reverts. Therefore, I'm opening up a discussion on this matter, at WP:CANADA. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, GoodDay.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but I'm mostly a gnome editor. Minor fixes are my specialty. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bo Horvat

Just so you're aware, Bo Horvat is not an alternate captain this season. He has not once worn the 'A' all year. Please provide a source if you want to add him. We went through this with Michael Del Zotto earlier this season. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There's another editor who pushed that Horvat was an alternate captain. I merely gave in to it, as I wasn't in the mood to edit war. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I read the edit history on List of current NHL captains and alternate captains incorrectly and then saw your edits to the other pages. I've commented on the talk page there. Thanks. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The 2019 Abdication Jamberee

All I know is what I read in the papers, so to speak, and they all say that the old emperor is to go on the 30th and the new guy takes over on the first. I take this to mean that there's going to be an interregnum of about a day, give or take a few hours, and the new era is to start at midnight. The whole thing's going to be part of an expensive tourism festival the likes of which has never been seen in that part of the world. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no interregnum. Naruhito ascends the throne, the moment his father's abdication takes effect. We just don't know when that event will exactly happen. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The old guy hands in his regalia on the last day of April and his son gets them the following day. The people who are in charge of this are the ones who are in charge of this. I'm 100% sure there's a special committee figuring everything out as we speak. It's like when the pope quit, sure it happened before, but it was so long ago that it might as well not have. That's why they're not letting the old guy go for another year and a half. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Accession is automatic. The only way Naruhito ascends the throne on May 1, is if the abdication occurs at midnight. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GoodDay. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince Henry and Meghan Markle

What do you disagree with, exactly?

that there's no real content? Look at it - there's more information about it on the Prince Harry page than in what you've written.
that it's unsourced? It clearly is.
that it's a bit early for an article for it? OK, so there are pages about events that are further away, such as the 2020 Olympics. But such events are planned years in advance, and as a result there is enough information at this stage to write an article. On the other hand, the planning of this wedding is still in its infancy, and as such we don't really have enough information to write a Wikipedia article about it. — Smjg (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

See history of Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. That article was created in 2010. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't automatically mean that the time it was created was the right time to create it. Thinking about it now, being too early for an article is not so much a matter of actual length of time before the event, but more of whether enough information has been confirmed and made public to be able to write an encyclopedia article about it. From the combination of what I'd heard on the news as of the time and what you created, it seemed there wasn't.

Since it turned out to be a duplicate page, and was redirected as such, I guess we can let the issue lie now. Still, what I've said is something for you to take away for future reference. — Smjg (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirected to Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

RFAR

A request for arbitration to which you were a party has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 23:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Okie Doke. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ciudad Constitución (Perú)

Hi, GoodDay. I've reinserted the whitespace into the article. It's customary to double space before the stub tag to indicate it isn't part of the article, but is about the article. Thanks for your good work. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Coins of Ireland

I would like to know your rationale for changing the wording in "Coins of Ireland" from "Irish and British" to "British and Irish" when, earlier in the paragraph, the term "Irish and British" is used. 176.61.55.135 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical order, B comes before I. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

You have not addressed my question. Please re-read the article properly 176.61.55.135 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a different editor disagrees and has reverted your changes. Have a fantastic day 176.61.55.135 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Information

In the event you do not have the article talk page watch listed at Coins of Ireland: I've semi-protected the article due to edit warring. I'm cautioning all editors to seek a consensus here before editing the article with regard to this particular point. I'm taking this step to avoid blocks; however, blocks will be likely should the edit war continue without consensus. Tiderolls 22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I've walked away from that article, due to the socking going on. It's good that you've semi-protected it. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Heir to the throne

I was not trying to be pedantic. The monarchy developed long ago before nation states existed and the relationship between king and country was very different from today. While the UK retains ancient language, I don't know how much of it remains legal reality and how much of that was ever adopted by Canada or the other realms. I do think that we should use generally accepted wordings. TFD (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with the Rfc options, but cool :) GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"per User:SNUGGUMS's preference"

"per User:SNUGGUMS's preference" is not the reason for avoiding the use of small but MOS:ACCESS#Text Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If anyone complains about the fonts 'now' being too big/clunky, they can complain about it to SNUGGUMS. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC: location of Foxwoods Resort Casino (MOS:BOXING)

Greetings. There has been extensive discussion at Talk:WikiProject Boxing regarding the location of Foxwoods Resort Casino, and how it should be specified in MOS:BOXING. To form a consensus on this, your opinion as an active member of the Project is essential and highly welcome. The current discussion can be found here. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have a question

Hi! I'm Hydra_Tacoz! Can you tell me what exactly are medals? And how do I reward cake to people? Please tell me! Hydra Tacoz (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."

Hello GoodDay: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 23:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Why, thank you. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome

The place is supposed to be about working together-not trying to force someone to "do it my way". We hope (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed :) GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trolls.jpg ;) We hope (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. The IP is getting more obnoxious. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

2016 United States presidential election

I'm sorry about the edit war. I'm basically a new user here. When I was a little child, my mom taught me that, in certain situations, numbers under ten should be spelled out as the word instead of written as the numeral. If there's some rule where it should be written as the numeral in this situation, then I will accept it. I have no stake in it except that. I know nothing about anything. Thanks for making the other edits. Whatever you think is right.:)Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

And another merry xmas. 174.28.110.111 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, GoodDay.

AfC submissions
Random submission

~6 weeks

1,267 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I specialize in gnome editing. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

But the opening statement for Elizabeth II makes no sense! 'Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand' and then list 12 other countries of the commonwealth realm? the page makes the other 12 realms sound subordinate and insignificant to United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. You start of with the United Kingdom usually, then list the other 15 nations of the commonwealth together, It's incorrect and needs re-looking at.

If it were entirely up to me? I'd have it as Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms. But, it's not up to me. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, GoodDay!

Happy New Year!

GoodDay,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
--Nevé –selbert 00:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks. HAPPY 2018 to you, as well. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The Young Turks

Hi, I added about the confrontation with Alex Jones as I felt it was notable and backed up by multiple reliable sources, with video evidence from multiple cameras, including both The Young Turks and InfoWars. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)