User talk:GoodDay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This user has been on Wikipedia for 17 years, 10 months and 4 days.

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


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

Edit count & Pie chart[edit]

Edit records

My Arbcom Case[edit]

Opened/Closed in 2012.
Amended in 2013, 2014 & 2016

Nomination of Christine Fang for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Your appeal at WP:AE[edit]

Your appeal at WP:AE (permalink) has been declined. You are advised to take onboard the feedback given before making another appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notification, @Thryduulf: & advice. I will absorb the feedback. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manufactured Wikipedia madness[edit]

Have you seen what's going on at Talk:George I of Great Britain? My worry is, if successful, readers will think "George I of bleedin' what, exactly?". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, it will be quite interesting, when considering that Greece had two monarchs named 'George'. One of whom, reigned for nearly 50 years. I think the Greece monarchs, will be the decider in 'not' moving. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hope so. I'd like the proposals on Elizabeth's talkpage to succeed, and on George I's to fail. What gets my goat is when people bring up COMMONNAME; in context, the short-form name will be the most commonly used, even for, say, Charles III, Duke of Parma when talking about dukes of Parma, or George VI for George VI of Georgia when discussing Georgia. It doesn't make them appropriate titles for those articles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been finding it fascinating, how "UK-centric" is being argued for & against the page moves. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. While it's true "Charles III of Jamaica" or "Charles III of Papua New Guinea" are technically correct, the UK is the one both acknowledged first in the lead along with the "14 other Commonwealth realms" and the one whose prime ministers Charles appoints directly, and not through a governor-general. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but that's how RMs go. Everybody sees the same item, in a different light. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now another's been fired off on Talk:Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those kinda RMs have been appearing quite a bit, in the last few years. I believe this moving away from the 'of country' style, began with the page about Elizabeth II, which was originally Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Where there was once consistency? We also now have off shoot versions like - "William the Conqueror", followed by "William II of England" & "Frederick William I of Prussia", followed by "Frederick the Great". GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) I only found out about the move request on Victor Emmanuel III of Italy via this discussion! This article title situation with European monarchs is getting way out of control. I plan on starting an RfC on NCROY about all of this when I have the time. On a side note, if it makes either of you feel better, I opened a request to make the title of the article on Victoria (of the United Kingdom)'s husband consistent with other 19th century European consorts. Feel free to participate if you wish.
Also, thank you both for having the "courage" to vote Support on my move request for Elizabeth II (of the UK), even though it was (surprisingly!) the unpopular opinion. And I especially appreciate both of your consideration of the substance of my argument. Hurricane Andrew (444) 01:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It's pretty fundamental at Wikipedia that it's not enough to simply vote up or down; you need to provide some kind of argument or reasoning for your position. Hence the term !vote (not vote).

A mere vote will be ignored by any competent analysis of the discussion's consensus, so why post it at all? It wastes your time, adds distracting clutter to the thread, and gives new editors the wrong idea about how to participate on article talk pages.

I bother you with this only because I see you doing this a lot, far more than other experienced editors. Here are two on the current talk page alone.[1][2]Mandruss  16:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mandruss:, I elaborated further. Whoever closes, is at liberty to accept or reject, my elaborations. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. ―Mandruss  17:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mandruss: I just made the same remark on one of the article talk pages. GoodDay, most of your posts on the American Politics are things like "I'm OK with whatever folks think" "I'll go either way" "I'll support consensus" "Better is better than worse" or similar comments that don't help to focus, parse, narrow down, and converge to consensus. It really would be better to explain your thinking so that others can have the full benefit of your insights. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will take into consideration. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wonder what's happened to our good friend, 109.etc. Not edited since 10 May after a steady stream of edits for two years. I hope they didn't leave the project after the way Charles III/GA1 went. Bit of a shame either way. I found him/her a good, witty contributor to discussions. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some folks just hang around for a short time & then it's back to real world, full time. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know. I hope that the last comment on GA1 didn't affect them, too much. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure he just got bored with the 'pedia & moved on. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]