Undid revision 707713976 by DPL bot (talk) |
→Travelmite: Rather blatant copy/paste errors |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 264: | Line 264: | ||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''₪'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 05:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''₪'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 05:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:You read my message & now you're throwing a tantrum. Very well, I'll revert to your preferred version. But, only so you'll pause your contempt for me. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay#top|talk]]) 05:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC) |
:You read my message & now you're throwing a tantrum. Very well, I'll revert to your preferred version. But, only so you'll pause your contempt for me. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay#top|talk]]) 05:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Travelmite == |
|||
You couldn't have known this from my actions, but I didn't block Travelmite based on Skyring's email. He was saying basically "I believe that he's being disruptive in these ways", followed by lots of evidence for this assertion, but because I wasn't comfortable blocking merely from an email, I did my own investigation and found the cited diffs (Skyring didn't mention them, and they're irrelevant to the argument he was making), which in my opinion are enough for sanctions for anyone. In the end, Skyring brought the situation to my attention, but aside from the user's identity, nothing that Skyring mentioned factored into my decision to block Travelmite. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:38, 2 March 2016
|
Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).
You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talkpage's 'history'.
Awards
I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Wikipedia awards bestowed upon me.
Edit count & Pie chart
My Arbcom Case
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
Aug-Sept 2007 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, GoodDay. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I was right all along,. HA!!!!
Long live canada!
SLBY
Viceroy, Queen's/King's representative or Monarch's representative
I am unsure how to go on from this situation now. According to the latest edit:
- Support for Monarch's Representative has 6 votes
- Support for the status quo has 4 votes
- Support for Viceroy has none apart from our 2 votes.
Perhaps it may be time to come up with a fourth option. I have one possible idea:
- Lieutenant-Governor (
Lieutanant-Governor –
)
- I honestly feel that this is the most tolerable compromise that we have. A quote from this official PDF document states:
In form, the Cook Islands has two Queen's representatives — one (the Queen's Representative) for the Cook Islands as Cook Islands; the other (the Governor-General) for the Cook Islands as part of the Realm of New Zealand. This arrangement is akin to those of Australia and Canada, where the Governor-General is the Sovereign's representative for the whole of the federation but each State or Province retains its own Governor or Lieutenant-Governor to represent the Queen in that State or Province.
Is it possible to get an administrator to review the case beforehand, though? I need help with this. Neve-selbert 15:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Howdy Neve-selbert. If Zb has left the discussion, then so be it. I've no problem with you adding a fourth option to the Rfc. If you so desire, you may request an administrator to reviw the Rfc. BTW - I've opened up a discussion at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, concerning Elizabeth II's entry. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Zb has shown no signs of leaving, unfortunately. Which administrator would you recommend for me to request for review? Neve-selbert 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- It should be someone who's got little to no interest in the dispute, IMHO. I believe that Newyorkbrad, would be a cool choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- On second though, we might as well just describe the QR as a Governor-General (
Governor-General –
)—the QRs serve all of the duties one would expect of one. I just feel that we are getting absolutely nowhere with Viceroy as a solution, the opposition of ZB and Mies is 100% diehard. In spite of this, I still believe we should wait until after Newyorkbrad (contacted) weighs in to review the options. Neve-selbert 16:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)- My wiki-senses tells me that the status-quo (Queen's representative) will likely be retained. Most likely Monarch's representative will end up being the preferred alternative. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is there nothing more we can do? Neve-selbert 16:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, not unless a truckload of editors show up at the Rfc, over the next 20+ days, supporting Viceroy. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- IMHO, it is none other than ZB being the preeminent stumbling block to change. If we can get him to accept Governor-General (getting him to support Viceroy is 99.9% impossible) as a compromise, then this whole thing will be probably be over in seconds. Neve-selbert 16:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, not unless a truckload of editors show up at the Rfc, over the next 20+ days, supporting Viceroy. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is there nothing more we can do? Neve-selbert 16:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- My wiki-senses tells me that the status-quo (Queen's representative) will likely be retained. Most likely Monarch's representative will end up being the preferred alternative. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- On second though, we might as well just describe the QR as a Governor-General (
- It should be someone who's got little to no interest in the dispute, IMHO. I believe that Newyorkbrad, would be a cool choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Zb has shown no signs of leaving, unfortunately. Which administrator would you recommend for me to request for review? Neve-selbert 15:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
If a trucklod of editors show up, wanting Monarch's representative implimented? any attempts to resist its implimentation, would be futile. Anyways, it's likely the Queen's representative will be retained... atleast until Charles III ascends. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Which do you think is the safest option?
- Withdrawing the RFC at this very moment and keep the status quo.
- Come up with new alternatives for solution.
- Cross fingers in hope that a truckload of editors will come round to support Viceroy.
Reluctantly of course, I am leaning towards #1, although I just wanted to know what you think. Neve-selbert 17:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Allow the Rfc to run its course (which I believe is 30 days) & accept whatever the result is. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Update: for 7 February 2015
- The votes thus far:
- Option A (status quo) has 11 votes
- Option B (Monarch's Representative) has 6 votes
- I feel reasonably confident that the status quo will be retained, hence quashing Option B. And (when the demise occurs) Queen–King's Representative will be used to follow up in the succession year.
- If, over the course of the next week or so, consensus is clearly in favour of the retention of the status quo, could we request the closure of the RFC?
Thanks again, GoodDay. Neve-selbert 05:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If the Demise of the Crown were to unfortunately happen in Template:Future year, here is a draft I made as to how we would make the transition appear in NZ and their CI colony. Neve-selbert 17:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would recommend Queen's/King's Representative, rather then Queen's-King's Representative. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The en dash was meant to represent the transition, i.e. "Queen to [–] King's Representative". Neve-selbert 17:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Is Palestine a sovereign state?
Another dispute now, one editor (Spirit Ethanol) is pushing his PoV over whether or not Palestine should be considered a standalone sovereign state at RfC... despite the fact that Israel still occupies parts of Palestinian territory. If only that previous dispute about the Queen's Representative could just be closed right now, I am finding it hard to keep up with two seperate disputes at once.--Neve–selbert 11:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- IMHO, the Queen's Representative Rfc is over, so I wouldn't be too concerned about it. As for Israel/Palestine? I tend to stay away from that disputed area. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have already reverted him three times today and vice versa. The current revision grossly breaches WP:BRD, as he has done away with the status quo without any consensus for his WP:POINTy changes. Could you revert him? Thanks.--Neve–selbert 12:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- He has now broken WP:3RR. I have reported him.--Neve–selbert 13:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, GoodDay, although could you please change the title of the RfC to something less biased towards the Palestinian side (something like: Inclusion of Palestine as either a quasi-sovereign state or a sovereign state). I have tried doing so, although Spirit Ethanol has reverted twice, on the spurious grounds of the section title "being part of his talk page comments". Thanks.--Neve–selbert 22:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- SE's got a point, in that some of the comments are based on the current question & so to change it now, would create more confusion. I recommend that you get an un-involved administrator to review the Rfc question & see what he/she can do. Administrator Newyorkbrad, would be my suggestion :) GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have contacted him. Would there be any way to halt the Rfc as it is at the moment? The Rfc question is outrageously inaccurate and biased, and (as expected) a whole truckload of editors have voiced their discontent—of which I am not surprised. He is deliberately disrupting the project to make a pro-Palestinian point (being able to do since the article is not covered by arbitrary sanctions per WP:ARBPIA). Simply put, he is seeking to exploit the Rfc to go around Wikipedia designating Palestine as a fully sovereign state in its very own right, equal to Israel. This is woefully inaccurate (although with his wording of the Rfc question) he seems to be unfairly winning.--Neve–selbert 16:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a way to abort an Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- How long do you believe the Rfc (and dispute) will last from now?--Neve–selbert 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- An Rfc lasts for 30 days, unless it's closed early or aborted. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, Spirit Ethanol did not even bother discussing the issue—he just jumped to launch an Rfc. Per this section of WP:RFC, it states that "editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others". So, technically, this dispute is only 1/2 legitimate, if at all (not to mention the biased manner of its wording). How he is managing to get away with this is beyond me, honestly.--Neve–selbert 20:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, SE did jump the gun. An attempt to get a local consensus, should've been made, first. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Patience is a virtue (of course)—although it does really seem like no-one is quite interested in reviewing the dispute. I believe now that the best way to go for convenience is to request closure ASAP due to lack of consensus for any change, not to mention both the misleading way the Rfc was presented & the fact that no prior discussion took place before it.--Neve–selbert 16:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, SE did jump the gun. An attempt to get a local consensus, should've been made, first. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, Spirit Ethanol did not even bother discussing the issue—he just jumped to launch an Rfc. Per this section of WP:RFC, it states that "editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others". So, technically, this dispute is only 1/2 legitimate, if at all (not to mention the biased manner of its wording). How he is managing to get away with this is beyond me, honestly.--Neve–selbert 20:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- An Rfc lasts for 30 days, unless it's closed early or aborted. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- How long do you believe the Rfc (and dispute) will last from now?--Neve–selbert 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a way to abort an Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have contacted him. Would there be any way to halt the Rfc as it is at the moment? The Rfc question is outrageously inaccurate and biased, and (as expected) a whole truckload of editors have voiced their discontent—of which I am not surprised. He is deliberately disrupting the project to make a pro-Palestinian point (being able to do since the article is not covered by arbitrary sanctions per WP:ARBPIA). Simply put, he is seeking to exploit the Rfc to go around Wikipedia designating Palestine as a fully sovereign state in its very own right, equal to Israel. This is woefully inaccurate (although with his wording of the Rfc question) he seems to be unfairly winning.--Neve–selbert 16:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's likely that the Rfc will have to run its course (30-days), flawed though it is. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Spirit Ethanol's conduct has been deplorable, there can be no doubt. He is an opportunist IMO—for the record: it wasn't actually him who started this whole thing off. It was AusLondonder. I reverted his edits, and then somehow SE came along and reverted my revert, rashly creating an Rfc in the process. Could a moratorium, in the meantime, on the Rfc be considered instead?--Neve–selbert 17:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- A 1-year moratorium was placed on British Empire, concerning the topic of super power. I don't know if a moratorium can be placed on an editor, though. PS - Strangely enough, an editor is looking into seeing if I should be barred from starting Elizabeth II Rfcs in relation to the United Kingdom & the Commonwealth realms topic :) GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) It was an idea, and I am not exactly trying to request a moratorium on a particular user, just that particular article (on the issue of Israel vs. Palestine; I have contested the rejection). PS:reply - I will certainly oppose the attempts of anyone trying to bar you from Elizabeth II topics. To be honest, I find it rather odd that it should be you being barred, and not that other editor attempting to impose his stupendously fringe POV, etc.--Neve–selbert 17:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Another administrator (via the Rfc closure page) might decide to shut it down. We can only wait & see, I guess. PS - As for the 'other editor' in the UK/Commonwealth realms stuff? I just can't figure him out :) GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Having had a think about it, I believe that (until an admin decides to hopefully shut it down) a moratorium should be imposed on the article per WP:BLUDGEON. The rationale for change is, as you know, inextricably flawed (so I doubt this option would be seen as objectionable to many outside editors). Would it be wise to make such a request?--Neve–selbert 20:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Where are you planning to make this request? GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am unsure, hence delving into the hypothetical. How did British Empire get the moratorium?--Neve–selbert 05:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- The British Empire article example, is the only one I have & it's a poor example. The discussion their lasted from Oct' 2015 to Feb' 2016 (with the Rfc being roughly a month, Jan/Feb 2016) & it had only one editor strongly pushing for the addition of super power. It was on those basis, that I recommend a 1-moratorium & to my surprise, it got adopted. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see. Just to be absolutely clear, my main objective at the moment is to find a way to temporarily halt the Rfc, until an admin reviews its neutrality as fit for purpose. The Rfc runs out on 12 March, and heaven knows how many uninformed editors will land on it by then; I am pretty sure they will hastily back the Palestine is not a substate of Israel red herring nonsense. So, at the end of the day, I am searching for the quickest route to a pause of the Rfc—be it at the help desk, asking a presently active admin, or elsewhere (even reporting SE could be an option).--Neve–selbert 05:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- The British Empire article example, is the only one I have & it's a poor example. The discussion their lasted from Oct' 2015 to Feb' 2016 (with the Rfc being roughly a month, Jan/Feb 2016) & it had only one editor strongly pushing for the addition of super power. It was on those basis, that I recommend a 1-moratorium & to my surprise, it got adopted. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am unsure, hence delving into the hypothetical. How did British Empire get the moratorium?--Neve–selbert 05:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Where are you planning to make this request? GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Having had a think about it, I believe that (until an admin decides to hopefully shut it down) a moratorium should be imposed on the article per WP:BLUDGEON. The rationale for change is, as you know, inextricably flawed (so I doubt this option would be seen as objectionable to many outside editors). Would it be wise to make such a request?--Neve–selbert 20:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Another administrator (via the Rfc closure page) might decide to shut it down. We can only wait & see, I guess. PS - As for the 'other editor' in the UK/Commonwealth realms stuff? I just can't figure him out :) GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) It was an idea, and I am not exactly trying to request a moratorium on a particular user, just that particular article (on the issue of Israel vs. Palestine; I have contested the rejection). PS:reply - I will certainly oppose the attempts of anyone trying to bar you from Elizabeth II topics. To be honest, I find it rather odd that it should be you being barred, and not that other editor attempting to impose his stupendously fringe POV, etc.--Neve–selbert 17:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- A 1-year moratorium was placed on British Empire, concerning the topic of super power. I don't know if a moratorium can be placed on an editor, though. PS - Strangely enough, an editor is looking into seeing if I should be barred from starting Elizabeth II Rfcs in relation to the United Kingdom & the Commonwealth realms topic :) GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I left Admin Number 57 a message (also a participant at the Israeli WikiProject).--Neve–selbert 06:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Rfc is really getting out of hand, now. Two editors have landed to the Rfc in the past 12 hours with both convinced that Palestine is being "unfairly displayed" as a "substate of Israel". There must be a way to get this Rfc paused, I am determined to find a way. Number 57 also seems uninterested.--Neve–selbert 15:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Unless a huge number of editors show up in the next 20 some days supporting the status quo? It's highly likely that Palestine will be given it's own space. I'm not sure if one can stop an Rfc-in-progress. You may have to accept such an outcome. I can think of only one other editor to contact & I'm not sure if he'll be interested. That would be Jimbo Wales. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- I will certainly contest any consensus supporting Palestine as a standalone entry, acceptance is beyond the fray. The Rfc question is biased and illegitimate, and has zero credibility whatsoever. Accepting such an outcome would be a travesty of justice, and I would presume there are mechanisms within Wikipedia to prevent such gross misrepresentation. I plan next to go to the Help desk, this seems to be the right thing to do next while I rethink my strategy. Jimbo seems to be the next step, although I am not expecting him to reply to me personally (rather one of the stalkers). But thanks for the insight, though; I very much appreciate it.--Neve–selbert 15:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Unless a huge number of editors show up in the next 20 some days supporting the status quo? It's highly likely that Palestine will be given it's own space. I'm not sure if one can stop an Rfc-in-progress. You may have to accept such an outcome. I can think of only one other editor to contact & I'm not sure if he'll be interested. That would be Jimbo Wales. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Rfc is really getting out of hand, now. Two editors have landed to the Rfc in the past 12 hours with both convinced that Palestine is being "unfairly displayed" as a "substate of Israel". There must be a way to get this Rfc paused, I am determined to find a way. Number 57 also seems uninterested.--Neve–selbert 15:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Clarifying the accompanying footnote
Ciao again, GoodDay. I now think there should be a third option to the Rfc. The footnote alongside the Palestine entry should be clarified, in my view. This could and should be the best chance of a possible compromise on this whole can of worms. We just need to think of a way as to how we can clear up the footnote to help cool tensions.--Neve–selbert 10:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- A footnote will likely be allowed, if the Palestine entry is given its own place in the article. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would note that there is already a footnote, although its neutrality has been called into question by some. Giving Palestine "its own place" in the article would tantamount to whitewash and I would have to rule that out as part of the compromise. The editors still seem to be stuck in the mindset that "Palestine is a substate of Israel!", even though this claim has been debunked time and time again. Someone just has to give, and I think that the modification (what seems to me as an adequately apt footnote) is a big enough concession to give. They must realise and accept that the layout and formatting of the article is not going to change. So, back to the footnote, I open to ideas as to how we can change it.--Neve–selbert 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Maple Leafs captaincy
Hey, just wanted to confirm where you see the Captians/Assistant captains list on the Maple leafs website, couldn't find it. I can personally confirm Komarov is the new A from watching the games, along with Roman Polak serving as "A" during injuries, but having the official team website is always a plus.
Either way, Elite Prosects lists the assistants and they have Komarov and Polak. Spilia4 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Restored Komarov as an alternate captain, which he'll likely be for the rest of the season. As for Polak? he's merely a fill-in for the injured Bozak, so wouldn't add him. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
just to be clear...
What is the "lead" in an article? The first sentence of the top page of an article or the top page as a whole? (N0n3up (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
- OMG That means that my RfC in the British Empire talk page is all wrong! I basically screwed up what I was trying to advocate in my RfC. That means I messed up what I was trying to actually say. I didn't want the sentence in the lead. Now I understand why many opposed my RfC. What should I do? Should I make clear the mistake I made in the RfC or should I make a new one? I thought the lead was the entire top page. (N0n3up (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
- You should accept that you're not going to get "super power" placed in the article, period. The Rfc shows, that there's no consensus for the inclusion of the term. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- On the "lead" that is. When I was actually trying to refer to the fourth paragraph of the top page. (N0n3up (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
- There's no consensus for you to add "super power" anywhere in the article. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be "superpower" but something that indicated that Britain was one of the three main powers right after WWII, specially the early the Cold War. Something I forgot to mention but should have. (N0n3up (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
- There's no consensus for you to add "super power" anywhere in the article. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- On the "lead" that is. When I was actually trying to refer to the fourth paragraph of the top page. (N0n3up (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
- You should accept that you're not going to get "super power" placed in the article, period. The Rfc shows, that there's no consensus for the inclusion of the term. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- OMG That means that my RfC in the British Empire talk page is all wrong! I basically screwed up what I was trying to advocate in my RfC. That means I messed up what I was trying to actually say. I didn't want the sentence in the lead. Now I understand why many opposed my RfC. What should I do? Should I make clear the mistake I made in the RfC or should I make a new one? I thought the lead was the entire top page. (N0n3up (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
That's something for the rest of you to discuss, at the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Please forgive me
It was a joke. Yes, if and when Charles III ascends the throne it will solve a lot of problems. Hurrying that event along to avoid having to renumber a bunch of entries in a wikitable is probably overkill. --Pete (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- No prob. IMHO, my United Kingdom and 15... option, would be best for Elizabeth II's entry at that article. However, attempting to adopt it, would (as we both know) lead to another Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Australian head of state topic
As a member of WP:RETENTION, I wish you'd walk away from the Australian head of state topic, for your own good. All you're doing is pushing your PoV that the monarch isn't Australia's head of state. You've been pushing this for over 10 yrs now & this SPAish behaviour has gotta stop. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry. Must have missed this. A ping would have helped. Have I ever said that the Queen isn't the head of state? If so, when and where? --Pete (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- My observation is that you're refusing to allow edits, that show and/or point to the Australian monarch as Australia's head of state. You've been pushing this "We don't know" position across Wikipedia, for over 10 years. It got to a point where you were beginning to make me doubt if the monarch was head of state, aswell. This growing doubt in my mind, is what prompted me to open up the Rfc at WP:POLITICS. Now, considering your past, it could be construed as though you're still pushing that the Governor-General is head of state, but are using the "We don't know" argument, as a smokescreen. Per WP:AGF, I would prefer to think that's not the case. I don't control what goes in or stays out of any articles. But, something's gotta give, concerning this Australian head of state topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- And when did I ever say that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state? Come on, you are promoting fiction here. I've stated my position again and again, but you don't seem to have grasped it. --Pete (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that you don't seem to be grasping it. Though I won't have anything to do with it, I fear that you are heading towards a possible ban from the Australian head of state topic. I can only hope, that won't be the end result. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry? You have accused me above of holding an opinion that the Queen is not the head of state, and that the Governor-General is. I have repeatedly denied this, and I do so again, right here in this very thread. How many times do I have to say it before you accept it? Do you think I'm somehow lying about my own state of mind, and that you know it better than I? I'm just not grasping my own repeatedly-expressed beliefs???? --Pete (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're pushing the supposed dispute as though it's a bigger deal then it actually is. But so far it's being shown that the 'dispute' is more of a molehll, then a mountain. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- We have a well-sourced article demonstrating that Australians at all levels are divided in their views. You, Mies and I have batted heads over it for years to provide a stable article documenting a notable dispute. That's the reality. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good luck, Skyring. In whatever you're trying to accomplish. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You puzzle me sometimes. What on earth am I supposed to be trying to accomplish now? --Pete (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Australian monarch is the head of state, which is what sources & a growing number of editors are pointing out to you. If you can't or won't accept that & thus won't stop editing against or posting against it? Then again, good luck to you. I won't be responsible, if the community begins judging you as being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You puzzle me sometimes. What on earth am I supposed to be trying to accomplish now? --Pete (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good luck, Skyring. In whatever you're trying to accomplish. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- We have a well-sourced article demonstrating that Australians at all levels are divided in their views. You, Mies and I have batted heads over it for years to provide a stable article documenting a notable dispute. That's the reality. --Pete (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're pushing the supposed dispute as though it's a bigger deal then it actually is. But so far it's being shown that the 'dispute' is more of a molehll, then a mountain. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry? You have accused me above of holding an opinion that the Queen is not the head of state, and that the Governor-General is. I have repeatedly denied this, and I do so again, right here in this very thread. How many times do I have to say it before you accept it? Do you think I'm somehow lying about my own state of mind, and that you know it better than I? I'm just not grasping my own repeatedly-expressed beliefs???? --Pete (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It appears that you don't seem to be grasping it. Though I won't have anything to do with it, I fear that you are heading towards a possible ban from the Australian head of state topic. I can only hope, that won't be the end result. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- And when did I ever say that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state? Come on, you are promoting fiction here. I've stated my position again and again, but you don't seem to have grasped it. --Pete (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- My observation is that you're refusing to allow edits, that show and/or point to the Australian monarch as Australia's head of state. You've been pushing this "We don't know" position across Wikipedia, for over 10 years. It got to a point where you were beginning to make me doubt if the monarch was head of state, aswell. This growing doubt in my mind, is what prompted me to open up the Rfc at WP:POLITICS. Now, considering your past, it could be construed as though you're still pushing that the Governor-General is head of state, but are using the "We don't know" argument, as a smokescreen. Per WP:AGF, I would prefer to think that's not the case. I don't control what goes in or stays out of any articles. But, something's gotta give, concerning this Australian head of state topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's your opinion. It is easily demonstrated that there is a division of opinion on the matter. WP:NPOV means that we don't get to choose one side over another, except insofar as WP:WEIGHT applies, and when Prime Ministers, Governors-General, the media etc. make the same claim, it is not a WP:FRINGE view. Ergo, we include relevant well-sourced material in our encyclopaedia. This is pretty basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I can't help you anymore. You're too determined to have your way. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- My way? As I say, this is basic wikipolicy. You know, the established view of our community on how to write an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's up to the community to decide, concerning your behaviour and/or conduct. They collectively will judge, as to whether you're being an obstructionist or not, by your continuing to 'revert' any edits that show or point towards the monarch being Australia's head of state. Again, I tried for years to get you away from this topic, but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- What's your understanding of NPOV - a very basic policy - as it applies here? --Pete (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, the community will have to decide for themselves, about your behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's okay then. I'm pretty sure that the community is in favour of NPOV. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Like I said, the community will have to decide for themselves, about your behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- What's your understanding of NPOV - a very basic policy - as it applies here? --Pete (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's up to the community to decide, concerning your behaviour and/or conduct. They collectively will judge, as to whether you're being an obstructionist or not, by your continuing to 'revert' any edits that show or point towards the monarch being Australia's head of state. Again, I tried for years to get you away from this topic, but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- My way? As I say, this is basic wikipolicy. You know, the established view of our community on how to write an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Not up to me
My last comment was tongue-in-cheek, a response to your stressing again and again that it's not up to you, that you want the community to decide. For Pete's sake (no pun), I think everybody already understands that it's not up to you, and that you know that. It's implicit in the way Wikipedia works. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- For sure, we are a community & so must make collective decisions. I'll be refraining as much as possible, from making any more comments at the Rfc. I'm grateful that from now on, the Australian head of state topic will have more eyes on it. Of course, from this time forward, those of us who've been puttering around that topic for so many years, will have to be more self-aware of our behaviour & conduct :) GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- From your username, I'd wager you're an Aussie, which means you at least have a dog in the fight (not to say you don't belong in the topic area). I'm from Oklahoma, which is about as uninterested as one can get, short of perhaps Zimbabwe. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm Canadian. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it just occurred to me to check your user page. Same Commonwealth, anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, I'm not overly proud about my country being a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see the monarchy lasting past Charles, anyway. The world is less and less attached to archaic traditions, it seems. The Commonwealth, being a historical artifact of the British Empire, is also archaic and it would seem logical to break it up at the same time. And donate the Falklands to Argentina as a goodwill gesture. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, I'm not overly proud about my country being a monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it just occurred to me to check your user page. Same Commonwealth, anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm Canadian. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- From your username, I'd wager you're an Aussie, which means you at least have a dog in the fight (not to say you don't belong in the topic area). I'm from Oklahoma, which is about as uninterested as one can get, short of perhaps Zimbabwe. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Queenie
Remember that dreary discussion about a putative discrimination and bias in favor of the UK on some pages about state leaders ? Similarities were pointed out with Andorra, and I just noticed that De Gaulle only has France in his box, while the Queen has that insipid remark about Commonwealth realms and a footnote. More comments on the page. Thoughts ? --Killuminator (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I must have really thick skin, as I put up with a lot of (IMHO) rough treatment at that previous Rfc. :) GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- It certainly was vitriolic and fanatical in some remarks. --Killuminator (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Found the original TIME article from 1950 something. The whole thing is under Great Britain. Also I noticed that user: Ryulong was banned. What happened ? --Killuminator (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Having seen input from two editors, it seems they support a UK only which is similar to 2 but not the same so I propose adding an option 6 with only the UK. --Killuminator (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Miesianiacal, I posted a message to you (at your talkpage) about the Person of the Year Rfc change, out of curtesy to you. Though you've banned me from your talkpage? you're always welcomed to post here. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that the flag for the 1951 cover is an anachronism. The current flag of Iran was adopted well over 3 decades after that issue came out. The correct flag would be the one used by the Pahlavi dynasty. I don't know how to rectify it, so I ask for your assistance. --Killuminator (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've made the correction. How's it look? Unfortunately, it's slightly smaller then the other flags. But, it's the best I could do. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to look smaller than the others to me, but even if it is smaller, It's not much of a fuss. It could be that the flag itself had different dimensions or something and with some Vatican flags in the article, it doesn't particularly stand out. Thanks ! --Killuminator (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. BTW, I agree with ya'll that the article should be changed to reflect what's currently happening at the Rfc. However, AFAIK an Rfc has to be left open for 30 days & thus the current version kept for that length of time. I'm quite certain that if anyone were to implement United Kingdom right now? one of the Rfc participators would have a fit. I reverted the IP's change, mainly because it appeared to be a passer-by IP. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to look smaller than the others to me, but even if it is smaller, It's not much of a fuss. It could be that the flag itself had different dimensions or something and with some Vatican flags in the article, it doesn't particularly stand out. Thanks ! --Killuminator (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've made the correction. How's it look? Unfortunately, it's slightly smaller then the other flags. But, it's the best I could do. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Miesianiacal, I realize you're frustrated with what's currently happening at Time Person of the Year. But, it's rather poor taste to let that frustration out at Monarchy of Canada. Be patient & have faith in you arguments. We don't know how that Rfc is going to turn out. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for lending a hand
Hi, GoodDay. Just thought to let you know of my appreciation of your help and assistance over at List of the oldest living state leaders & List of state leaders in 2015 and 2016. BTW, this revert was unintentional, I was browsing through your recent edits out of curiosity and my keyboard accidentally fell off my table and a few buttons got pressed—will try to be more careful in future. Anyway, all in all, best wishes: --Neve–selbert 19:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC) |
No probs & thanks, Neve-selbert :) GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
Well spotted! I should stop editing when drunk. --Pete (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't drink. But, I do have a massive headache from the discussions at Monarchy of Canada, concerning royal succession. It's embarrassing, my country allowed the United Kingdom to decide the order of its succession. We should've handled that all ourselves, the way you Australians did. GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Scottish/Welsh First Ministers
Please stop engaging in edit warning, as per this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC_on_inclusion_of_Monarch_in_Information_Boxes_on_NI_politicians the consesus is to in include the monarch in the Scottish and Welsh office holders articles Ouime23 (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to keep Elizabeth II in the Scottish & Wels boxes. Please stop showing up, making mass reverts & then disappearing for weeks, only to show up & make mass reverts again. You're behaving like an agenda pusher, trying to keep Northern Ireland different from Wales & Scotland, for republican PoV reasons. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- yes I am republican who is pushing for the inclusion of the monarch on articles... Ouime23 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're trying to make Northern Ireland appear as unique. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- yes I am republican who is pushing for the inclusion of the monarch on articles... Ouime23 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Where is the RfC you refer to here? And why aren't you responding to my talk page comment? StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Right here. Your input would be welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Deny recognition
Regarding this edit: as I mentioned before, I prefer not mentioning this editor's name at all, in order to deny recognition. You can rest assured that there are many long-time editors watching the hockey project page who know who the editor in question is. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Note
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Time Person of the Year, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
How stands the commonwealth?
To jokingly paraphrase Benet's putting words in the mouth of Daniel Webster's revenant. Juan Riley (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- It appears to be still intact. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Twould appear that its history is rewritten by the day...but I shan't partake...tis a bitter pork pie. And no I aint mental..just laughing. Did have a serious question on the side for you though. Is it just me that thinks the "oldest thing to pretend to state leadership" thingy is just a forum for people with agendas? Reminds me of the list of Nobel laureates with folk constantly claiming so and so as a native in this ever shifting border world. I decided to leave both alone after a while. Perhaps these articles are to trap otherwise disruptive folks into chasing their own tails? Juan Riley (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- You read my message & now you're throwing a tantrum. Very well, I'll revert to your preferred version. But, only so you'll pause your contempt for me. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Travelmite
You couldn't have known this from my actions, but I didn't block Travelmite based on Skyring's email. He was saying basically "I believe that he's being disruptive in these ways", followed by lots of evidence for this assertion, but because I wasn't comfortable blocking merely from an email, I did my own investigation and found the cited diffs (Skyring didn't mention them, and they're irrelevant to the argument he was making), which in my opinion are enough for sanctions for anyone. In the end, Skyring brought the situation to my attention, but aside from the user's identity, nothing that Skyring mentioned factored into my decision to block Travelmite. Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)