This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 3 April 2013 (→Reinstatement of Topic Ban: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:14, 3 April 2013 by Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) (→Reinstatement of Topic Ban: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
This editor is a WikiGnome. |
Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).
This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years and 2 months. |
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'.
"The suggestion that those who want to write English Misplaced Pages in English are discourteous is wrong" - Jimbo Wales
"I prefer an honest demon over a lying angel" - GoodDay
"I am not an animal. I am a human being..." - The Elephant Man (film)
Hall of Honour
Alaney2k
Collect
Danbarnesdavies
Darthflyer
Dolovis
Fyunck(click)
Giano
GoodDay
HighKing
Isaacl
Jeanne boleyn
Jon C.
Kauffner
Leaky caldron
LittleBenW
Lvivske
Mabuska
MakeSense64
Malleus Fatuorum
Masterhatch
Matt Lewis
MickMacNee*
Miesianiacal
Mooretwin
Raul17
Risker
Rrius
Snowded
Steven Zhang
TharkunColl
Van Speijk
Vintagekits*
Wolbo
Youreallycan*
Mentors
Danbarnesdavies, Steven Zhang & Snowded (British/Irish).
Awards
I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Misplaced Pages awards bestowed upon me.
Rough waters
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoodDay, 4-20 December 2011
Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Incident/GoodDay 17-21 February 2012
- Conditionally repealed 17 November-24 December 2012
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, 29 May-14 June 2012
Archives |
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. |
Baltic headaches
You were doing so well. Until otherwise, the proper name of the country(ies) is one the name used at the time in question. Russia was not Russia in 1970, but the Soviet Union then the Soviet Union should be used. Or I will have to use the Dominion of Canada in all the (ice) hockey articles!! Raul17 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I only made the edits in compliance with the Baltics Rfc. When we make edits we don't agree with, it's a sign of accepting not getting our way. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- But it appears that you are deliberately doing this; playing with fire and skating on thin ice! It does not take much for the mass to come after you again!! On a sidenote, why do you use honour instead of the English honor?Raul17 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- 1) I won't be trying to apply the Baltic Rfc consensus anymore. 2) Thought it was spelt eitherway :) GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- --> 2)Yes it can be, but I was trying to make fun of you since honour French-Canadian(?)and British and definitely not American. Raul17 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hahahaha... GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- --> 2)Yes it can be, but I was trying to make fun of you since honour French-Canadian(?)and British and definitely not American. Raul17 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- 1) I won't be trying to apply the Baltic Rfc consensus anymore. 2) Thought it was spelt eitherway :) GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- But it appears that you are deliberately doing this; playing with fire and skating on thin ice! It does not take much for the mass to come after you again!! On a sidenote, why do you use honour instead of the English honor?Raul17 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Honour" is the English Canadian spelling. The French word is spelt (or spelled) "l'honneur". Bielle (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. Again, I am poking fun at GoodDay. I even messed up French-Canadien (as in the Montreal Hockey Club). Everyone knows that he is an undercover Canadiens fan!! Raul17 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- In fairness I don't expect every WP editor to be fluent in the unique history of the Baltic states where the USSR and its "republics" are concerned. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's likely that Soviet Union/USSR, is going to be used on hockey bio articles, for players born between 1940 & 1991. As for the Misplaced Pages's thousands of bios, it's impossible 'either way' to keep the 1940-91 folks consistent. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- In fairness I don't expect every WP editor to be fluent in the unique history of the Baltic states where the USSR and its "republics" are concerned. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. Again, I am poking fun at GoodDay. I even messed up French-Canadien (as in the Montreal Hockey Club). Everyone knows that he is an undercover Canadiens fan!! Raul17 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Honour" is the English Canadian spelling. The French word is spelt (or spelled) "l'honneur". Bielle (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Your appeal
Hello GoodDay. I noticed your appeal at WP:ARCA to have your ban from editing diacritics lifted. It would be helpful if you can expand your statement. You could say where Arbcom imposed the restriction originally. The ban was one of the results of WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay and the restriction was imposed here. It would also be helpful if you can notify User:Steven Zhang who brought the original arb case and User:Danbarnesdavies who was listed in that case as your mentor. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Georg Ganswein
Do you have a cite that he did move to Castel Gandolfo? The only references that I saw were that he was going to move. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite that he didn't? I'm made to the change to past-tense, based on the fact that Benedict XVI has resigned & moved (temporarily) to the Castel Gandolfo Palace. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's the point. We have references stating what was expected to happen. Saying that it did happen is incorrect. If you want to make it past-tense, you should change it to "At the time of then-Pope Benedict's resignation, it was announced that Ganswein was going to move with Benedict". We don't know that he actually moved to Castel Gandolfo, he might have stayed to work for Francis - and without a published statement somewhere, it constitutes WP:OR. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I re-worded it slightly to reflect what has been published. It isn't unknown whether he moved, it simply hasn't been published (so we on Misplaced Pages don't know). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Very well. I'm content with your corrections to Ganswein's status. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I re-worded it slightly to reflect what has been published. It isn't unknown whether he moved, it simply hasn't been published (so we on Misplaced Pages don't know). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Peter I and Peter II of Brazil
I know that you are involved in your eternal personal Crusade against all names "un-English" and that you enjoy to pop up every six months trying to somehow make "Peter I" and "Peter II" more visible. It might be fun to you, but it isn't for anyone else. And removing the ages from the photos are uncalled for. Remember: they are FAs for a good reason. Talk first before making those kind of "improvements" that don't improve at all. --Lecen (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Talk first.."? You mean get Lecen's permission, first. It's become obvious to me, that nothing will get added to or removed from Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil, without your say-so. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't oppose improvements. What I do is oppose users like yourself who fight fiercely to push their own POV (in your case, "remove anything un-American").
- GoodDay, out of curiosity: did you have ever wrote an article here? Expanded or improved one? You know, made all necessary research, wrote it, then reviewed it, then asked other people to look at it and give their suggestions, etc.. Did you? I was looking at your history log and I couldn't find anything like that. Petty discussions on talk pages, move requests where you oppose anything you see as "un-English", small edits in articles (like "ndash" stuff), etc... Is that all you do here? Really? I'm really serious about it. I'm amazed to realize that. --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- How many medals you have on your wall, is irrelevant. PS: Don't step on a gnome. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- You could always cite Britannica . LittleBen (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- If only it were that easy, at those 2 articles. Given my situation, I have to be extra cautious on (strangely enough) English Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- How many medals you have on your wall, is irrelevant. PS: Don't step on a gnome. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- GoodDay, out of curiosity: did you have ever wrote an article here? Expanded or improved one? You know, made all necessary research, wrote it, then reviewed it, then asked other people to look at it and give their suggestions, etc.. Did you? I was looking at your history log and I couldn't find anything like that. Petty discussions on talk pages, move requests where you oppose anything you see as "un-English", small edits in articles (like "ndash" stuff), etc... Is that all you do here? Really? I'm really serious about it. I'm amazed to realize that. --Lecen (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
You were already banned from all articles or discussions with diacritics. It didn't improve matters your aggressive tone. You said pretty harsh things to other people, including me. I still haven't forgot your xenophobic remarks to me, to others and to my country. The Arbitrators ignored your personal quest against everything you regard "un-English", a characteristic of yours closely linked to your quest against diacritics. If you persist doing that and if you persist attacking me (which includes accusing me of ownership) I will have no other choice but to seek the appropriate measures against you. --Lecen (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing as you're involved in an Arbcom case concerning Argentine history, I'll stay away from the 2 articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Pope article edits
On March 22, you edited over 160 articles on popes, deleting the word "Pope" from the article subject's name in the lead sentence. By doing so, you altered the subject's common name—which in each case is unique—and replaced it with mostly ambiguous names. "Pope John V" is unique; "John V" is a name shared with eight other articles. The same for "Pope John VI", "Pope John VII", "Pope John VIII", etc. All are unique names, but by removing "Pope" from their names, you've created unnecessary ambiguity in the first sentence a reader is likely to encounter in the article. This is one reason why the MOS states "the page title should be the subject of the first sentence" (WP:LEADSENTENCE).
I noticed you tried to do the same thing in 2011, removing the word "Pope", which resulted in some lead sentences omitting the word "pope" completely, relaced by "Bishop of Rome". You were corrected at that time in this Pope edits discussion, and you self-reverted. Now you are attempting to do the same thing. This time, your initial deletions of "Pope" from the subject's name in the lead sentence were done with no edit summary, and presented as minor edits. After I restored the common name of the subjects consistent with the article titles, WP:NCCL, and WP:COMMONNAME, you again removed the word "Pope" from the subject's name in 80 articles, this time citing "consistency" with the previous articles—that you edited four days ago.
Consensus upholds twelve years on this site of using the pope's common name per WP:COMMONNAME, which is "Pope ". Related specifically to the presentation of the subject's name in the lead sentence, I am relying on the following MOS guidelines:
- WP:LEADSENTENCE: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence."
- MOS:BOLDTITLE: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence."
This guidance is clear to me. I will be restoring the original "consistent" language that presents the pope's name consistent with the article titles, WP:NCCL, and WP:COMMONNAME. Bede735 (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Have you checked the papal bio articles from Pope Francis backwards? What I don't understand, is that you didn't add/re-add Pope to the intros of all 266 articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was in the process of doing that while improving the articles with inline citations and general copyedit. The more recent articles should follow the same guidance for the same reasons. It looks like you and another editor removed "Pope" from the subject's name in the lead sentence for most of these articles within the past few weeks. I would ask that you restore the common names to the lead sentences. Bede735 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Though Pope X, was pope.... looks silly. If you want to add Pope back infront of the names in the intro for all the papal bio articles? then I won't revert. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- But Pope X was supreme pontiff... looks fine. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does. GoodDay (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting conversation. My watchlist is lighting up with all these changes. I hope you will achieve an agreement on this and then go back and edit the articles again. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- An agreement has been reached. Bede735 is currently implimenting it. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Has it been discussed outside of these user talk pages? What about WT:CATHOLIC? It is worth noting that his latest edit was inconsistent with other articles which use the "honorific-prefix=Pope" field of the template rather than placing it in "English name=". Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I had brought up my concerns about the inconsistancy of the papal intros at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (clergy), but no one was interested & so after a few days, I erased my posts. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure? Has it been discussed outside of these user talk pages? What about WT:CATHOLIC? It is worth noting that his latest edit was inconsistent with other articles which use the "honorific-prefix=Pope" field of the template rather than placing it in "English name=". Elizium23 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- An agreement has been reached. Bede735 is currently implimenting it. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting conversation. My watchlist is lighting up with all these changes. I hope you will achieve an agreement on this and then go back and edit the articles again. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does. GoodDay (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- But Pope X was supreme pontiff... looks fine. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Though Pope X, was pope.... looks silly. If you want to add Pope back infront of the names in the intro for all the papal bio articles? then I won't revert. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was in the process of doing that while improving the articles with inline citations and general copyedit. The more recent articles should follow the same guidance for the same reasons. It looks like you and another editor removed "Pope" from the subject's name in the lead sentence for most of these articles within the past few weeks. I would ask that you restore the common names to the lead sentences. Bede735 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Catholicism
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Catholicism#RFC on Papal article consistency. Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48
Examples
Its not the UK, but your contributions here are exactly the sort of thing that other editors have been complaining about. Statements as if you were an authority rather than an editor under restrictions, inflaming discussion if anything etc. etc. ----Snowded 12:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I freely admit, my honesty can be 'annoying' & it might lead to my downfall, someday. But, I 'will' always discourage inaccuracy on Misplaced Pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- PS - I recommend you direct Hedgefall to the discussion-in-question. We don't need him edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Honesty is not in question, the behaviour is simply stating an opinion as an absolute with no reference to the previous discussion. ----Snowded 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Clarification, this isn't about the discussion at Labour Party (UK)? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I gave you the link above and no its not ----Snowded 14:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was making an interpretation of Giano's post (which he hasn't corrected me on) & not claiming anything. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I gave you the link above and no its not ----Snowded 14:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Clarification, this isn't about the discussion at Labour Party (UK)? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Honesty is not in question, the behaviour is simply stating an opinion as an absolute with no reference to the previous discussion. ----Snowded 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- "If it's proven, then his past must be unhidden & he must have his new socks blocked" Sorry, until you get this you are going to have problems ----Snowded 14:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wowsers, talk about contradicting statements by me. There, I'm pointing out if & latter, I'm pointing out it's all basically irrelevant, no matter what's found or not. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- "If it's proven, then his past must be unhidden & he must have his new socks blocked" Sorry, until you get this you are going to have problems ----Snowded 14:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've scratched out both posts. Thanks for pointing them out to me. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Would you believe, somebody called me a Fascist one time. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've been called worse ...----Snowded 16:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring at Leo Komarov
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Resolute 00:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Reinstatement of Topic Ban
Having reviewed the comments on Snowded's talk page, your recent contributions and one ANI discussion, I worry that the issues that the topic ban had solved have reoccured since the topic ban has been lifted. In this ANI thread, I was given the ability to lift and reapply this topic ban as required, and in my judgment I feel that this is the best solution given the current circumstances.
Therefore, I am reinstating the topic ban as previously written - from pages relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, broadly construed. This topic ban is for one year - for it to be lifted early you would need to show that you have been able to productively edit in other areas without these sorts of issues. You may ask for the topic ban to be lifted after 60 days if you can demonstrate this, but I would recommend that you consider focusing on other areas of editing. I've seen you do good work, but this is really dragging you down and it might be better for you to focus on other things.
I've posted a link to this on Snowded and DBD's talk page, and filed it under Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. If you have any questions about this please let me know.
Regards, Steven Zhang 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)