User talk:GoodDay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikignome crop.gifThis editor is a WikiGnome.
WikiProject Ice Hockey logo.svgThis user is a member of
WikiProject Ice Hockey.
Navy binoculars.jpgBeware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

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

Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 13 years, 10 months and 1 day.

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[edit]

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]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay


Response...[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GoodDay. You have new messages at YborCityJohn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Politics in P.R. right now is so fluid[edit]

I see you're interested in P.R. politics. There's an extra question mark "?" in the telegram section of Ricardo Rosselló.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Since August 2, 2019 there's been some 'wild' edits made around Rossello & his current successors' bio article. Best folks calm down until things are settled in PR. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I was looking for the template about a current event- that things could change fast on the article- but couldn't find it. I've seen it before. It's usually placed on an article covering a major news event, i.e. a bombing in Egypt or things of that terrible nature, when information is changing fast. Good evening! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Pierluisi[edit]

Pierluisi was removed from office as unconstitutional and it is questionable whether the "official" use of ordinals will deem him the 13th governor. Above all, it has been a longstanding gripe of mine that editors prescribe the use of ordinals when there is no documented use of them by their constituents, let alone by the offices themselves. We shouldn't be using them anywhere without that and not force them into every page just because some editors would prefer not to count. But on this page in particular, in such a volatile state, it is particularly egregious to add "13th". Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the numbering scheme. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello and Good day to you! I was removing the numbering of the governors, thinking I saw summary comments asking to not number the governors. Now that things have sort of settled down, what is your preference? As of today, the infoboxes did not have the numbering, but the short descriptions, which I've been working on it did have the numbering. I want the article to be consistent, either both short description and infobox numbered or both not #ed. However, I did mention "first elected governor" for Luis Muñoz Marin, (which I thought it was proper to say "the first" in the short description), but the rest I've just added the short description = "Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico". I chose to specify "Commonwealth" in the short description because, before then, there were "Governors of the Colony of Puerto Rico", and before then, there were "Military governors", etc. I think the numbering except for "the first elected ..." suck. What do you (and others) think? Or do you not care much about this?Thanks.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
IMHO, the numbering should be there for the governors (post elected), with the current being the 13th. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, then. That's fine with me too. I'm easy.. or so my husband always says.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC) ....

Seems consensus is not to include the #ing as I checked all and none have the #.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant:, I removed all the numberings, weeks ago. You may restore them, if you choose. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it's very good like this. Thank you! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico[edit]

I would suggest that you tone down the all-capital letter edit summaries and take a breather. I've requested protection of the page(I won't do it myself as I've advocated for a position on the talk page). Please allow that process to proceed and participate in talk page discussion. Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm done with that article, as I'm peeved with some of the editors around. Either he was the governor or he wasn't. The original research going on there, is disgusting. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It isn't really that clear cut- but it is your choice to participate or not. If his initial installation was not valid(as their Courts have ruled) he was never Governor in the first place. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Had enough of it. That the numbering itself is being tampered with, is annoying. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I hope I didn't annoy you. Anyway, finally now that the smoke has cleared, I believe Pierluisi's governoship was nullified, so his few days in office, unconstitutionally, don't count.Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
In retrospect, Garced's tenure should be shown as governor since August 2. Unless it's a declaration that the governorship was vacant for 5 days. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Prime Ministers[edit]

This has been gone over before. There is no consensus for adding that information to the infobox. ... discospinster talk 14:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm telling now. Stop you childishness or you'll be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thornton[edit]

How? He is not signed, so how can he be the alternate captain for them? Kante4 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The practice has been to leave such individuals in place, until they sign with someone else or retire. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Disagree and where is the practice written? It makes no sense to leave it in. If there is such consensus ok, but i never saw it. Kante4 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No sense in arguing, as you're just going to keep reverting until he re-signs. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Like i said, nothing wrong in my eyes. If you think this needs wider discussion, there is no problem involving other editors, and i go with the result. Kante4 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)