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 28 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]



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.


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)


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)

Thanks for the revert. Do you see how to do what I intended. Perhaps more important, do you agree with with what I attempted to do about the silliness?[edit]

   Thanks for the revert. Do you see how to do what I intended? Perhaps more important, do you agree with with what I attempted to do about the silliness?
JerzyA (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@JerzyA:It's best you get a consensus on that article's talkpage, for what you're attempting to implement. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I know-- IWas an admin , I think for even longer than you've edited. For me, it's res ipse loquitar and "My work here is done." Thnx again.
--JerzyA (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
You've only joined Wikipedia in April 2019. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Long time[edit]

Hello there GoodDay, it's been far too long time since we spoke, so I'll use your comment here as an excuse to visit your talk page. With regard to: I assuming that the community will have the chance to 'restore' Fram's administratorship. I'll point you to User talk:Fram/Requests for adminship/Fram 2 as a good indication that you're right. Perhaps there's a good chance that you're already aware of that, but it still gave me an excuse to drop by and say hi. "Hi". Stay well. — Ched (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

How ya doing @Ched:. Yeah, it was an observation comment, with full knowledge of his current status. Though I should've used the word I'm, instead of I :) PS - With some of the deletions being carried out by the Arb clerks at Fram's case page. I figured my bland post at the noticeboard, might prevent them from deleting the previous editor's post ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm OK I guess, and Yea - the whole situation was disappointing to watch. Good to see you're still around. :)— Ched (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I'm one of the grey beards. Not even a 1-year ban could discourage me :) GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Is there a problem with a higher-resolution scan being added on pages that contain a lower resolution scan? It is the same image, same framing, and same colour space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseCharlie (talkcontribs) 15:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@JesseCharlie:, there's nothing wrong with the images at List of presidents of the United States, so please stop changing them. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria[edit]

re special:diff/919287292, you reference a change in the inclusion criteria. I am aware of the consensus reached at Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 7#President-elect final draft, but I'm not aware of a more recent change to the inclusion criteria. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, just want to know what consensus has been reached so that it can be referenced in edit summaries. YBG (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm merely going by the fact that the heading was changed to 'only' federal/state offices, in that column-in-question. It appears to have been changed by someone, in the last few days. GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The change was made by the same IP that changed the text in Trump's row: special:diff/919079064 and special:diff/919079381. I think that previous attempts to change Trump's prior history - which had all been reverted - had not attempted to change the footnote in the header to be consistent. YBG (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I see. I won't object, if you restore things as they were. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)