User talk:GoodDay: Difference between revisions

This editor is a WikiGnome. This user is a participant in WikiProject Ice Hockey. Beware! 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).[reply]

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years and 1 month.

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 records

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
Opened/Closed in 2012.
Amended in 2013, 2014 & 2016

Archives

Aug–Sept 2007 Sept 2007–Feb 2008 Feb–Apr 2008 Apr–Jul 2008 Jul–Oct 2008 Oct–Nov 2008 Nov 2008–Jan 2009 Jan–Feb 2009 Feb–Mar 2009 Mar–May 2009 May–Jun 2009 Jun–Jul 2009 Jul–Sept 2009 Sept–Oct 2009 Oct–Nov 2009 Nov–Dec 2009 Dec 2009–Jan 2010 Jan–Feb 2010 Feb 2010 Feb–Apr 2010 Apr–Jun 2010 Jun–Oct 2010 Oct–Nov 2010 Nov 2010–Jan 2011 Jan–Feb 2011 Feb 2011 Feb–Mar 2011 Mar–Apr 2011 Apr–May 2011 May–Nov 2011 Nov 2011–Feb 2012 Feb–May 2012 May–Aug 2012 Aug 2012–Feb 2013 Feb 2013–May 2014 May 2014–Jun 2015 Jun 2015–Feb 2016 Feb–Jul 2016 Jul 2016–Jan 2017 Jan 2017–Jan 2018 Jan 2018–Feb 2019 Feb 2019–Jul 2020 Jul 2020–Aug 2021 Aug–Dec 2021 Dec 2021–Jul 2022 Jul 2022–present

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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.

Re 1, 2, I set up an archive bot like you suggested. Feels like a long time ago, right? I think we've learned a lot of interesting facts from the recent elections, but it has mostly shaken out the way I expected. I'm holding off on making too many changes yet until the dust settles. Andre🚐 03:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: It'll likely be 221–214 for the Republicans in the House, while the Senate will likely end up 50–50 again. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, my numbers are 51-49, and 218-217. Andre🚐 03:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it's better for Biden. After January 3, 2023, he can blame Congress for his not getting much done in the second half of his term. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, he will still be able to pass some bipartisan legislation like he did in the first half, such as the infrastructure bill which got moderate R house members to vote for it, and McCarthy won't be speaker even if R have a 1-seat majority. Looks like McConnell will lose his leadership too. A lot can happen though before '24. We can agree though, that Biden is getting the epic inside straight run of good luck. Andre🚐 03:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He just needs one my card to fall & that's Nancy Pelosi. It's time the House Democrats replace her. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She will probably retire due to the horrific domestic terrorist attack on her husband, egged on by the right-wing foaming at the mouth Qanon media. However, she might also be hell-bent on psychotic revenge and serve for another 20 years. Politics, you know. I wouldn't put it past her to somehow become speaker even if Dems lose the majority. Andre🚐 03:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be Speaker. But she'll try to get elected House Minority Leader 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not clear who will have the majority but it won't be more than a seat or two either way, so the opportunity for a turncoat speaker is definitely nonzero given the fractured GOP in disarray. Andre🚐 03:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never underestimate the Republican Party. It's my firm belief, that the 2024 US prez election will be a (Biden vs Trump) rematch. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it seems like it might be a 3-way race between Biden, Trump, and DeSantis. Andre🚐 03:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump would crush DeSantis in the Republican primaries. Also, Democrats support for Biden to seek reelection, would be strengthened if Trump were the likely Republican prez nominee. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On an unrelated note, I saw you were trimming the "alongside" sections on Senator pages. It's true that there are only two senators per state, but people do serve alongside different senators, sometimes from different parties when there is a split delegation or whatever, or when someone dies or retired, is replaced or what have you. Is there a consensus or guideline somewhere not to include the extra "alongside candidates"? Andre🚐 03:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forget where, but there was a consensus to have only the current senators in the infobox. A newish editor (a few days ago) suddenly began going against that consensus, likely because he didn't know there was one. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, if you remember where it was I'm curious. Andre🚐 03:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hint in the infobox is "Serving with", rather then "Served with" :) GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be good if a bipartisan group of editors revived a wikiproject to write down these guidelines and welcome new editors, and provide a place for this information. It's been many years since there was an active wikiproject doing this kind of work I think. Andre🚐 03:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning American politics, I think there are such WikiProjects. But, they may have gradually become inactive. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS in another 50–50 split, Feinstein (with Leahy retiring) would be elected the first female president pro tempore. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I believe California governor can simply appoint her replacement, my guess is that Feinstein retires before 2024, but probably not before receiving that historical distinction. Currently, since Dems have clinched 49 seats and are about to pull ahead in Georgia, I have them with 51 seats. They also have 217 likely or lean seats, and just need to pull ahead or clinch one more to hold their trifecta. Andre🚐 04:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Harris having the 51st vote, as Alaska is going to elect a Republican. It's not certain yet, which one. GoodDay (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Either way, they're still stuck with Manchin & Simena. The filibuster won't be repealed, anytime soon. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sinema's likely to primaried by Ruben Gallego for 2024. And Manchin voted for the Inflation Reduction Act and will likely vote for DC+PR statehood as well for the right price, which would lock Republicans out of the Senate for 100 years. Andre🚐 04:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two DINOs have gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dems don't want to lose Manchin - he's the only person who can win them a seat in West Virginia. Running a progressive would likely elect a Republican - same as the trick that Dems pulled helping Bolduc win his primary. Andre🚐 05:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, nobody would ever accuse Manchin of being a progressive. He's corporate-controlled, from head to toe. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chiming in so quickly. I can't believe I'm wasting my time doing this, but I'm now changing his edits back to the consensus. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next step, RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a consistent style is good for the lead, however shouldn't that consistent style be one that follows the manual of style? (specifically in this case , MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID) --Jameboy (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameboy: not when the vast majority of the MLB team season pages don't. Remove the link, but keep the Year team season in place. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Vast majority" is not a good benchmark as the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia are not of a particularly high standard. Are you saying that the baseball project has agreed upon this as a standard style for season articles? How about the best season articles? 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, for example, reached good article status and doesn't have a bold title repeated verbatim. I'm not completely against the bold title way of doing it, I just think the alternative way allows for more relavent links to be placed early on in the lead section and the prose sounds slightly more natural. Something to consider anyway. --Jameboy (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameboy: I recommend you bring this up at WP:BASEBALL, with the goal of bringing consistency to all the teams season pages' intro. No matter what that version is. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll pass. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me publicize the RfC? You have so much more experience with these things. So far I have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Surtsicna (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]