User talk:GoodDay

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This editor is a WikiGnome.

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

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 11 months and 21 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'.

Awards

I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Wikipedia awards bestowed upon me.

Rough waters

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay, 4-20 December 2011
Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incident/GoodDay 17-21 February 2012

Conditionally repealed 17 November-24 December 2012

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, 29 May-14 June 2012

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 Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 27 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)

This is the second time in less than a month that I come here to ask you to stop with your actions. I don't know what do you mean by "double-standard" by you cannot place "Ferdinand" all over an article when the title of the article is "Fernando". I noticed that you have an unhealthy obsession with names, diacritics and ndashes. Stop that. --Lecen (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You like pipelinking [english name|portuguese name], but you're against [portuguese name|english name]. Once again, you're pushing your ownership on these articles. Why don't you take a wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't write "Joao" instead of "John" on John VI of Portugal. Yet again you accuse me of ownership. It seems you won't stop. --Lecen (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it quite difficult to make any improvements on those articles, without your (and CT's) approval. A situation that's quite frustrating, which discourages one. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For BLEEP sakes, why bother making any changes to the Portuguese monarchial articles. All you get is reverted by Lecen & Cristiano Tomas. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Leo Komarov

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Resolute 00:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This project is getting nuttier by the month. Great examples of this are arguments at United Kingdom & Home Nations. Some changes made & reverted at Soviet Union, History of Latvia, History of Estonia, Estonia etc, etc. Discussions at Soviet Union. Refusals to allow Peter being used at Pedro I of Brazil & Pedro II of Brazil. The situation at Leo Komarov, is just another -nutty- example. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 14 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 Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. If you have any questions about this please let me know.

Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement accepted, per the continuing animosity between myself & Daicaregos. I'm sure Dai will be quite content, now;) I thank Snowded for his mentoring efforts, as he has helped me. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The idea that this is some sort of personal battle between individuals epitomises the unresolved issue. It is your behaviour that is the problem that needs rectifying, GoodDay, not anyone else's. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no intentions of challenging Daicaregos. I was stupid enough to alter his edit & so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This is controversal?, I thought I was helping, by clarifying to readers 'what kind of' countries England & Wales were? -- GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No you really are missing the point. Its not an issue with Dai, it is a general issue on the way you edit. Happy to talk to you on or off line about this. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay. I am sorry this has happened. I agree with "the points" that you were trying to raise. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is riddled with revisionists. Do "the time", and a year later ... let them post as much rubbish as they want. Take care, and best wishes, The Un-named One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.38.118 (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I never should've crossed Dai. I'm paying for my stupidity now. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's best I stay away for a year, Snowy. During that time, maybe somebody will have a talk with Daicaregos, concerning his attitude. PS: I appreciate your efforts & hope you'll be my mentor again, if/when the probation is given another chance. Right now, I'm just tired of Daicaregos. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I know Dai off wiki (thanks to wikipedia) and I have talked with him. I think he would give you a chance if your behaviour changed and I have done my best to persuade him of that. But until you stop blaming other people like him and reflect on how you edit nothing is going to change. Your mistake was not to tackle an article on which he was a editor, your mistake(s) was the style of the edits you made, The loose comments on ANI, the deleting comments rather than thinking about how you coud have made better ones etc.etc. I'll happily help out in the future, but you have to change not other editors. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the (alleged) controversal edit. Dai prefers that article linked to Country, instead of Countries of the United Kingdom, because he wants to try & have Wales placed on the same level with Australia, Italy, Canada, India, etc etc (i.e sovereign states) as much as possible. I'm concerned about the reader, where's he's concerned about his own agenda. PS: Remember, I've known who Dai is since February 2012. GoodDay (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You are still personalising this, rather than addressing your own editing behaviour, and you are still imputing motives to other editors contrary to WP:AGF. Please stop it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing controversal about my edit at England–Wales border. A simple revert of it, with nothing said & that would've been it. GoodDay (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If another editor disagrees with it, then by definition it is controversial. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

On this particular matter, I disagree. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well, Snowy. With your help, I'll continue to try & curb my temper. I'll leave the decision with you, as to if/when the probation can be attempted again. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Retrospective: I should've checked with you before making my alteration at the England-Wales border article. GoodDay (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No... you should learn to behave yourself, rather than relying on others to keep you under control. WP:COMPETENCE is required. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If Steve, Dan & Snowy choose to give me another chance, I'll practice more restraint. GoodDay (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Steven, we've got WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF etc, etc. Perhaps the project can create WP:TEMPER, with myself as a model. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath

Question; who's the biggest tosser here, GoodDay (obviously aching for a site ban) or any one of the amateur psycologists who've waded in to this shit pit? A bunch of pricks, the lot of you. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The biggest loosers in all of this, is the readers themselves. The Devolutionist PoV continues to prevail on those articles & as a result, there'll always be disputes breaking out. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. Those nationalists are really dragging it down, epsecially the Irish ones. You should negotiate out of your ban then have nothing more to do with these so called "mentors" and other assorted dicks. They want banning themselves. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The current dispute at United Kingdom (concerning a section-heading), is the latest example of Devolutionist PoV pushing. It's both laughable & pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay I really don't know why you are allowing this IP to pull you into a response, but the way you are handling it makes any chance of the topic ban being revoked remote. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want it revoked, until a certain editor retires or backs away from Wales-related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: I deliberately brought about my topic-ban's reinstatement, because I grew tired of the certain editor's harrassment of my edits. He was the reason, I was timid about engaging on British article talkpages. Better to be topic-banned, then risk a 6-month block or worst. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that comments like the ones you're making in this thread are not helping your case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is how I prefer it. I don't want my British & Irish topic ban revoked. If you recall, I quickly agreed to having it imposed on me in the spring of 2012 - even thought the community was split over it. Furthermore, some editors supported it, merely because I agreed with it. In otherwords a 'majority' was opposed to it, then. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I just flipped over to that article. Its typical of the anti British sentiment found all over the place. Why on earth would you WANT to be topic banned? It plays into the hands of these control freaks found here and about. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Steven Zhang's choice, as to wether or not I remain topic-banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what, matey! Every time you slip up with some trivial edit on a British article, which any sensible person (note "sensible") wouldn't object to despite the topic ban, I'll undo your revert and put it right. I just did one for you now. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW: If Constituent country were used at United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland & England; even as a linking article (example: ...a [Constituent country|constituent] country of the United Kingdom), many arguments would end. If I recall, the editors from Northern Ireland were content with 'constituent' being added. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just looked. It IS like that at England Scotland and Wales. I was going to put it in for you at Northern Ireland and UK, but being an untrusted IP (unlike you anonymous users who skulk behind a login ID), I couldn't do it. Shame. Ne'er mind. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's currently, the wrong way at United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me how you want it, I'll create an account, then go and do it. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia, as you would be seen as making proxy edits for me, on articles I'm banned from. Also, the devolutionist wouldn't let England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales' intros be changed to ...constituent country... part of the United Kingdom.... I've tried getting through that stonewall before & thus my current situation. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'll do it on my own violition. Off to create an account. Will get back later. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's gotten even worst at the intros of Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales as they've been linked to Country. Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ok buddy, I'm back, complete with anonymous account. Now, I just went over there but still couldn't edit those articles. Anyways, it seems ok to me at Country because the definition fits England, Northern Ireland Wales and Scotland. Tell me again what the problem is. SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Country, has multiple meanings & is generally associated with sovereign states. Constituent country is more accurate, as it's defined as country within a country/sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Gotya! And I just looked it up at Constituent Country as well. I'll see what I can do. SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, you are breaking your restriction, stop it ----Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edit any British and/or Irish articles. Any mistaken edits, were quickly reverted. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My memory may be faulty but I think you are topic banned. I think that includes your own talk page when you proactively take a position ----Snowded ^TALK 20:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was only for Arbitration restrictions. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Gday, GoodDay. Why don't you go tell 'em to boil their heads? SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That comment illustrates why you shouldn't rise to the bait GoodDay. Especially if our new editor turns out to be disruptive. I don;t own the sanction, but I would check if I were you. I'd also suggest that giving 6966 encouragement is not going to help your case. S/he is a pretty obvious sock as well ----Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your British/Irish articles probation comments

Agree with your feelings about DJS. I'll have to appeal. I'd better put together a few more facts about unjustified mass moves, canvassing, and repeated move warring by his buddy, and submit an appeal. LittleBen (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

;) GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you mis-spelled "statement", you'd better fix your typo. (Oops, I mis-spelled "mis-spelled"). LittleBen (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request

Hi GoodDay, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that the amendment request you submitted has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. You can view the archived request here, or the original request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Message received. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Maps are wrong?"

Your recent dialog @ Soviet Union article talk appears both petty and uninformed. If you're actually interested in some background on the issue of Baltic states continuity I'm happy to chat. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 06:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A few of you guys are going to end up with a topic-ban from those articles, if you continue pushing your revisonist PoV. Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania were 3 of 15 Soviet republics from 1940 to 1991 & there's nothing any of you can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: Bashing me at the Soviet Union discussion, isn't going to change the Baltics past. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Your (looks like) spiteful stalking of Baltic topics and provocative crap editing needs to stop. I'm not in the habit of warning other editors, so have a spot of calming tea. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

When considering that other linguistic & political PoVs are be allowed across Wikipedia, I shouldn't be surprised that Baltic nationalists are being allowed to push their revisionist PoV on Soviet, Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian related articles. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I betcha you (Vecrumba) could put an AfD on Soviet Union, on the claim that it never really existed & the Afd would pass. Thus the fate I have in the community as a whole. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

<<SIGH>> Of course the USSR existed. You just don't know how to not be petty and prickish when you disagree with someone (my perception on the receiving end). That's not a good way to be either here on WP or in general. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Quebecor → Québecor, and topic ban

I meant to mention it when I saw this earlier. Egging on another user about Quebecor → Québecor is exactly the sort of edit you agreed not to make. Please cease. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand you're upset with the discussion at WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, as it's not going your way. But that's no reason for you to start something else. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "upset" at all, please remember that other editors may not be as emotional about such trivial issues as you have been. 3 editors think one thing, 2 think another, it's a free world. I was going to mention the "Giggle" at Quebecor → Québecor when I noticed it but forgot. Please cease. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, IIO & concentrate on the MOS discussion. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, there are two possibilities with the above reply, either you are genuinely unable to understand that other editors, do not get "upset" etc. Or it's a little game to deflect attention. You have repeatedly broken your various topic bans - and you're doing it in the link above, and I'm saying to you please don't. At this point you should be saying, okay, I won't. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear from the link he is baiting anyone to do anything. LittleBenW has never edited there, and GD has only edited there twice: once to remove a space and once to add a comma. Neither has contributed anything at the article's talk page. The reality is that it seems you are trying to bait GD, and he is trying not to engage. Why don't you respect that? -Rrius (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Really dude?

What was the point of this, other than to try and re-inflame that argument? Your viewpoint is very well documented on that article already. Trolling the page is not helpful. Resolute 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm frustrated, peeved, angered, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Obviously. But I am not sure how taking actions that lead nowhere but toward an indef block is an effective way to vent. Resolute 22:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the Baltics stuff. But, you're right. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

HELP

There's something crazy going on here. Coren's 1-month block of me on August 3, 2012 has been reimposed. Can anyone out there, repair this Wiki-glitch? PS: Check my contributions, to further understand what I'm pointing to. GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've posted at AN/I. Hopefully it will get sorted out soon. Have you tried logging out and back in? or closing your browser and re-opening it? -Rrius (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've logged-out & back in, no change. What's a browser? GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Internet Explorer or Firefox or Chrome or whatever you happen to use to access the World Wide Web. -Rrius (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you mean, did I close MSN & re-open it? then yep. No change. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• See ANI#Zombie block for post by Rrius and response. LittleBen (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you need to add {{unblock-auto}} to get attention. -Rrius (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a problem though. I don't know who blocked me. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just copy that template and paste below here somewhere. You only need to know the blocker if you are trying to email them. -Rrius (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm rather reluctant to reveal my IP address. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What message do you get when you try to edit an article? Resolute 13:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In big 'red' letters, it says You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. BTW, the blocking editor is DerHexer, the blocking reason - meta:No open proxies. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On roughly 4 or 5 occassions (in the last 3yrs), whenever I went to the Wikipedia page? There'd be a 'gold bar/message' show up before I logged in. The message sent, was always on my IP address. Is that connected with this weird block? GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That would mean you are editing from an open proxy that has been blocked. We block them on sight as they tend to be used primarily for abuse. You need to either edit directly from your own IP, or use a proxy that is not open to anyone to use anonymously. As I don't know the IP, I can't research it further to confirm his findings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If I reveal the IP address, witch DerHexler blocked in April 20, 2008? Will I get a new IP address? GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. IPs are assigned by your ISP, not us. Let me leave a msg to DerHexer, pointing him here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask a question that might help things along: GoodDay, do you know what an open proxy is? -Rrius (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified. That doesn't mean he isn't using one on someone else's computer, or maybe it was a faulty block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Which leads to a new question: GoodDay, whose computer are you using? If your own, have you installed anything since your last successful login? -Rrius (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's my own computer & I haven't installed anything since my last successful login. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This block is weird. The IP address-in-question was indef-blocked by DerHexer, at 20:54 on April 20, 2008. Now, after nearly 5yrs, it kicked in? GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No clear cache in five years Basket _Feudalist 14:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It always kicks in if any user uses it. But I lifted the blocks. Are you able to edit now? If not, please send me a wikimail with the IP you're using and I'll unblock it. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm unblocked, thanks. BTW, can you fix it so that I'm the only user on that IP address? GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Could it be that this was a proxy IP 5 years ago, but is now a regular IP currently owned by GoodDay's ISP, and that GoodDay got this IP assigned to him just now? This is exactly why we normally don't block ip's indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone here & at ANI, for helping me out :) GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

RFAR amendment request

Hi GoodDay. Please be advised I have filed an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_GoodDay that requires your attention. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That hurts, big time :( GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I reached out to the admin who delegated me the ability to lift and apply your B&I topic ban to see if there was any flexibility for me to make changes to it, but they advised the only course of action would be to go to RFAR, so that's what I've done. If you're topic banned in one area the solution is not to continue similar behaviour somewhere else. I've thought about it for a while but I think it'd be wise for ArbCom to look over this and decide on what the best course of action is. The worst case scenario is you will be banned. It's a horrible thing to happen - I've been there. I was banned back in 2008 for six months, and it was an awful experience, but I came back and my perspective of things changed, and eventually I turned into what I am now. The evidence is pretty strong, so I would suggest you make a statement at RFAR and see what they say. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm too tired to argue 'here' or 'there', Steven. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I just fixed another one for you. Quite right to self revert that highly controversial, pov-riden, white space removal. Nevermind, it's okie dokie now. SixtyNineSixtySix (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

;) GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Sunset

I don't know what's going to happen to me on Wikipedia. Will Arbcom site-ban me? Will Arbcom hand my case over to the Wiki-community? Whatever they choose, I won't protest.

As for me, I'm going to continue to do here, what I love best, --gnome edits-- like 'reducing white space', 'adjusting image sizes', 'fixing spelling mistakes' etc etc. Things that rarely get noticed. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do is consider WP as a learning experience. Contrary to what my detractors maintain, I've changed a lot of my views since starting to seriously edit on WP and taking the time to properly research topics, that is, read real books by authors acknowledged to be experts in their fields, not just to look for spot quotes to support my predisposed or simplistic notions. Whether you choose to bury the hatchet properly or to hang on to it to assault your editorial opposition is your choice, no one else's. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As to my own advice, GoodDay, if this is going to be your sum response to what is happening, then the end result will be a one-year site ban. If you want to continue gnoming, then you need to be willing to step up and accept the arguments made about how your behaviour in these debates is counterproductive, and you need to simply step away from the drama realms entirely. My advice, if you do this and elude a ban now, is to take any page that has drama off your watchlist. AN, ANI, Jimbo's talk page, Komarov, etc. You just get yourself worked up when you go into these areas, and you just get yourself into trouble. There's a lot of gnoming to be done, and for someone like you, it can be a relaxing and useful activity. But not if you keep going into these controversial areas. Resolute 02:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry dude, but "I just want to continue on with my gnoming & nothing more" wont be enough this time. The arbs are going to be looking for a statement where you acknowledge why your behaviour in these areas is problematic, and probably how you will avoid it in the future. That's your only path to an opportunity to continue gnoming and nothing more. Resolute 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

GoodDay, I think you have about a day to write something which shows you understand and accept the various issues. Its not longer enough just to say you won't do it again under threat of a block. If you want help then I'm happy to try - phone call if you want, email me or here. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A request to Arbcom

Please allow the Canadian flag to remain on my Userpage, whenever you place the 'banning template' there. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, is this for real??? Pull yourself together GoodDay!! I told you the best course of action but you deleted it. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't breach WP:CIVIL. I wish Steven would've taken his request to the Wiki-community, but he didn't. The Arbitrators can only rule by what they're given. I've peeved too many editors, too often. In otherwords, it's all my fault. I did this to me. I f--ked up. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well there are some real drongos who impose their pov on Wikipedia in the B&I area to such an extent that the articles they attack are now useless. This means that Wikipedia can't be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased information. And I guess it's the same in loads of other areas. These drongos get away with it, and are even thanked for their efforts (you know who I'm talking about. I've got two really difficult cases that immediately come to mind and several other jackasses who are not much better), and on they go, riddling the place with disgusting pov and innacuracies. Do they get a site ban? No. The hyenas over at that arbom page (what sort of moron hangs around there?) leave them be. They pick on you, with 100k plus edits to the good. That's why you should fuck 'em off, right now. Walk away this very minute, and reincarnate yourself - clean start, what! - in a few months. One thing that will really piss off these bottom feeders is if they suddenly get no further response from you. You owe it to yourself. Don't listen to those other stupid fuckers and follow my advice, cos you're going to get site banned, or I'll show my arse on national tv. Do it now! Good luck. 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I will not evade (via sock-puppetry) any ban that comes my way. I'm an honest editor. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You are being a bit hasty and letting your immediate emotional reaction get the better of you. My advice would be to request a month's delay during which time you will adopt a self-imposed ban. After the month, you can come back and if you still feel the way you do now, so be it. Otherwise, you can open a dialogue with the Committee to see if there is another way to address the issues short of year+ ban. From my reading of the discussion there, they seem ready to have that discussion, but your current attitude (again, the result of your current emotional state) leaves them little choice. Self-imposed exile might do you a world of good. And the worst they can say to this proposal is no. -Rrius (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've presented your Self-imposed exile idea to the arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Per my other comments I think you need to add something to that to indicate how you will behave at the end of the month. You might offer to have anything that might be considered controversial checked first by mediators (you can probably get 2/3 people to agree to do this, myself Jeanne etc). The real problem is that you are not evidencing any learning from what has happened. You need to directly address the specific question asked by NewYorkBrad and avoid the one off comments (like the one you just posted) ----Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I need yours & many others help, if I'm given a chance by Arbcom to continue on Wikipedia. I neeed more help & patiences from all of you, now more then ever. I need all your support, to succeed at this. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you will need to reflect everytime you make an edit, even gnome-like ones. Stop and think whether it would be controversial or disruptive. Reading respective article's talk pages before editing would be wise just to see if you might be going against consensus. I would be willing to help you. Deep down GoodDay, I feel you need to be on the creative end of the project. I have offered in the past to help you create articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating articles is a huge challenge for me. But, I do come across 'red-links' & so I can start from there. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps above all, you would need to stop making comments - on anything - that are based on your personal opinion, whether it's about UK / Ireland matters, diacritics, hockey, Baltic states, or anything else. That is what drags you into responding, and into trouble. Even when you think something is obviously right, or uncontentious, it often isn't, and you need to recognise that. If you are content to be a gnome, removing whitespace, etc., where it is uncontentious, you will need to limit yourself to that - and not get drawn into discussion that spirals out of control. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In agreement.. GoodDay (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've been watching the Amendments page, and I read about your situation there some days ago. I came here to say I bear you no ill will for all our disagreements over diacritics. I was sorry and a bit surprised, but a quick read of the comments above is enough for me to understand why you are so deep in the brown stuff. Seeing your difficulties here, I suspect that you may be experiencing similar issues in real life. My suggestion to you, if you seriously wish to improve yourself in real life and some day return to WP and edit productively, is that you would benefit greatly by learning first and foremost to listen. That doesn't mean you bow down to everyone who you come across, but that you carefully evaluate what they say and why they are saying that. The world doesn't change to suit us, and we all need to find ways and niches to fit into life. Perhaps trough listening (to others as well as yourself) you will find your niche. Challenge yourself into realising which part of your world view needs to change. You will find what makes you truly happy; you will become a better and happier person. You will be more productive when you return to Wikipedia. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 14:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization, edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits

Hello GoodDay- I reverted the capitalization changes you made to the John Adams article. Those terms should only be capitalized when part of a title. For example:

• John Adams served as both president and vice president.
• Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome President John Adams.

In addition, here are a couple general editing notes you might consider:

• When you make a change to an article, please make a habit of providing an edit summary. Doing so helps your colleagues here understand the intention of your edit.
• Plus, it will also be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This will keep the page history of the article less cluttered. Regards, Eric ^talk 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you couldn't stop yourself from keeping the incorrect capitalization in the Adams article consistent with other frantically over-capitalized articles. I don't have the energy to try to help editors understand the difference between common and proper nouns, and I can see from your talk page that you appear to be one of those editors who are here looking for disputes, so I'll abandon my attempt to improve the quality of the article. Eric ^talk 02:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request

An Arbitration amendment request in which you were named as a party has been closed and a motion passed, you can view the final amendment request and motion here. The Abirtration Committee has resolved to ban User:GoodDay from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Banned by the Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

In remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay, GoodDay (talk · contribs) was warned that "in the event of additional violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies (especially of the nature recorded in this decision as findings of fact), substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the project, may be imposed without further warning by the Arbitration Committee". It is apparent from the submissions in this amendment request that GoodDay has engaged in further violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies. Accordingly, GoodDay is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which led to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why am I still able to edit? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)