User talk:GoodDay

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

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

Hey, would you mind terribly marking edits like these as minor?: [1] — HTGS (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS: I didn't consider it minor. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I would have thought uncontroversial, small, typographic changes supported by the MOS would be the ideal edit to mark as minor? Do you have a different working definition? — HTGS (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay. Thank you for your work on 44th British Columbia general election. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a very blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: That's cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktkvtsh: I try to, though most of my edits are rather obvious. PS - Why have you linked to your post? GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are used so other users can see what you did without having to look at the diff.

Simply typing "changed to vacant" would have worked here.

What post did it link to? I used twinkle to leave that message. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktkvtsh: It initially linked back to your first post, here. Now it doesn't work at all. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay Ah ok. Apologies. Not sure why it did that. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ErrorCorrection1 and upcoming Canadian election. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoodDay,

I’d like to encourage you to take a moment to review my argument regarding the "F" proposal. For years, the current structure has been thoughtfully considered and has served readers well. My concern isn’t about preference but about preserving a phrasing that provides clarity and fulfills its purpose effectively. So far, I haven’t seen a strong explanation for why this change is necessary, and I think it’s worth reflecting on whether it truly adds value.

If you haven’t already, I’d also recommend checking out what User:Gluonz has added in the comments about previous discussions under Joe Biden’s page regarding this same topic. I think their input provides valuable context that’s worth considering.

I’d appreciate your thoughts on my argument. I’m confident we all share the goal of serving readers in the best way possible, and I hope my perspective helps inform the discussion. TimeToFixThis (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]