Talk:Edward A. Goff Jr.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved: per discussion Ground Zero | t 01:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

E. A. Goff, Jr. → Edward A. Goff, Jr. – per the multiple references used in the article including Who is Who in Aviation and his obituary in the Washington Post. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per bulk of sources not in article --121.211.106.69 (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What sources would these be exactly? I have done a search of Google Books and Google News Archive, and I have used all I found in the article. If you have more quality references, show us. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Most relevant google books sources use the initials.--121.211.106.69 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No kidding! But you pick up everyone with those initials like "Gilbert B. Goff, father of E. A. Goff of this city" who is not the subject of the article, and combinations of two names such as "Macklin EA, Goff DC" and "Gaensler EA, Goff AM," where you pick up the initials from the previous person. Your argument is the same as saying the article should be called "Goff" because I get 1,960,000 Google Book hits for "Goff". Why are you an anonymous IP whose only two edits are to this move request, are you a banned editor trolling for controversy? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You are changing my argument. I didn't say that the initials get more results, I said that the relevant sources on this figure use the initials.--121.211.106.69 (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you banned from Wikipedia under another account? Your only edits are to this discussion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No.--121.211.106.69 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

.::::it looks like you have a history of this. I found quite a few cases of you making a proposal on a page where your chosen sources use the full name, while in reality most other sources show that the full name is not the common name.--58.110.107.211 (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom-precision.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• While precision is good, when there isn't any other notable figures to confuse anyone with and the subject is an individual, I can't see why we wouldn't want to use the common name.--58.110.107.211 (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Except we have now four decent references, two for each name, so precision breaks the tie. And of course you are banned so your !vote does not count. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where your weird tiebreaker rule is coming from, but if that is how you want to go about it, here, the Minnesota Air Museum using the initials in their records. I'm not a banned user. If any admin would like to ask me I'll happily tell them. But it's pretty obvious that you have a record of these deceitful moves (it looks like they've been brought up on notice boards multiple times).--58.110.104.170 (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• comment for example, the sources against your point include this document from the smithsonite archives. If anything, articles like the first link used here or this article indicate that Pete is in fact a more common name for him.--58.110.107.211 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have never yet met a banned editor, caught editing with IP masking software, that admits they are banned. That would just be stupid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you in Australia and then in Canada. You have an amazing knowledge of Wikipedia process for someone making their first edit, so you must be banned, and are using IP masking software. Banned people are not allowed to !vote. Both accounts have this talk page as their only entries. You must be one of the people I voted on banning for harassment and trolling over the past 3 months. So many people, which one? Why don't you just troll at the comments section of USA today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's very funny how the actual rules and regulations of Wikipedia moves are not your concern. It's not surprising, considering it looks like you've made a lot of move requests of this sort that are constantly shot down after you lie about the usage of full names. But feel free to argue instead about whether I'm a banned editor (hint:I'm not).--58.110.107.211 (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.