User talk:G2bambino/Archive 7

republic of Ireland

Hi G2bambino, I liked your idea of using lower case for the republic of Ireland. It could have legs. Why not take it to the Republic of Ireland talk page. I had toyed with the idea of suggesting using ireland (lower case I) for the article name of the island, but there are too many editors who seem to revel in the problems caused by having the country and the island with the same name, that they would have blocked it just to keep the problem, using the pretext of objecting to a proper name using lower case. Still, I can't see any downside to renaming the article your way. It gets rid of the ambiguity, anyway. Good thinking. Cheers :) Daicaregos (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For continuing effort in the uphill struggle to improve Wikipedia! Gavin (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your choice

Seeing as the WQA has had no effect on your abusive behaviour, which would you prefer, an RfC/U or another trip on the ANI merry-go-round? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant to me. It's your time. --G2bambino (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

True, you have demonstrated quite amply that policies only matter when you decide they do. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And, the flimsy nature of the claim aside, that has what to do with your question or my response, exactly? --G2bambino (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

'Flimsy'? You have violated WP:Civil and WP:AGF more times in the past week than I can count. And my comment was directed at your 'irrelevant' remark; you clearly do feel that community standards are not relevant to you. They are, sorry. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Only according to your opinion, which, I'm sorry to tell you, doesn't matter much when it comes to enforcing policy. As per my answer to your question: there is no policy that requires me to answer your question the way you want me to; so, what you decide to do remains, to me, irrelevant. --G2bambino (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet there are policies that require you to not attack and insult other users, policies which you have been reminded of on multiple occasions--including in reference to edit summaries. But you are, for some reason, not required to follow those? Is that what you are saying? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I follow them as they are written, not as you warp them to protect yourself from criticism or questioning. This is still irrelevant to the question you posed and the answer I gave above. --G2bambino (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lovely, more abuse. Is accusing someone of vandalism a civil thing to say in your neck of the woods? Or how about accusing people of being 'dramatic' or 'seeking attention' or being 'myopic'? These are all civil, polite things to say, yes? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what I think, does it? You've already come to the conclusion of what constitutes incivility to you (frankly, I believe you have a low threshold, but that is neither here nor there, really). I take it, now, that you will henceforth proceed to ANI or RfC/U, as whichever you choose is of little importance to me? --G2bambino (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, G2bambino. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Our Contact

Thanks for the thanks, however I suggest we suspend all contact until this incident is complete. Gavin (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. --G2bambino (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To GoodDay and Cameron

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Allow me to get a little personal and set a couple of things straight: I'm certainly not going to say I'm proud of what transpired over the last two days, however, sparing the details, and noting that this is not an excuse, the reduction from friendliness to bluntness on my part transpired in reaction to a pretty swift change in the tone of the other party's responses to me. This will all get sorted out elsewhere (thankfully), but I wanted you two to be clear on my feelings. PS- Cameron, be careful in your counting of my blocks; a number were erronious, and marked in the list as such. --G2bambino (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I saw this message at PoC's, but I got caught elswhere & never got back to it. Anyways, I'm hoping PoC will stick around, so that you both can have a chance to work out your differances. It's sad to see 2 Canadian monarchists fighting (huh? Did I say that?). GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the ANI report on you will be continuing. I'll be watching it (from the side lines). GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed is how I feel, actually; Prince's poor cooperation skills were a real let down, especially when he seems an actually rather competent individual; just a tad sensitive and emotional. I give him kudos, though; when I was at his level of experience in Wikipedia, I would have got myself blocked in no time in a dispute like that. Well, we all live and learn, eh? I'm not terribly concerned about his ANI attention grab; the evidence speaks for itself. Here's to a favourable outcome; however long it takes. (Heh.. that just reminded me; TharkunColl and I eventually came to respect each other, if begrudgingly. If that can happen, there's hope for PoC yet!) --G2bambino (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm always confident & hopeful, that my fellow Wikipedians can work things out. Good luck to you both. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I second GoodDay's comments. I hope you can work things about as I think you are both great content editors. I too will be taking a back seat in any dispute resolutions process. I really don't want to take sides on something like this. It's an awful shame you can't kiss and make up. ;) --Cameron* 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: (To G2) I merely counted the blocks in your log. Please accept my apologies if you thought I was in any way judging you. --Cameron* 13:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. --G2bambino (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reserved section

You offered cooperation where, precisely? Show me a diff. "Attention grab," by the way, conforms to neither WP:AGF nor WP:Civil, for approximately the same reasons Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussions themselves are the evidence of cooperation. I didn't say the cooperation was easy. --G2bambino (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying "what are you going to do about the mess you made" and completely ignoring--yes, ignoring, as evidenced by your refusal to answer questions and your inability to understand despite repeated explanations what the fixbunching template does--is hardly 'offering cooperation'. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take things completely out of context; every word I said was for a reason, and there were many different reasons for saying things. But, by saying things to each other in response to what the other said (i.e. having a discussion), we were cooperating, even if the discussion is strained and/or agitated. There are many clues buried within the thousands of words written regarding this incident that will explain why I didn't answer a question, or failed to grasp something you were saying, if indeed I ever did; but, I'm certainly not going to go and sift through all the matter to find specific incidents and offer an explanation of every one; it would take too much time, would simply ignite a tangential debate about the debate, and, ultimately, serve no purpose. I believe that, generally, I spoke as clearly as I could, and, if I didn't understand something, I would ask (that, ironically, was exactly how the whole thing started: my asking you about "fixbunching"). It went downhill because of a number of factors, from my observation: 1) a lack of patience on your part in explaining something to an inquisitor; 2) the adoption of a haughty and derogatory attitude on your part when I didn't gasp what you were saying; 3) a lack of patience on my part in being spoken to like I'm an ignorant peasant; 4) certain weaknesses in my ability to restrain myself; 5) a low threshold on your part for criticism; 6) a weakness in your ability to restrain yourself. There may be more, but that should suffice. And, none of that means that there was no cooperation; it's just that the above factors made cooperation much more difficult that it should have been. --G2bambino (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am taking nothing out of context. There is, in fact, no explanation for your complete refusal to answer questions which were put to you. There is no explanation for your complete refusal to acknowledge what you yourself said to me on July 4 at the OoC article. There was no 'haughty and derogatory' attitude; telling you multiple times in plain English what the fixbunching template does was not enough, apparently, to make you understand what it does. I explained with crystal clarity what it does. You ignored that. If you were truly inquiring, it would have behooved you to say "I still don't understand, can you explain?", which you did not do, rather than ignore what I had to say. I find it interesting that in me there's a "weakness" but in you there is a "certain weakness". Not once did you offer a compromise or cooperation, not once did you show--even obliquely--any attempt to understand. I ask you again, why does what you said to me at the OoC article apply only to you and not to me? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, editing my comments to remove statements that show your incivility is extremely poor form. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't tell you what to believe. But, the evidence, which is now cemented in Wikipeida's archives, shows a much different reality to what you describe. Perhaps you became confused with my responses when you started to muddy the watters with added issues, losing distinction between one issue and another, and then believing I hadn't done what you expected. I would suspect this is what happened; indeed, you've even started to do so again here already. I would suggest, if my analysis of the goings on is correct, that you order your issues - and I mean with the content, and not with me - and raise them one by one. --G2bambino (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why won't you answer a simple question? And, again, editing my comments to make yourself look better is extremely poor form. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in but G2, I recommend not responding to PoCs comments. I think everyone who reads this know what the intentions are and they are certainly not constructive. (I would also point out that the Administrator who resolved the ANI said PoC should avoid leaving you comments, PoC I suggest you follow User Talk:JzG's advice on this issue.) Gavin (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm starting to see that no good will come out of it. I merely thought I'd try, one last time. I suppose I have the authority to declare this discussion closed! ;) --G2bambino (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No good will come of it because you refuse to acknowledge certain facts. Such as your comment on July 4 at the OoC talk page. Also.. you passed 3RR too, before I did even, so do you really want to have yet another block on your record? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

POC (close, eh?) is probably reasonably able to ask you not blank out parts of his comments to make him look better. Blank the whole things, or leave them (I recommend the former). WilyD 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The comments being removed have nothing to do with the discussion; thus I removed those parts, not what was valid and relevant. Your advice, though, is sound, and I've followed it. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And 'close, eh' means what, exactly? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that what is 'valid' is what makes you look good, and what is 'irrelevant' is what displays your incivility. Fascinating. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And, honesty would be a good idea: I reverted what edits of yours to my talk page? I deleted which posts of yours? Lying = bad. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

The ANI action taken against you has been judged to be a matter for Dispute Resolution rather than a matter for the ANI process. PoC disputed that and the Admin gave this advice: "My recommendation is that you avoid G2, but if you can't leave the articles he edits alone and vice-versa then you need to use the dispute resolution process." Here's hoping you both take it, I am confident that some progress has been made and there will be no need for bans, hopefully both you and PoC will get back to editing any time now. Gavin (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed. Thanks for the update, though. --G2bambino (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Date formats after autoformatting

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for edit warring on Monarchy of Barbados. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm utterly baffled as to how this is declared as "edit warring." The other user was clearly requested to take his grievance to the talk page, the response to which was an explicit dismissal of the offer and the intention to maintain an absence from any communication. He was then warned of an impending 3RR breach, which was similarly ignored, and after which I ceased to edit the page. The blocking admin has also obviously not made himself aware of the wider context in which this has taken place; namely, that the other user in this was blocked yesterday for repeatedly reverting my talk page, and was chastised for his attitude and behaviour. He was unblocked under the pretenses that he would not cause disputes like this again, yet, went ahead and did so anyway; even while currently under another block, he continues to taunt. I can steadfastly say my intent was never to initiate or inflame a volitile situation, and the evidence, I believe, supports that testimony. --G2bambino (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on your very long block log, you know what edit warring is, or you ought to. You also ought to know that "he ignored me" is not an excuse for continuing to revert yourself. In any event, edit summaries do not qualify as discussion, which you also ought to know. Bottom line is, you ought to know that this was a proper block. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm afraid you've either misundersood, or I didn't communicate myself properly: it most certainly is not a case of "he ignored me, so I can now be confrontational"; it's a matter of: I was not confrontational, the final word there being the key identifier of an edit warrior. I invited him to discuss, I warned him where he was headed, I may not have been gushingly friendly, but I was calm, professional, and played by the book; not once have I heard that edit summaries are not a place to express one's self, or offer a bit of advice to other users; my experiences have certainly demonstrated the opposite to me. What, then, is the justification for the punnishment? --G2bambino (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block is of a reasonable length for the violation of edit warring. — MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Um, no, the key identifier of an "edit warrior" is someone who doesn't know when to quit reverting and start talking. You apparently missed or misunderstood my points about continuing to revert. I personally don't care if you bake the other guy a chocolate cake, if you keep reverting while it's in the oven, you're still going to get blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside, for now, the obvious emphasis on confrontation at WP:EW, your statement seems to presume that I never started talking. However, this, this, this, and this, which all took place in the last two days, would clearly dispel that idea. As I mentioned in my first unblock request, there is a much larger context into which this particular incident fits, and, because I personally and specifically didn't attempt conversation at Talk:Monarchy of Barbados today (though I most certainly did invite it) does not mean I hadn't been discussing the issue - at great length! - with the other user elsewhere; until, that is, he first barred me from his talk page and then, today, refused to communicate all-together. Thus, the three reverts at Monarchy in Barbados today were done not in a vacuum of communication; quite the opposite, in fact. --G2bambino (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confident, you'll both patch things up. In the words of John Lennon, 'All we are saying, is give peace a chance'. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:RH-ballroom.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RH-ballroom.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada

[From User talk:DoubleBlue: DoubleBlue, though I'm sure your intentions are good, your last couple of edits to Monarchy of Canada have created large blank spaces in the article. Were you trying to fix something? --G2bambino (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about image placement, formatting, size DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps you misunderstood: what you've done has only worsened the placement and formatting issues. --G2bambino (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I am responding to the concern tagged on the page. Many photos overlap several sections making it unclear where they are, sometimes rendering them in the completely wrong section and obfuscating [edit] links. My edits may have made some small blank spaces between sections but, IMO, improved readability. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, I find the added white space, though undoubtedly better than images obscuring text, to still be an issue. Surely there's a way to solve this. --G2bambino (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could add more text. :-) Seriously, though, I understand your concern but find it an incremental improvement. I've completed what I think needs to be done to remove the issue tag. Regards, DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Some of what you did I can see as an improvement, but there are now a greater number of issues to be addressed, and so the tag should stay until these are resolved. --G2bambino (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Could you be specific though? Perhaps I can address them or are they what you already stated about the white space? DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The white space does remain one issue; however, now the passport image is miniscule, and the parliament images create a strange mirroring effect; I also suspect, that on screens wider than the one I'm on now, the quotes above the 1939 image will push it down, creating yet more white space. Truthfully, I thought their original placement and size was as per guidelines. I'm going to try and open this up to wider attention; I think I've been doing everything right with image layout since User:Jao presented some policies on formatting and accessability, but, perhaps I'm still missing something. --G2bambino (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the mediation case is an excellent idea and hope it will result in a satisfactory conclusion. Best wishes, DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 86.xx.xxx

The IP isn't a huge fan of the British. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick gander at his edit history, apparently you're right. Too bad he has to extend that animosity to Canadians. --G2bambino (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Please refer to my comments in the mediator notes Mayalld (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Governor General of Canada

This is unusal to ask, but. If the Canadian Prime Minister were to refuse to nominate a new Governor General (and the GG office was vacant); could (I assume she could) the Queen appoint a GG anyways? GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question; what prompted you to ask? A Govenror General is required by the constitution, so there's no way the office could be left vacant. --G2bambino (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Empty hopes (on my part) that a future Canadian PM would choose to not name a Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, your hopes could come true: a future PM is perfectly free to not name a new GG. Just means the old one stays. --G2bambino (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying - I meant if the previous Governor General died in office. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I wonder why you'd want an empty viceregal office, especially as it's unconstitutional. --G2bambino (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured the PM can handle the viceregal duties. It's the republican in me. However, the Queen could appoint the new GG (without PM approval). GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The PM could appoint himself!? He could pass his own legislation!? Ah, how soon we forget. --G2bambino (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest Elizabeth II's ability to choose the Canadian GG over the PM's objections would be dictatorial. I was just wondering if it would be constitutional. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, what I was trying to say was that the PM can't have the viceregal duties, as such a thing would clear a free path for the PM to become a dictator. --G2bambino (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ; but that's another topic. Anyways, thanks for clearing things up for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's an impossibility, anyway (thank god). No worries, though. --G2bambino (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And I'm agnostic. And a Leafs fan - as such, I have to maintain some faint hope of the existence of a god! ;) --G2bambino (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation, part 2

As I said, we appear to have reached a stalemate on the images issue, and we need to consider how to go forward. The issues involved seem (to me) to be relatively minor, and as such, failing to find a solution, and having to take it forward to more formal dispute resolution would be most regretable.

Whilst I look for a way forward (and I retain hope that we can yet snatch a win-win victory), I would ask you to consider the second part.

This is calling for a general apology from each of you to the other, undertakings that you will both seek to work together harmoniously in future and an undertaking to remove any implicit or explicit personal attacks from your user space.

PoC has signed up to this, and has issued an apology. He has also removed an implicit attack from his user space. I hope that you feel able to do the same.

Mayalld (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Awarded for Awarded for your recent gesture of peace. -Rrius (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop?

Would you please stop moving everything around? Discuss it on the talk page first, as what you're doing is directly ignoring most of what you actually agreed to! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid then, that you must be confused about what I agreed on; I see your undoing of my work as contravening what I thought we agreed on. I'm in the midst of starting a section at Talk:Monarchy of Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly necessary: "Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." Given the lack of infoboxes in the article... Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Again

Hello!

Sorry, I have been away for some time, and may be away a while longer...I note that you are still being attacked by that vandal...I wish he would make good on his promise and just leave. Also, as a response to your question on a totally unrelated matter- those archives will remain where they are in perpetuity. I hope you are well, will speak soon but must dash for now. Gavin (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 02:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, Tiptoety, that you have noted the discussion I started at WP:ANI, and have said you will review it. I encourage you to do so, and to look deeper into the associated edit histories and talk pages as well. I will reserve any unblock requests until you and others have had a chance to mull the larger issues over, should you choose to do so, that is. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You were BOTH clearly and explicitly gaming the 3RR [1], which is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. I'm not an admin, but I strong believe the block on both participants should stand unless there is a promise NOT to revert on that article at all.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Every Wikipedian, as far as I know, is "entitled" (to use your word) to a maximum of three reverts in one 24 hour period. Then, of course, there is edit warring, but, again by my understanding, the charge of edit warring is generally laid when there is no discussion going on and editors are making their point through reverts. In this instance it's clear that there was a breach of neither requirement. That is, of course, not to say that I'm unwilling to meet any additional conditions, as long as it gets the dispute settled. --G2bambino (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't believe disruptive editing is a valid charge: I did indeed push to the 3RR limit, but respected its ceiling, and maintained continuous open discussion at the talk page in an effort to convince the other editor to cease re-inserting disputed edits. This was while I was party to further discussion at the Manual of Style talk page and ANI. As mentioned above, I am willing to submit to further conditions if necessary; I merely want to see this dispute settled, one way or the other, and cannot (obviously) participate in the pertinent discussions while under a week-long block. --G2bambino (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block has so far received general support at WP:ANI. —  Sandstein  17:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, that unfortunately means that this will be my resignation from this project. I have, especially recently, tried to work within the boundaries, vesting much effort in discussion and consensus-building, maintaining a professional and collegial attitude in the face of taunts and insults, as well as contributing a wealth of rich material and encyclopaedic writing, only to be severely punished, as though I am a common vandal, for some infraction that cannot even be defined. In other words, there seems to be no way I can ever do right. Given that, it makes this whole venture completely unrewarding and pointless.

I will return when the block has expired to clean up my user space.

Cheers, all. --G2bambino (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend reducing the Block & imposing a 1RR rule on Canadian monarchy related articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino, if you are indeed leaving the project, I am willing to delete all remaining content in your userspace. Tiptoety ^talk 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In my role as a administrator, once you are unblocked you are hear by placed on these editing restrictions:

• You will no longer edit war;
• You are placed on 1RR restrictions in relation to all Canadian monarchy related articles (generally speaking);
• You are placed on 1RR restrictions when reverting any actions by PriceofCanda;

Failure to abide by these editing restrictions will result in a block, please note this may be overturned by community consensus at any time.

Tiptoety ^talk 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been placed in somewhat of a predicament, now. I made my decision to leave partly on the grounds that I was told my block would remain, even with my offer of willingness to adhere to further restrictions, and with an expressed desire to see a conflict end. Now that block, it seems, has been lifted for other reasons, though I still find myself, I assume, under your added caveats. Thus, reason one for retiring has been undermined.

The other part of my reasoning, however, has not been affected; namely, an utter frustration with consistently being reprimanded for, as I have seen it, following the rules. It may sound like I am trying to skirt responsibility, or that I am simply stupid, but I'm being honest in saying that after various tries at reforming my behaviour, I am at my wit's end to see that I'm still being charged as an edit warrior. When I first started editing here, the rules seemed clear: I was told more than three reverts in 24 hours was forbidden, so I stopped making more than three reverts in 24 hours; if I was punished for breaching that, I understood why. I was then told discussion had to be concurrent and ongoing while the reverts were racking up to their maximum in order for an WP:EW charge to be avoided, so I tried to only revert that much when engaged in an associated discussion. Now, however, I find that WP:EW has become a loosely defined, loosely interpreted, and swiftly enforced policy. I think I'm adhering to it, but then someone with more power than I thinks otherwise and brings down yet another block on me. It is said that edit warring is a behaviour, but I can't understand what it is I'm doing that indicates I'm behaving in that manner; holding at three reverts, discussing on the talk page, and maintaining a professional and cooperative attitude, yet I'm still an edit warrior, apparently. I'm genuinely confused, and convinced that this confusion will only lead to future problems, which will only make my experience here unpleasant and unfulfilling, which is not something I would willingly want to put myself through. If I'm to stay, I need to know explicitly what is expected of us as editors, and I don't find WP:EW explicit enough. --G2bambino (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Do as I, G2. I try to limit myself to 2RR. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you're right, GD. I suppose that's worth one least try. Obviously nobody's going to offer me any clarification on what exactly classifies edit warring behaviour. Perhaps there actually is no way to do so, and it really is a matter of each admin's personal tastes. What a fantastic thought that is. --G2bambino (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unpleasant maybe, but it's definitely true. Usually this ends up meanings protracted revertings within 3RR but extending over many days - I'd say protections are often preferable to heaps of blocks, but it's hard to recommend that these days. You're a good writer, G2Bambino, but you're not good at handling pestersome editors - you ought to let people who are better at that do so. PrinceofCanada will either mend his ways or find them mended for him, but another pest will be upon you sooner or later. It'd be a shame to lose you as an editor here, but it's also a shame to see you stress yourself out so over such things. WilyD 17:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, Wily, I've been giving your words some thought for a bit, and I've come to the conclusion that they're right in every way. Thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Retiring?

I hope you'll reconsider. But, if your mind is made up? let me know, so I can thank you for helping out on Wikipedia (and putting up with me). GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to see. --G2bambino (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You should be good to go now. Please re-post your request if you are still unable to edit. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

request your contribution re Canadian residential school system

I've seen you are interested in Canadian residential school system. Would you care to add a few sentences (or more!) to Human rights in Canada? I just started the latter, and it got swiftly slapped with a {{COAT}}, i.e. someone telling me off for only really talking about Human flagpoles (which I've also just started, asked for help with here. Anyway, any contribution is welcome. And if you are still on a wikibreak, apologies for disturbing you. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

revert warning

This is just a friendly reminder to avoid edit-warring at Commonwealth realm and breaking the letter or spirit of WP:3RR. If talk page discussions about the content are going nowhere, I suggest an RfC or steps in dispute resolution. Have a good day/night/whatever, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. PrinceOfCanada and myself are both on a 1RR restriction with regard to each other anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hi-

There is as yet no consensus at the noticeboard regarding changing the templates (again). Plus, I have someone writing a script for me that will change them all automatically if changing should be required. Please hold off until consensus is reached. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rideau Hall

Hiya G2. Ya know, RH would make a nice official residence for the 'President of Canada', eh? PS- I'm always hopeful, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah! ;) I'm not so convinced about your republicanism, anyway, GD. You secretly like the Queen on our money! --G2bambino (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop it, my sides are aching with laughter. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! I knew it! You could never be a hard core republican, living out there on Prince Edward Island, like you do; maybe even near to Charlottetown, where the Fathers of Confederation decided to make Canada a monarchy. Actually, now I believe you have Queen Mother teacups and a Charles and Diana plate set! :D

Ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually (this is no joke) I remember seeing something on TV about a Canadian ultra-monarchist! He had loads of royal commemorative tea sets and all kinds of memorabilia. GoodDay, are you sure it's not you? ;) If so, hand over that tea set! --Cameron* 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

*shudder* Please, call that type of person a "royalist". I hate when someone of their ilk gets put on television as a monarchist. Monarchists support the system of monarchy, not large collections of Diana thimbles! --G2bambino (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If Elizabeth II has any of her paternal grandmother's personality? that tea sets wouldn't been taken by her (by now), assuming she ever visited the fellow. PS- If I had those Tea Sets? I'd of auctioned them off, long ago. Then donate the money to the Canadian republican movement. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hides Queen Mother commemorative tea set*, hehe. Only joking, I'm not that bad either yet! Although...I do have list of Hanover - present monarchs banner decorating my desk, though that was a college project. ;)

PS to GoodDay, that's just nasty! ;) Regards,--Cameron* 20:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian monarchy

If not for you, I never would've known Canada had its own monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. --G2bambino (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Governor General of India

See ya'll tomorrow. A relative of mine wants the computer & is giving me a mean stare. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Donworryaboudit. --G2bambino (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm back. Jumpers, I spend only 'bout 12hrs (daily) on the computer (and ya'll know where), while they spend a whopping 3-4hrs. They sure know how to hog the computer. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How dare they? Sometimes I wish I could get off this computer. You should send your relatives on over here. --G2bambino (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Note for you...

...on Tiptoety's talk page. User talk:Tiptoety#A 3RR case. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobility

Nice to see you're interested in nobility now! Fancy signing my petition to establish the Canadian Nobility. Baron G2 of Bambino? Sounds good to me! ;) --Cameron* 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean re-establish Canadian nobility? We had it before 1919. --G2bambino (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, not very many and only certain titles if I may say so. I'm talking Dukes of Toronto etc! ;) --Cameron* 19:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

British Commonwealth??

Hiya G2. You mentioned British Commonwealth among one of your posts (I forget where) recently. Ya may want to rephrase it, less Tharky finds out & reminds you of it. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I was just using the terminology of the time. Things have changed since the 1950s. --G2bambino (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful; some out there, don't believe in 16-are-equal. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Well, that's a matter separate to the Commonwealth anyway. In relation to the Commonwealth they'd have to dispute 53-are-equal! --G2bambino (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, yikes. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're on WP:AN

Just thought somebody ought to tell you. The link's here. --Cameron* 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya beat me to it, Camer. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It might surprise you, but I did look at your sandbox, as well as another page that you had dedicated to PrinceOfCanada - that other page was blanked, but I did go through the history. 6 hours is a long time, so it's been pretty thorough. Still, you seem to have added a few more links in the sandbox recently so I'll look at that shortly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply; it is honestly appreciated. I only notified you of the compiled list because I saw you had asked for examples of PoC's behaviour from Cameron. It seemed evident from the ANI post that you had done a lot of digging through edit histories, so I'm sure you're more familiar with the goings on of late than most; but, it was the seemingly clandestine collaboration and then sudden attack, without any input or clarification sought from me, that I found most disappointing. At least PoC was aware that I was keeping track of what I considered to be examples of a poor ability to work with others and bad attitude. Shouldn't you have also filed an RfCU first, before suggesting I be punished, for up to a year? It seems one person has acted as judge, jury, and only just stopped short of making the execution on his own. I think you've been presented with a much worse picture of me than what's true; as can be done to anyone, if the picture is painted right. That may or may not have been done on purpose. Consider what Cameron said of me at ANI. Anyway, I hope that things can get settled justly; not just about the ANI post, but the entire problem. --G2bambino (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh of relief*, OK it looks like you're not going to be banned (so far all !voters have opposed the proposal), in future I'd be more careful if I were you. To be honest I actually agree with many (most?) of your reverts and a lot of the time I share your stance too. Hence the only tips I really have for you is to try not to comment about users at all and to concentrate on their edits/contributions. Also try discussing first instead of reverting, reverts don't look too good in your contributions unless they are blatant vandalism. Regards, --Cameron* 12:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with the ANI case. If you were sock-puppeting or vandalizing the articles & discussion pages, then I could see the reasons for this case. Why wasn't this case brought under Wikiquette? as it seems your personality/conduct is under the microscope. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Well, first off: thanks, gentlemen, for your input. Indeed, GD, the whole affair is disappointing; a tainted AN report that pre-concluded my guilt and went straight to what punishment to dole out, over-exaggerations (an unwitting person might go away thinking I had been harbouring WMADs - Weapons of Mass Article Destruction), back room discussions about me, and a user with a vendetta. Cameron: I can't argue against a single one of your tips; I've been trying harder, of late, to do exactly what you say. I think my problem is, though, that I tend to be a bit too independent and think I should handle things on my own, though within guidelines; more specifically, I alone try to correct a problem user, thereby making that user perceive me as the problem, and off they trot to ANI (or, apparently, IRC now) with eyes all set at large, glistening, and puppyish. I guess I've just been raised to think that it's poor form to involve others in my problems and I should shoulder my own responsibilities. I'll obviously have to work on that and be more open to the idea of outside help not being a last resort. --G2bambino (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay and I can always provide a third (and fourth!) opinion if you wish. That way you'll have pro and contra. GoodDay and I are like yin and yang. Complimentary opposites! ;) Best, --Cameron* 20:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• G2bambino, outside input is always a good thing, whether it's content or conduct related. Note - where there is sufficient evidence that a user or more than one user has been involved with another before, they will not be deemed outsiders. So, after that fact, the only reason the community of outsiders/admins opposed sanctions in this discussion was because they didn't want to single you out when your editing is mostly confined to the one area - they wanted all users who've displayed problematic conduct in that area of editing to be approached with sanctions at the same time. If and when that happens, they can quickly turn into supports, so if anything, I hope you consider it a wake up call. In any case, that isn't likely to happen on my say-so except if there's a reason for me to do so as I noted at the discussion itself. Hopefully though, this boxed in green is my final response to you when it comes to your conduct. Good luck! Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly Not!

On the contrary, I always enjoy discussions with you. I enjoy it when you come back at my points, occasionally (lol) catch me out, and make me rethink my position. And if I appear to be irritated I hope you can understand that I can separate you as an intellectual opponent and you as a person. And I hope you did not take offence at my remarks about you at the 'complaints page'. I was being somewhat florid and Rumpolesque in order to make a point: passion will always produce a certain amount of bias. We are all guilty of this.--Gazzster (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rideau Hall & related Template

In case it's not on your watchlist. I've opened up discussions (on Lonewolf's behalf), concerning his objections to your & Roux (formerly PoC)'s edits there. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, Loner left; possibly in a huff. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not unusual for him. --G2bambino (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U.

Hello, G2bambino. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino, where you may want to participate. -- — [ roux ] [x] 15:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm skipping the RfC/U, for reasons given at its talk-page & at Roux's page. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments in the RFC/U

G2, I have just reverted your response to my comments in your RFC.

As stated in the rubric for that section;

Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

If you wish to comment on outside views, you should add your response into the response section.

Mayalld (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Mayalld isn't quite correct. See the bottom of the page: Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. It's a learning curve for you both I guess, so hope it's cleared it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, jeez. I just removed it from the talk page. Sorry. I'll undo myself. Duh. --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem - it's an honest mistake. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada (again)

Hiya G2. Ya gotta do it word-for-word, Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

1RR Warning

You've just broken your 1RR restriction at Monarchy of Canada. This note is a courtesy to allow you to self-revert rather than force admin involvement. [ roux ] [x] 04:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Explain, please? --G2bambino (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You had already reverted an edit I'd made, and then re-added the reference in the wrong place. I am giving you this chance to self-revert, before I am forced to have an admin review it. [ roux ] [x] 04:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't revert you. However, I'll self revert anyway if you have something to add at talk about the matter. --G2bambino (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to add. I made a change, you reverted it. I reverted back, and you reinserted part of what I had reverted. That counts as a revert. Bye. [ roux ] [x] 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not revert your change, I modified it, placing two reference tags in two locations, compared to your one. You reverted that, and I put the second tag back. Walking away from a discussion does not mean resolution; please defend your position that the source does not support the claim, or leave it be. --G2bambino (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already defended it. Please re-read the talk page. Cheers. [ roux ] [x] 05:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading the talk page only affirms that you simply walked away from the discussion without addressing my last point. --G2bambino (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I walked away due to your condescension there, and insults in a previous thread. I have addressed all your points; as to the article author I am rather more inclined to believe Lawe at this point, as he has actually had the physical journal in question in front of him. Bye now. [ roux ] [x] 05:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And I explained to you (numerous times in one case) that there was no insult intended. I made a point at Talk:Monarchy of Canada, and you have not addressed it. I trust you either will, or will leave the matter be. My comment about the author was merely a clarification of where the first name came from. --G2bambino (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(out)I have addressed your point. Your unwillingness to accept that is not my problem. Repeatedly insulting people and claiming that no insult was intended isn't really effective in making people believe that no insult was intended. You should think about that. This discussion is closed, as far as I'm concerned. [ roux ] [x] 05:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that's your take on the matter. --G2bambino (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In need of a Lawyer? Gavin (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

the "In Need of a Lawyer" comment

Hey, you may have noticed I have now received an Admin's noticeboard alert or some other thing for the above comment. I have no idea what I've done wrong- something to do with "legal threats". Anyway point is I would ask that you don't get pulled into this dispute, call me cynical but there could be an ongoing attempt to attack you and/or people associated with you (no doubt for the means of provoking you into contravening policy). Anyway as I say, I am being cynical and am by no means do I believe that statement to be infallible truth- it is purely a possibility of many countless motives. Anyway, I request you keep out of this little affair, and any other such affair that should attract your attention that does not involve you directly. Oh and remember, regardless of the staggering evidence that exists there is no Cabal! Gavin (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My condolences. It would appear that one must be ultra-careful about what one says here, nowadays. As you can see from the above, some will take even the most innocuous comment and turn it into an insult, and then refuse to accept that it was never an insult in the first place. I do share your suspicions, however... suspicions though they may only be. --G2bambino (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fear not, things have been resolved. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I do, though, fear the larger context in which this little blip took place, and where things seem far from resolved. --G2bambino (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage notices

Please stop notifying editors of this RFC. You have already notified some 20 or 30 editors, that is enough. (See WP:CANVASS). —— nixeagle 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I only did what others have done before; contact a broad spectrum of those previously involved. Who's wrong and who's right? --G2bambino (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably both of you, but I only happened to notice you, however our guidelines on canvassing are quite clear. (there is no point in me telling Roux to stop at this point as it is about a week in the past) —— nixeagle 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)