User talk:G2bambino/Archive 3

The Queen and all that

I'm not sure it's all that appropriate for me to be recruited into a content dispute. I've already provided two quality sources that the Commonwealth forms a personal union - and if you want sources for something else, I'm always happy to dig up sources for stuff. Cheers, WilyD 21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded to at User talk:WilyD#British Monarchy --G2bambino 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Lonewolf - while I got off on the wrong foot with him, it seems like it's straightened out now. If it's just a personal union thing - the cites are there in Monarchy in Canada anyhow, and Lonewolf seems to accept them as reasonable. Other editors may not - but I would recommend you cross that bridge when you come to it. Anyways, I'm always happy to find references on JSTOR, since I realise not everyone has access. Cheers, WilyD 22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy

"Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." References were indeed deleted without reason, reason for removal of content was not readily apparent as no legitimate explanation was provided. Frankly, I'd be pleased if an administrator could step into the whole sordid matter at British monarchy, as it's spilling over into other articles. (My apologies for having to create another unblock request, but it seems this is the only way to communicate with the "outside world."

I see that the edits you reverted were discussed on the talk page and have support. Calling them vandalism is not civil: they are not attempts to damage the article on purpose, but only edits you don't agree with. Trying to rely so closely on the wording of WP:VAND is Wikilawyering, and we take a dim view of that. Moreover, explanation was provided on the talk page that you were aware of as you responded to it, and saying that no "non-frivolous" explanation was given is again either being rude to the editor who gave the explanation, or being deliberately obtuse in not understanding it. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this unblock request indicates a lack of willingness to work collaboratively with others, and I fear this situation will get worse before it gets better, if you don't reexamine your behavior. Mangojuice^talk 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe you'll find that the discussion at the talk page related specifically to one sentence in the article, however, the editor reverting my work was repeatedly taking out cited content not discussed at talk, and using a personal and optimal interpretation of an unclear vote of only six people as justification for his actions; hence, the edit summary provided was neither relevant to the majority of the removed/altered content, nor was it supported by actual evidence. Further, I don't appreciate your insinuations regarding my reading of the very WP page I was directed to by another admin; as per what is described there, what User:LonewolfBC was doing what could be interpreted as vandalism, and hence my reaction could be justified. I am not seeking complete pardon from guilt, only a little understanding of the situation and perhaps a less severe consequence; as a longstanding contributor of a huge amount of relatively decent content at Wikipedia, who does generally work collaboratively, but who does not accommodate bullying, I also expect not to be told to "reexamine" my behaviour. --G2bambino 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reaction is not justified and is not justified by the text of WP:VAND but even if it were, that would indicate that WP:VAND is in need of correction. Let me quote: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You can only call this a deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia by making a massive violation of WP:AGF. As for severe consequence... It's a 24 hour block. That's about as short as blocks get around here. Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I have an extremely hard time assuming good faith on the part of the relevant editor when his reverts were evidently blind, automatic, and not fully explained or justified reversals of numerous edits I had made in an effort to accomodate everyone's requests, as well as add cited and relevant material. If it's not vandalism, then it's certainly bordering closely on it. That said, I too performed automatic reverts, which certainly aren't desired, nor do I enjoy doing them; however, it seems that sometimes a full revert is necessary to restore what was removed without proper discussion or even explanation. As for the 24hr block, so be it for British monarchy, but at present I can't even edit a talk page besides my own.

It seems my first step tomorrow will unfortunately have to be to open a case at ArbCom. --G2bambino 21:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Over a 24 hour block? Why don't you try an WP:RFC first, if you feel like discussion on the talk page has been exhausted? I notice the mediation seems to have failed. What you should do is try to get more opinions of editors involved, if you think that the sample is too small, this might help. ArbCom won't take the case, I'm almost certain, because (1) you haven't tried all steps in dispute resolution, and (2) it's a content dispute and they are very steady about not ruling on content disputes. Mangojuice^talk 21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no... over the whole affair at British monarchy; the potential mediator already raised the suggestion at the request for mediation I filed earlier. I had thought of an RfC, but it really seems that the dispute has come down to two editors not compromising and, though they have had nearly every one of their demands satisfied or refuted, now insist on removing not only three simple words from the article, but also on reverting any edit made that isn't theirs, and one in particular is presently taking the "result" at British monarchy as justification to make similar POV edits to other articles. This seems more like a behavioral problem than a legitimate content dispute. --G2bambino 21:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Mangojuice^talk 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Advice

Listen, I realise that you're in a frustrating situation, but let me give you a little advice. Back and forth reverting is going to get you anywhere or win you any allies. Remember that the articles in question are being watched by a lot of editors - and they're the ones you need to convince. Fighting with unproductive editors alone won't do anything but give you stress and a reputation as an edit warrior. If you convince the masses, one or two other editors won't make a difference to the end result. Use the talk page, find the relevant citations - and if you make your case, other editors will step in to stop troublemakers.

And remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles can be fixed tommorow, or saturday. It doesn't need to be today.

Look, you're a good editor and a valuable contributor. I'd hate to see you get so stressed out you quit, or incure further blocks because you let yourself get baited. It's not worth it. Cheers, WilyD 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:WilyD#Advice --G2bambino 22:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Greetings and salutations. You have violated WP:3RR on British monarchy. This edit warring has become very disruptive to the article. Please stop. Thank you. --Son 19:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on [[:on [[:{{{1}}}]]]]. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. _→AzaToth 22:31, 15 July 2007 (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:

The reason for the block given is: "for violating the three-revert rule" at what I'll assume to be British monarchy (the block notice doesn't make this clear, which leads me to wonder if the blocking admin really took the time to look at the relevant edit history, or simply followed the incorrect 3RR warning placed by User:Son). A quick survey of the edit history of British monarchy will show why Son's assertion of 3RR violation is incorrect:

• this edit addressed the concern of the previous editor, though directly replaced one word (what's that? a "half-revert"?)
• this edit did not revert the previous, instead edited it within proper standards
• this edit was direct revert #1 with a request for the other editor to resolve at Talk:British monarchy
• this edit replaced text that was seemingly mistakenly removed during an edit claimed to be only about the dablink
• this edit did not revert the previous, instead addressed the previous editor's concern & attempted to find a solution acceptable to both of us

Thus, though I'm dealing with a very difficult editor, 3RR was never breached, nor was there even any "edit warring" per say. The block should be removed. Thanks.

Decline reason:

From WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." and "Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring, even if they do not exceed three reverts on a page in 24 hours." In the future, please take more care to discuss issues on the article talk page and seek dispute resolution if needed. — Vassyana 04:06, 17 July 2007 (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.

I will leave this up for another admin to look at, but a glance at the article history reveal what I would call edit warring. Further, as I looked through the article history, I did indeed count four reverts in a 24 hr period. G2bambino, I have every reason to believe that you are a productive editor and an asset to wikipedia - please lay off the reverting and use other dispute resolution methods. Pastordavid 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is indeed a breach of 3RR, someone will have to point it out to me, as I honestly can't see it. My own study of the edit history between 17:04, 14 July 2007 (my first edit in nearly 2 days) and 17:43, 15 July 2007 (my last edit) shows the following:

• Article body:

1. this edit restored only two words ("Monarch" and "Elizabeth II") of my previous edit, that affected more than two paragraphs, and was made 43 hrs & 43 mins previously. Does reinserting two words really constitute a full revert?
2. this edit restored one word ("Elizabeth II") of my previous edit, and addressed the interim editor's valid concern regarding the repetition of the word "monarch." Does reinserting one word really constitute a full revert?
3. this edit restored text that was lost during User:TharkunColl's revert that claimed to only concern the dablink; I later noticed that the text had been removed without due explanation or even notice, and thus, assuming it's removal to be a mistake on the part of TharkunColl, replaced it.
4. this edit did not revert to my previous edit at all; instead I addressed User:TharkunColl's concern about the "misplaced mention of the current sovereign" and used a non-specific descriptor instead

• Dablink:

1. this edit did not revert to my prior edit at all; instead I edited the dablink down as per WP policy
2. this edit was my one obvious revert, with a request that the other editor take up the issue at Talk:British monarchy, where I initiated discussion Talk:British monarchy#Dablink

So, to me it seems there was one undoubted revert and, at best, two rather dubious ones, which still puts me within 3RR. Further, as per edit warring, I see how successive reverts can be construed as textual combat, but a string of quick revisions does not necessarily mean an edit war is under way. In fact, I ceased all-together to touch the dablink after TharkunColl’s last revert of it.

It seems to me that in this instance certain admins have had a knee-jerk reaction to a given situation, assuming it (perhaps understandably) to be identical to what occurred previously, when it actually wasn't.

As I don't believe I'm guilty of the crime for which I was charged, I would appreciate it if this sentence could be duly and judiciously reviewed. --G2bambino 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(PS- Thank you, however, for your temperate comments re my work at Wikipedia. --G2bambino 18:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

It took more than 24 hours from the time I posted the request for unblock until the notice received due attention. However, the decline affirms my opinions that a) admins are quick to block but generally slow to review their actions; and b) that general editors are at the mercy of empowered individuals who mostly seem unconcerned with anything aside from bulldozing blocks over people to solve any and all perceived problems. Twice now, in about the past month, I've been incorrectly accused of and blocked for edit warring; on the first occasion the block was finally overturned by the impulsive admin who imposed it; the second time presented evidence and explanations that contradict the charges are simply ignored. Now, because of two undeserved blocks, my record is set and I've been smeared as a common criminal, and am forever more to be suspected of ill-intent and malevolent motive. I dare say I see a pattern emerging, wherein some Wikipedia admins are exercising what looks more like a gross parody of justice and a travesty of appeal, rather than a balanced and astute exercise of authority (those who do a good job, of course, not included). I'm duly unimpressed. --G2bambino 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate, I know its frustrating, but try not to be discouraged. I dont think youre being targeted in particular. After all, Tharkuncoll has been blocked as well. And while he's silent, the British Monarchy discussion has become much more balanced. Think of all the people who say your a good editor. You certainly are. Chin up!--Gazzster 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments. However, I certainly don't want to come across as though I feel my contributions aren't appreciated; my motives aren't as selfish as that. Rather, it's more that I've been editing Wikipedia for over two and a half years, and only recently have admins seemingly been so generous with their doling out of blocks. Disputes happen, but not every dispute is an edit war; seeminly, the difference seems to matter less and less to those in charge, and people's reputations seem to matter even less still.

Nice to see things being resolved at British monarchy; interesting, though, that Thark won't revert anyone else's edits, only mine. Not that I'm really all that surprised, though ;) (Comment also left at User talk:Gazzster#Talk page comments) --G2bambino 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for droppin by my page. Ive been on Wikipedia about 2 years. I have to say I still dont understand a lot of what goes on. It seems that yes, administrators don't always act consistently and fairly. As Wikipedia gets bigger, it will necessarily become more admin orientated, and its management will get more out of touch with what's happening on the ground. Hopefully the executive is aware of this and addressing the problem. Tharkuncoll has already attempted to edit the dablink in British monarchy and also Monarchy in Australia. It seems to me that his actions can be provocative, and they can provoke someone into breaking the 3 revert rule. Perhaps that rule needs to be revised. Not abolished, but revised. Cheers--Gazzster 01:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rob Church's second law: Some people are only alive because it's against the law to kill them. Some people are only able to edit Wikipedia because it's against the "rules" to block them.

Sometimes it's just difficult to deal with people who are shit disturbers, but are (generally) civil. It's hard to identify those kind of problematic editors in a flyby, and it's hard to justify blocking anyone when you're close to the situation and there's any "grey-ness". WilyD 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:XAndreWx - Second city of UK

Re: 18:45, 18 July 2007 and 18:46, 18 July 2007

Did you extend the same courtesy to User:TharkunColl in regards to warnings about violation of the 3RR ? No ? Because you'd had a disagreement with them over another topic perhaps ? I have no interest in that discussion, but it's fair to mention your potential motives isn't it.

This is extermly unhelpful - if you look at the history for the Second city of the United Kingdom you'll see that User:XAndreWx has repeatedly violated the 3RR, seven times after his last 'block' just two days ago. At least four differing people have reverted the changes that XAndreWx re-instated - doesn't this suggest that his is *not* the concensus view ?

I know that when someone upsets you on wikipedia it can be very hurtful, but please don't allow this to 'domino' into other topics which are already extremly heated.

Sprigot 10:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Sprigot#Talk page comments --G2bambino 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your well tempered and objective reply - I will take note. Sprigot 14:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ship

Copy of note put on User talk:Mauls.... I see you have edited this info box a few times, do you know why RMS Queen Mary 2 infobox has `cost` duplicated? can you fix? Thanks Palmiped 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. Mauls 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dablinks

Too right it's silly in this context. WP policies are (or should be) guidelines that allow for exceptions if appropriate in individual cases. In this case, since the whole point is that the realms are theoretically equal in status, it's a conflicting message to follow this guideline too rigidly. I think the exception is wholly justified.

The way to avoid making an exception, if that's really necessary, is to retitle the Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article as Elizabeth II, with a redirect under the old title.

--Chris Bennett 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Chris Bennett#Dablinks --G2bambino 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. What I propose to do is to revert to my original version and add a brief discussion of the point which is identical on the talk page of each article. --Chris Bennett 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a fine solution by me, if you're willing to do it to all the others please go ahead. I had been thinking about putting a similar note on the talk page, but this is probably bretter because its in context and not subject to archiving. --Chris Bennett 17:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See my response on your latest concerns at Talk:Commonwealth realm#dablink; I think its a scoping issue. --Chris Bennett 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Stickler for policy"

Regarding the above comment posted here that appears to be directed towards me: I don't really see how there's any need for that insult. Such policies have arisen for a reason: they result in better articles and a better Wikipedia. Personally, I don't think they should be ignored simply because an editor wants an article to be written a certain way.

And as a side note, no offense but I think you're getting way too obsessive over these particular articles, to be honest, to the point where I think it's getting pretty ridiculous. A good example is the DAB link: is it really such a massive deal that it made reference to "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" (the actual title of the link) instead of "Elizabeth II"? -- Hux 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Hux#Talk page comments. --G2bambino 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hux Be fair, it wasn't G2bambino who started this, it was me. No, it's not a big deal, it seemed to me to be a trivial and obvious alignment. Except in the UK article, it is incorrect and misleading to refer to the monarch as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. In the context of articles about her other monarchies, that is not her role, and to single that role out implies a notion of subordination which no longer has any constitutional basis. In the case of the UK, it would be correct of course; I only changed that one for editorial symmetry.

As to this policy question, of course policies make for a better Wikipedia, but they are only tools and guidelines to be used, not the word of god to be obeyed at all costs. Besides, User:nat.tang pointed out a perfectly reasonable solution that meets both objectives. --Chris Bennett 20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I agree with everything you say above when it comes to how such links should appear in the body of non-UK articles on which the Elizabeth II article is linked. However, I was not discussing that. I'm only talking about the DAB and in the DAB all links should be the exact title of the page they are linking to, because (as I already said at Talk:Commonwealth Realm) the purpose of the DAB is to get the reader to the page they were trying to get to in the first place, hence no piped links or redirects because of the potential for confusion. Vaguely real-world analogy: if a person wants to get to "Colored Street" it doesn't make sense to give then the directions to that street but to tell them to look out for "African-American Street" out of fear that they will be offended by the street's actual name.

And also, your last point is not correct: there is official policy and there are guidelines. The former must be adhered to at all times while the latter has room for maneuver, but it's considered a good thing to stick by them anyway. -- Hux 05:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Family

Well, hopefully, we do. Actually, under the page I cited (WP:RED), it does state: "Do create red links to articles you intend to create or technical terms that need to be explained." That is, were it self-explanatory, it wouldn't need an article at all! Bastin 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal Anthem

GSTQ has been removed from the infobox for Australia, the only Commonwealth nation article where a roal anthem has been so removed. Discussion continues and I'd like to see consistency in this matter in all similar articles. --Pete 00:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Commonwealth_realms. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please vote!

Hi,

Since you've been involved in the recent discussions at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, your vote would be appreciated on this proposal. Thanks. -- Hux 09:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary 2

I have reverted your previous edit "a 24 hour buffet dining area that is partitioned at night to form four separate dining venues" back to "a four themed buffet dining area that is open 24 hours a day" as the four areas of the King's Court are partitioned during the day as well as at night.

Cheers, Sam

Responded to at User talk:Sam Pears#King's Court. --G2bambino 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise, I got off the ship last week and was under the impression that it was always seperated into four themes. Again, I am very sorry. Cheers, Sam

Hey!

Hey G2bambino, are you from the Toronto area? Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Nat.tang#Tdot --G2bambino 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sweet... here is the message i've been sending people:

Re: Toronto Meetup

TORONTO MEETUP NOTICE
	Hello G2bambino/Archive 3, I saw that you have listed yourself as a Toronto-area resident and I would like to inform you about a proposed Wiki Meetup. If you are interested, feel free to add your input on the Toronto Meetup talk page. Regards, Nat Tang ta | co | em

Rideau Hall Brawl

Exactly, if LwfBC accepts the last edit (which we'll find out when the page is unprotected), then my compromise edit won't be needed. Meanwhile, my suggestion at the Administrators page is for him alone to accept or reject. Remember, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, page protection tends to 'limit' that freedom for everyone. GoodDay 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I said 'if'. PS- I understand your & LwfBC's frustrations, but you're both 'hurting' each other. In the words of Abe Lincoln, A house divided against itself, can not stand. GoodDay 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:GoodDay#Battle for the Hall --G2bambino 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well, request the page to be 'unprotected'. Meanwhile, try not to get into an 'edit war' (remember it takes 2 to tangle). Let's see how things go (remember no wars, my -compromise proposal is in the wings-). GoodDay 20:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, thought you wanted to 'unprotect' the page (my mistake). GoodDay 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::PS- I don't understand your last question (at my talk page). GoodDay 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your last edit to Rideau Hall is being accepted (it hasn't been reverted 'since unprotection' nor has there been any complaints at discussion). I think the 'dispute' may have ended - hip hip horay. GoodDay 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, Lonewolf BC has protested your edit. I've added my 'compromise', so that the both of you can 'work things out' (this is my last edit concerning this topic). PS- goodluck guys, and remember 'no edit warring'. GoodDay 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:GoodDay#Quiet in the Hall --G2bambino 19:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's out of my hands now. GoodDay 19:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my concern anymore, I've made my last edit (on this topic). You guys should be seeking your peers review (anything to break the logjam). GoodDay 19:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Passport

I took a look at this dispute. While I think you are technically correct, I also think the difference is so fine that it is not worth arguing about. In the case of the Commonwealth Realm article, the exact nature of the monarchy is the core point, so it is important to maintain such fine distinctions. But here the article is about passports, and the case of QEII is just one minor, indeed marginal, aspect of the topic. The shade of difference between the British monarch who is also monarch of the Commonwealth Realms and the Monarch of 16 Commonweath Realms is hardly relevant to the main point of the article.

It's up to you of course, but I suggest you save your energy for where it's really needed. --Chris Bennett 04:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chris here Brian | (Talk) 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

Its clear that some people are being persuaded by JDM's bogus EB argument, simply because it is not being answered. Critical analysis is not at a premium in this group. I've added a restatement of the case (as I see it, you may not agree in detail). It seems necessary to keep repeating the message.

This whole discussion is conforming to every bad image of WP. All these people who have never shown any interest in this topic, and many of whom clearly know nothing about it, suddenly get excited about it? Capitalization, of all the dumb issues to argue about? After FOUR YEARS??? And the legalism, the cites of bogus authorities, the completely irrelevant side issues, the grammatical ignorance even of people who claim to have BAs in English?? This isn't the wisdom of the common man, this is mob rule.

It will eventually get solved by fiat, there is no other way at this point. But the record needs to clearly show what the case is, because the arbs have power, but not necessarily knowledge. So right now what to do is to keep on plugging the case, and to insist on focus and relevance. --Chris Bennett 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest with User:Mackensen. Look at his actions. He's extended protection to the close of vote and he's considering the arguments. Now is the time to keep cool. --Chris Bennett 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Chris Bennett#Commonwealth Realm --G2bambino 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Lonewolf BC report at WP:ANI

Would you mind if I asked Lonewolf BC to comment at WP:ANI regarding your comments? Lonewolf BC may feel they have legitimate reasons for acting as they do, and I would like the opportunity for the community to see what they may be. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at: User talk:LessHeard vanU#User:Lonewolf BC --G2bambino 13:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. LessHeard vanU 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Passport

My comments were directed at everyone concerned - not specifically at yourself - this is why I linked the report from talk Passport. You are quite right, it does take 2 to edit war and action taken should reflect that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Spartaz#Passport --G2bambino 16:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth R/realm

Hello G2; like my Realms of the Commonwealth compromise, your 'footnote' proposal seems to be defeated (thought alot can change between now & August 14/15). Anyway (on CB's advice), I'm contacting you (as I have CB & JDM)- If the Footnote Vote is 'defeated', would you -agree- to a Page Movement Vote for Commonwealth Realm to Commonwealth realm? If a 2/3 majority is reached (eitherway), then could we have closure on the dispute? If 2/3 for movement (we move), if 2/3 for staying (we stay) -end of discussions-. GoodDay 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:GoodDay#Commonwealth realms --G2bambino 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But this 'page movement' request is to Commonwealth realm. A 2/3 majority on that motion (for or against), should end the dispute. I just want to be sure both sides respect such a result. Just one last attempt to solve things 'ourselves', before we go back to the ArbCmte. GoodDay 18:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm content to let the ArbCmte handle it. GoodDay 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the Arb, may not want to handle it. GoodDay 23:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Passport II

You were right, my Commonwealth bandage wasn't a good choice. It got Tharky riled. GoodDay 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:GoodDay#Passport --G2bambino 22:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather stick to my personal limit (2 reverts in 24hrs), you can get another editor to revert on your behalf (it's allowable). GoodDay 22:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to revert my compromise, it's already been 'reverted'. Furthermore, these 'blasted' edit wars are confusing me -- forgive me (you're correct about my 'consensus' promise) & thanks for keeping me on my toes. GoodDay 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see (don't confuse me more - ha ha) - I still accept your 'proposal', however 'deletion' is an option (concerning these 'edit wars'). GoodDay 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Song titles, italics, and quotes.

Erm, seeing your recent contributions at royal anthem and God Save the Queen... no comment on the other changes, but as I noted in my edit summary at royal anthem, song titles clearly get quotes as per both Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Italics are only used if the song title is also in a foreign language. Is there something I'm missing here? SnowFire 01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:SnowFire#GSTQ. --G2bambino 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lonewolf BC

Thanks for your feedback -- I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of filing an RfC, at least not at this point. I'm unhappy with the current situation and not sure what to do next, but I am hoping to be able to address it as a difference of issues rather than personalities. Tim Pierce 02:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada

I think you may have 'breached' 3RR (concerning the 'personal union' thing), try and be more careful. PS- You're correct, if it's good enough for the UK, it's good enough for all the Commonwealth realms. Either that or it should be removed from all 16 articles. GoodDay 17:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No breach; three and no more. Thanks for your comments re. Canada, though. --G2bambino 00:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I mistakenly counted your 'first edit'. My apologies. GoodDay 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries. --G2bambino 00:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Politics of Canadian provinces

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have three versions. Keep the one you have now for things like List of Lieutenant-Governors of New Brunswick where the article is big enough to support it. Then have a second that would be only the map section at the top, then a third with the rest of the information but as a navbox that is set to state = {{{state|collapsed}}} (see Template:QC-ED). This would, I think, work better on small articles like Commissioners of Nunavut which is a bit overwhelmed by the long box. Also I think that the provinces should be listed geographically like Template:Canada capitals or Template:Canada topic but I'm not sure where the discussion on that is. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Politics templates --G2bambino 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder I was confusing you. I didn't realise that the template called another template. Here's the permenant link to Template X9. Just set it to that version and look at User:CambridgeBayWeather/Sandbox to see how it looks. I added in links to the various LA's and sorted the provinces by geographic entry. Let me know what you think. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Governor General Canada

I found Coat of Arms of the Governor General on all the letters patent issued by the Canadian Heraldic Authority. Maybe you want to include that in the wiki page for the GG?

[1]

[2]

[3] --Cahk 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Poll regarding 'dominion' in Canada introduction

Hi there! A poll has been initiated regarding the inclusion of 'dominion' in the lead. Please weigh in. Thanks! Quizimodo 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again -- if you get a quick moment, it would be great if you could participate in this poll. Thanks! Quizimodo 14:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! :) Quizimodo 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again -- things briefly escalated at 'Canada' (I simply do not understand the bahaviours of certain editors) but seem to have cooled for the short-term. I am preparing responses to both Soulscanner's lengthy riposte and EronMain's good-natured, positive (in some respects), but IMO inferior proposal to the current edition. Also, given the hyper-reaction this has resulted in, the article may need to undergo a featured article review for neutrality issues. However, I must depart and won't be back until tomorrow (when I'll next comment) -- if you're around, willing, and able, can you weigh in in the interim? Thanks so much! Quizimodo 18:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again -- I really don't know what that editor's problem is. Quizimodo 21:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again; I hope you're well. If there was anything which is more revealing of this editor's inclinations, it is revealed in this diff (recent changes were made by the editor of note). (BTW: send me an e-mail, if you wish.) Quizimodo 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia

The style box on Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia indicates the LG is styled as His Honour, The Right Honourable. Please correct (It is His Honour the Honourable). --Cahk 19:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. Stupidly, I've made the same mistake on all the LG pages. I'll correct them at the earliest possible opportunity. --G2bambino 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Contentious POV

Do you claim that the addition of "dominion" to the introduction is not contentious?! At any rate, it is okay to have points of view, it is not okay to have a point of view in the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes: so, DB, stop trying to remove citations that further demonstrate this fact, and that counter your willful viewpoint and non-rationale. Moreover, please provide source matter which corroborates your assertion that referring to Canada as a 'dominion' or the like is contentious; otherwise, the argument is merely an artificial one.

As well, I have requested that the article be protected to preclude further edit-warring which you are also a party to -- so, be more constructive and conciliatory. Quizimodo 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Quiz, for summing up my feelings: certain editors seem to be themselves making the word a contentious issue and then arguing the word should be removed because it is contentious. How can a word that is accurate, appropriate, and, as evidenced by citations, widely used, be "contentious" beyond the quirky personal beliefs of a certain few individuals? --G2bambino 15:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, TY. If editors continue to have challenges with this assertion whilst hyper-inflating or not substantiating them, we can instead substitute the 'contentious' text with precise syntax from the preamble/section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1867. I do not favour this option, but it would -- should -- without question settle the debate and may be necessary. Quizimodo 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are clearly many editors who do not wish "dominion" to be in the introductory section of the article. refs: Talk:Canada, Talk:Canada's name, Talk:Canada/Officialname1. Thus, contentious to add the word. I happen to believe that Canada's title is "Dominion", that it became a dominion in 1867, and that designation represented independence and autonomy. Since many editors do not agree, since the exact meaning and significance of the designation is a subject of debate amongst scholars of it, and since the introduction should be a brief and easily understood overview, it is best left to later sections and other articles. Other ways to write the sentence avoiding the term have been suggested at Talk:Canada and should be ironed out there before changing the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when does three constitute "many"? I'm willing to look at other suggestions for the wording of the sentence, but so far none put forward cover the topic in both as succinct and as accurate a manner as the current composition. Why should we either take lengthy verbal detours or sacrifice clarity and accuracy simply to satisfy the personal biases of three or four editors? In reality, that's what all this comes down to: a minority of people with a personal bias against a particular word. As far as I knew, Wikipedia was not censored to appease the hyper-sensitivities of a certain few. --G2bambino 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- bravo. Quizimodo 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there -- WTF? :) Quizimodo 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF, indeed. --G2bambino 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. BTW: is it me, or is the aforementioned editor ... jumbled? Quizimodo 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey do you want to take the lead regarding the next part of this process,as proposed by Arctic.gnome? I am admittedly reticent (and take some exception to Eron's comments), but want this resolved soon. Merci! Quizimodo 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your contributions and for helping to move things along regarding this. I have just made some lengthy comments and have proposed/tweaked a few variants -- when you get a moment, can you weigh in again? Thanks! Quizimodo (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I've left a note for the blocking admin. - auburnpilot talk 17:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --G2bambino 17:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've lifted your block, but please remember to provide the required information when uploading images. Not only are you required to place the appropriate license tag, such as {{PD-art}}, but you must give the source information, who owned the copyright, and why you believe the image can be released under the tag you've added. In other words, where you found the image, who the image belongs to, and why you believe it can be released under fair use, public domain, or a creative commons license. This information is required. - auburnpilot talk 18:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As examples, take a look at some of the images I've uploaded: Fair use Image:Airvanalogo.jpg, Creative-commons Image:JuleCollinsSmithMuseum2.jpg, and public domain Image:MikeGallagher.jpg. Each identifies the source, copyright holder, and appropriate license. - auburnpilot talk 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. While blocked I've been thinking about this, and figured that's where the crux of the issue lay; however, I'll just explain that I didn't see how an image that had no copyright status would need to have any more information; i.e. I understand that in fair use situations the source info as well as an argument must be provided because the image actually does still sit under someone else's copyright, but a 100+ year old image does not. Plus, some of the images I uploaded were simply cropped and resized versions of ones already at Wikicommons, with the exact same tags, and I didn't see source or ownership info provided there.

Your examples are useful, though. Cheers. --G2bambino 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Governors General of Canada

Regarding not using peerage titles in List of Governors General of Canada. This is wrong for at least three reasons. Firstly, this was how they were known in their lifetime as well as in the present day (for example Lord Lansdowne is unrecognisable as Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice). Secondly, this was their legal names. Thirdly, using only their Christian names and surnames makes this page inconsistent with similar pages (for example the list in Governor-General of India). However, the governor general should of course be listed under the name he had when holding the office. It is correct that John Colborne, 1st Baron Seaton, is listed as Sir John Colborne, as he was not elevated to the peerage until 1839. Regards, Tryde 17:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying we absolutely shouldn't use titles, I said we should decide on whether to use them or not for everyone on the list who had one; previously it seemed that some who held peerages were identified by their name, whereas others by their title. Though, I do see your point about when a particular individual recieved their peerage in relation to when they acted as governor. I thought a possible remedy might be to list both name and title where appropriate; I think there's space for this and it certainly wouldn't cause any confusion. --G2bambino 17:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock x2

I can not undo this block again, but I will be adding a section to the current Arbitration Committee case that has been opened against Alkivar for abuse of his admin privileges. This is wheel warring and completely unacceptable. - auburnpilot talk 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again; I've just read through the ArbCom case; I had no idea his actions had pissed off so many people. But what perterbs me most in this instance is Alkivar's jumping to poorly researched conclusions while my ability to communicate and explain is strangled by his block. --G2bambino 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang tight... this is being discussed at WP:ANI.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed the 'block fiasco' G2. Had I'd known about it, I too would have called for the block to be reversed. Anyways, congratulations on your vindication. GoodDay 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I've responded on my talk page. - auburnpilot talk 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify why information is still needed on old pics (you said "I didn't see how an image that had no copyright status would need to have any more information"), the source is required to help verify that it is an old pic. Even if you say the pic was made and published in 1850 (or whenever), others looking at the picture after you need a way to verify that. The easiest way is to provide a source and some provenance. If the source doesn't confirm the date, then you should provide some other way of confirming the date of the picture (eg. artist died in such-and-such a year). Carcharoth 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Shame

Took a peek at your HoS. Sorta expected Lonewolf BC would be there, however I'm a little surprised TharkunColl didn't qualify. Anyways, I had quite a chuckle when I came across it. GoodDay 16:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Naw, Tharkie seems to be behaving himself now. I give him credit for that. --G2bambino 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: personal union/autonomy

Thanks for this clarification -- I appreciate it. I had pause only because of this: why did Mulroney obtain consent from the Queen and not the Governor General (Ray Hnatyshyn) of the day? Perhaps because of the latter having served in his cabinet, and the perception of patronage? Quizimodo 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically states that the Queen's approval must be sought to add new seats to the Senate; specifically section 26: If at any Time on the Recommendation of the Governor General the Queen thinks fit to direct that Four or Eight Members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by Summons to Four or Eight qualified Persons (as the case may be), representing equally the Four Divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly. Hope that clears things up. --G2bambino 04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there -- thanks for moderating and guiding the discussion on the 'Canada' talk page recently. I have been swimming in work and, thus, unable to participate recently ... but I will weigh in today or tomorrow. However, in lieu, you have my complete support and your assertions can double as mine in absentia. :) Let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! Quizimodo 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

I was wondering if it's necessary to list all of the military appointments. Since they aren't post-nominals and are never treated as such, I'm not sure why they should be placed as if they are.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 07:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm.. Not post-nominals, no, but I thought they are hononorary appointments from the Crown as much as Privy Council or Queen's Counsel appointments are. --G2bambino 07:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But "PC" and "QC" are post-nominals, which is why there were there. There weren't there because they were honorary appointments from the Crown. (Well that is why they're there in the broadest sense, but you know what I mean)--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 07:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does look a bit unweildly. I just thought that they were apt in an order of precedence. --G2bambino 07:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground

It's POV pushing by you as normal you insist on being legal instead of logical. The Royal Family is always referred to as "the British Royal Family", not the "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms", an invented title. The Royal Family is first and foremost British; they live there, hold that nationality, work mostly there, are referred to as British by other nations and so so. It is not "POV focus on one country", it is logcial and correct as the UK is "first among equals". Sentences like "Royal Family shared by the Commonwealth Realms" will only confuse people completly unecessarily. The Royal Family are primarily the British Royal Family and to try and say otherwise is POV pushing and incorrect. --UpDown 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone should write to the Queen and tell her to stop POV pushing in speeches, then. Her and her "Canadian Royal Family", trying to confuse us...--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, this is more pro-British nationalism; they simply can't come to grips that their monarchy isn't fully theirs anymore.

I can understand that "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms" may appear to be an invented title; however, the solution isn't to pander to ignorance or cultural popularity, no matter how nuanced a particular concept might be. Surely we're all smart enough to come up with something accurate and appropriate. --G2bambino 21:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

PS- I can't see even one instance where my edits tried to claim the Royal Family as being primarily one thing or another. In the absence of evidence to support such a claim, the POV accusations fly right out the window. --G2bambino 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What you can't "come to grips with" is the fact that your monarchy isn't actually yours at all, but somebody else's. TharkunColl 22:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, brilliant argument, Thark. Another of your witty gems. --G2bambino 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was merely in reply to your own anti-British statement above. If you insist on being such a fanatical monarchist, then why don't you go and get your own monarchy, and pay for it as well. TharkunColl 22:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what it's in reply to; it has no basis in fact nor a point, regardless. And your follow-up response above is similarly inane. --G2bambino 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You really should let go of the apron strings sometime, you know. TharkunColl 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You really should bring yourself out of the Victorian era and join the rest of us in the 21st century. (See; I can bring myself down to your level of debate.) --G2bambino 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To retain the mother-country's monarchy as a relic of a colonial past is indeed to remain in the Victorian era, so it is not I to whom you should address that comment. TharkunColl 22:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment might have merit if you had concrete evidence that the Canadian Crown is a relic.

What does any of this have to do with the article in question? --G2bambino 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Relic [4]

• 1. Something that has survived the passage of time, especially an object or custom whose original culture has disappeared: "Corporal punishment was a relic of barbarism" Cyril Connolly.
• 2. Something cherished for its age or historic interest.
• 3. An object kept for its association with the past; a memento.

TharkunColl 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I see then that, by some of the definitions of the term "relic," the Canadian Crown may be seen partly as such; however, no more or less than the British Crown could be similarly categorized. To clarify, perhaps: my request for definition was more looking for evidence of the generally useless and anachronistic nature of a relic. If you're going to argue that the Canadian Crown should be characterised as such, then you'll have to accept that the UK Crown is just the same. --G2bambino 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(replying to G2bambino at 21:52)
Avoiding pedantry has nothing to do with pro-British nationalism. "British Royal Family" is the ordinary, well-understood and immediately understandable term, and the international aspect of the family to whom it refers is irrelevant to the subject of the article. So "British Royal Family" is all that is fitting, here. Writing the article accordingly is not "pandering to ignorance or cultural popularity" or anything else. Nor is it a matter of inattention to nuance or lack of smarts. It is sticking to the subject, and following common usage and common sense. -- Lonewolf BC 22:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Common usage can only carry you so far; do we refer to Elizabeth II as the "Queen of England," as surely 80% of the planet does? There's no argument that the term "British Royal Family" be absolutely excluded; indeed, it probably is well understood, and I see the issue with "Royal Family of the Commonwealth Realms." But, that's no excuse to deny the international context in this case and accordingly supress the relevant facts. --G2bambino 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved by Lonewolf BC to Talk:Royal Burial Ground. --G2bambino 00:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It don't look good for our adopting Royal family of the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth realms; Lonewlf BC, Tharky and UpDown seem to figure the case is closed. GoodDay 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Let them figure. Currently it stands 3 to 3. Perhaps an RfC is in order. --G2bambino 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It don't look good for our getting commonwealth realms mentioned. GoodDay 20:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures

Thanks for finding those old pictures and getting them added. PD material does need to be properly labeled so editors can confirm it is allowed, although even then some editors whine about stuff being copied which they think shouldn't be. (SEWilco 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

AfD nomination of Politics of Australia and Canada compared

An article that you have been involved in editing, Politics of Australia and Canada compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Australia and Canada compared. Thank you. AndrewRT(Talk) 00:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground x2

Though I agree with your edit (adding Commonwealth realms), we haven't got a consensus to add it. Your adding it might provoke an Edit War. GoodDay 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week since any comments from those involved, and without any outside comments stemming from my RfC. My last question to anyone (UpDown) on the matter still sits unanswered. So, without an opposing comment, I can only assume there's no opposition. --G2bambino 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeping my fingers crossed, PS- you may want to change Realm to realm (we differ on that, I know), since the linking article is Commonwealth realm. GoodDay 15:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Force of habit. --G2bambino 15:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

Excuse my initial reactions (it was a republican hickup, sorry). I'll go with the additon of Elizabeth II, afterall she is the Canadian Head of State. GoodDay 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But, I don't see how this relates to republicanism; a few of my examples at Talk:Stephen Harper were prime ministers whose infobox shows the president they ministered. (A prime minister can't be the top of the governmental pyramid in any situation.) --G2bambino 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I meant my initial reaction was a 'political POV' reaction (wich I'm embarrassed about). I had a fit, when I first saw E2's entry; my disputes at List of English monarchs today, may have fried my nerves a little. Again, my apologies. GoodDay 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, a nice old lady's nothing to get too worked up about. ;) But, hey, donworryaboudit. --G2bambino 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you & I have been a little too aggressive. We'll have to get a consensus first, before making the Elizabeth II and Michelle Jean additions. GoodDay 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to leave a message at your talk page. I don't think anyone but Lonewolf is being aggressive; it is consistent with his behaviour patterns: revert, make unfounded but still unquestionable assertions, do not discuss, revert again. Hence, contrary to your comment on his talk page (which was what I was going to contact you r.e.), the Stephen Harper article is indeed now locked, as with Brian Mulroney. I don't particularly like being partly to blame for these results, but, really, I can only work within the given circumstances. Further, the Harper article is a busy one; if the edits you and I worked out over the last day were indeed controversial, we would have known it. Nobody really seems to have any issue with this besides Lonewolf, and without valid reasoning behind his claims, I can only assume his moves are driven by personal motives. --G2bambino 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's frustating for sure. I too find Lonewolf's objection weak, however that's just my opinon. However, the burden of consensus does fall on us - If this article had it our way originally, then the burden of consensus would be on Lonewolf. PS- bet ya never thought, you'd have a 'republican' agreeing with ya. GoodDay 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in a Wikipedia article is "original" except for the edit that created said article. Thus, the predominant amount of editing done to "current event" articles like the Harper one are constantly having new text added. Sometimes it's questioned, mostly it's not. As I said at Talk:Stephen Harper, though, the defence for the insertion of the head of state has already been made. The onus is now on the other party to state their case against it. --G2bambino 19:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this situation is a toughy. I'm thinking of calling in others to help. GoodDay 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh* I guess. --G2bambino 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know how ya feel, but it's the only way. GoodDay 19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Toxic wast dump & Hall of shame

Thought I'd let you know. Lonewolf's 'waste dump' is being reviewed; your 'shame hall' might be next. GoodDay 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. I'm willing to let it go. In fact, I'll delete it anyway. --G2bambino 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be best. The 'hall' gave me a chuckle though. GoodDay 19:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Commonwealth Royalty

I've brought a suggestion at the WikiProjrect British Royalty for changing that Project's title. If rejected, perhaps we'll need seperat Commonwealth WikiProjects, example - WikiProject Canadian Royalty. GoodDay 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Royal Burial Ground

You reverted four times today... however I'm not one of those hardass admins and won't block someone except as a last resort. Please don't edit war in the future, just stay cool and seek dispute resolution first. Cheers, east.718 at 05:22, 11/6/2007

Replied at User talk:East718#Lock of Royal Burial Ground. --G2bambino 05:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, sorry about that. That should show you how little I cared about even the possibility of nabbing you for 3RR. east.718 at 05:36, 11/6/2007

WikiProject British Royalty

I've responded at that article; monarchy ownership identification is the core of our problems. GoodDay 17:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Award

I graciously accept. Being a republican, I've tried to hold back my 'personal views' on Monarchy articles. This award makes me feel appreciated for my NPOV approach to these articles. Thanks G2. GoodDay 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Page movements

I've gotten Monarchy in Australia and Monarchy in Canada moved to Australian monarchy and Canadian monarchy. Stopping there for now, as I'm not sure how other 'commonwealth monarchies' will look changed - example: Monarchy of New Zealand to New Zealander monarchy. GoodDay 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms articles

Hello G2, I'm getting the feeling that a 'compromise' may be needed for all Commonwealth realm related articles. Something like, United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms. If so, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom's opening line, will have to be changed. I'm guessing that's still a sore point with the pro-British editors. GoodDay 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not all. The relationship is different in different contexts; this is where the subtlty of accuracy lies, and we need to be wary of the variations. --G2bambino 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reached the conclusion that - Tharky, Lonewolf and UpDown, have no intentions of adding Commonwealth realms under current situations. Regretfully, I feel their resistance is partially fueled by their animosty towards you (which I find frustrating). The only other way forward is going to Mediation. GoodDay 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, have you noticed the Wikipedia: WikiProject British Royalty Project members aren't joining in on our discussion. What's with that? GoodDay 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine most aren't too concerned with the discussion; it really is just a debate between five or six people. Thark and UpDown share similar views; Loner, I suspect, doesn't really have an interest in this, he merely wants to antagonise me. Regardless, I hope Thark is now starting to see that this is a more complex matter and not simply about subjugation of the United Kingdom, or any such thing. --G2bambino 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello G2, my compromise isn't being accepted, another editor has declared for using British. I'm waving the 'white flag' and I suggest you do the same. The numbers aren't there, we've not a consensus and I'm growing tired of the struggle. GoodDay 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your weariness. I'm mostly disappointed, though, that an end is being forced by a gang bound and fuelled by irrational and nationalist sentiment as opposed to through logical discussion of factual evidence. I may too be weary, but I don't give up hope. As Mulder always said: the truth is out there. --G2bambino 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck my friend, in your struggle. GoodDay 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not turned to the 'dark side' - I find UpDown footnote proposal acceptable - why not give it chance, ya might like it. A footnote today, may open more doors for tommorow (who knows), and if it doesn't? Will getting pages locked help things? I think not. My primary concern is article stability (even if it means restraints on Commonwealth realms inclusion). For example: I'm against diacritics on English Wikipedia (particularly hockey articles), however, I had to accept them (as did other pro-English lanuage editors) for the sake of article stability. GoodDay 22:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply I thought you were taking any sides; it just sometimes seems you're in a rush to get everyone to agree to anything proposed, whether that proposed action is a betterment or not.

The footnote proposal is partially acceptable to me; it can be used, but in conjunction with something in the main body of the article along the lines of what I proposed. It's a step in one direction, but stuffing this off into a footnote seems so disaffecting that it's hardly worth all the while we've invested.

I don't like seeing articles locked, but my primary concern is good composition achieved through consensus and compromise. If an article need be frozen in order to do these things, so be it. It just takes longer for some editors to want to cooperate than others. We shouldn't, though, succumb to bullies. --G2bambino 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you weren't suggesting I was a turncoat, but I'm more concerned about you. We can't make this an Us vs Them thing. GoodDay 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, GooDay, that's exactly what they seem to have made it. --G2bambino 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep faith, it's tough I know (can you imagine, an atheist saying keep faith?) -- I need a psychiatrist. GoodDay 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm agnostic, so I'll keep faith in that possible superior being(s) who may or may not exist. --G2bambino 23:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- don't be too concerned with Tharky at Royal Burial Grounds, remember we've yet to here from the others. It's poosible Tharky's still sore about being under 'edit warring' review. GoodDay 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For Pete sake, use the SHOW PREVIEW before you have to save the article a dozen times within a few minutes! Do all that needs to be done, then save it (unless a mistake is later found). Thanks That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Free photos

You just reverted 3 different edits where I had replaced a copyrighted photo with a free one. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content; unless there is a specific need for a photo of the Queen, we are legally obliged to omit it. --Padraic 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's legally obliged to omit a photo unless it's plagerised, or some such thing. In some cases that image does illustrate something specific; for instance, the Queen's constitutional duties in Canada. It can also illustrate how the Queen doesn't just read the speech from the throne in the UK. Not all non-free images are banned from use; fair use exists for a reason. --G2bambino 17:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Using a proprietary photo outside the bounds of fair use is plagiarism. Fair uses exists a reason, true; Wikipedia also a policy of avoiding it wherever possible, also for a reason. I'll lay off on Monarchy in Canada, but I really don't think it's necessary for Speech from the Throne or Canadian and American politics compared. Cheers, --Padraic 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can/US politics compared: okay, it's probably not needed there. Speech from the Throne, however, it might be if, as I said at the talk page there, the article speaks about the Queen opening parliament in realms outside the UK. --G2bambino 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Infobox monarchy

Hey G2, not to trample on your contributions, but the point of the infoboxes template is so that there is a standardized table for all the related articles and not to have several versions of of it...look at Template:Infobox UofT College, Template:Infobox ontario election, which are the two other ones I created...those two do not have modifiable colour arrangement as Template:Infobox monarchy, which you added in. I understand that you feel the need to distinguish the Canadian monarchies from the rest and the federal from the provincial, however, we need to have everything standardized because that is the point of the infobox templates...its fine if we keep the border colours...but everything else, such as the title area should be the same as all the other monarchies... Regards, nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nat. I realise the need for standardization, but also see a way to usefully codify using colours. Hence, I thought that the format of the infobox would remain the same throughout, but the colours would identify the subject matter; similar in concept to the differences between, say, infoboxes for members of the Commonwealth realms Royal Family and those for members of the Danish Royal Family (e.g. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Margrethe II of Denmark). Also, as I pointed out, within Canadian articles, the title box colour differentiates monarchical related material (sovereign, governor general, lieutenant governors) from other governmental offices (prime minister), while the border, of course, defines provincial and federal jurisdictions.

Why can the title area not be coloured? Other infoboxes do so successfully, and, obviously, I feel it's reasonable, and useful, to do so in this case. No? --G2bambino 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - You evidently have much greater ability with infobox code; I'm really just learning at the moment. So I apologize for causing any frustration, and thanks for fixing up my rather naieve efforts. --G2bambino 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi G2, I see your point, however, this specific infobox is for monarchies not royal family members or vice regals, and I've also said that the different border colours to differentiate federal and provincial is fine. I didn't say that the title area shouldn't be coloured, I said that part should be standardized and either all have the same colour or no colour. nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the point of the infoboxes; I see the colours as differentiating between offices in the same way they can differentiate between royal families. I did make the title area colour permanent in the infobox template; however, User:Barryob changed that a couple of days ago. I would prefer that we go back to that format. --G2bambino 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've rv/changed the colour...if he doesn't like it too bad for him....its now permenant. nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 23:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Prime Ministers

Stop edit warring over the infobox or be blocked. Point me to the discussion about which type of box to use. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

CBW- This isn't a matter of which infobox should be used; rather, User:Lonewolf BC disputes the inclusion of the head of state in Canadian prime ministers' infoboxes. Discussion about this took place at Talk:Stephen Harper, however, the only opinion expressed by Lonewolf was that the information was "unnecessary"; no explanation was offered as to why this is so. As I'm sure can be seen from looking at the talk, Lonewolf did not address the last request made towards him, and the whole debate died; something rather notable not just for an article as busy as that for the current prime minister, but doubly so given the fact that a notice was placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada seeking input. Over a week later, no other person expressed discontent with the addition of the head of state to the infoboxes, as is done for the articles of other countries' prime ministers, past and present. Thus, I went ahead and re-added this information, though Lonewolf apparently holds up his lone conviction that this is simply not to be. I have contacted him at his talk page, however that, and the last request for him to explain himself at Talk:Stephen Harper, both remain answered by silence. I've also since sought input from people involved with the template itself, at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder.

Browbeating reversions without any discussion is a common trait for Lonewolf, so I have a hard time assuming good faith on his part. However, and though I loathe to inconvenience others by trying to call for their help, I trust additional input will allow common sense to prevail over uncouth brutishness. --G2bambino 06:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of anything, that would persuade Lonewolf to accept the additons. GoodDay 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps drawing the attention of some admins to his behaviour might persuade him. We have to wait to see if he wants to take the dispute to the next level; but, really, with three to one in favour, and no other people seemingly interested either way, he's just acting as though the prime ministers pages are his own personal property; a no-no by WP:OWN. --G2bambino 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's keeping fingers crossed, on Lonewolf's future responses. GoodDay 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Few and far between as they are. --G2bambino 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know - you forgot to inform Lonewolf and Tharky that they've been reported to Administrators. GoodDay 22:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. It's only a courtesy, but, true enough. --G2bambino 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

the new infoboxes

hey G2, could we just merge the two you just created into one infobox {i.e. Template:Infobox vice-regal)? I could add in all the codes to allow for flexibility... nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean the one for Canadian lieutenant governors and the other for Australian governors? Yea, for sure; I don't see any reason not to merge them; I was just daunted by the complexity of trying to make one that would suit all. Should that one then also be able to be used for the offices of governors general? Currently, there's no template for those. (I'm off to bed now, but will pop in tomorrow). --G2bambino 08:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to fit the GGs and Gs in...I've added the LGs for the Crown dependency as well... nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 08:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey G2, so i think i got it all in there...so do you mind if I have the infoboxes you created redirect to the new one? nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 18:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Infobox looks great. Thanks. --G2bambino 18:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK...just to be sure...were merging/redirecting right? nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I could just nominate my two for speedy deletion now that they aren't needed; yours covers everything adequately. I don't see a need for a redirect; do you? --G2bambino 18:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea....if your willing to change them all...but you know...its also ok if we have them redirected for now...but do what you must/want. :D nat ^{Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice.} 18:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AusGG-crest.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:AusGG-crest.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Senate of Canada

Actually, there's plenty of sources on the Internet that use the term prime ministership. Just checked earlier. GoodDay 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps prime ministersip and premiership aren't needed, since we've already mentioned Prime Minister Stephen Haper. We don't need too many PM/Pms. GoodDay 01:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I see news sources use "Prime Ministership" but haven't found an actual definition for the term; it seems "Premiership" is the correct format (hence, Wikipedia has a link for it, and not for "Prime Ministership"). Your new version works, though. --G2bambino 01:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates for Monarchy in xxx articles

Hello G2, I think your templates at talk: Monarchy in the Soloman Islands, talk: Monarchy in Antigua and Barbuda needs fixings. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re your invitation to express an opinion on this topic: After the Commonwealth R/realm fiasco I concluded that this area of Wikipedia is populated by too many people interested in pursuing their personal pedantic and political agendas at all costs, and that most of them have no sense of proportion or editorial judgement. As a result the amount of effort involved in trying to reach a reasonable outcome on such topics is out of all proportion to the importance of the issues being debated. I have better things to do with my time. So, I wish you all luck on improving things, but I will not get involved. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground, Part II

Things are slipping fast, my compromising efforts are prooving futile. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea you brought up at JK's page is perfect ignore Tharky ,when he starts the my monarchy thread . Though the both of you have alot in common - sticklers for accuracy -I find that you (G2) are the more reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do, then. I just didn't want such an action to be misconstrued as me having some kind of infantile huff! ;) --G2bambino (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

guidelines

I will simply say that I am not threatening to get you banned. I am far too lazy to pursue any course of action that is likely to end in that result. I will go so far as to add that I'm not threatening you in any way - simply expressing my own frustration. And we've run into each other far too often for me to have any illusions that my comment provides any new information about my opinion of you that you were not already aware of. I probably should not have expressed myself so bluntly, however, and I apologize for an unnecessary breach of civility. john k (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Canadian list of monarchs

Hope I'm not getting on your nerves. I've noticed one of your 'edit summaries' was of a colorful nature. Ya gotta be careful of such vocabulary (the semi-censure showed some restraint, though). As for Tharky? he's beginning to bore me - thus I wont be commenting on the his second Wikiquette review (if you recall, I defended him in the first Wikiquette & co-blamed you for the Commonwealth squabbles). Anyways, my silence on the current Wikiquette, is my way of saying -I'm getting 'bored with Tharky'-. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

PS- I'm getting tired of his 'John Bullying' actions. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about "John Bull" rather proves the bias you have, I'm afraid. TharkunColl (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I lost my cool. I sometimes think he's just acting like he does purely to get on my nerves; it seems he went off to do something really agitating like delete sourced material just to make me react after I said I'd ignore him. In other words, he lured me in, and I bit. Who knows, though; he gets on a lot of other people's backs too. --G2bambino (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As you've seen above, I lost my cool aswell. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the invitation. I'd be delighted.--Gazzster (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

History of monarchy in Canada

Due to numerous 'Edit conflicts' caused by your & Tharky's heated discussion, my Wiki-nose has been flatten. Hope you guys can work things out. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Friendly advice

I know it's tough. He can certainly be infuriating I know. It might be a good idea to just 'drop-out' for a bit and let other editors deal with him. Choose one of your favourite articles that he doesn't edit and work on that for a while. I know you don't intend this, but the 'discussions' you 2 have often escalate to such an extent that the issues have been sidetracked to your personalities; this damages the work and spoils things for other editors with really good ideas and things to say.--Gazzster (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help

I'd be glad to help.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

British orders before 1972

Any British postnoms before 1972 count as Canadian, just so you know.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention that, it does ring a bell. Isn't the precedence different, though? I'll have to see if I can dig that information out. --G2bambino (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is different, but as none of them have any Canadian (federal) orders it should't change anything. The list on Canadian Heritage seems to use only the ones before 1972, but it also includes the Order of Australia and the Queen's Service Order, so I don't know if it's correct or just vacant.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 18:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

G2's sandbox

Is Tharky allowed to protest on your sandbox? Ain't he suppose to wait until you present your case to Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so; I'm not doing anything beyond my bounds. I may not even file the RfC, if Thark stops causing disruptions. --G2bambino (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

He & I are already disputing the Poll (again) at Commonwealth realm monarchies; I know I should've waited 'til tommorow, but I was curious about his observations on the 'current' 9-5 tilt toward Monarchy in X for all articles. Guess, I just couldn't help myself. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

9-5 is not a very good "consensus" (and the actual figures are even closer, if you look through the votes and comments in the other options). TharkunColl (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm monarchies

Agreed, wait until tommorrow. Why dispute the Poll results, when it hasn't closed yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --G2bambino (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Because there is a consensus for the articles to be titled Monarchy of x as for the UK one a poll at British monarchy should finish off the argument for that page to be treated different --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that was not the decision. There was no decision. --G2bambino (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Canada

How goes it? Discussion is somewhat renewed, but circular and unsurprising -- care to respond? In any event, at day's end, I will be asking an administrator to unlock the article and will be placing one of the Options B in place. Thoughts? Quizimodo (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How are you? Would you care to respond to this diatribe? This editor seems to forget or ignore that Canada (the province) existed prior to Confederation. This editor has also extensively commented on Talk:Canada's name, resisting attempts at equilibrating content and doing so without providing a single reference in support, so I think he is merely being polemic. I'll comment tomorrow; now, I'm off to bed. Thanks! Quizimodo (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

List of English monarchs

Tharky's wants that list to continue up to the present' (as it erroneusly did in the past). He feels the English monarchy became the British monarchy, while the Scottish monarchy ceased to exist. He also wants 'James I to Anne (pre-1707) to be added on the List of British monarchs, as he feels James' self-declaration as Monarch of Great Britain (in 1604) over-rules the Parliaments Union Acts of 1707. Apparently, Tharky has a pro-English PoV when it comes to the history of the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. I'm not sure how he comes to these conclusions, but it seems to me that vaguely defined peoples and personally perceived nationalities play a more important role in his thinking than jurisdictions - i.e. countries - do. To me it's plain to see that before 1707 there were three monarchies - Scottish, Irish and English; between 1604 and 1707 these were all in personal union. After 1707, with the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, one monarchy was formed over all the territories the three previous ones held. In these matters we have to go by the rule of the law, not vagaries like personal views and biases. --G2bambino (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's rather unfair. Any unbiased view of the events of 1707 would describe it as an English takeover, rather than a merger of equals. That's why there is such a big movement in Scotland for independence. TharkunColl (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's movements of independance in England, what's your point. Again, take this arguement to the List of English monarchs article. I don't think G2 wants his page to become a battleground between us. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The English "independence" movement is tiny and eccentric. In Scotland they form the largest party in the Scottish parliament. Quite a big difference, I think. TharkunColl (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Canadian monarchs

Hello G2, you and Tharky can try and figure things out at that list. Tharky's constant harping over the English & British lists, has left a sour taste in my mouth. I also didn't appreciate the anti-British and now anti-English comments - most of my ancestors come from the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You learn to expect it from him after a while. Hell, he's basically called me an IRA supporter before. --G2bambino (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not fair. You used the term "Brutish", which is a term also used by IRA supporters. Either way, it's not very nice. And GoodDay has called me pro-British enough times in the past, as if that somehow renders my arguments invalid. TharkunColl (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it wasn't fair; the word "brutish" is not the sole domain of the IRA and its supporters. --G2bambino (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're no doubt right. TharkunColl (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Tharky has apologiesed for his comments & I've accepted. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant template

Why are you placing this irrelevant template on articles that are unconnected with Australia?

This article is about the monarchy of Australia, one of sixteen that share a common monarch; for information about this constitutional relationship, the other Commonwealth realm monarchies, and other relevant articles, see Commonwealth realm; for information on the reigning monarch, see Elizabeth II.

TerriersFan (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I copied from one, pasted it in the others, and then went back and fixed them, as I'm sure you can see. --G2bambino (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd

I guess the Australian editors prefer PM-elect to PM-designate. I was sure, all Commonwealth Prime Ministerships were the same. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Australian media, including the national broadcaster, the ABC, has started using prime minister- elect. I was surprised myself, as I cannot recall any previous reference to an pm- elect. I'm sure it's new. I suppose it's one of these americanisms that creeps into English. Oh well, I suppose we have Coke, Nike, the word 'cool' and baseball caps. Why not prime minister- elect too? Cheers!--Gazzster (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I imagine because it is, simply, wrong. A PM isn't elected, he's appointed. Possibly an Americanism, but perhaps more likely a republicanism, I think. --G2bambino (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember CBC, TVO, CTV, GlobalTV and CITYTV using Premier-elect for Dalton McGuinty when he was first elected in 2003 and reelected just recently.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  16:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh; really? I do recall, though, that, for some reason, many of the same news outlets called Stephen Harper "Pime Minister-designate" after the last federal election, but before he was appointed. The media.... --G2bambino (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

yup, the Media tends to use -designate for the feds (which btw, they also used that designation for Paul Martin when he was elected Leader of the Liberal Party, but Jean Chretien had not stepped down as Prime Minister yet...) and -elect for the provincials.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  16:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Premier-elect?? Not in my province. Anyways, they also prefer the term Caretaker PM for lame-duck PMs. The Australians seem to ignore the facts. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

maybe not in PEI, but in the last two recent elections (aka Ontario and Sask), the media used Premier-elect.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the ongoing presidentialization of our prime ministers. --G2bambino (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As a republican, I admire the Australians choice of PM-elect. As a realist, I disagree with their choice - But, what's a guy to do?? GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? What's to admire? The term "Prime Minister-elect," in any Westminster system - including repubican adaptations - is, quite simply, wrong; just as the sometimes use of "First Lady" is to refer to the prime minister's wife. It's the result of a combination of a general ignorance of the facts amid an overly-Americanised world. --G2bambino (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be Prime Minister-designate, yes. But we can't force those Australian editors to agree. They prefer their 'media sources' over the facts. Indeed, one of the editors said he understood my argument, but prefer the media's description (How do you deal with that kind of thinking?). GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, times are a -changing. And like it or not, we gotta change with 'em. I've a feeling prime minister- elect is here to stay. And Wiki's gotta use the new term. I suspect it's a reflection of popular attitudes. In the recent Aussie election, there was a strong feeling that the Rudd was the People's choice. Technically, yeah, the Queen or Governor-General asks a PM to form a government. But if the people hadn't have chosen, HM or HE would have no-one to appoint, right? So why not call the new PM 'elect' to reflect that? And bear in mind too, that Australia is closer to a republic than other monarchies such as the UK and Canada are.b Yes, you should listen to the Aussie editors. After all, they're living the history right now, while others refer to historical niceties.--Gazzster (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles

The Poll: I wouldn't have archived that Poll (at least not immediately), I would've (if I knew how) placed it at talk: Commonwealth realm, so others could find it (for time being). Then after a week, I'd archived among the 'realm' articles archives. Poll results IMHO there's a consensus to move all related articles to Monarchy of X - If a resistance continues by Tharky or anybody (through edit wars), there can be only 2 options - 1: Have another Poll (nobody faint, please), choosing between options #1 and #7 OR 2: Reports disenters for causing disruptions. Those are my views. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that you appear to have misunderstood the difference between "consensus" and "majority". Yes, #1 received more votes than any other option. But that's not a consensus though. Indeed, quite a polarity of views is evident - the very opposite of consensus. TharkunColl (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we want the articles functioning or locked? GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would they be locked? Why are you so keen to impose this conformity on them? TharkunColl (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen to impose anything - If I were, I wouldn't have suggested another Poll be held. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this to talk: Commonwealth realm, since the Poll/Poll results have been placed there. I don't think G2 wants his page to become a 'public discussion page' GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion out from the archive to Talk:Commonwealth realm.

As the two extremes are the two most supported options, there could be said that there's a polarity of views. But, that's rather irrelevant; the views don't necessarily matter, just what is accepted by most as satisfactory, whether it is fully aligned with their view or not. So, the litmus test lies in this: how many other people, besides yourself, Thark, are strongly opposed to the alignment of the articles? Already double - double - those who favoured no uniformity favoured uniformity. Of that minority opposed, you're the sole, continual dissenter. You alone cannot stand in the way of making a move that the majority either wishes for or doesn't care strongly about. --G2bambino (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Tharky has gone too far. Though I disagree with his recent moves, I admire his guts (for defending his principals). GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah! I admire nothing; principals play no part in this, just an uncooperative boor who stomps his feet whenever something doesn't go his way. As I think Gazzster said elsewhere: he'll eventually hang himself by his own rope. --G2bambino (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's time I visisted your Wikiquette report on Tharky. His recent actions can't be tolerated. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What's Tharky going on about? We changed his vote? GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

His vote most certainly was not changed. Where is he stating such things? I can't see in his edit history. --G2bambino (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He mentioned it at talk: Commonwealth realm, at least that's how I understand him. Maybe I'm getting paranoid. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's his last posting at this spot.-- GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking your advice on Merky's protestations. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed

If PM Stephen Harper's nose was narrower & he lost a few pounds, he'd look like John F. Kennedy; also our Finance Minister looks like Amercian comic Lou Costello --. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "separated at birth" article on Wikipedia? ;) --G2bambino (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

UpDown's foote idea

Did we ever reach a conclusion on the footnote's content (remember the discussion at Royal Burial Ground)? We sorta drifted away from it (over a week ago) and never got back to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes to Commonwealth realm - though only started - were meant to deal with that. I think eventually the section there on the Royal Family will be linked to articles like Royal Burial Ground. --G2bambino (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian politics

Continuing from Kevin Rudd. It seems the Australian objections to PM-designate stem from their 1975 Constitutional crises. They seem to be holding a longstanding grudge against the position of Governor General, which would be regretable. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As you've seen at Kevin Rudd, even a footnote for PM-designate is contested. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of us don't object to the position of Governor-general. What we object to from the '75 crisis was the manner in which Kerr used his power. The whole situation was complex, but there were other ways in which supply could have been secured. Whitlam could, for example, have called a Senate election. Indeed, he was intending to do this. And Kerr flouted Westminster convention, by which a sovereign or viceroy is bound to follow the advice of his cheif minister. Whitlam advised Kerr and Kerr chose to ignore him. This is unparallelled in the recent history of any Commonwealth realm. The recent use of 'prime-minister elect' is more likely to come from the Australian tradition of democracy which holds that power is held by the People, not a monarch. --Gazzster (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems there are many variants on the story of what happened between Kerr and Whitlam, each usually vilifying one of the two men.

As for "Australian traditions of democracy": the long-standing tradition of democracy in Australia - indeed, since before the country itself was founded - is one of constitutional monarchy wherein power is put in the hands of a monarch by the people. Thus, they leave it up to the sovereign, or her representative, to appoint a government; Australians do not elect a government, in any way what-so-ever, and hence, Prime Minister-elect is simply an inappropriately applied bastardisation of the American term "President-elect." --G2bambino (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you aren't here, living the election, I can't expect you to understand the mood here. If you were to propose to any Australian that Aussies do not elect their government, he or she would reply with a colourful Australian word or two, coupled with an expletive. The fact remains, PM elect is now part of Australian politics, and it should be used when editing relevant Australian articles.--Gazzster (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Jacko at Kevin Rudd says he'll accept a footnote. It's worth a peak. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at talk: Kevin Rudd, there seems to be some resistance to adding the Australian monarch in the Aussie PM infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Australia

I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talk • contribs) 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that, and have responded. --G2bambino 23:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal burial ground, etc.

Hi there - I'm the user who nominated this for inclusion among Wikipedia's lamest edit wars. I now somewhat regret doing so, because having looked closer, although this seems like a petty dispute at first sight, it is about something more significant which affects many other articles. I don't have any solutions to offer myself, but it looks to me like the discussion is heading in roughly the right direction: towards linking British royal family in most cases, and only linking to Commonwealth realms and Canadian royal family where they are specifically relevant. However, I agree with you that the British royal family article should be expanded to describe the family in their international and Commonwealth roles; if it properly covered such areas, this dispute would never have happened in the first place. Terraxos (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of elections contested for PMs in infobox

I am extremely unhappy at the removal of this. Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in the userspace

I have removed images from your userspace User:G2bambino. Please be aware that images that are clamied as fair use have a restriction in location:

From the policy page Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

Placing image in the userspace such as User:G2bambino is a violation and has been removed. Please do not restore this image without consoltation. Thank you. — Save_Us_229 15:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Template: Infobox Officeholder

I've noted the Australian PM infobox discussions at that Template. PS, I see you've commented there 'last month'. Perhaps having Governor General for all Commonwealth realm PM infoboxes is best. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Louis XIX, Henry V and Philip VII of France??

Hey G2, ya may wanna check these out. I've opened up discussions at List of French monarchs, List of shortest reigning monarchs of all time, Louis-Antoine, Duke of Angouleme, Henri, comte de Chambord, Wikipedia: WikiProject France and Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography/Royalty; there seems to be some re-writing of history going on, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Nice edit in Monarchy in Australia. --Gazzster (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

I was really hoping this would not come up again, but it has on the British Royal Family template. This is simple common usage, they are always known as the British Royal Family, and from what I understand in previous arguments only Canada has them as their officially Royal Family. This is a simple template header, and such complicated terms are totally unnecessary. For the legal situation they go to the relevant article. I will revert as soon as I can.--UpDown (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm really not sure what you're going on about. The template never said "British Royal Family" and always has, and still does, link to British Royal Family. So, what exactly is your objection? --G2bambino (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, threatening further reverts doesn't look too good if mediation or the like becomes necessary. --G2bambino (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It read "British Royalty - Royal Family". This is far clearer than "Royalty of the Commonwealth realms - Royal Family", your normal POV. PS - I am not "threatening" anything. I am just eager to restore the neutral, correct wording. Your POV attitude has come to a stage where I think you ought to be officially warned, its getting really out of hand.--UpDown (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove that it's POV, UpDown. In fact, take it to arbitration, and let them decide. This is what I asked TharkunColl to do, and, apparantly not being able to, he quit and left. You similarly seem to have this self-righteous view that everyone sees things from the same UK-centric point of view as you do. Well, sorry, you're wrong. And, though I understand there is such a thing as common usage, "British royalty" is not commonly used outside of the United Kingdom, unless you can show me otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You attitude still amazes me, that you can be so blind to your POV. The phrase "British Royal Family" is common usage throught the world, to suggest that anything else is ludicrous. You have a "self-righteous" view that you must stake a POV-claim to the Monarchy at every available opportunity. You cannot be allowed to do this at the expensive of common sense, logic and making Wikipedia looking stupid, which is what phrases like "Royalty of the Commonwealth realms - Royal Family" does.--UpDown (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why, again, are you still going on about "British Royal Family"? --G2bambino (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because its the correct term to use, not your invented term.--UpDown (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Give your head a shake and pay attention: I never changed any wording in reference to the family, nor even the link. The only invention here seems to be your own imaginary battle over something that never happened. --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand you. You wanted a POV wording about the Commonwealth, if you had simply changed to "British Royal Family", I wouldn't have objected, but you didn't you added your POV, that was what annoyed me. And please don't be patronising with phrases like "Give your head a shake and pay attention", its very pathetic and unnecessary. And the link is immaterial, its what the words that appear are that matters.--UpDown (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to vilify my motives with POV accusations is what's actually rather pathetic; they still remain unfounded, and actually have little to do with the crux of this issue, which is that you overreacted to something that offended your personal sensibilities. Indeed, I could have changed Royal Family to British Royal Family, but that would have meant a bigger edit than the one I actually made; I was trying to tread lightly. However, so could you have made the same change, but instead you chose to angrily revert, and over something that wasn't even done in the first place! No matter how much you willfully deny this and try to distract with attempts at my belittlement, your excessive reaction is easily recognisable. --G2bambino (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know your issue was with the term "British Royalty - Royal Family", I thought it was with the "British" part, hence your adding Commonwealth. If I had believed you would have been happy with "British Royal Family" I would have gone for that. And I was certainly not being excessive, a edit that added that Commonwealth phrasing needed reverting. If you'd made it clear "British Royal Family" was acceptable to you, this wouldn't have happended.--UpDown (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your emotions expressed and the blindness of your reverts were most certainly excessive.

I did object to the overly-British focus of the template, but how could I express dissatisfaction with "British Royal Family" when the words never appeared there in the first place? What I did was, by changing as little as possible, move a link to a more appropriate end, and alter the piped wording accordingly. If I had realised a larger edit would not have upset people, then, yes, I would have done it. But, again, "what if"s and "could have"s don't matter; the only given is you had a knee-jerk negative reaction to a good-faith edit and caused a lot of hassle in the process. --G2bambino (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My final comment on this matter, for it is now a waste of both your time and mine, is to say that I'm not convinced it was a good faith edit, it was part of your POV-push to include the Commonwealth, I don't honestly believe you see changing to British Royal Family would "upset" more people than yours did. --UpDown (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course that would be your final comment; you obviously have absolutely zero evidence that my edits are based on fantastical POV. You're full of bluster but very little force. --G2bambino (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GG-no pic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GG-no pic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Season's greetings, and RE: Canada

Hi -- happy holidays!

Mention of this (or lack thereof) in the 'Canada' lead seems to be rearing its ugly head through the back door, so to speak (see commentary towards the bottom of the section), so can you weigh in when you get a chance? Merci! Quizimodo (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Quebec

I've chosen to stay clear of the 'resolution' issue, due to the fact I'd lost my patients with it. As long as it's in the opening, it creates an impression of Quebec (the province) having special status IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea; I think the statement's technically true, but overly complicated and probably not necessary in the lead. But, like you, I'm not really going to push the issue. --G2bambino (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning

You've broken the 3-revert rule at "Heterosexuality". Please self-revert. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I've done what revert more than three times? --G2bambino (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just revert your last edit to that page, and that'll put you in the clear. I've let you know so as to do the decent thing, and am not going to argue with you about it. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the logs, G2bambino didn't violate 3RR at Heterosexuality (both G2bambino and Lonewolf BC reverted 3 times, 3RR says don't exceed 3). Fireplace (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I was under the impression we were honing things down to a happy medium through back and forth edits. --G2bambino (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Heterosexuality, when you return, please discuss all edits before further changing the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As it's only 24 hours I won't dispute this, but, I'll say: 1) it's a deranged hobby of Lonewolf's to follow me around and try to bust me for 3RR violation, and in this case, as with most of the others, the construction of a 3RR violation is pretty bloody weak; and 2) what I was engaged in may be construed as an edit war, but, sadly, with Lonewolf, edit warring almost seems a necessary outcome of any interaction with him; reverts make up about 75% of his edit history and compromise seems to be a concept beyond the reaches of his comprehension. Well, at least this time Lonewolf screwed himself over with his own game. Perhaps he'll play more collegially next time. --G2bambino (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see where G2 has breached 3RR. I've only counted 3-reverts within 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Though I think it's still tenuous, I'll take the edit warring conviction, as I can at least understand how it appeared that my first few interfaces with Lonewolf at Heterosexuality would be construed as my edit warring with him (though I still maintain he always leaves one between a rock and a hard place in the situations he creates). But, there's clearly not more than three reverts there; especially as the last edit pointed to above was not an actual revert, and was done at the explicit request of Lonewolf. --G2bambino (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like the 4th diff wasn't a revert. He switched it back to the original version (except for the suffix). Fireplace (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I regetted my comments. They were uncalled for.There have certainly been times when I have made the mistake of engaging in long exchanges with him and lost my cool. Sorry. Let's just try and enjoy the Wiki experience!--Gazzster (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jean Chrétien

An editor has nominated Jean Chrétien, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Chrétien and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Canadian civil service

Good day, can you tell me why you removed a tremendous amout of material from this article? I spent a fair bit of time researching and writing this and feel it directly supports the article. I note that you provided no explanation in the discussion page or edit summary. I look forward to your reply on my user talk page. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• My mistake - I apologize for the (my) confusion. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask...

...why did you make the House of Commons the legislature for Barbados? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "make" it the Canadian House of Commons, it was the House of Commons in the template I copied over and I simply missed it when making the Barbadian adjustments. Thank you for fixing it. --G2bambino (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of Australia

Took a pick at the article today. Just when you thought you were clear of Lonewolf BC, he tracks you down. One can run but never hide. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He does seem to have a disturbing fixation. --G2bambino (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Monarchs on the move

There's suggestions being brought up to move some 'monarch' articles, you may want to take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, why does MC keep calling you Gavin? Who's Gavin? GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what his problem is. Frankly, I don't think it's worth anyone's while to care. --G2bambino (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom‎

OK - sorry if I was a bit sweeping in the revert. I think there's too much in the lead, and I think the wording's not right yet, but I concede you are not wrong. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I agree that the lead looks a bit excessive, and also that the wording is a little clunky, but both seem to be a consequence of the nature of the subject matter itself: broad, variant, and legalesque. Finessing is, of course, very welcome. --G2bambino (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Edit warring, again, and violating the 3RR, again. This isn't the way to be behave. I have blocked you for two weeks in the hope that a longer block with bring home to you that your editing style isn't acceptable and that contested edits need to be discussed and a consensus agreed upon. If you wish to challenge the block please use {{unblock|yourreasonhere}} Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 2 February 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:

There has been no violation of 3RR. User:Lonewolf BC, who reported this "violation," consistently makes creative arguments to bring 3RR punishments against me (he has previously been blocked for just this violation of the spirit of the policy). If one takes the time to go through all my previous blocks for 3RR, one will find that the charges of 3RR breaches were often revoked by the blocking admin. As for edit warring, I'm quite convinced the admin who blocked this time around has blocked reflexively and not taken the time to consider the full circumstances of the situation. User:Rufus MC showed up as an editor with an obvious political mission at Wikipedia was making poor and biased edits over a number of articles, in a relatively short period of time, and in a very aggressive manner. I attempted to be collegial and polite with this user, and did engage him in discussions: Talk:Oath of citizenship (Canada)#Source, Talk:Citizens for a Canadian Republic#POV, Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Unbalanced, Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Polls. However, his participation in the discussion generally only started after he had reached his three revert limit within the article, and that was only after I politely warned him about 3RR policies. The user then proceeded to violate 3RR at Oath of citizenship (Canada). Despite my general civility, the user also made allegations as to my true identity, threatened a campaign to have me blocked, made distinct threats to continue to revert, and made ultimatums. These pages are not generally popular with editors; thus, though I desired further assistance in the effort to edit the articles, and made a concerted attempt to bring in outside help, in the immediate, the only person to contest with this user was myself, and this user's modus operandi was to belligerently revert without discussion to his absolute 3RR limit and beyond. Thus, I think it's clear that, given the full conditions of the situation, the above claims of poor editing tactics and bad behaviour are, by and large, unfounded, and I do take some offence to them. It is evident that my desire was to protect the integrity and quality of Wikipedia articles as best I could until other participants hopefully weighed in. I did this with manners and consideration. If the reviewing admin wishes to discuss and/or investigate this further before making any unblock decision, I am willing to participate. --G2bambino (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

1. 3RR is an absolute however you may be guilty of edit warring before exceeding that third revert. This case was not urgent and you could have waited for assistance but chose otherwise. The block is appropriate. Sorry. — JodyB _talk 15:44, 2 February 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.

If G2 were to promise to stay away from those Republican articles for say 'two weeks', will that get his block shortened? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: MC should be kept away 'two weeks' from those Republican articles in question, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is disappointing, but not surprising. I can understand that, not being intimately familiar with the situation in it's entirety (and that goes beyond the last few days), JodyB obviously has no awareness that assistance would never have come; not to all those articles, if any at all; RfCs attract no attention, administrators will not get involved with content disputes, and User:Rufus MC would have to make some flagrant breach of Wikettiquette to draw the attention of an admin. Thus, in those articles I'm left to contend with this person myself, as best I can. With only two parties involved, of course there would be back and forth editing, and when one of those parties is rabidly partisan and completely uncooperative, well, what appears to be an edit war will inevitably arise. What's most depressing here, though, is that no outside party making a judgment on this bothers to make themselves intimately familiar with the full scope of circumstances. A quick check of an edit history, a look at a block log, and the decision is made. A disgusting travesty of justice; no valid court would ever operate in such a base manner. Worse still, this is not the first example of this horrendous issuance of punishment and what amounts to a form of character assassination. It makes one feel like a petty criminal.

The previous times I've become entangled in the sad comedy of Wiki-justice I've thought about this, but never went through with it; everyone always threatens to do it when they're blocked. But this time I think I will make a few people out there swell with egocentric glee and, after some three years, bid my not so fond adieus to this project, which, at one point, I thought had some value and integrity. Too many times it's been demonstrated to me that, though there sometimes seems to be a glimmer of promise, the ones with the best intentions are the ones castigated, while the bullies and boneheads they were trying to reign in are left unscathed, and, it would seem, now more free to run rampant in the absence of another decent and dedicated editor. I'm so sorry it turned out this way. --G2bambino (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I urged Gazzster days ago, I now urge you G2 - Please don't throw up your hands in disgust, you've been around here too long to throw in the towel. I'm still hoping your 'block' will be shortened (if not repealed); should that repeal not happen? then consider the 'two weeks' a wiki-break (albeit a forced one). Wikipedia is a collaboration with 'thousands' of editors & that can cause squabbles. Please reconsider, as I hate to see an established editor walk away - Wikipedia is stronger with you. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with GoodDay - don't go, I would miss our little head to heads. TharkunColl (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pppffft..! (That's me spraying my drink all over the computer screen.) Now that's a surprise! My god, Thark, you may just have filled me with a little hope on this bleak day. --G2bambino (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a personal request to the blocking Administrator, to get your block shortened. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, GoodDay; you've always been very kind. I obviously haven't left quite yet; I figured there'd be some loose ends to tie up, rather like clearing out your desk when leaving a job. But, I have to say, I didn't come to my decision to part very lightly. You see, it isn't the occasional squabbles, or the editors who cause them (I certainly can be one of those, myself) that has drained my faith in this venture. What has pushed me to the breaking point is how "justice" is metted out in this system; quickly, and one would think, almost blindly. It solves what's percieved to be an immediate problem, but is barbaric in its totalitarianism and lack of accomodation for the variants of each case. The powers that be dish out the punnishments without even an attempt at detailed investigation, and the punnished are left with essentially no way to appeal to a faceless, mindless bureaucracy of admins who have not the interest to invest time in an investigation of their own. One is left to take the sentence without question, and have that reprimand then on permanent record, accreting on top of previous careless, yet still somehow influential, charges, for the next admin to use in his/her judgement when you're dragged before the bench again. If I was to continue to participate here, I would inevitably find myself in the same position I was in before being charged with edit warring: only myself and one stubborn, uncooperative, antagonistic person editing an article with no other traffic, where no help will come and no outside opinions will be offered, though my dedicated "police" will still follow my every edit in wait of some chance to fabricate a 3RR charge and tattle on me to the Gestapo admins. What could possibly be done that next time round?

Sorry, an authoritarian system combined with aggressive users and disturbingly fixated, self-appoined and hostile monitors overpowers the satisfaction of working with those who are genuinely collegial, making this neither a friendly nor rewarding environment in which to work. --G2bambino (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate, most of us who are serious about improving the quality of Wikipedia have been where you are. As Gooday says, I was there just a few days ago! Taking a little break might be good for you. Don't take Wiki too seriously mate- it's just a bit of fun. And yes, I would miss our little head- ons too! Take care.--Gazzster (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I used to think so; it hasn't been so much fun, of late. --G2bambino (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks G2, for the kindness comment. I'm confident you'll be back. You've done too much meaningful work on the 'monarchy articles' (particularly the Canadian monarchy articles), making them as accurate & informative as possible. You'll be back, you must come back. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to throw in my opinion here and say that I sincerely regret how things have turned out. I certainly don't want to be banned and I don't want anyone else banned either. I agree that the admins seem to have acted with a heavy hand here but, I have to admit, we had it coming. Perhaps all parties can step back now and view the situation a bit more rationally and objectively. For instance, I know that my contributions to the republican pages were and are motivated by the same good intentions as (I'll assume) G2's. I fully understand his passion and I can tell he has an enormous depth of knowledge about the monarchy (both of which will be missed here if he leaves). That's why I largely leave his edits on the monarchy pages alone. I'm biased, I admit it. What I have a problem with is, with his bias, why does he feel he's capable of recognizing what should and shouldn't appear on a republican page? In my own defense, comments about how insignifant he thinks the republican movement is, or showing Quebec separatist leaders as representative republicans or removing polls unfavourable to the monarchy are tactics that any editor on the other side of any argument are bound to resist. To sum up; if I saw evidence that indicates G2 is willing to relinquish control and be open to more balanced editing, I can guarantee that I'll be satisfied with debate rather than revert. MC Rufus (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

G2, Administrator Spartaz may conditionally shorten your 'block' - I suggest you check out his proposed conditions (at his page). GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, GoodDay, thank you for being the messenger, of sorts (as you may not know, I can't edit any page besides this one - not even my user page - which has stopped me from doing a number of things before leaving).

Regardless, I have read Spartaz's response to you. Firstly, his comments about the length of my block log confuse me; one block was revoked, the majority of the rest is a wheel war amongst admins, leaving two "valid" blocks for edit warring. Whether those blocks were justified or not, two hardly seems lengthy. Further, looking at this makes me wonder about the pattern of block lengths: 24hrs, 31hrs, 2 weeks, with the last being Spartaz's.

What also disturbs me is that he seems to believe I think it is my right to disrupt Wikipedia, "as [I] please." I am not happy, at all, with that analysis on his part; this seems to reinforce what I said above about judgment of character and motivation being cast solely on the length of one's block log and a cursory look at a recent edit history. Spartaz has obviously not taken the time to see that I've never gone looking for a fight, and that only when circumstances align in a specific manner do I find myself with no other obvious alternative but to engage in regrettable actions like the back and forth of an edit war. In fact, a detailed study of my history would probably reveal that I often make concerted efforts to satisfy the other party's objections and/or concerns while also suiting my own; too often these attempts at compromise are simply reverted by the opposition.

And this brings me to the crux of the issue: despite Rufus' words above, he, and others like him, edit in a totally uncooperative manner; compromises are ignored, explanations are ignored, attempts at discussion at talk are ignored; they have one mission, and one mission only: insert their words exactly as they want them. Indeed, Rufus' comments reveal that he thinks I should relinquish my "control" over republican pages to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Why divide editing abilities along political lines and propose this caveat other than to remove opposition and allow him to take over "control" of the pages he wants himself? That doesn't demonstrate flexibility, and without flexibility there's no cooperation or compromise.

So, if I were to edit Wikipedia again, I would no doubt eventually find myself in another situation where events have aligned to make a trap of sorts. The circumstances are: 1) a stubborn, uncommunicative editor insists on inserting or removing material they want or don't want; 2) efforts to communicate are ignored, rational argument is ignored, attempts at compromise are ignored by this editor; 3) the page does not attract heavy traffic; 4) tries for outside help bring in nothing (as RfCs often do); and 5) admins will not pay attention to a content dispute. If I am left alone to contend with this type of individual, and they will not communicate, and nobody will intervene until an edit war has broken out, then what am I to do in this situation? If someone could explain that to me then I would most certainly put that into practice, which would, therefore, mean hopefully no reverts, as Spartaz asks for. (Though, it would make Lonewolf's tracking of me very boring for him!) --G2bambino (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to butt in. But I do think Spartaz seems to have ignored that it was you who asked for outside help. That should've counted for something. I thought that was big of you considering your passion for the topic.--Gazzster (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Though I'd be wary of getting myself involved in this, you're certainly not butting in, Gazzster. You are aware of the sitation and, I imagine, have valid opinions to offer. --G2bambino (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This situation is so frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • The situation is frustrating because G2bambiono is basically saying that its OK for him to edit war to get his way and its the admins fault for blocking him when he gets reported for edit warring. I haven't actually asked for particularly stringent concessions to consider an unblock or reduction in the length of the block - simply an acknowledgement that he did wrong and an agreement to avoid edit warring in future (a voluntary 1RR). That's hardly draconian in anyone's money and I simply do not understand why this is too unreasonable for him to even consider. Add to this that he has a block log for edit warring as long as my arm and was blocked within the last month for breaching the 3RR we see an editor who simply will not abide by the editing rules. The ball seems to be in his court. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This in indeed agitating. I never once said it was okay to edit war; I'd be interested to know where you got that from. What I was said is that I've found myself in situations where I've seen no viable alternative but to "edit war" (though, honestly, I hesitate to use the term because it is never my intent to launch an attack). Further, I'd like you to justify your comments about my block log; as I see it there's two edit warring infractions prior to your charge, and the last 3RR was found to be unjustified.

While the ball has been in my court I made a specific request that so far hasn't been addressed: what is to be done if I find myself in one of these perfectly aligned scenarios again, which I no doubt will? If someone could answer that I'd reconsider my decision on participating in Wikipedia, and, with those instructions under my belt, I would avoid the need to revert, thereby satisfying your stipulation (though the parameters are a bit vague). --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Basically you need to leave the article alone. Simple as that. Revert, discuss, conensus. If you find an editor refusing to discuss you can go for a third opinion or seek help from the relevent wikiproject. If the edit is really that important then surely more editors then just you would be willing to help deal with the edits. The condition isn't vague. You just have to agree not to revert an article more then once in a 24 hour period. That's hardly an onerous condition. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but let's not ignore something: my concerns spread farther than just this particular article. In general, I don't want to find myself again is in a situation similar to this one just past: where it is only myself, in some lone outpost of Wikipedia, against one other editor who's antagonistic and stubborn enough to cause problems, but able to reign themselves in enough to skim under the radar of other users and admins, all the while with my persistent surveilant, User:Lonewolf BC, on my tail. At different articles at different times, outside calls for help, as you suggest, have generally brought no response; the edits are important to those with a vested interest in the topic, but that doesn't seem to be too many people at all. These scenarios are invariably frustrating, with the displeasure enforced by a crack-down punishment on either one or both of us.

You didn't earlier make clear, or I missed, that the 1R limit was to be only for this particular article; though, I'm still unclear as to how long this would be in place. However, if I could be sure that assistance, mediation, and independent opinions would be available when needed, then, yes, I'd be comfortable with the limit as well as editing Wikipedia at large again. --G2bambino (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I obviously wasn't clear. I want a 1RR for the whole project but only for the remaining duration of the block. If you agree to that I will unblock you and act as mediator if you have any further editing disputes for the remaining duration of the block. Agreed? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying; I understand your conditions now. After having given it some thought, I accept your proposal. And additional thanks for both taking some extra time to deal with this as well as offering to mediate the situation further. --G2bambino (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Here's seeing you again on February 16th, G2. Two weeks will go by quick. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's yet to be decided if I will stick around beyond the 16th. --G2bambino (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop in here on that date, to see how things are. PS- I'm a Wiki optumist. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See comments below. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rufus' comments

"Despite Rufus' words above ... " Funny, I thought I was extending an offer of conciliation. Look, G2, I'm really not trying to antagonize, but sit down and read what you've written above carefully: You a] feel persecuted or conspired against, b] fear losing control of your territory, c] have rigid dogmatic beliefs that you feel compelled to protect, and d] are suspicious of offers of compromise. Honestly, if you were a country, you'd be North Korea. Relax. You're not under attack.

I'll say again that I'm only interested in balance, not control. That means everyone being fair and objective. I have no problem with that. If you do, then we're going to end up right back here - because all of the republican pages need a lot of work. During that process, I fully expect there to be discussions and disagreements. But rather than edit wars (which, regretfully, I admit to in the past), perhaps we'd all be better off exploiting the views of other editors as well as third opinion and request for comment instead. This is the process that Wikipedia offers us. Incessant kvetching about it will do nothing. So either you're in or you're out. What's it going to be?MC Rufus (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny that I should check in here so soon after you posted the above. Please allow me to respond to each of your points first:

a] I suspect no conspiracy, and don't know where you interpret that from what I've said. What I suspect is that rules set up to protect Wikipedia cannot be enforced judiciously by a group of volunteer admins detached from the intricacies of the "cases" and people they rule on. It's simply a fundamental flaw of the project, and, combined with other factors, can make for a very unenjoyable and dissatisfying experience.

b] I've never said, nor demonstrated, that I feel I control territory. That I have is your creation, not mine. From your earlier comments it appears that it is you who believes Wikipedia to be divided into territories, and in our case its republicans and monarchists to their respective sides. Well, that's not how it works; I am as entitled to edit republic related articles as you are to edit monarchy related ones. Perhaps this polarised view of yours is what leads you to believe that every opposition to your edits is politically motivated and some kind of war waged on your jurisdiction.

c] See b] above.

d] You'll have to forgive me if I take your words of "compromise" with suspicion given my brief, but very intense interactions with you. In the space of a few short days you attempted to reveal my identity, bullied with threats of continual reverts, were loathe to engage in conversation until forced to by 3RR limits, were mistrustful of the motivation behind every one of my edits, and dismissed Wikipedia guidelines and rules that stood in the way of your inserting what you wanted to. Further, what you offer isn't a compromise at all, but, rather, the proposition of the establishment of boundaries that neither of us may cross. Well, thanks for the offer, but that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia; I should not be barred from any article, whether voluntarily or not, and nor should you.

I don't have any doubt that there will be disagreement. However, what concerns me is the methods by which you resolve those disagreements. Reverting to your absolute limit before moving to the talk page, suspecting anyone who's done something you find disagreeable to a republican page to be an agenda-pushing monarchist, accusing people of ill motive because of their personal interests, and setting up territorial boundaries is not, to my mind, any proper way to do so. Other parties are always, always welcome; as I outlined earlier, these lamentable situations generally arise when only two people are involved. But, also remember that the more peripheral Canadian monarchical and republican pages generally have little traffic, and RfCs do not often gain any attention. So, it may well come down to just you and I to resolve the dispute, which raises all my above concerns again. I guess the question is: as flawed as the system is, will you work, collegially, within it? --G2bambino (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, "a group of volunteer admins detached from the intricacies of the cases and people they rule on." In other words, a bunch of idiots who disagree with you. OK, so you think this is a "fundamental flaw of the project." Fine. That may be new for you, but I'm a republican. I'm used to it. If you don't like it, then change it. Otherwise, work the system. Being a whiner isn't endearing, I'm afraid to say.

Re; "your territory," I wasn't referring to the republican pages. I meant ALL the pages you edit. Everywhere you go, it's nothing but disputes, conflicts, edit wars, 3RR violations. I've checked with a few editors you've crossed swords with. Surprise! There were few kind words about you. (Sorry, that was a euphemism. There were >zero< kind words about you.) Do you really need me to point this out?

Re; my "compromise;" I didn't say for you to not edit the republican pages. Not at all. I simply ask that you, as I do, recognize your own bias and be objective and fair. So far, you've exhibited none of that. Instead, you've made it quite clear that nothing negative about the monarchy or positive about republicanism will get past you without a fight.

Last of all, I've already confessed to "regrettable" behaviour and said that I now prefer a less combative way to contribute to the republican pages. If harping about the past is therapeutic for you, then go for it. Otherwise, it's doing nothing positive or constructive. - MC Rufus (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rufus, I will not engage with you as long as you put words in my mouth. You are entitled to your opinions and your interpretations of what I say, but stick to what I say and not what you imagine I said.

Now, everything I said earlier still stands. As does everything you said, including: "with his bias, why does he feel he's capable of recognizing what should and shouldn't appear on a republican page?" That, in essence, says: because of what you think you aren't capable of editing these pages. Further, you stated about yourself: "I largely leave his edits on the monarchy pages alone. I'm biased, I admit it." That clearly means you believe in bounded jurisdictions that are defined by one's particular leanings, and neither of us is allowed to cross into the other's. When I encroach into what you perceive to be your territory, where you think I don't have the dogmatic ability to tread, and make an edit, you scream bloody murder; the monarchists have invaded with their ignorant biases against republicanism! How dare they try to participate in something I know everything about and they don't? Again, your absolutely polarised view clouds your ability to see that all that matters is the content of the encyclopaedia, which relies on facts and the absence of points of view. When you openly admit you have a bias, while pushing out anyone who disagrees with it, you are fundamentally going against the guidelines of this project.

Frankly, I couldn't give a shit what the editors you checked with say about me; if you're only going to look at those I was in nasty disputes with, then of course they're going to have no good opinions about me. Also, I know that it's a completely unfounded assertion to say that I've brought dispute to every page I edit. In case you didn't notice this: it's generally the same two or three people I get into fights with, people with whom I've tried to be cordial and cooperative, but who are obstinate in both their points of view and belief that these trump facts or common belief. Maybe this fact matters little to you, but if you want to know the truth, there it is.

I will, of course, recognize that I have a personal point of view on things. But one point you need to understand is that I do not try to override facts in order to promote that stance. You may think I do because I remove what you would say is factual (i.e. "British monarchy," polls, etc.), but, what I'm doing is challenging your personal interpretation of the facts, and personal interpretations are not factual. You need a sound argument, supported by reliable sources, to affirm what you insert, including the meaning of factual data.

If you're going to be more accommodating, then I'm pleased. However, this doesn't dispel the almost given actuality that I will eventually come across someone like the "old" you again. Instead of harping on the past, as you glibly put it, I succinctly asked for advice on how to avoid the same outcome in the future. But, that is probably not a question for you to answer. --G2bambino (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Incredible. You don't budge a nano-milimeter, do you? Fine. I've said my piece. - MC Rufus (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And, it seems, neither do you. This doesn't bode well at all. --G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Look on the bright side gentlemen, you've both 'agreed' to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Per our discussion you have been unblocked after agreeing to stick to a 1RR for all articles for the remaining duration of the block. I make that the 26 February. (not sure if that's 25 Feb your end of the world) Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the 15/16th of February. --G2bambino (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think I did. Did I see you reported at AN3 just now? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. In what seems to be retaliation for a 3RR report I made against a user, that user then tried to bring up a 3RR breach on my part that supposedly happened four months ago. --G2bambino (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just indefinitly blocked Soulscanner for harrassing you. It can be lifted as soon as they agree to leave you alone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, if you think that's appropriate; though, honestly, he seemed to be antagonising User:Quizimodo more than me. I just found his actions slightly irritating... so far. --G2bambino (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Once they start abusing admin noticeboards and RFAR to settle scores with other editors the level of disruption becomes unacceptable. They can be blocked as soon as they get the message and agree to behave. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yahoooo! Welcome back G2. And, on the 56th anniversary of Elizabeth II's accession, no less. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, you've returned late Feb 5th - but February 6th is your first full day back. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks again for your earlier efforts. --G2bambino (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dominion

Hi there. When/if you get a moment, can you weigh in at Dominion? (Also take a glance at recent edit summaries, which are more telling than anything.) A certain someone is back at it, and seems to be as counterproductive as ever.

Persevere. :) Thanks! Quizimodo (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? Quizimodo (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm never 100% positive, but it does seem you went over 3RR. As you can see from the above here, I know full well the frustration of dealing with someone like this almost fully on your own. However, I believe Soulscanner himself violated 3RR, and, as I'm sure you'll note, I've reported him for such. I don't enjoy doing these things, but he does seem to have become very disruptive, again. --G2bambino (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Commonwealth realm orders of precedence

An editor has nominated Commonwealth realm orders of precedence, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth realm orders of precedence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days

This was completely inappropriate. You are blocked for 3 days. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I filed that report, Soulscanner then removed it, and I fixed it up again. Please be more thorough in your investigations. --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You changed a report made by Soulscanner against you to a report made by you against Soulscanner. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unblocking you and referring the matter to WP:ANI because I need to go and do other stuff and I am not entirely convinced of what exactly is happening here. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I made a report against Soulscanner. Soulscanner then made a report against me. Soulscanner then removed the report I made against him. Soulscanner then made a duplicate report against me. I then fixed one of Soulscanner's duplicate reports back to the way mine was before he deleted it, leaving his in place untouched. --G2bambino (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:Excuse my butting in: Have I got this straight? Soulscanner basically plagerized your report, then when you reclaimed authorship, he cried bloody murder? GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I got blocked, you got blocked. The page got blocked. I thought the worst, and so did you. Moral: assume good faith. Time for a break. --soulscanner (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies also for failing to read the entire situation. I have placed a one-second block to note in your block log that my previous block was incorrect. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also mentioned everywhere that I can think of where this came up (WP:AN3, WP:ANI, etc.) that the block was unwarranted, but if I missed out somewhere please let me know. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I promised to apologise if I was wrong and so I was. Sorry for the mistake and sorry for not assuming good faith. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Stifle and Spartaz: thank you for the apologies. I too regret not reading Soulscanner's two 3RR reports more carefully, despite their near identical appearance. --G2bambino (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Care to go to the mediation request page for Dominion? We can both agree that we need it. --soulscanner (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need more than mediation can offer. --G2bambino (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Quizimodo (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you go to the mediation page and please formalize your rejection of mediation please. The mediators need to make a decision, and this will make it faster. --soulscanner (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Make things right on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Your original 3RR posting against me for posting neutrality tags on the Dominion page was deleted by me (unintentionally) and no administrator ever saw it. I submitted a complaint minutes after his, and thought it was a duplicate post of mine. It's only fair to restore this and have an administrator rule on it.

(see link)

I simultaneously posted a complaint against Quizimodo and you for repeatedly removing the neutrality tags I'd placed on the Dominion page. This resulted in warnings against both of you.

(see link)

The warning against you was altered, reversing the original reporter (me) and the reportee (G2Bambino) by you. That is unfair. It now reads:

(see link)

Could you please reverse the reporter and reportee back to the original. You (mistakenly and in good faith as I explained) switched our names on the decision. This whole mess got both of us blocked, until the administrators figured out what was going on. I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged this good-faith error and at least switch this back; it ultimately reflects poorly on both of us.

Thanks --soulscanner (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed it back myself. Let me know if there's something wrong with it. --soulscanner (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quizimodo

I've reported this user's uncivil behaniour at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. As you're involved in the discussion at Talk:Dominion, you may wish to comment.--Gazzster (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo.--Gazzster (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monarchs Again

Although I disagree with you, because of your involvement last time around, I feel it is only fair to let you know that the "should we include monarchs and GG's" debate has come up again on Talk:Stephen Harper. Just in case you missed this on your watchlist:)Random89 (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)