User talk:G2bambino

Discussion on AN with possible actions about the 2 RFCs

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Roux_and_User:G2bambino, as you both want similar restrictions on the other, and we have two discussions in two different locations, I thought it would be a good idea to discuss in one location. —— nixeagle 18:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you; that was a good idea. --G2bambino (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles's future ranks

Hiya G2. Excuse my blogging here; Can Charles be promoted to Field Marshal, Marshal of the RAF & Admiral of the Fleet during his mother's lifetime? GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I would venture to guess that yes, he could possibly be. His father currently occupies those positions, and if he should die, I don't see why Charles couldn't be promoted to them. But, then, I'm not an expert in such matters. --G2bambino (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of Merit

Hi G2. Are you aware that there is a Order of Merit (disambiguation) page already? DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops... Crap; no, I wasn't. And I specifically moved the Order of Merit article in order to make one. Perhaps I should move it back, then. --G2bambino (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And the disambig link is right at the top of Order of Merit too. *Shakes head* Thanks for bringing that to my attention. --G2bambino (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Wasn't sure if you knew and were about to clean things up or didn't know. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Please don't use copy/paste to fix a moved article problem, it creates issues with the GFDL attribution history. (There is a template around somewhere that explains this better than I do but I try not to template the regulars. ) I've deleted your copy/paste version and moved the old article & it's history back to the proper title. --Versageek 04:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I had a sneaking suspicion I wasn't doing it right, but I thought articles could only be moved to new titles, not override existent ones. --G2bambino (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1RR restrictions

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your 1RR restrictions at Canada, as seen in these reverts. Your editing restriction specified that you may make one reversion, per day, per article relating to Monarchy of Canada, broadly interpreted. It is my belief that this falls under that restriction. As always, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below this message. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

G2b, I realize this is your upage and open for (almost) any work you wish, and by all means revert this post at will - but aren't "principals" them wot run the schools, whereas "principles" are them wot run the conduct of society? (And principals are often major shareholder/operators in a firm too, but they don't necessarily hew to any principles in their business operations) That's just my own understanding of the spellings, as I said, remove this as you please. :) Franamax (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I disagree with you (very strongly) on a number of assertions you've recently made, but in this you are correct. --G2bambino (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the people I tend to disagree most strongly with are mostly my closest friends, precisely because I care about their viewpoints most dearly. I've tried hard to present only fact-based points, or else my subjective experience - and not mix the two. I recognize that you may not agree with the latter (obviously, since that experience is uniquely my own) but it's good that we can agree on spelling. Can we build on that? It would really work out better if everyone worked toward some kind of agreement. A statement of initial principles on viewpoint might (or might not) help, but even better would be a statement of readiness to consider other viewpoints and make compromises. Franamax (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might appear that at least one more stone can be built on the one already there: I cannot contest against a goal of considering other viewpoints and making compromises. But, we must not forgo the importance of sources and the interpretation thereof, in order to reach the finish line. As for those subjective observations of yours: addressing them will have to wait; that is, if they're even something worth investing argument in. They may simply change in time. All I want to say before I have to run to catch a train is that I dislike judgments cast before I've even done anything. Hold suspicion, sure; but allow some time for observation before deciding those suspicions have become fact. --G2bambino (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on 1RR

As you weren't able to comment on the extent of your restrictions at the recent discussion on Talk:Canada, I've asked Tiptoety to comment here. Franamax (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Soulscanner has broken 3RR:

1. [1] 01:16, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
2. [2] 01:36, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino
3. [3] 02:26, 1 November 2008 - direct revert that removes maintenance tags placed by WilyD
4. [4] 05:49, 1 November 2008 - edit that also removes maintenance tags placed by G2bambino

--G2bambino (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Eep, making reverts under several conditions does not fall under 3RR. Is it a revert of vandalism? (This applies when you continue reversions after discussion has begun on the talk page) Did the reverted edit go against talk-page consensus? Was the opposing editor making edits in violation of a ban, block, or editing restriction? Did another editor intervene in furtherance of the edit-war? (I'll state here that I thought WilyD's reinstatement of your tags was in the interest of fairness, but you should have stopped then also). Reading the rules too closely, just in order to slag someone else - not a good strategy. Rather, best to concentrate on obeying the rules, and judiciously WP:IAR'ing them and just criticize your own actions. IMO Franamax (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it appears as a tit-for-tat kind of thing or not, but if I'm to be blocked for 2 reverts replacing the tags, it only seems fair and consistent that another's possible 4 reverts removing the same tags be investigated. Otherwise, I would need someone to explain to me why revert rules should be read closely when it comes to me, but not for other experienced editors. --G2bambino (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing, you can ask for someone else to be dragged down with you, but eventually you have to stand alone to be judged. Whether life or wiki - you might expect fairness or consistency, but you won't necessarily get it. At least in real life, probably not. The problems arise when you proceed on your own assumptions of what is fair and just. SS has a defensible case (as I interpret it, enforcing a 1RR restriction, and reverting changes with direction to the talk page and consensus therein). You, on the other hand, are treading on very thin ice. No less a personage than Guy has commented that you are "following the classic path to self-destruction right now". My best advice is that you really should take that to heart - if Guy is devoting as many words as he did for your case (44, he usually does it in ten or less), read each one carefully, and abandon any ideas of self-justification. The answer is going to be inside you, not in pointing fingers at anyone else. What exactly is it that you want to contribute here? What about your approach is pushing people away? Only you can answer those questions. Franamax (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hiya G2bambino. I'd recommend that ya take a wiki-break from Canadian monarchy related articles, for at least 1-month. Rightly or wrongly, you've peeved alot of editors out there. Perhaps consider doing as Roux has. I don't wanna see ya getting longer & longer blocks (which is possible). GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GD, I've seen this suggestion in the other places you've put it forward. I don't, however, think it would accomplish much; whether it's later or not, the issue is having everyone get along. --G2bambino (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. PS- Have ya noticed I've improved on my indenting at talk-pages? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

Hi, I've taken your statement: Nixeagle, I already offered my vote of support for the proposal above, and I have not changed my mind. I still think there should be a longer watch on Roux in terms of civility, but otherwise I am fine with the arrangements. as meaning you agree with the restrictions. As far as your sole concern, [roux] not having the WP:CIVIL restrictions on as long, I can assure you that if it becomes a problem after 2 months you can just ask me and I'll look at the situation and potentially block. You both know by now that you must be civil on this encyclopedia. Failure to be civil will result in my blocking. I hate to block, so lets work on the CIVIL thing (both of you).

As I've noted at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=249462142#Both_editors_accepted I've marked that both of you agree to the restrictions mentioned above. If this is not the case, you need to say so there. (I'm taking your vote of support as that you agree with the restrictions) I myself think it is fair and reasonable as none of the restrictions are anything that good editors don't already do. (neither of you are being restricted from any class of articles, etc.) The shorter period on roux only reflects that he has not been around as long as you, and the main part of the restricions is getting both of you to improve on your civility and editing behavior.

—— nixeagle 19:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Hi! per this post both you and Roux have accepted this solution and it is now in effect. Thank you for working through this dispute, it's appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sandbox

Hey, I was hoping you would not mind removing this section from your sandbox. I have some concerns that it may appear as somewhat of an attack page. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 03:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Template: Ca-residence

You may have noticed the recent change there. I've not the energy to dispute his/her changes any longer; I'd rather pet a porcupine while rolling in tissles. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice it until you just drew my attention there; I've just fixed it, again. I wonder if we need higher powers to involve themselves... --G2bambino (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're brave soul. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

lol. Well, I used up my one revert; so, if he does it again, it's up to someone else to tackle it. He certainly doesn't seem interested in discussing the matter. --G2bambino (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I got that impression from him/her, on his/her talkpage in October. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I've replied to your 3RR report; please let me know if you have any questions or such. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. --G2bambino (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have made a comment on the 3RR noticceboard discussing the problems with Soulscanner that myself and another user (User:Mathieugp) had with Soulscanner last year. I should inform you that Soulscanner's inappropriate conduct goes back to last year when he made a mission to oppose anything he saw as pro-Quebec and pro-francophone and he was extremely forceful and zealous in his hardline federalist bias. I see that he has reverted you no matter what you do on the Canada page, even if your edits are legitimate. Anyway, if you check my edit history you will discover that Soulscaner has used sockpuppets in the past and that he has a very long history of bias and revert warring. Laval (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I too am familiar with soulscanner, having already been through a very tumultuous argument he initiated at Talk:Canada some time ago. I also observed what went on at Talk:Fête nationale du Québec (Saint Jean Baptiste Day). I certainly hope he will adopt a more collegial attitude. --G2bambino (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello thar. I made some changes here to neutrally represent all sides of this conflict. Also, here are some terms that apply to you and Soulscanner;

1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family except for clear policy-defined vandalism.

Any additions that are not purely housekeeping must gain consensus from other editors first.

Veiled, snide remarks and general incivility are unacceptable.

No discussion of past conflicts; stick to the topic at hand and don't go off on a diff-hunting "this is what you said you hypocrite" tangent.

Any questions are welcome on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 09:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith

I'm sorry to have to block you, however you cannot assume bad faith as you have done at Template talk:British Royal Family. I have written a response there at Template talk:British Royal Family#Width 2 for what you should do once this block expires. Throwing around accusations that another editor is "owning" a template/article/whatever is not productive to discussion. I do feel that the two of you are seeing consensus differently, and I explained that (your differences on what the consensus agreed) on the talk page for you. —— nixeagle 06:17, 10 November 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:

Perhaps that was an assumption of bad faith; however, a restriction on my ability to assume such seems to allow Roux to get away with reverting my good faith edit followed by snide comments such as "I'm not getting into an argument with you. Mayalld explained, as did I, what the consensus on this page is. It is against changes. Bye," and "You know precisely what you were told and where... no change is required to this template. Period. Your attempts to override that... are beside the point; the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing. You have already been told this, and quite specifically, by Mayalld. I suggest you re-read his comments." Though I tend to not take much offense to these types of things, Roux is evidently assuming bad faith on my part in insinuating that I am willfully overriding a consensus I am choosing to ignore. As he is under identical civility and AGF restrictions, it only seems consistent and fair that either I be unblocked, or he face the same consequences for his display. --G2bambino (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Its well documented that using unblock requests to try and get other users blocked is rarely productive. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 10 November 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.

I do not see any *recent* problems (re roux) on the history of that template. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:British_Royal_Family&diff=250311297&oldid=250292703 for roux's only edit after the restrictions you two agreed to. He commented to the effect that consensus is not achieved, As I said, you guys need to figure out if the consensus on that talk page was against his proposal or against changing the width at all. I explained this on the talk page of that template for you guys).

Now you post a bunch of unlinked summaries. Are any of those recent? as in after the two of you agreed to your restrictions? If so I am interested in seeing links to diffs.

Finally I need to note, that you cannot control what others do, but you can control what you do. You agreed (along with roux) not to assume bad faith, and saying someone is owning an article is an assumption of bad faith. If you have a problem with the behavior of roux, my talk page is always open to you and if that is not sufficient there is always WP:AN, but do not assume bad faith on article talk pages. —— nixeagle 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't really clear, sorry: What I quoted weren't edit summaries; they were Roux's words to me at the talk page (diffs: [5], [6], and this other less rude one [7]). To me each of those add up to show clearly that he didn't say there's no consensus; he said there is a consensus, and was therefore insinuating that I was willfully choosing to ignore its existence. That is a veiled accusation of bad faith. Further, the snide sarcasm of "It is against changes. Bye", and "the overall view across this entire talk page is very, very clear: no change. None. Nada. Zero. Nothing," is meant only to agitate, the same as he had been doing before he agreed to the civility and AGF restrictions.

I apologise to Spartaz if he thinks I made some error in the posting of the unblock request; it was actually more a means to attract attention to this matter rather than to "specifically get someone blocked". Roux was unblocked once before (see 14:05, 8 October 2008) because he had been blocked for the same 1RR violation that I had apparently made and wasn't blocked for. Now I've been blocked for the same AGF violation that he's made (besides his incivility); so... I'd imagine the parallel action would take place again, either in unblocking me, or a 24hr block for him for breaking his added restrictions. Frankly, I think the latter is the more prudent; I've learned the extent of my AGF boundaries by being blocked, but, without recourse for his actions, has he? --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I've tried to explain to you (I think) the problem here is you two don't agree on what the consensus on that page means. I do see a few editors saying "it is fine the way it is", but is that specifically only in reply to his proposal or in reply to the width thing in general? My suggestion is when your block expires is to start a new discussion specifically about the width and let those editors know. The consensus he is talking about is in the section above the current section where I count at least 3 editors saying don't change it, the current version is fine... in various phrasings. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:British_Royal_Family#Proposal.2Frestarting_discussion).

In short I believe his statements in this case to be in good faith, stating that a prior consensus against change exists. The only question I see here is... is that consensus against change on the template in general, or is that consensus against change only on his proposal. In short he seems to be thinking that consensus exists against any change, and I'm thinking you think that consensus exists only against his proposed change. I think had you specifically noticed this difference in thought we would not be here. In short you can't say there was no consensus when I was able to find a fairly clear one in the section above and which seems to be to be the consensus that roux was referring to. The remaining question is merely does that consensus mean no change at all for a while or only against his proposal. —— nixeagle 18:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) To roux, if you don't intend to argue, I suggest you leave this talk page immediately. Why are you watching here when you intend to leave this discussion well alone? Roux, please do not "defend" yourself (in this manner), it is not really helpful to discussion, and may be part of the problem. —— nixeagle 18:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC) [Note: Roux's comment removed by G2bambino]

Nixeagle - yes, I wholly agree with you that Roux and I differ on what consensus does and does not exist. But, I think you got it more accurately at Template talk:British Royal Family, wherein you said the consensus that Roux sees is probably that regarding his proposed changes to the overall layout of the template; by my analysis, he is under the impression that that consensus expands to take in my proposed width change, while I feel it was a consensus on a totally different matter. However, that difference, important as it is in other ways, doesn't really alter the fact that Roux implied that I was purposefully ignoring a consensus, no matter what he percieved that consensus to be; note: he didn't discuss our evidently differing perceptions on consensus; rather, he assumed we both saw the consensus in the same way, and thereafter that I was choosing to ignore it in order to get what I want. Thus, I disagree with your interpretation of his words as being in good faith; they are an assumption of bad faith, by any way I read it. The differences in opinion on consensus also has no bearing on the aggravating petulance embedded in his words, which violate the strict civility rules imposed on him. Normally I wouldn't pursue trivial matters like the odd bad attitude comment and accusation here and there, but I fail to understand why the result of this incident is so lopsided. --G2bambino (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is you claimed he was trying to own the article and said that there was no consensus when there was a consensus in the section above. The fact that you two did not agree on what that consensus meant is a different matter. (And one that you two need to figure out). Roux during this time constantly pointed to the consensus not understanding that you and him disagreed on what it meant. You had better options to reply to him with other then saying that he owned the template, such as talking about the consensus in the above section and noting that you did not think it applied to the width. He just took the other editor's comments as "leave it be" literally... no changes whatsoever. —— nixeagle 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head in saying Roux "constantly pointed to the consensus not understanding that you and him disagreed on what it meant." That is exactly what I meant above by: "he assumed we both saw the consensus in the same way." As such, he accused me of decisively ignoring that consensus as he perceived it; by my interpretation, an accusation of bad faith rather than openness to the idea that others might see the consensus differently to him. And there's still the issue of the tone of his words around the accusations violating his civility restrictions.

It must be remembered that I'm not contesting here any judgment of my having assumed bad faith; I'm contesting the point that Roux did the exact same (and more), but hasn't faced the same consequence. I'm unsure of how I can be more clear about the violations I perceive on Roux's part; so, if you still don't agree with me, Nixeagle, and/or don't feel the matter should go from here to AN, then there's little more I can offer. --G2bambino (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

BRF template

My monthly rotation idea, was to have the Template at a width size for this month, then the other for the next month; then see how it went. I was hoping it might end the disputing there. I had noticed the width of templates varies throughout the Royal Family Templates (Romanian, Greek, Spanish etc). GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean on a trial basis? I'm not sure how that would allay Roux. --G2bambino (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

One never knows. If it's rejected? Wiki-life goes on. It wouldn't be the first idea I had, that was put into the round file, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To Tiptoety

I hope you are watching this page. I saw your post at AN3. Though my opinion might not be of much importance, I'm strongly against your notion of blocking GoodDay; he was actually the most active of all of us in trying to get Lonewolf BC to engage in discussion. It would seem counterproductive to block him. --G2bambino (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I more or less agree with your analysis as you should see on that page, and it looks like Tiptoety took the input of others into consideration :). It takes two to tango, but one can tango with more then one partner as Lonewolf did. —— nixeagle 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, I might've been blocked while I was asleep. Oh well, if that would've been best for the article? so be it. The project comes first, it existed before I came along, it will survive after I'm gone. My fate is in the hands of the Administrators (as it should be). GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, you were not blocked because you restrained yourself. Please read the discussion at WP:AN3. —— nixeagle 16:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I know, just wanted to express my opinons there & here. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

G2B, yep. I looked into the situation a bit more, and after reading the comments of others I found it best not to block GoodDay. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Citizens for a Canadian Republic

I thank you for your choosing not to delete that article. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox minister office

File:Template prob.JPG

Template problem

I'm not sure which edit caused the problem but it caused a error that can be seen in the picture. It's probably best to copy the template over to one of the template sandboxes, make edits, then test them using your own sandbox. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, I did f*ck things up there! It seemed to work on federal ministers' pages just fine... Sorry about that. --G2bambino (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Roux's departure

I'm hoping that Roux will return. Don't wanna see a registered user packing it in, on those terms. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe more and more strongly that there are issues far beyond our control at play here. But, you know that I've packed it in before, and, yet, here I am! --G2bambino (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)