User talk:McRuf2

A fellow republican
Hello, MC Rufus (hey? that's part of William II of England's name); I feel you're letting your passions get the best of you concerning Citizens for a Canadian Republic. I hope you'll reconsider. Yes, I'm a republican who likes to edit & discuss monarchies. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, MC Rufus was the name of my favourite hamster, who, sadly, passed away 2 years ago. I only recently discovered that Rufus the Red was one of the most cruel and sadistic English Kings in history, a man so evil he was murdered by his own subjects. I was going to change it but then I got to liking the the irony of having a republican use this name.MC Rufus (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR
A warning: if you revert again at Citizens for a Canadian Republic you will be in breach of WP:3RR. --G2bambino (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are warning ME? You seem to be the one with the record of 3RR violations. I got this quote from your discussion page.

MC Rufus (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "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)"
 * Edit warring and 3RR are two separate things. You can either familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy via other people's direction, or learn the hard way, like I did. Up to you. --G2bambino (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is still an ongoing process for you (?). According to Wikipedia: "The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring."MC Rufus (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 3RR is one thing in place as one means to prevent another; it is possible to be blocked for edit warring without having breached 3RR, as I was in the example you raised. --G2bambino (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Common Cause
Take a look at what our friend G2bambino is up to at the CCR page. What a dweeb. Has he got nothing better to do than be a pain in the butt? Jaye Peghtyff (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, G2's being a monarchist doesn't disqualify him from editing 'republican' articles; just like we republicans are equally qualified to edit 'monarchy' articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I got nothing against monarchists. They're certinaly entitled to their opinion, as we are. Except this guy thinks it's his god-given mission to control every monarchy-republic page on Wikipedia. Just check around. I have. He's constantly being banned and suspended. He's a nuisance, a gnat, a 'royal' pain. Perhaps republicans should be using some of his tactics. Perhaps he'll get the message then.MC Rufus (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All I ask is that things get worked out on the 'discussion pages' & 'edit summaries' not be used for venting frustrations; it's best to control passions. I request these things in hopes of avoiding 'edit wars' & maintaining good relations between my fellow editors. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, GoodDay. Difficult, though, when some people seem to believe there's a monarchist lurking around every corner. Boo! --G2bambino (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR x 2
To alert you: you have breached WP:3RR at Oath of citizenship (Canada). --G2bambino (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

G2 blocked
I've made a request at G2's page, to shorten G2's block & that you & G2 should be 'barred' from editing the Republican articles in question for '2-weeks' (in order to save you both from each other). Being an anti-edit war person, I'm hoping in future you'll both take it easy on the 'revert' button. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Outing editors
I see that a number of times now you've referred to User:G2bambino by what you believe is his real name or by other information that may identify him in real life. This is considered a violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy agaisnt posting personal information - Harass. Please don't do this anymore. If you have a concern that an editor is in a conflict of interest please bring it up at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (and consult WP:COI for the policy) but you should do this without mentioning the editor's real name or information that would identify him in real life (such as a specific position he holds in an organization). Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies. It's quite difficult to keep up with all of Wikipedia's policies. In this case, I've learned about this one after-the-fact. I mentioned G2bambino's real name out of frustration more than anything. I recognized him because he uses variations of the same ID on the monarchist league web board. Outside of Wikipedia, part of my job involves literary and academic research so I know what I'm doing and I know the issues being edited. It's not pleasant to work hard on improving a page only to come back and see it removed 5 minutes later for no valid reason. Now that I'm aware of the policy, I won't mention his name again.MC Rufus (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, well maybe you can edit your post at Talk:Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada in order to remove his name? Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done MC Rufus (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Editing
Dear MC Rufus

You were mentioned in the same report as G2bambino that led to his being blocked from the project for two weeks. My jusdgement was that you were in violation of the three revert rule and that you were edit warring. Because you are a new user I did not block you but I want to make one thing clear. The community will not tolerate disruption of the project or users who constantly act in a disruptive way. We expect everyone to discuss contentious edit and reach a consensus on article talk pages if edits are disputed. If I see you edit warring again I will block you. Constant edit warring will eventually lose you your editing priviledges. Clear? Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Spartaz (and the leniancy). Yes, it is very clear, and always has. I prefer a peaceful and amicable environment here where all parties agree in balance and conciliation. I don't want to bore you with whining and excuses, but there just didn't seem to be anyone interested in helping resolve what I considered to be biased removal of my edits. Here's my comment on the talk page of the other party involved User talk:G2bambino (Note: We are at opposite ends of the republic/monarchy debate in Canada. He's a monarchist, I'm a republican) "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." Again, sorry to whine, but G2bambino needs reigning in. The solution to this problem is to attract some unbiased editors to help resolve disagreements.MC Rufus (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need additional input try a third opinion or an article request for comment. You can also use wikiprojects to advertise articles that need additional imput. G2b has been blocked for his edit warring and the length of his block is indicative of how unacceptable his edit warring has been. Other editors bad behaviour isn't an excuse for your own. It does take two to edit war and its very hard to edit war against a consensus on a talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions. Thanks again. MC Rufus (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate on the monarchy in Canada
I don't like seeing Rene 'cigarette' Leveque as the image represenating Canadian republicans either. I'm requesting it be removed (and hopefully replaced with a non-seperatist Canadian republican). GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was going to do it myself but I was waiting for the atmosphere to clear a bit. The John Manley page has an OK shot. Being the most vocal and high profile republican, he's the one who most Canadians would think of when the topic comes to mind. - MC Rufus (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Manley would make a great replacement. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Freda
Do you mean this That a boy ...? GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed: It did create that impression, my apologies. I was congratulating Tom Freda for founding the republican movement. Sometimes my light hearted comments in politically charged discussion can be misunderstood (The Troubles related articles is an example). GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian PM biographies
Hello MC. It was decided (via consensus) months ago to keep Monarch within the Canadian PM's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I missed that vote so I'm reopening the debate. Reference to the monarch of the day belongs solely on the Prime Minister of Canada page because that page is dedicated to the role of the prime minister in our government. Therefore, going into who the head of government is is relevent. The bio pages however, are about the life, career and accomplishments of the person who held that office. It's just not necessary and the editors of the Australian PM bio pages agree. But we need not resort to the Australian precedent, take a look at Cabinet of Canada and the individual pages for the ministries. Rightfully, they all include reference to the formal executive as part of the government because they are pages about the government process. However, go to the bio pages of the ministers and there's no reference to it at all. See for yourself. Go to Minister of National Defence then go to Peter MacKay. Quite simply, it's flotsam, excess verbiage that's taking up space. - MC Rufus (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well, reopen the debate. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm! you don't change the articles to what you want until you get a consensus for it (Wikipedia practice). Had this article been with Monarch, then you wouldn't add it without a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

PS- I've reverted your edits. The onus is on you, to get a consensus to have Monarch excluded from the infoboxes (as the previous debate was a consensus for inclusion). GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

PPS- You should have the discussion at Stephen Harper, which is where the previous discussions are. It's irregular to have such a discussion at one's personal page. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monarchy
Remember MC, we can protest it, say it's silly etc. But, the fact is, Canada is a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as its Queen. I don't like it anymore then you do; but we're stuck with her (and her successors), until Canada becomes a republic. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We're on the same page there, GoodDay. Only I joined Citizens for a Canadian Republic to help it happen. Go for it! :) - MC Rufus (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From my personal page - I never wanted to belong to an organization, that would have me as a member. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, Groucho Marx. "A man's only as old as the woman he feels." :D - MC Rufus (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, he's classic. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Monarchist propaganda
Hello MC. G2bambino has every right to 'delete' anybodies posting on his personal page, just like you do on your personal page. Admittedly it is uncivil to do so (without a explanation), but never the less allowable by Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Then, I'm putting it here for posterity. There was nothing insulting, defamitory or personal about it, I was simply refuting his incorrect claims with a quotation from a Canadian External Affairs Minister who has a hell of a lot more credibility on the subject than he does. He apparently doesn't like hearing the truth. I've noticed that User and User Talk pages are accessed by both Wikipedia and Google searches so as long as it's here, it should get read by a larger audience. The whole Wikipedia thing has me discouraged anyway. Although I'm definitely not by any stretch giving up here, his intransigence has prompted me to start my own republican blog to expose the propaganda and myths of people like him. So he has his attitude to thank for another republican voice on the web. I hope his monarchist league comrades take note that his arrogance is harming harming their cause. BTW, he can keep deleting it, but I'm certainly free to keep putting it back up, as long as I don't violate 3RR. Correct? So here's my deleted post:
 * Well, well. Surprise. G2bambino doesn't like the truth exposed (at User talk:G2bambino so he deletes my message posted here last night. Not only is he a monarchist, but he's an absolute monarchist, at that. Here it is again in full. If deleted again, I will replace it.
 * Wow, I've been just sitting back and taking this all in. I believe I'm on TharkunColl's side, which, being a republican, scares me a bit! :) I'm pretty sure if we sat down together, we'd definitely have some differences. I agree that the royal family has a right to exist and they have a certain value as cultural icons. However, like the aristocracy of Italy and other republics, I don't believe they should be supported by the state, have any attachment to government or constitution or any rights beyond that of ordinary citizens. But I'm a Canadian and he's a Brit so it's his and his countrymens decision on what form the institution should take, not mine. And that's for one very important reason: It's a --> British' <-- institution not a Canadian one. Anyone who says the monarchy is Canadian is doing so for one reason alone; to try and soft-sell it to a public that's either apathetic about it's existence or gradually waking up to the fact that hanging on to it is akin to a grown adult refusing to give up their teddy bear and bottle.
 * Oh, and I really take exception to G2's remark: "Like the UK, Canadians pay when the Queen or any member of the royal family travels abroad on behalf of the country." What a load of crap! No member of the British royal family represents Canada during international travels. Ever.
 * I suggest you read the memoirs of Mitchell Sharp, Canada's former External Affairs Minister in the 60s and 70s. In it (p.223), he recounts a ministerial trip to Latin American he took to promote Canadian products and develop diplomatic goodwill. After the trip was arranged, it was learned that the Queen was going to be there at the same time to promote British goods - in competition with ours! Whadya' know, our own head of state, working to take jobs away from Canadians! Here's Sharp's direct quote from the book: "We couldn't ask Her Majesty to perform the function she was performing for Britain on that Latin American trip because the Queen is never recognized as Queen of Canada, except when she is in Canada." - MC Rufus (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way MC, you're also free to add things to your 'home page' as well. Just be sure not to use vulgar images or colorful language. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS- Please note that G2, didn't delete all of your posting at his 'talk page'. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, he just deleted 90% of it, that's all. To me, this small episode as well as the deletions by G2 of my page edits (all, like this one, with indisputable references) is indicative of a larger one: that monarchists know the monarchy's days are numbered and, just like a cornered animal, they're using every dirty trick in their arsenal to save it. Very un-Canadian, if you ask me. - MC Rufus (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm optimistic that the both of you will get along someday. Afterall, we're all Canadians (republicans & monarchists). GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak?
Hello MC. Are you on a Wiki-break? Or have you left Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I just got back from 3 days as Mont Tremblant 30 minutes ago (1am Monday, Mar 3). I'll be commenting at Talk:Monarchy of Canada around Monday noon. - MC Rufus (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

March Wikibreak
Anyone miss me yet? I'm on holidays from March 7-16. I'll be back then - or sooner if I find another Internet café. - MC Rufus (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was curious as to your whereabouts. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this affirm that Rufus is still but a mere student? ;) --G2bambino (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes, this is a 'long' March break. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aww, I was missed after all! :) I'm still here but only just. My laptop died shortly after break and I just got a new one on Saturday. MC Rufus (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you might've been abducted by monarchists. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way McRuf2? sorry to hear about your friends pet. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User name as of April 2008
Please note my new user name. It was either keep the old one or continue sleeping on the sofa. The name was inspired by my partner's beloved pet hamster. Sadly, after living to a ripe old age of four years and one month, the furry little varmit went to hamster heaven last month. As a Wiki user and editor, she now won't have to endure seeing his name when reading my contributions. RIP, Rufie! - McRuf2 (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an atheist too. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak II?
Hello McRuf2, how've you been. Where are you? GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, GoodDay. I'm still here - but spending way too much time on my dissertation. I have a long list of edits as well as a couple of new pages to start so you'll be hearing more from me soon. - McRuf2 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't ya finished the dissertation, yet? GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm back. It's been really hard but I've had to severely restrict all my time-wasting on Wikipedia and other political forums for the past 8 months. I'm now able to allocate a few hours a week here. I must say I'm quite disturbed at some of the changes I've seen on the republican pages. - McRuf2 (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak III
My 2 year work contract is now over. I'm back in Canada (Yay!), and ready to get back to contributing to Wikipedia. OK, that's the plan ..... McRuf2 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)