User talk:Roux/Archives/2008/September

Our new article
Consider yourself patted on the back. We're not finished but I think we did quite well for a start.
 * PS:I added a fair use tag for the image Image:Charles investiture.jpg as you had added it to our article even though it is still copyrighted.

Regards, --Cameron* 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You did more than me, I only did the coronets section. Anyway, I reckon we can get a DYK out of it. --Cameron* 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you ever thought of adoption? You're quite experienced now, I'm sure you could handle an adoptee. Besides, we have a backlog of 27 and I already have 4. --Cameron* 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * GMTA? --Cameron* 15:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm rubbish at abbreviations! According to wikipedia GMTA is Cherif Al Idrissi Airport, which didn't quite fit into our conversation. ;) --Cameron* 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already 17:54 here on mainland Europe! I hope you're not editing yet. Never edit when half-asleep! ;) --Cameron* 15:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Think of your liver! :) --Cameron* 16:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ???--Cameron* 16:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I never seem to get American jokes. --Cameron* 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Canada is located in America is it not? You ought to be careful saying things like that, half of wikipedians are US Americans. --Cameron* 16:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How politically incorrect I am! I use the term for people from South America too! Nevermind, we're both Elizabethans! --Cameron* 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I have a Venezuelan friend to whom I also refer as American, He doesn't mind. PS: Glad you like my template. I made it just recently, along with the image of the cat! --Cameron* 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, just saw your comment about me being "incomparable"! I may have to make a list of favourite users soon! --Cameron* 20:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!
I just wanted to say Thank You for the Olympic Barnstar. It is my first and I appreciate it. H1nkles (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Golden Dawn
The point is, a story was presented by the original order. That's what the article is about. Other descendant orders have come up with different stories or theories to support their legitimacy. It's mostly bunkum, but it post-dates the order itself and should go on the Cipher Manuscript page. The original presentation is part of the history of the order rather than some post-facto invention. It belongs in the article itself. 32.97.110.142 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
I took the liberty of removing a copyrighted image (Canadian CoA) from your sandbox. Copyrighted images aren't allowed in the userspace. I got a slap wrist for having images of Philip and Elizabeth's wedding photos in my userbox. See this version of my Royal Love userbox. Those meanies ruined my lovely userbox *sobs* :(. --Cameron* 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but don't say I didn't warn you! --Cameron* 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It won't make any difference to the evil commons delinkers! --Cameron* 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Adoption
I accept your offer for adoption, and thank you for choosing to adopt me. :)Eternallyjess (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding changing Utah Radio Stations information
Okay look, here's the deal: I have been living in Utah most of my life. How long have you lived in Utah? Probably never! I wouldn't be editing Utah pages. I know what I'm doing. 94.9 is not silent. 97.5 and 105.1 are The Blaze and are owned by Millcreek Broadcasting. Again, don't believe me? Go to millcreekslc.com and/or www.theblazeonline.com. Let me help you out, if you go to millcreekslc.com it should have three buttons one of those will be "97.5 The Blaze" (duh!) and the other site www.theblazeonline.com, go down to the button near the copyright. Notice the line "COPYRIGHT 2006 | MILLCREEK BROADCASTING". Take the signs and verify what the h*** you are doing before you do it. I am not vandalizing! People like you shouldn't even be on the Wikipedia stuff and shouldn't be having "special" permissions.

Sorry but really, you guys at Wikipedia really piss me off with your attitude of "oh that is wrong, vandalism!" or "that will never work". BULL CRAP! I swear you guys are all not even helping Wikipedia! It's like the story of the ban of a line of Ip Addresses from Wikipedia because a few guys were all the same person pretending. I wouldn't doubt it!

Thanks! -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.40.186 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

EIIR bunching
Prince, what is it that you're trying to do with the templates? I've never actually seen these before, so don't really know what they're for, but I assume, from your attempts at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, that they're meant to remove white space caused by image "bunching" (?). However, it wasn't effective with the titles infobox; the image above (that of EIIR and George W.) pushed the template down, leaving a large white gap at the top of the "Titles, honours, and arms" section. The only way I know how to prevent this, is have the images and template in succession in html; they then show up in a neat row in the article, without any unneeded spaces. --G2bambino (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The template prevents images & infoboxes from overlapping each other and from overlapping the 'edit' links in each section. Template:fixbunching.
 * The styles box also belongs in the styles section, where it is, and testing with two browsers and two screen resolutions shows it looking fine, so I'm not sure what's going on at your end.
 * I'm restoring your edits to the arms section. Prince of Canadat 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring my work in the arms section that you undid. However, I can tell you that the bunching template is clearly not successful with infoboxes; all the images look fine, but there is presently a huge white space at the top of the "Titles, honours, and arms" section again; coincidentally, that's right where there's an infobox being pushed down by the EIIR/George W. image. Part of my reasoning for giving the article a massive cleanup was to remove the numerous blank spots; now there remains an unsightly white space, and I'm quite positive I can't be the only person seeing it. --G2bambino (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Two browsers, two screen resolutions. I respectfully submit the issue is on your end.  And the fixbunch template is working perfectly; as I said, what it does is prevent images from overlapping each other and overlapping the 'edit' link for each section. Prince of Canadat 19:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not suggesting at all that you're lying about what you see; however, neither am I about what I see. I can't particularly think of anything that would make a fixbunch template work on images but somehow not on boxes, and only on my browser (which is your standard grade Windows Explorer). I had found a solution that worked from my viewpoint; the titles infobox ended up squarely in the "Titles, honours, and arms" section. Are you saying that from your end you saw that as putting the titles infobox outside the relevant section? --G2bambino (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again. What the fixbunch template does is prevent images and infoboxes from overlapping each other and overlapping the 'edit' link for each section.  Your layout had both of those things happening.  From, again, two browsers at two screen resolutions, the styles infobox was sitting squarely within the Role in Government section, as the infobox code was placed immediately after the code for the images, and before a whole lot of text including the Foreign Ministers section.  Doing layout that way doesn't work, as it will render differently on different computers based on screen width and text size.  Placing the code within the correct section ensures that the box will stay within the correct section, no matter how your browser renders the code.  Prince of Canadat 21:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And, again, it still looks hideous. What do you propose to do about the blank space you created? --G2bambino (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And, again, I don't see it in two different browsers at two different resolutions. So I'm not really sure how to fix something I can't see.  Much less the fact that cosmetic tweaks like that, as I've already said, are impossible to fix cross-platform with the limited tools we have available on WP.  Our formatting ability is crude at best, and making it ideal for your idiosyncratic system is  not a gurantee that it will be fine on my idiosyncratic system.  Thus, again, my solution was to:
 * Fix the overlap of the infobox and the image directly above
 * Fix the overlap of the infobox and the image with the edit link for the Titles/Styles section
 * Ensure that the Styles box renders within the correct section, and not somewhere that it is irrelevant
 * These issues might not happen on some computers, but my fix guarantee they will not happen anywhere.


 * Functional layout--e.g., having sidebars in the correct places, having access to section edit links--trumps minor cosmetic details. And, I really don't know how to make this more clear to you: cosmetic formatting, the way you want to do it, does not work. Prince of Canadat 00:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have attempted, blindly, a fix. Prince of Canadat 00:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the attempt, but it's done nothing. As I said, I don't think you're lying about what you see, but I also don't believe that what you see is necessarily what the majority of other users see, nor, therefore, that your solution is better than any other, despite what you assert so forcefully. What I did works on two browsers as well, so please don't tell me it's completely useless as a solution to formatting problems like white space. --G2bambino (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, look.. I really don't know how to explain this to you better, but I'm going to try.

The way you are trying to do formatting, specifically with image layout, is idiosyncratic to your own computer, browser, and screen resolution. By way of analogy, you are saying that the layout of every bedroom in the world should be precisely the same as yours, ignoring the fact that many bedrooms are of different sizes and shapes.

The better way to do formatting is much more relative. To continue the analogy, it's like saying that in every bedroom the bed should be under the window, the table should be beside the bed, and the chest of drawers should be by the door. This allows for enormous variation in bedroom sizes and shapes, while still keeping everything in the same places relative to each other.

Or to put it another way.. you're saying that everyone must wear the same size and style of pants that you do. The better way is to define the shape of the pants, which can then be adapted to the size of each wearer. Does that make more sense? I am trying to be as clear as possible. Prince of Canadat 20:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I just said above, it's not specific to just my browser and screen; it works on other computers with a more advanced version of browser and different screen resolution. I can understand your analogy, but, as I just alluded to, it applies equally to you. Your "solution" creates a problem from my end, and my "solution" (apparently) creates a problem from your end, so... seemingly, neither of us is right. I think this needs to go to a wider audience for a solution, not just for the EIIR article, but to learn something for any possible instances of the same issue in the future. --G2bambino (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep saying that you're not saying I'm lying, when I have never said you were saying that?


 * I have tried and tried to explain why formatting a bunch of images so the layout is perfect on your computer does not work. I have tried and tried to explain why removing whitespace that you see via such layouts does not work.  I have tried to actually engage in a discussion with you, but it does not work, as you keep ignoring just about everything I say.


 * I will try to make this as simple and as clear as humanly possible:
 * whitespace will render on some computers, and it will not render on others. The difficulty I was fixing in the EIIR article was the overlap of the image and infoboxes with the section edit links.  That is fixed.  Using the fixbunch template ensures that on no computer will the page render with those links overlapped, whereas before, it was occurring. Whitespace is a cosmetic red herring, as it will appear or not based on screen and browser settings and sizes.
 * The second issue I was fixing was the appearance of the Styles box in an irrelevant section. It may not have appeared that way to you, but it did appear on my computer in two browsers at two resolutions, and as of this morning (checking the history) on my roommate's computer on two browsers, at a resolution completely different from mine. Moving the infobox into the correct seciont guarantees that it will always render in the correct section, no matter what resolution or browser is used.
 * It appears you are attempting the same sort of layout on the House of Windsor article, thus my reverts there.


 * Bottom line is this: what I am trying to do is prevent common problems form occurring, and guarantee that images/infoboxes will always appear in the correct sections, and that images/infoboxes will nnever overlap section edit links, which is functionally useful. What you are doing is something that will sometimes make the images/infoboxes appear in the correct place, depending solely on screen resolution, which is solely cosmetic.  What part of this are you not understanding?  That is an honest question; I am baffled by your lack of understanding, so clearly I must be missing something. Prince of Canadat 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I am right. I have explained to you at least half a dozen times exactly why, and in several different ways.  I am sorry that you don't understand it; I am trying my best.  But the fact remains that I am right when it comes to how layout works. Prince of Canadat 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest you go and read this. It may be familiar to you, and might get you to stop this silly argument. Prince of Canadat 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Silly? I'm sorry, but you're party to this, so if there's any sillyness, it exists partly because of your own doing. I might venture to say that it may appear silly because we keep repeating ourselves; I keep trying to tell you that what you think is a solution is not, and you keep trying to tell me that it is. I apologise if I don't take without question someone's evaluation of their own work as "right," especially when the evidence I see right in front of my own eyes tells me otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, you clearly do not understand layout, because you keep--despite me explaining repeatedly otherwise--thinking that fixbunching has anything to do with whitespace. I suggest, again, that you read this.  Or has the way computers work changed since you wrote that?  Prince of Canadat 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, you clearly do not understand that the world is bigger than the screen in front of your face, as is supported by the commentary of yours at Talk:Order of Canada that you keep pointing to. You've also surpassed 3RR at House of Windsor, I suggest you undo your last. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pot, kettle, black. Did you or did you not point out that pages display differently on different computers?  Why yes you did.  And are you or are you not now, in complete defiance of what you yourself said, making cosmetic changes that appear on your computer only?  Why yes you are.  What part of that do you not understand?  What part of "I am not doing anything about whitespace, I am editing for functionality" do you not understand?  Prince of Canadat 23:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you finally see my point. So, you should from now on realise that what you're doing isn't as right as you unfalteringly demand. You may not care about blank spaces, but I do, and your edits cause them, whether you believe it or not. You claim that what I am doing is wrong, or causes some sort of problem, but it has been done countless times elsewhere, by many more people than I, and nobody has made stink about it, until now. In fact, you are the only person who I've ever seen object, or use the "fixbunching" technique, and I've edited here for far longer than you. I am trying to work with you on this, but the effort towards cooperation doesn't seem to be met with an equal return. You can either continue to obstinantly stomp your feet and say "I'm right! I'm right! I AM RIGHT!" Or, you can acknowledge that what you're doing isn't right, and help try to find something that will work properly. I suggested earlier that this be taken to a wider audience; am I wrong in the assumption that you don't want to pursue that path? --G2bambino (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to jump in...but well I read this little argument, I don't see the white space either...perhaps G2 you should take a screenshot image of the article page where this space is then show it to PoC? Gavin (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure PoC isn't the only one not seeing white space, but, then, I'm also sure I'm not the only one seeing it. I don't have the tools to make a screen shot on this computer, but that's a good idea, and I'll try and get a shot from another PC tomorrow. --G2bambino (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Any Windows box has the ability to take screenshots. CTRL-ALT-PRINTSCRN, paste into Paint or Photoshop or whatever.


 * And. Again.  Please read this time: whitespace may or may not happen on different computers.  Setting up the layout so that on your computer it looks correct is precisely what you told me NOT to do at this page.  Or do you deny it?  To address your other points one by one:


 * "You may not care about blank spaces, but I do, and your edits cause them, whether you believe it or not."
 * At what point did I say I didn't believe it? I didn't.  Don't put words in my mouth.
 * "In fact, you are the only person who I've ever seen object, or use the "fixbunching" technique, and I've edited here for far longer than you."
 * You actually don't know how long I've been around here, so that's kind of a moot point. And whether or not you have seen it is likewise immaterial; approximately three thousand pages link to the template, and I don't know how to find those that were subst'd.
 * "I am trying to work with you on this, but the effort towards cooperation doesn't seem to be met with an equal return."
 * What 'effort towards cooperation'? Apart from completely ignoring 99% of what I say, and deliberately misunderstanding what the fixbunching template does despite it having been explained to you over and over and over again, and apart from your reverts with dishonest edit summaries, where exactly is this 'effort towards cooperation' you're touting?  The thing is, you are deliberately ignoring what you yourself said about pages displaying differently on different computers.  Why is that, exactly?
 * "You can either continue to obstinantly stomp your feet and say "I'm right! I'm right! I AM RIGHT!""
 * You can continue with the personal attacks. I have explained how many times now precisely why the way you are doing the layout does not work.  Indeed, you yourself have said to me that doing layout specifically for your own computer does not work.  Why are you pretending you never said that?
 * "Or, you can acknowledge that what you're doing isn't right, and help try to find something that will work properly."
 * What I have done, as I have said repeatedly, does work properly. As I said above, and as you once again ignored:
 * whitespace will render on some computers, and it will not render on others. The difficulty I was fixing in the EIIR article was the overlap of the image and infoboxes with the section edit links.  That is fixed.  Using the fixbunch template ensures that on no computer will the page render with those links overlapped, whereas before, it was occurring. Whitespace is a cosmetic red herring, as it will appear or not based on screen and browser settings and sizes.
 * The second issue I was fixing was the appearance of the Styles box in an irrelevant section. It may not have appeared that way to you, but it did appear on my computer in two browsers at two resolutions, and as of this morning (checking the history) on my roommate's computer on two browsers, at a resolution completely different from mine. Moving the infobox into the correct seciont guarantees that it will always render in the correct section, no matter what resolution or browser is used.
 * "I suggested earlier that this be taken to a wider audience; am I wrong in the assumption that you don't want to pursue that path?"
 * Of course you are wrong. And uncivil.  And unless you start actually responding to what I say, as opposed to ignoring it, making rude edit summaries, and indeed proving that you actually understand anything I have patiently tried to explain to you, my next stop is either Wikiquette alerts or ANI to get you to stop with your behaviour. Prince of Canadat 00:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever makes things move forward. --G2bambino (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Break
Right you are on obtaining the screenshot. So, here it is:



Note the clearly evident white space between the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" and "Titles and styles" section headers.

And, here is it as I had it:



Note, no white space, and the titles infobox is squarely in the appropriate section. --G2bambino (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also how I never said there wasn't any whitespace. Notice also that in both screenshots the title box is showing up in the correct place, whereas on my computer (and my roommate's) it was not.


 * Now, it is clear that you are using an extremely large screen size & resolution. The width of the page is what is causing your whitespace issue.


 * And. For the last time.  As you said yourself, different computers display different ways.  And as I have already said, with the limited/crude layout tools we have at our disposal it is impossible to ensure that the page will render the same on every screen.
 * In summary:
 * I was ensuring that images and infoboxes will show up in the correct place, no matter how the page renders
 * Whitespace is a purely cosmetic issue that it is not possible to fix with any degree of reliability for all computers
 * Functional and logical layout trumps minor cosmetic concerns
 * How about you stop ignoring what you yourself said to me about computers all displaying differently?  or is it different when you do it? Prince of Canadat 01:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear me, PoC. Because I don't automatically take what you say without question does not mean I'm ignoring you. I read everything you said. On the other hand, you seem to have consistently dismissed my concern, which has never changed: unneeded and unsightly white space. In fact, you appear to feel that it's a perfectly acceptable outcome to your technique of formatting; it doesn't show up on your screen, so, who cares? Right? Well, you've now the evidence in front of you that shows the consequences of your edit on other people's screens; not all screens, but obviously some. Do you honestly feel that it's okay to leave the layout like that for others? --G2bambino (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll simply paste what I wrote above: As you said yourself, different computers display different ways. And as I have already said, with the limited/crude layout tools we have at our disposal it is impossible to ensure that the page will render the same on every screen.
 * Why is it so difficult for you to understand that? Prince of Canadat 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a key problem here is that you keep equating the point of different computers displaying different things in different ways with never getting any to show anything in the same way. I assume, after all, that the words on your talk page here appear the same on your screen as they do on mine, which would alone disprove your claims. Thus, I have a very hard time believing that there is no solution to this problem, and that your version of formatting has to remain untouched. It has been resolved to satisfactory end elsewhere. Why, then, is this one instance different from all the others? --G2bambino (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. As I have explained multiple times (and you keep ignoring, which makes it impossible to AGF, which I suspect you are well aware of), I am equating the point of different computers displaying things in different ways with "Well, let's ensure that images and boxes appear in the correct sections, and sorry about some cosmetic issues but given the limitations of our tool that is how it has to be".  Again I point you at the comment you made on the OoC talk page, and the related reverts you made to my changes.  If I can't edit a page so that it looks right on only my screen, then why can you?  Is it different when you do it? Prince of Canadat 02:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * * Shakes head* There you go again with this "our tool," in the singular, as though your "tool" is the only one at our disposal. It makes one wonder: are you truly so myopic? Are you just seeking vengance for being thwarted before? Are you just uber-sensitive about not getting your way? If you want to discuss AGF, let's include your unfaltering belief that you, and you alone, have the singular, unquestionable, superior technique, and all consequences be damned. That, after all, undermines one's ability to assume AGF on your part. Perhaps, if you stopped being so concerned about what appears on your screen, and started to care about what appears on everyone's screens, then we'd get somewhere here. But, I fear that this change will not happen, and you won't make any effort to ensure that articles look good to anyone but yourself. --G2bambino (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "our tool" is Wikipedia and the formatting tools available to us. "Perhaps, if you stopped being so concerned about what appears on your screen, and started to care about what appears on everyone's screens, then we'd get somewhere here."?  Pot, kettle.  You do not comprehend that your edits only work on your computer.  Despite you SAYING SO BEFORE.  WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THAT? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?Prince of Canadat 16:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you not see the difference between "tool" and "tools"? I suppose I already know your answer, though: no. Regardless, if I thought you were being uncooperative and arrogant before, your degredation to all-caps screaming has certainly cemented the opinion. I believe any resolutions will now have to be found via other parties. --G2bambino (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The caps were for emphasis, trying to get your attention because you KEEP IGNORING EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY. And, oh my God, your pedantry is overwhelming. 'Wikipedia as a tool' subsumes all editing tools at our disposal.  Answer the question: why do you keep ignoring what you yourself have said about computers displaying differently?  Why do you keep ignoring the very basic fact that to keep images/etc in the correct sections the code must be placed in those sections?  And fine, find resolution with other parties.  Stop editing until then, hmm? Prince of Canadat 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. You've been hiding behind this "buh...buh...but there's NO other way to do it" line since we started here. It was always bunk, and still is. You are not the god of Wikipedia formatting, so get used to people not believing you when you claim infalibility. In fact, it really is time you started backing up some of your claims. You earlier pointed to a policy that said left-aligned images should not be at the head of sub-sections; I then shifted images accordingly. Apparently, however, that adherence to your highlighted guideline just wasn't good enough, and now a new caveat magically appears: the image must be in the section it pertains to. Where is that particular rule located? It would be good to know, because there are countless breaches of it around Wikipedia. Where, also, is the stipulation that this "fixbunching" thing must be used? Picture tutorial makes absolutely zero mention of it. In fact, what it does say is: "As a final resort, you can force the browser to insert a break, making all text and images appear below the bottom of the first image. This can produce rather unattractive gaps, particularly in the accompanying text. Remember that text will flow and wrap differently for other users, based on their chosen browser, screen resolution, default font size, accessibility options, number of toolbars and sidebars (such as instant messaging panes) and more – do not force page design just so that it looks pretty on your machine. Hack only where absolutely necessary. Wherever possible, just use the simplest logical page flow [emphasis mine]." All I've ever done - and all I've ever seen done elsewhere - is placing images using the simplest formatting, allowing the text to settle around it; this has avoided "unattractive gaps." You, however, force (or "hack") page design when it absolutely is not necessary. Everywhere you've gone you've made the page look like shit. What is the justification for this vandalism? --G2bambino (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "You earlier pointed to a policy that said left-aligned images should not be at the head of sub-sections; I then shifted images accordingly."
 * Because, again, you moved them on your computer only.
 * "Apparently, however, that adherence to your highlighted guideline just wasn't good enough, and now a new caveat magically appears: the image must be in the section it pertains to. Where is that particular rule located?"
 * Simple logic would dictate that images, sidebars, etc should be in the section to which they are most relevant.
 * "Where, also, is the stipulation that this "fixbunching" thing must be used?"
 * There isn't. And you still, apparently, don't understand how it works or what it does.  I suggest you scroll up for my half-dozen or so explanations.
 * ""As a final resort, you can force the browser to insert a break, making all text and images appear below the bottom of the first image. This can produce rather unattractive gaps, particularly in the accompanying text"
 * Seeing as I haven't forced any breaks to be inserted, that's a moot point.
 * " Remember that text will flow and wrap differently for other users, based on their chosen browser, screen resolution, default font size, accessibility options, number of toolbars and sidebars (such as instant messaging panes) and more – do not force page design just so that it looks pretty on your machine. Hack only where absolutely necessary. Wherever possible, just use the simplest logical page flow"
 * Yes, indeed, this is something you should read again. I am not--and I have said this repeatedly--forcing design to look pretty on my computer. I am ensuring that it renders roughly the same on every computer.  You are doing the opposite.
 * " Everywhere you've gone you've made the page look like shit."
 * On your computer.
 * "What is the justification for this vandalism?"
 * Oh, really, that's where we're going now? One would think someone with a history of as many blocks as you have had would be a little more circumspect in his language. Prince of Canadat 16:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain again: I moved the left-aligned images per the instructions you pointed to; unless you somehow believe left and right are different where I am as compared to you, there can be no confusion about that. You then said the images could not go at the end of the previous section. When asked where this was stipulated, you did not point to anywhere, instead saying that it is "simple logic." Simple logic is not a policy or guideline.
 * You also have made a break at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, forcing the text and, in this instance, an infobox below the bottom of the proceeding image. As there is nothing that forces the use of "fixbunching" (and thank you for finally admitting that), using "fixbunching" did nothing to resolve issues, and what you did with the images actually goes against what is said at Picture tutorial, it becomes evident that all you care about is getting what you want your way. It's that "screw you" attitude that is most unbecoming and, worse, the cause of disruptive impasse. --G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "You also have made a break at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, forcing the text and, in this instance, an infobox below the bottom of the proceeding image."
 * Actually, no. I put the infobox in the section in which it belongs.
 * "As there is nothing that forces the use of "fixbunching" (and thank you for finally admitting that)"
 * I claimed otherwise where, exactly?
 * "using "fixbunching" did nothing to resolve issues,"
 * Actually it did. As I have explained repeatedly to you.
 * "it becomes evident that all you care about is getting what you want your way."
 * Actually no.
 * "It's that "screw you" attitude that is most unbecoming and, worse, the cause of disruptive impasse."
 * Oh good, thanks, I'll add that to this. Do not reply on my talk page again; I do not wish to see any further personal attacks Prince of Canadat 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By placing the infobox "where it belongs" you created a break. You are well aware of this. You also continue to ignore the image issue you've caused at Monarchy in Canada. If you don't want to continue this here, then I will move it to the talk page there. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * NO. By placing the infobox where it belongs I created some whitespace on YOUR computer. A break is  , not an artifact of YOUR screen size and YOUR screen resolution.  I wish to make this clear: STOP. POSTING. HERE.  Your abuse is not welcome, your dishonesty is not welcome, you are not welcome. You appear to be incapable of understanding anything that I have said, and indeed only twist my words when you respond. Prince of Canadat 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert war
I see Charles is at it again, I'll have a word...this is ridiculous. --Cameron Public (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I have had a word. I see you've already made his acquaintance. The sad thing is Charles isn't a newbie, he knows full well what he is doing is wrong. I'm sorry if this isn't very "assume good faithy" but I can only assume good faith up to a certain point. Regards, --Cameron Public (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it could serve to inflame the situation further. If he continues the disruptive behaviour we will have to try going about it some other way. Regards, --Cameron Public (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Compromise? --Cameron Public (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered on the talk page. --Cameron Public (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done so...some of the statements were ridiculous! Would you just take a quick look to see whether the two edits I made were what you meant? Best, --Cameron* 08:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for Coronation article work
Thank you, sir! I deeply appreciate your kudos, and your kind words. My sole goal is to make the article the very best that I can make it, as I have always had an interest in this subject, and royalty in general. I thought Dana boomer made some excellent observations, and I'm hoping to improve the article further along the lines she suggested. Thanks again for your thoughts, and for the award! Cheers and best wishes. - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Hehe, cheesecake needs more references, as I see! ;) G2 adding them puzzles me even more. Windsor a cadet branch of Glucksburg; HOW? is what I'd like to know! We shall indeed need to take on a new project. Writing a complete new article is the most fun but sadly most articles have already bee written! --Cameron* 08:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Kosovo GA Review
I think I snagged everything in the article. It is a tad bit shorter now, but a lot more accurate. Care to look at it again? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Already looking, actually. Prince of Canadat 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Think it could go to another round of GAC? I know it will not be FA yet, since I believe the article is lacking in much detail that I wish to get from flag articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A little bit of advice
Hello there, you will never have heard of me, I have quite a number of talk pages watched, one of which is GoodDay's and I notice you say you are leaving due to bullying. I would ask you to reconsider and think of the good work you have done and can still do for Wikipedia. I speak from experience when I say these things blow over faster than you might think. we need good editors like yourself to stay around. I hope you don't think I have stuck my nose in where it doesn't belong, but I felt I had to say this. PS: I hope you take my advice. Jack forbes (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. Take a short wiki-break if you leave one but don't go for good. You're one of the best content editors in the monarchy area, don't let a short feud get you don't. Goodness knows everyone has a run-in with another editor once in a while. You wouldn't want to deprive me of one of my best wiki-buddies, would you? ;) Chin up, --Cameron* 12:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not that nobody cares, it's just they can't do anything about it. While G2's behaviour hasn't been at it's best, he hasn't committed a blockable offence, hence the lack of action taken against him. G2 indicated his goodwill towards you on GoodDay's page but you got angry at him. I'd say it's the nearest to an apology you're going to get. If I were you I'd accept and move on. The both of you actually have quite a lot in common. You're both canadian monarchists for starters. You should be working with each other not against each other. For the good of the encyclopaedia, if for nothing else. I'd be sad to see you go, Prince, it's too trivial to leave for. Try taking a break and return nice and refreshed in a couple of weeks. ;) Regards, --Cameron* 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel that way. I do not in any way edorse his actions. Perhaps we ought to get an uninvolved admin to take a look. --Cameron* 18:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are things on Wikipedia that I would like to change. First & foremost? removing diacritics from the English language Wikipedia. Other things would be? Moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), another would be allowing British Isles to be used anywhere's on Wikipedia. Frustratingly, I can't get those things to occure & it stinks big time. However, I stick around because I actually enjoy the different opinons & view points - I have to. This is a colaborative project that has hundreds of editors & thus hundreds of view points (which I welcome). Wikipedia is stronger with you, than without you. So please PoC, don't leave the family. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply check his block log. It's in the toolbox section of his userpage, then click block log. You have to type his username into "title" and remove it from "user". It's ten blocks if I counted correctly. I'll keep a look out for your post on ANI. --Cameron* 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never felt bullied by any editor on Wikipedia, personally speaking. Words never had that kind of an effect on me. Both of you are Canadian monarchists who are very passionate about Canadian monarchy related pages. Why not combined your strength. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your dispute, but I'd too like to second what has already been said and strongly discourage you from abandoning ship altogether. You are clearly a valuable contributor and your work would be greatly missed. Opera hat (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PoC, I'd much rather you'd hang around. However, I shall have to respect your choice to leave (if you do choose so). In the meantime, you have reported to ANI concerning G2's behaviour (past & present) - it's best you see that course of action to its conclusion. Again, I'm keeping out hope that you'll both work things out & that you'll agree to stay. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Continue with your ANI report, if you wish. I'll be watching (from the side lines). PS- I'm confident & hopeful, things will work out for both of you. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

UserJzG's Talk Discussion

 * You are hardly unbiased. And many editors agree that he is disruptive and bullying.  UpDown, for one. Dlatimer, for another.  I haven't asked the users who were subjected to his behaviour at Talk:Autumn Phillips who came over from the MoS pages.  And the current situation, as I have said, is merely the latest in an incredibly long pattern of rude and abusive behaviour, multiple blocks, and multiple (ignored) warnings. Also.. must you follow me everywhere? Prince of Canadat 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a request to JzG to try and resolve this dispute, please don't try and pull me into it. Also, saying I am unbiased is a violation of WP:AGF. I am not following you everywhere, I am simply following through this dispute thing. However, lets not clutter up JzG's page and allow him to respond to our requests when he sees fit. Gavin (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stating that you believe my actions are an attack is not an unbiased statement, nor is commenting on my supposed emotional state (and indeed being rude when asked not to do so again), nor is saying that I am "rude" and "belittling" and "superior", so no, it's not a violation of AGF.  Prince of Canadat 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have copied that discussion here so as not to clutter up his page. What I meant when I said "rude" and "belittling" and "superior" in reference to you was that that was how your comments came across- I conceded I could have been wrong however, stating how I felt when reading your messages was a good faith comment to try and resolve your dispute. I was hardly being rude considering I did as you requested and never commented on your personal state again- even the first time was just a suggestion that maybe you needed time to cool off. Gavin (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "I can say what I want" is not a polite response to "don't make personal comments about me". Prince of Canadat
 * I did as you requested and didn't ever mention anything to do with how you were feeling again. What I said was that I have the right to pass comment on anything- Wikipedia is not censored. Gavin (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which, again, is not an appropriate response to someone requesting that you refrain from leveling baseless accusations. Don't comment here again, please. Prince of Canadat 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked me to not comment on your emotional state, what did I do? I stopped commenting on your emotional state...Gavin (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A Canadian republican, I am
Hiya PoC, glad to see you're sticking around. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that you are still around... could you revisit Talk:Flags and coats of arms of Elizabeth II Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Gavin (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. ''You chose to ban me from your talk page, you chose to demand an end to discussion with me. All further attempts at discussion will be seen as editing mistakes.'' Gavin (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From G2bambino's page
Since G2 has been selectively editing my comments to make himself look better, and indeed has now removed them, I am copying everything here for posterity.

Reserved section
You offered cooperation where, precisely? Show me a diff. "Attention grab," by the way, conforms to neither WP:AGF nor WP:Civil, for approximately the same reasons Prince of Canadat 05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussions themselves are the evidence of cooperation. I didn't say the cooperation was easy. --G2bambino (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying "what are you going to do about the mess you made" and completely ignoring--yes, ignoring, as evidenced by your refusal to answer questions and your inability to understand despite repeated explanations what the fixbunching template does--is hardly 'offering cooperation'. Prince of Canadat 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't take things completely out of context; every word I said was for a reason, and there were many different reasons for saying things. But, by saying things to each other in response to what the other said (i.e. having a discussion), we were cooperating, even if the discussion is strained and/or agitated. There are many clues buried within the thousands of words written regarding this incident that will explain why I didn't answer a question, or failed to grasp something you were saying, if indeed I ever did; but, I'm certainly not going to go and sift through all the matter to find specific incidents and offer an explanation of every one; it would take too much time, would simply ignite a tangential debate about the debate, and, ultimately, serve no purpose. I believe that, generally, I spoke as clearly as I could, and, if I didn't understand something, I would ask (that, ironically, was exactly how the whole thing started: my asking you about "fixbunching"). It went downhill because of a number of factors, from my observation: 1) a lack of patience on your part in explaining something to an inquisitor; 2) the adoption of a haughty and derogatory attitude on your part when I didn't gasp what you were saying; 3) a lack of patience on my part in being spoken to like I'm an ignorant peasant; 4) certain weaknesses in my ability to restrain myself; 5) a low threshold on your part for criticism; 6) a weakness in your ability to restrain yourself. There may be more, but that should suffice. And, none of that means that there was no cooperation; it's just that the above factors made cooperation much more difficult that it should have been. --G2bambino (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am taking nothing out of context. There is, in fact, no explanation for your complete refusal to answer questions which were put to you. There is no explanation for your complete refusal to acknowledge what you yourself said to me on July 4 at the OoC article. There was no 'haughty and derogatory' attitude; telling you multiple times in plain English what the fixbunching template does was not enough, apparently, to make you understand what it does. I explained with crystal clarity what it does. You ignored that. If you were truly inquiring, it would have behooved you to say "I still don't understand, can you explain?", which you did not do, rather than ignore what I had to say. I find it interesting that in me there's a "weakness" but in you there is a "certain weakness". Not once did you offer a compromise or cooperation, not once did you show--even obliquely--any attempt to understand. I ask you again, why does what you said to me at the OoC article apply only to you and not to me? Prince of Canadat 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, editing my comments to remove statements that show your incivility is extremely poor form. Prince of Canadat 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't tell you what to believe. But, the evidence, which is now cemented in Wikipeida's archives, shows a much different reality to what you describe. Perhaps you became confused with my responses when you started to muddy the watters with added issues, losing distinction between one issue and another, and then believing I hadn't done what you expected. I would suspect this is what happened; indeed, you've even started to do so again here already. I would suggest, if my analysis of the goings on is correct, that you order your issues - and I mean with the content, and not with me - and raise them one by one. --G2bambino (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why won't you answer a simple question? And, again, editing my comments to make yourself look better is extremely poor form. Prince of Canadat 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in but G2, I recommend not responding to PoCs comments. I think everyone who reads this know what the intentions are and they are certainly not constructive. (I would also point out that the Administrator who resolved the ANI said PoC should avoid leaving you comments, PoC I suggest you follow User Talk:JzG's advice on this issue.) Gavin (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm starting to see that no good will come out of it. I merely thought I'd try, one last time. I suppose I have the authority to declare this discussion closed! ;) --G2bambino (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No good will come of it because you refuse to acknowledge certain facts. Such as your comment on July 4 at the OoC talk page.  Also.. you passed 3RR too, before I did even, so do you really want to have yet another block on your record?  Prince of Canadat 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

POC (close, eh?) is probably reasonably able to ask you not blank out parts of his comments to make him look better. Blank the whole things, or leave them (I recommend the former). Wily D 20:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And 'close, eh' means what, exactly? Prince of Canadat 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit warring with someone is their userspace is likely to result in your ability to do so being removed. In the common parlance, this is often called a "block". Cheers, Wily D  21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The usual custom is to warn people before applying blocks to them. It allows them a chance to fix their inappropriate behaviour. This was my reason for posting the above statement. Wily D 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And as one thing leads to another, I've applied a 24 hour block to your account. Please familiarise yourself with policies regarding interactions, notably WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and treat fellow contributors with the respect you would like to receive in the future. Cheers, Wily D 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'edit warring' was restoring selectively edited comments which made G2 look innocent, and made me look like the bad guy. It was also restoring removed comments which indicated his lies about my behaviour; the lies have finally been corrected.  Remove the block, please, especially since your comment there doesn't exactly show unbiased or neutral behaviour on your part. Prince of Canadat 21:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you need a second administrator to decline your request for an unblock, try using the template:unblock. To be frank, though, the kind of harrassment you gave G2Bambino is his userspace is not acceptable, and if you don't realise that, you'll end up reblock by someone or another quite soon, and likely for longer.  Since you ask, I'll redact the reference to your grossly inappropriate behaviour that includes a perhaps colourful metaphor.  Have a nice day. Wily D  21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's 'grossly inappropriate' to undo selective editing of my comments, and point out lies about my behaviour? Really? Prince of Canadat 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If PoC were to promise not to visit G2 & Gavin's user pages again? Could he be unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a more complete disengagement on this conflict woulds be necessary for it to be maintained, but as to your question I don't see why not. Wily D 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If both of them refrain from lies, attacks, and incivility (such as falsely terming my edits 'vandalism' and 'test edits'). I'll agree to it. That means changing the attacks and lies currently on their pages. They are hardly blameless, and yet no censure against them.  Tsk. Prince of Canadat 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * However, you've banned both G2 & Gavin from your talkpage. What they do on their talkpages is their choice too. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm not lying about them or their actions. That represents a significant difference.  And no, attacking other users isn't acceptable on their talkpages any more than it is acceptable anywhere else. Prince of Canadat 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, test edits is a rather polite euphanism - it indicates, to me at least, that G2Bambino is will to let your current conflict go and move on. This is a wonderful attribute, and one which takes one far around here.  Wily D  22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't, and you know it. So.  They remove their lies and attacks, I promise not to go to their talk pages.  Yes or no? Prince of Canadat 22:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wily, I think both G2 and I would much prefer PoC being able to continue contributing to the project unhindered rather than being blocked- however I have no problem with him posting on my talk page- if I deem it an attack I will just ignore it and store it. I won't be commenting on his page again about any matter not strictly article related. I think GoodDay's suggestion should be followed (it was originally put forward by an Administrator following a wrongful-ANI. Oh, There are no lies or attacks on my talk page. I think we should take his word and lift the block- that way the consequences are upon his shoulders if he fails to abide by his promise. Gavin (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gavin - if PrinceO'Canada intended to leave you and G2Bambino alone, I would have no problem doing so. Various things indicate to me that that's unlikely at this point, including his continued complaints about attacks on your user talk that do not exist. I also have a hard time charactising G2Bambino's statements on his talk as lies regarding PrinceOfCanada - as such, I don't see the intention on his part to move forward. At worst, his block will expire soon enough, and he can either move on or not, and things will go from there. Wily D 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Claiming that I deleted his comments? Lie. Claiming that I reverted his edits to my talk page? Lie. Calling my edits 'test edits'? Lie. "Disruption and antagonise"? Lie. Calling my post to ANI an "attention grab"? Attack.  Shall I go on?  Furthermore, I thought we were supposed to AGF?  If I am promising not to edit his talk page, aren't you supposed to assume that I mean it? Prince of Canadat 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith is not conclude good faith - I already warned you to stop restoring a discussion G2Bambino had deleted from his talk, and you already failed to heed that warning. No assumptions, one way or the other, are necessary.  Incidentally, You reverted his edit to your talk page, you did disrupt his talk page and very believably anatagonise him.  It would behoove you not to complain about other people's behaviour when you engage in that same behaviour yourself.  Your block will expire soon enough, and I hope in the interim you'll realise that when you treat other editors badly, they won't leave piles of praise and respect on your doorstep. Wily D  23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad; I had forgotten that removal. And no, you didn't 'warn' me, at least not unambiguously; you left a comment on my page that seemed to be a general comment on the issue, not a "continue this and I will block you".  You're not explaining why, when I am promising to make no further edits to his talk page, you are not assuming good faith on my part. And no, the block will not expire "soon enough"; that there is a block at all, given your bias (as characterized by your insult to me), is ridiculous.  That he has not been blocked for incivility and lies is likewise ridiculous, but neither here nor there.  Again.  I am promising not to make any edits to his talk page.  You have no good reason to not assume good faith on my part when I make that promise. Prince of Canadat 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Incivility and lies, especially lies that have the vice of being true, and incivility that has the virtue of being over with, are not common reasons for a block. Actively edit warring is.  So far as I have seen, you have not actually promised to leave Gavin Scott and G2Bambino alone, only on a condition that assumes something that's demonstratably not true.  If you'll leave Gavin Scott and G2Bambino alone, and move on, interacting with them only to pursue new content conflict resolution if it should arise, then I'll be happy to unblock you.  But I don't see this, certainly I haven't seen you say it.  Wily D  23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, consider it promised. I would also like an apology from you for your insult. Prince of Canadat 00:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead an unblocked you, per the above. Wily D  01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And the apology? Prince of Canadat 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Hi"
I was only reverting someone who posted a good faith comment on your userpage, rather than talk. Just trying to help. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, do not be rude to me, I was just trying to help. If I see someone plaster your page with vandalism, I will not revert it, you should have just showed gratitude for someone helping in the first place, dear me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppet
I have reasons to believe that this account is a sock puppet of another account. I will now refer this matter to the relevant authorities for determination. If, however, I am wrong in this, please let me apologise in advance.--pyl (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have requested to have the report withdrawn. Please accept my apology.--pyl (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!
I would like to say yes please and thank you to your adoption offer. I didn't get back to your sooner as I was on vacation (away from the internet for a week!!! >_<) JSchytte (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked (again)
You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for edit warring on Monarchy of Barbados. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place below. Tiptoety talk 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Attn: GoodDay
I'm not really sure how, precisely, I'm supposed to discuss the issue with him. Seeing as he lies, twists words for his own purposes, and ignores things he himself has said... where, exactly, is any cooperation supposed to come from? Poor little G2bambino, hoist by his own petard. Waah. Prince of Canadat 23:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And look, more lies on his talk page. Really, what's the point? 'Never meant to inflame'.  As if.   Prince of Canadat 23:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will attempt a resolution with him under the following conditions:
 * He acknowledges and apologizes for the lies and half-truths he has been saying
 * He acknowledges and apologizes for his severe incivility
 * He acknowledges that the edits he is making are in direct contravention to edits and reverts he made to me back in July
 * He actually answers direct questions directly.


 * If he does those things, that is to say honestly, sincerely, without snark or half-measures. I will be willing to attempt resolution. I won't be holding my breath. Prince of Canadat 23:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still confident, you both will patch things up. In the words of John Lennon 'All we are saying, is give peace a chance'. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If he does the things I outlined above, I will be able to reconsider my well-supported opinion that he is merely out to say "I get what I want, too bad for you," and will thus be able to enter into a resolution. Prince of Canadat 00:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Canadian heraldry
Hey, what's up with the Canadian heraldry article? I was a little surprised you asked someone else to review it. Anyway, the key for GA is to resolve the two fair-use images. Gimmetrow 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but once I fail the article (which I did just before you posted), I can't reverse the decision without going through another GA process. If you want, fix the issues that I listed on the page, then renominate the article.  Drop a note on my talk page and I'll put the article at the top of my list for review. Dana boomer (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application
Dear PrinceOfCanada,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Pedro : Chat  19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...
Do you read your own comments? They are inflammatory and incendiary do the other editors here. I'm not involved in any of these conflicts, so I figure that as an unbiased editor, you may take heed to these links I give you: WP:BAIT, WP:NICE and WP:CIVIL. Don't try to turn this around by saying that the other people should follow these; instead, be a better person than them and simply walk away. Thanks,  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments are factual. I suggest you look at the history of the person in question before passing judgement. Prince of Canadat 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A few examples:
 * "Oh, really, that's where we're going now? One would think someone with a history of as many blocks as you have had would be a little more circumspect in his language."--PoC
 * "You have absolutely no reason to suspect I am a sock puppet of anyone. Please remove your baseless accusation immediately." --PoC
 * "I have requested to have the report withdrawn. Please accept my apology." --Pyl
 * "You should have removed it at the moment I asked you to, as you had no basis whatsoever for accusing me of sockpuppetry. I suggest you take some time away from the article to cool down. Your agenda, whatever it is, is clouding your judgement." --PoC
 * Regardless, you do not seem capable of listening to anyone who you think disagrees with you. It looked to me as if G2Bambino had some good points, and it also looked like Pyl apoligized&mdash;and you just blew them off you as you would a fly.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * pyl was acting in bad faith from the get-go, due to me mistakenly reverting something when I was cleaning up refs at an article which s/he is, shall we say, passionate about. I do not take accusations of sockpuppetry lightly, and even less so when they're the byproduct of an agenda and have no basis in reality. One would also point out that my 'circumspect' comment was in regards to an accusation of vandalism.  One would even further point out that your (laughably incorrect) judgement of my ability to listen to anyone who disagrees with me violates the very same guidelines you're trying to point out to me.  Moving on, I only brushed off G2 when it became clear that he a) wasn't listening (count how many times I had to say the exact same thing over and over again before he finally got it; the fixbunching template, that is), b) a thorough hypocrite who is very much a fan of telling people what to do and then ignoring it himself, and c) was only really interested in insulting me--'vandalism', 'hideous', 'obstinate', 'looks like shit', etc.  I would thank you to not judge me, and I will provide you the same courtesy in return.  K? Prince of Canadat 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice, by the way, that you say not one word about G2's rudeness. Interesting. Prince of Canadat 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't, an oversight by me; however, both of you were being rude. My intentions are not to judge, but to point you to the correct door! The door that leads to being a well-respected editor! Constant personal attacks, even if they are made in defense of personal attacks against yourself, are personal attacks, and you are simply using the same methods that you criticize from others. Cheers,  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT and WP:DRAMA too, please.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, okay. Still no comment from you to him regarding his rudeness and attacks, I see. Prince of Canadat 21:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still not comprehending how factual statements such as "you lied about me" (verifiably true), "you are a hypocrite" (verifiably true), etc, are attacks, by the way. "You're a douchebag"? That's an attack, sure.  "You did X", supported by truth? Not an attack. Prince of Canadat 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Have fun poring through his archives, looking for my sig. I have no idea who G2 is, and I have no interest in knowing. Why have I not talked to him? Maybe it is because that he knows already, as he has been here since 8 Feb 2005. Maybe it's because you started the entire merry-go-round with this inflammatory edit. Walk away and become a good Wikipedia editior&mdash;i.e. less Wikidrama. I'm going to walk away myself right after this, as I am not going to have more of my words twisted around. I am already sick of you as an editor, and as a person, you should be ashamed of your multiple attacks upon multiple people. Claiming that it is "all their/his fault" has convinced me of exactly the opposite. Cheers,  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs- 
 * Actually, I didn't start the merry-go-round there. You really should learn the history of what's going on before judging me.  I should think, further, that comments like "I am already sick of you" and "you should be ashamed" are not terribly civil.  Or is it different when you say them? Prince of Canadat 21:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I'll make one more edit to this page. You actually started the endless personal attacks roller coaster with "Look, you clearly do not understand layout, because you keep--despite me explaining repeatedly otherwise--thinking that fixbunching has anything to do with whitespace. I suggest, again, that you read this. Or has the way computers work changed since you wrote that? Prince of Canada t | c 23:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"...And then you couldn't let it go. Goodbye,  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually no. Note G2's use of 'hideous' above. Prince of Canadat 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Medcab case
Thanks for your considered and restrained response to my questions. I will wait for G2 to respond before I comment further. Mayalld (talk) 07:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Driven/route.
Hi there. Well, you see. I decide to change it to "driven by" 'cos I thought that "routed" means "tra-la-la on their own decision". But "Driven by" say same more clearly. Users who are not so familiar with English can understand "routed" as "action made by own, free will decision" which is clearly not the case in "2008 SO war". I'm not so good in English and as you can see I got it in wrong way /if your description of it's meaning is correct/. Then many other's ppls can repeat my mistake. If you say that those phrases are equal, then any can be put. And as "driven by" is more simple and clear for foreing/non_native_English_speakers it's better to put those words, IMO. Plus to this this phrase "driven by" is smth I've learnt from Wikipedia - I saw it in other articles about different other wars and conflicts. Hope didn't messed you Personal page. Will respond in a couple of hours.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Prince
Hehe, glad to see you back! ;) Discussions have started at WikiProject Commonwealth regarding the dablink. I also think we ought to have a central discussion as to the whole "personal union thing" there. Also WikiProject English royalty started, if you're interested in monarchs that far back (ie before Anne of GB). Kind regards, --Cameron* 10:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let you decide as to that. Regards, --Cameron* 10:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes?
Nothing wrong with using Wiki to have a laugth.

Piedmont, Ca
Why have you marked my changes as vandalism? I have cited sources such as http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/assembly_09_03_04.pdf. Also, any search on the internet shows that Piedmont is registered republican under 11%. Maybe I should write "In contrast with the rest of the United States, ..." Other neighboring areas such as Pleasanton, Fremont, and the Stockton metro area are much more conservative. Please take my argument seriously, as I can provide other sources also, but I consider this one reputable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.193.102 (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't affluent or extremely be considered partisan also? One man's castle may be another's cottage. 76.102.193.102 (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the talk page of Vandalism Destroyer. he approved what I did as long as I used "described as". Thanks. 76.102.193.102 (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
Did you get my wiki-mail regarding the image of Princess Eugenie's Arms? -Rrius (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, yes. As you may have seen, I've been a bit bogged down.  Let me try and upload again; if it doesn't work I'll email you shortly. Prince of Canadat 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Made it work.. turned out there was an issue with the image, so I recreated it and presto. Prince of Canadat 06:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, because I didn't get your email -Rrius (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the image&mdash;great job! -Rrius (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, thank you. It was just a copy/paste job, really. Stole the thistles from Margaret's arms, and the rest from Beatrice's. Prince of Canadat 07:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast-off being
Since you were concerned about the removal of the PROD from this article, you may want to express an opinion at WP:Articles for deletion/Cast-off being. Actually, I favor your view that PRODs should not be removed without a rationale, but I don't think current policy requires that. Anyone can remove a PROD for any reason. (Short of total vandalism, anyway). EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad; I was under the impression that they were not removable without addressing the issues raised. Cheers. Prince of Canadat 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My user page
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page!! LeaveSleaves (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Huggle makes me feel all warm and cozy and vandal-smashy. Prince of Canadat 08:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/KairiAl-Qaeda
I have reviewed your evidence and there is no way any of the accounts you suspected are sockpuppets (see the comments section of the page for explanations). If you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. I don't have the habit of watchlisting other user's talk pages because it can flood my watchlist whenever there's an update in someone else's userpage and there's a chance that you haven't read the message yet. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Their contributions may be similar, but their editing timeline just don't fit at all. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A pony...
There, now get back to making accounts!! :p  L'Aquatique   [  parlez  ] 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict at Orissa religious violence & Jobxavier
Dear Prince- the article is at Orissa religious violence. A sense of the nature of the POV conflict can be found in these diffs: Some of my concerns are summarized on the talk page Talk:Orissa_religious_violence I appreciate your attention and concern. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. And sorry for removing your comment--someone was vandalizing my page. Prince of Canadat 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd thought I must have stopped at the preview. Thanks for the intervention.  Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'm happy to consider all options at dispute resolution, but I'm not optimistic for the prospects of mediation in this instance.  To be frank, I've been leaning towards an RfC.  Of course, I've never gone through either before, so I would appreciate your advice. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably not at that stage yet. Let's see where this goes, and move from there. Prince of Canadat 09:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * saw your comment elsewhere. so you'll only be putting comments on the discusssion page, and won't actually edit the page?--vvarkey (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put up the list of WP:NPOV violations you requested. Best, Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To Prince: I  agree. The 'who is a hindu' link has been re-inserted after your message. It needs to be removed, as such.

Please see my responses to Gabriel in the other page. Jobxavier (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawkania does not agree
I'm sorry you decided it was vandalism but it wasn't it was simply a mis-reading which another member kindly helped me with i would like to kindly ask next time you try and say it's vandalism ask me first why i keep doing it.Hawkania (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Response in mediation
I made a response in mediation [here]. I hope I am being fair. Thanks. Recordfreenow (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Usertalk: Ugleekid
Ugleekid is my friend. He is new to wikipedia and asked me to clean up his page. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EntertainU (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
I disagree, the atmosphere got quite charged, and you were both able to take a step back. -Rrius (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Medcab on Orissa
Thanks for getting this going. Much appreciated. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. But as I will be busy for the next two weeks, I will not be in a position to contribute to the discussion.-Bharatveer (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

idiotic warning
Don't do that. 86.44.20.177 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Referring to your warning as idiotic is in no way uncivil. It was indeed idiotic. As was your subsequent template. Presumably at some stage you actually look at the edits you are referring to as vandalism or "what wikipedia is not"? Bizarre. 86.44.20.177 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might explain to me in your own words why you are templating me. That may prove instructive. 86.44.20.177 (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So you made a revert you can't explain, and templated me twice for reasons you also can't explain, and are now resorting to lies and namecalling? Not very impressive. 86.44.27.254 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a revert I choose not to explain, and templated you for obvious reasons. Nor have I lied or called anyone names.  You were blocked from WP for a reason.  That includes, as far as I am aware, using anon IPs to edit.  Consider yourself warned. Prince of Canadat 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have mistaken me for someone else (i presume? otherwise you're plain gaga). You're cool with contravening policy? Also review what vandalism is, while you're at it. And stop talking nonsense. 86.44.16.184 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have mistaken me for someone else
 * No
 * You're cool with contravening policy?
 * No, and seeing as I'm not, but you are, I'm not really sure why you're asking the question.
 * Also review what vandalism is, while you're at it.
 * I'm quite aware of what it is, thanks.
 * And stop talking nonsense.
 * Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and related policies and thoughts. Any further edits by you to my userpage will be considered WP:VANDALISM and personal attacks, and will be dealt with accordingly. Prince of Canadat 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been pointing out to you that what you consider—and revert as—vandalism, isn't. Simply considering it vandalism, as you have you stated you will consider this post, isn't relevant, templating editors for it is idiotic and harmful, and referring to editors who point this out you as "blocked troll"s is unacceptable. Take it on board if you're really here for the encyclopedia. If you're on some ego thing whereby you can't accept your error when it is pointed out to you, then forget it, naturally. I trust if you repeat this pattern enough it'll get dealt with in any case. 86.44.26.251 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that the revert you're talking about--namely your removal of relevant content from the Ten Pound Hammer essay, and your rude edit summary--was vandalism. Your abuse here is clearly part of a pattern.  In addition to the links I noted above, WP:AGF appears to be required reading for you, Kurt.  Then again, your history indicates that neither WP:AGF nor WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA have ever been policies that you believe apply to yourself. That is the last this talk page will ever see on the matter.  Any further edits from you that are not solely "I am sorry for attacking you, questioning your motives, and generally being a jerk" will be reverted.  I invite you to go enjoy the wide world beyond your computer screen.  Anger management courses are widely available there, I understand. Prince of Canadat 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Coronation article
You asked me to let you know when I got the Coronation article ready for GA renomination again. I think I've just about gotten it where it needs to be; sometime when you have time (a LOT of time--it's ballooned out to 103 KB now!), might I ask you to check it out and let me know what you think before I resubmit it? You might also want to take a look on the discussion page for the GA Review section, and let me know if you think I've addressed all of Dana Boomer's concerns appropriately. Any help, editing, feedback or elsewise you might care to give would be deeply appreciated! Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factor" Revert
The information was already stated in the article, in far, far more detail. There's no need to reiterate what would have just been read. There wasn't any need to revert those edits (this edit, if you don't remember). 24.145.19.247 (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DUFFY IS A NOOB.
It's true, leave it on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.248.194.93 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Page header
Hi PrinceOfCanada. I'm not sure what you're talking about - it seems OK to me. What should it look like? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Rlandmann, thank you for the incredibly fast reply! I've added a pair of userboxes at the top of the page to demonstrate the issue. The first one is FUBAR; the second is correct.  Or is it possible that the issue is an artifact of my browser? (Firefox2, fully updated, on WinXP) Prince of Canadat 03:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I definitely see the problem now. I've previewed a couple of changes that I thought might work, but unfortunately I can't see what's wrong. Probably the best people to ask would be over at the technical page of the Village Pump and see if someone can spot the problem. Sorry I couldn't help more! --Rlandmann (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you. You've been a big help--I never would have thought to go there! Prince of Canadat 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Orissa
Yea, I agree. Good idea. ;) &mdash; Sunday   | Speak  11:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. Well, here's hoping.. Prince of Canadat 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite Orissa violence
Thanks again for being involved in getting us to play fair. Have you been able to recruit someone for a re-write? How would we ensure that there are no apparent reverts? Thanks again. Recordfreenow (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I have found someone, and we can't ensure it but we can ask editors to commit to not reverting. Prince of Canadat 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDb
Why do you and Beeblebrox keep vandalising the IMDb page? If you don't like the way the item is written then rewrite it, don't keep removing it. This is a major new development in IMDb, and needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia, to keep this site up to date. You and your fellow user's constant removal of my work is akin to a couple of playground bullies.
 * I went ahead and took this matter to WP:AIV since the IP is unwilling to discuss it reasonably and is well beyond WP:3RR. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Righto. Let me know if you need anything from me. Prince of Canadat 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I thought, you are friends. Oh well, enjoy your games. Your censorship is wholly inappropriate and probably drives away many useful contributors. You both need to ask yourselves, who is actually helping the encylopaedia more - someone who adds interesting new information (whether written in language you don't like or not) or someone who just goes round deleting things completely, so that nobody can read them at all?
 * Hi. I haven't seen either of you give me any help.  All I have seen is your desperate urge to completely remove my material, and then run off to report me when I defended myself.  Where is the help in rewriting the information or suggesting better placement within the article?  Also, how can I possibly supply a more appropriate link than the one directly to the release of the information?  The only other possible link is here http://www.imdb.com/video/featured/landing and that seems more commercial to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.108.154 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cavill Heugh
See User_talk:Jeff79.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the word on Orissa?
What's the word so far on Orissa? By looking at the available sources, some research may be in order, particularly for background. I'm not confident that the sources used are the best possible (or reliable, even). That may take me longer due to my lack of familiarity with the region. If you think it is advisable, I can make introductions on the article talk page to prepare for this. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:QEQM 100th birthday.jpg
The image in question has no fair-use rationale for either of the articles it is currently used in and therefore fails criterion 10c of the non-free content criteria, should this situation not change the image will be eligible for deletion via speedy delete criterion I6 seven days after the original uploader has been informed (In this case that would be the 28th of September). As I do not know much about the subject matter and the importance of the event depicted in the image I cannot judge if the image meets all of the non-free content criteria and so could not put in the appropriate rationales myself. The guideline for non-free content rationales can be found here. Please note that the boilerplate copyright tags setting out fair use criteria do not constitute a use rationale. I hope this hasn't caused any trouble; assuming that the image does indeed meet all of the non-free content criteria the situation shouldn't be too difficult to resolve for someone with a knowledge of why the image meets the criteria. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The criteria can be a pain but I think they're neccessary. It's a contentious issue with some people seeing Wikipedia as a free-content mission and thinking all fair-use should be banned (as it is - I believe - on the German Wikipedia) whilst at the other end of the spectrum there are those who see Wikipedia as only being based around free-content as a practical way to run the encyclopaedia and any non-free content should be allowed as long as it improves the encyclopaedia and no one's being sued. As I see it the current system allows for non-free content that will improve the encyclopaedia but also limits any potential legal exposure to the project and encourages people to produce and identify valuable free content by having the systems in place (WP:NFCC) whereby we need justify non-free use in each instance. I'm sorry for the mix-up with the original uploader, I'm coming back from a bit off a break and would have made sure I left messages on the relevent article talk pages had I noticed their situation. Anyway I hope the situation can be resolved satisfactorily, happy editing, Guest9999 (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to bring the image in to line with the non-free content criteria I have remove the image from the article English and British Queen mothers and replaced it with a free image of a former holder of the title and added a rationale for it's use in the article Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon . I hope this is satisfactory. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ORISSA VIOLENCE PAGE
During the past 72 hours, many POV edits have been made in the Page. This cannot be allowed. The Page is under Dispute.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Prince of Canadat 02:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I was not 'clearly disrupting and [I] knew it'. He had agreed to a consensus until the conflict was over.  He decided that was no longer the case.  I made my extremely strenuous objections known, he went ahead, I reverted back to the initial version he had created. Prince of Canadat 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You were BOTH clearly and explicitly gaming the 3RR, which is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. I'm not an admin, but I strong believe the block on both participants should stand unless there is a promised NOT to revert on that article at all.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend reducing the Block & imposing a 1RR rule for Canadian monarchy related articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Canadat 18:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Prince, I am willing to unblock your account under these conditions:
 * You agree to no longer edit war on any articles;
 * You are placed on 1RR restrictions in relation to any articles dealing with the Canadian monarchy (generally speaking)
 * You are placed on 1RR restrictions when reverting any actions performed by G2bambino (even if a neutral third party reverts to his revision)
 * Tiptoety talk 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't do that anyway; recent issues have had extremely specific causes, namely 1) his selective refactoring of my comments--explicitly not allowed and he knew it; 2) refusal to actually discuss anything; 3) refusal to abide by his own actions. Since he's leaving the project, all of these are moot.
 * For how long?
 * Since he is leaving the project, that is a moot point. Prince of Canadat 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey now.. saying that I'm not being receptive isn't fair. I am! I was clarifying your terms.  Again, my understanding is that blocks are preventive and not punitive.  Given that G2 is leaving the project, there is nothing to prevent.  The 'for how long?' is a reasonable question, I thought. Prince of Canadat 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not that even though the conditions may be moot, they are still conditions. If they're moot, then you should have no problems agreeing with them. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I didn't agree with them, just that they weren't really applicable. Prince of Canadat 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay the point here is to avoid any further disruption to the project, so the 1RR would be in affect until the issues or dispute was resolved and/or until the community decides it is no longer productive to have you placed on 1RR. Also, just because he said he is leaving does not mean he will, and I think that this whole issue is really just simply that you do like G2bambino and stopping you from reverting him is the best possible way to resolve this issue. Might I also add that your ignorance is not helping you here. The fact is you did edit war, and it is disruptive, failure to admit your mistakes is just more evidence you need to remain blocked. Tiptoety  talk 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing isn't ignorance, Tiptoety. I've never denied what I did, I just don't think that classifying it as 'edit-warring' is accurate. You do, and you're the one with the ability to enforce it, and that's fine. Anyway, now that you've clarified, of course I agree. Prince of Canadat 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) PofC, your wikilawyering is not helping you here. A 3RR violation (or even a near violation, and especially gaming it as you did) is edit warring, regardless of the reasons and whether or not you thought you were right, and is disruptive. I'm not comfortable unblocking you until you appear to understand that, so please stop dancing around the issue. I'm also not completely certain what you are agreeing to in your last statement - the 1RR probations, or Tiptoety's summary of events? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not wikilawyering or dancing around anything.. I'm sorry if it appears that way. I guess I'm not explaining myself well enough.  I'll try to be clearer:
 * I agree with Tiptoety's conditions
 * I don't agree that what I did was edit-warring, but you all do, and that is what matters. Obviously I will therefore abide by your definition. Or to be clearer (I think): I disagree with your assessment, but my opinion is irrelevant, and I will follow your definition in the future.
 * The only times I have engaged in editing like that have been with G2bambino. I understand that you want to prevent that in the future, thus the block.  G2bambino has left the project.  That means there is no chance of this happening again.  So the block should be removed, as the situation it is aiming to prevent cannot possibly happen.  I mean... If someone is blocked for, say, continually vandalizing country music articles, and then they are topic-banned (which they agree to) from editing those articles, the block should be lifted, right?  That's all I'm saying. The situation that the block is aiming to prevent can't ever happen again, so the block is punitive, and not preventative.
 * I hope I'm being clear enough? Please let me know if I am not. Prince of Canadat 22:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add, I'm also involved (as mediator) at a MedCab case right now, and would like to be able to wrap it up as soon as possible. Prince of Canadat 23:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Attn: slakr.. it's not that the other editor is blocked, it's that the other editor has announced resignation from the project. My fault for not being clear, I'm sorry; I would absolutely understand your response if I was asking to be unblocked while he remains blocked.  Further, given that I agree with Tiptoety's conditions, I'm not understanding the continuation of the block. Prince of Canadat 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Helpme request
Thanks for your help. While experimenting, I noticed that the problem only happens when 1 box is open and 1 is closed... so I just avoid that situation. Thanks again,  The Moridian   12:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" of Olivia Newton John
Hi Prince of Canada,

I hardly think a bold edit of the article in question constitutes vandalism. Perhaps I should have used the sandbox to remove useless information for Wikipedia articles, i.e. a list of song publishers.

I hope you find this justification to be valid.

Best wishes,

Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.206.125 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Page deletion
Hey there POC, thanks for the delete. I was also keen on deleting the user page (/Oxazole) as well as the talk page. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Elite Rhodes-Adoption
Yes please i will be happy to accept

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove HG from Twycross Zoo page
Hi Prince I'm not really into wiki but you keep deleting my posts using HG. I hope this is the correct way to tell you about my business. I am the owner of Pirates Cove at Twycross Zoo and am trading there right now. Someone is maliciously trying to erase my business from it's history but I can assure you that everything I have posted is 100% correct and I can prove it. I got my daughter to post some citations but I have even more than this as evidence if you need it. Whoever it is, who is trying to remove my posts is doing this out of jealousy or hatred. I request that you remove HG from any posts made on the Twycross Zoo page by myself, Dartman501. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.144.105 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the off chance you ever read this, I'll invite you to read about our policies on conflict of interest, notability, and verifiability. Cheers. Prince of Canadat 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WHY AM I STILL BEING CENSORED? WIKI KEEP BLOCKING MY POSTS AND ALLOWING UNSUBSTANSIATED NONSENSE TO BE POSTED BY TWYCROSS ZOO. I AM NOT ADVERTISING ANYTHING MORE THAN TWYCROSS ARE BY MENTIONING THEIR TRAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.144.105 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, please read our policies on conflict of interest, notability, and verifiability. Prince of Canadat 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Orissa- thanks
I just wanted to clarify that my comments regarding the protection were by no means meant as an attack on you. I can imagine it's been frustrating, but thank you for your work on moving the dispute towards resolution, and for recruiting a rewriter. Best regards, Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image move
Hi! Just to let you know with regard to your edit here WP:ACCESS only applies to second-level headings not first-level headings. Best wishes, DrKay (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read "third or higher", but now I can't find where. Prince of Canadat 07:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it: MOS - Images. Prince of Canadat 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that agrees with the access guidelines: " or greater" means no left-aligned images under subsection headings(  or   or  ). Left-aligned images under section headings (  or  ) are OK. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

reporting to AIV
Well... that was brave, I grant you. I removed the report simply as a means of lessening potential disruption, which any block following an AIV report would ensue. Giano should not and generally does not get preferential treatment, but there is an acknowledgement that injudicious action regarding him tend to have consequences. If you, or anyone else, has a grievance against Giano it is best brought to - in very clear and neutral language - to WP:ANI. I will also have a little look as regards the matter. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you now think the report itself was warranted, you probably should read the following essay: WP:DTTR ... it will help you avoid kerfluffles in future. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I am sure that you are both working with the best intentions, and that you care passionately about the subject (as does Giano). As I have used The Buttons in a manner which may be seen as favouring Giano (I didn't, I was doing for the benefit of the encyclopedia...) I guess that I owe you a duty of care also. If you get into any "trouble" in relation to this matter, please feel free to come and ask for my assistance. I shall also watchlist this page for the time being. I think you are not yet aware that you may have embarked upon a very steep learning curve as regards certain WP matters, but if you come through okay then you will likely be greatly the better for it. Here's hoping. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT is a guideline, rather than policy (which themselves are "...not set in stone.") and the nutshell says there are exceptions. One of the skills of operating within WP is the ability to embrace the spirit of the rules, policies and guidelines without getting too hung up on the precise wording and application of the terms of said wordings; basically, if it improves WP then it is right. If you can learn that lesson and be guided by it then you are doing better than Giano who, for all his excellent encyclopedia writing achievements, is largely unable to accommodate those who do not share his viewpoint. As I said, you have balls to do what you did - and I hope you have the brains also to understand why being right is not always an absolute. If you have both then you are likely going to be just as valued a contributor as Giano (generally) is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors
Hiya PoC. As you can tell, myself & Guy (a Wikipedian I barely know) have differing opinons on the value of editors. I couldn't care less, as to how many contributions (good or bad), awards or tenure length a registered user had under his/her belt. None of it intimidates me nor overly impresses me. As I've said before, I'm a true layman. OK, I'll make exception for editors I know, better then others, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Article editing
I visited your page and saw you saw you were willing to go through an article. In response, would you bother to check my Mt. Tamalpais & Muir Woods Railway article? It is not complete, but please contact my talkpage and tell me if there is anything wrong; moreover, edit whatever you want.Thanks,--Archeopteryx (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

EDITS AGAIN TO ORISSA BY RECORDFREENOW
Minor edits by me to shorten the length and to correct verbosity have been summarily undone by Recordfree without reference. I suggest that the Page be protected.

Jobxavier (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Large Scale POV edits were done during the past 3 days while I sat watching. However, please check history about how minor my edit was. And the POV of the last 3 days.

Jobxavier (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Threat of block
I dont think users should be able to get away from inserting irrelevant POV and reverting all edits regarding that POV and then also threaten to report. The onus is on you to justify how the background section is of any relevance to the recent communal violence in Orissa. Trips (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of month-old articles with no content
The articles I tagged had literally no information whatever (Wikicruft doesn't count). You will note that I spared the ones with data. There is absolutely no value to WP to having these stubs in there before there is even an iota of information. I suggest you (a) not shed a tear while watching these all be deleted; and (b) add the new pages when you have the supporting material. Bongomatic (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry you found my previous comment uncivil. Other than the suggestion, I find it to be pretty uncontroversial. If you're concerned about the time to recreate them, you can keep them all by moving them into your user space. Bongomatic (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry you found my previous comment uncivil. Other than the suggestion, I find it to be pretty uncontroversial. If you're concerned about the time to recreate them, you can keep them all by moving them into your user space. Bongomatic (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't see your beef:
 * Rudeness. Maybe you don't like the blunt tone. This is really a question of personal opinion.
 * Insults and name calling. Not applicable.
 * Judgmental tone in edit summaries. Not applicable.
 * Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor. Not applicable.
 * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice. Not applicable.
 * Taunting. Not applicable.
 * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety;. Not applicable.
 * Lies. Not applicable.
 * Quoting another editor out-of-context. Not applicable
 * Making personal attacks. Not applicable.
 * Using derogatory language towards other contributors. Not applicable.
 * Feigned incomprehension. Not applicable.
 * In no case did I comment on the merits of the project, or disparage you for your having created the stubs, which I assume that you did in good faith intending to fill them in with content. I simply observed that they do not have any content and that as such there is no benefit to the project to having them in article space. Do you really disagree with that? Bongomatic (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your wikilawyering notwithstanding, your 'shed a tear' comment was rude, you know it--you admitted to it. Your entire tone was aggressive and unpleasant and unnecessary.  Look below for Nancy's comment, which was a whole lot more polite. Please do not visit my talk page again unless you are willing to converse in a polite manner, ok? Thanks. Prince of Canadat 13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I am the admin responsible for deleting some/most of the articles and wanted to drop by and explain that this is not because the subject does not merit an entry but because we don't keep placeholders on Wikipedia. If there is no actual content (which there was not in any of the ones I have deleted) then the article should not be put in to mainspace, an amount of leeway is given for newly created articles but this is typically measured in hours rather then days, or in this case, weeks! My advice would be to create them in sandboxes in your userspace and then move then as and when they have content. I would normally offer to copy the deleted articles in to userspace but as they are the same template there doesn't seem to be much point, but, of course, if you would like me you just have to ask. Good luck with your COA project. Kind regards, nancy (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Nancy, I wasn't suggesting that the articles didn't merit entry, I was pointing out the unnecessarily rude and condescending behaviout from . Prince of Canadat 13:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Coat of arms of Castlegar, British Columbia
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Coat of arms of Castlegar, British Columbia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Coat of arms of Castlegar, British Columbia is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Coat of arms of Castlegar, British Columbia, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How to warn user of vandalism?
Thank you for helping to keep Off Broadway Theatre intact. New users have registered (presumably previously unregistered users who were vandalizing the page, with the possibility of one or more sock puppets) and are continuing with deletion of content. I was hoping for some advice or assistance in warning and/or blocking these users.

Revision history:[]

Examples: 
 * 00:09, 28 September 2008 (1,314 bytes) Undid revision 240815347 by BillWestman
 * 16:52, 23 September 2008 Obtsupporter (Talk | contribs) (1,314 bytes) Undid revision 240360146 by BillWestman

Example:
 * 19:20, 21 September 2008

I appreciate any assistance you can provide. BillWestman (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Coat of arms of Chilliwack, British Columbia
A tag has been placed on Coat of arms of Chilliwack, British Columbia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bongomatic (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Prince of Canada.

I live in Nafplio, Greece. There is no rail services from/to Athens anymore. There are only frequent bus services to/from Athens by KTEL organisation.

Please correct it, i tried and i cant.

thanks

antonia paziota

My bright idea
I'll dress up as batman, you as robin and I'll take the photo though The Queen's window while you cover me! I tried last year but it didn't work. ;) --Cameron* 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

re Dwayne Perkins Deletion
Thanks for your notes. it seems having someone else write about you is the main criterion for not being and "ad" apparently someone already did. I had nothing to do with that one and somehow that got deleted too. I didn't even know it had been created until i went to create one on my own. People come to wikipedia for information. So if someone chooses to type my name in the search engine and they get my page I fail to see how that can be construed as promotion or an ad. The only way people see my page is if they search on my name which means they are looking for me which in and of itself suggests some level of notability. I will peruse the rules but as of now it feels like a very subjective thing is being sold to me as cut and dry. I'm sure the case for my page being ok is almost as strong as the case against it. I have videos on youtube that I did not put there. Articles written about me that I did not generate or spur. Plus, someone I don't even know has already tried to make an article about me. I'm not here for promotion but more for validation. There are plenty of people on my level who have pages/articles here. It's not promotion as much as it is simply making a factual reference page. I don't mind the community deciding my fate on this but I don't feel the community has spoken. Just a few gatekeepers. Thanks again.

Regards, Dwayne Dwayneperkins (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Dwayne Perkins Dwayne Perkins  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwayneperkins (talk • contribs) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)