Misplaced Pages

User:G2bambino/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:G2bambino Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:03, 16 October 2008 editG2bambino (talk | contribs)19,847 edits →1: clear← Previous edit Revision as of 15:27, 16 October 2008 edit undoG2bambino (talk | contribs)19,847 edits Time to unclear this, againNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:



==2== ==2==
Line 94: Line 93:




<!-- ==PrinceOfCanada== ==PrinceOfCanada==
===PrinceOfCanada's attempts to prove inciviliy on my part=== ===PrinceOfCanada's attempts to prove inciviliy on my part===
* *
Line 213: Line 212:


* 02:38, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Order of Canada ‎ (because the formatting looked ugly with the infobox going over the dividing line.) * 02:38, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Order of Canada ‎ (because the formatting looked ugly with the infobox going over the dividing line.)
* 04:12, 19 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom ‎ (Undid revision 232810936 by U-146 (talk) If we must, let's make it less ugly, shall we?) --> * 04:12, 19 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom ‎ (Undid revision 232810936 by U-146 (talk) If we must, let's make it less ugly, shall we?)

Revision as of 15:27, 16 October 2008

2

The only people who should be listed in this template are the sovereign, his or her consort and all living Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom, to the exclusion of all others.

British Royal Family


Senior members

HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

Collateral members


Lawe

Discussions

Breaches

Links for article use


PrinceOfCanada

PrinceOfCanada's attempts to prove inciviliy on my part

Discussions

Commentary

  • ...despite what he thinks, the problem isn't with me; it's his appalling treatment of several users.
  • I will, if he clearly and explicitly apologizes for his attacks, his belittling behaviour, his refusal to cooperate... his hypocritical use of rules against other people while refusing to abide by them himself, his general hypocrisy, and his general tendency towards ignoring third opinions when they disagree with him.
  • I will not enter into a join RfC with G2; the issue is his appalling treatment of multiple users, not just me.
  • As has been explained several times to G2--he doesn't like to listen
  • You kept belittling, and have now tried to pretend you're some sort of.. victim? Crusader? Do us all a favour and leave WP like you promised to.
  • Your lack of ability to recognize the reality of how you treat people is not my problem.
  • We all know that the discussion is over only when you say it is, G2.
  • Also, noting your past behaviour with regards to third opinions--e.g., you dismiss them as irrelevant or ignore them entirely, when they don't agree with you (unless there's no way for you to wiggle out of it)
  • Do stop putting words in my mouth, thanks.
  • *sigh*, I really had hoped you would do better than simply ignoring--again--everything I've said. Oh well, I shouldn't be surprised. When you engage in good faith by actually responding to direct points I've made and questions I've asked, I will then feel some sort of reason to assume a modicum of good faith on your part and engage you accordingly. Since you won't, well...
  • Really? You seem to think that 'because I said so' is a perfectly acceptable end to an argument when you say it, as you so frequently do--"We are just re-treading old ground here; this has all already been discussed," for just one example among many. Doubly amusing since it's quite, quite clear that you were in error the first time around, too... Your inability or unwillingness to read it is not my problem... Of course, your dismissal of anyone offering a third opinion that is at odds with yours is clearly on the record, so I suppose I shouldn't be particularly surprised. And yet again, it's fascinating that sources are 'of no consequence' or 'irrelevant' only when you disagree with them... Funny how that works, don't you think?
  • WP:IDHT isn't the same as 'didn't refute', G2. Tsk, tsk. Please re-read the thread, it will become clear to you.
  • Already did. Terribly sorry you don't agree... And, uh, no they're not that similar...
  • True. They were completely refuted before, they have been refuted again. Glad that we're in agreement, so I'll be restoring the page now.
  • Now, now, let's quote accurately, shall we?
  • Ah, in much the same way that you attempted to deflect the discussion away from content on to me, and then later reversed your attitude (how surprising), saying that it wasn't about your behaviour? Do make up your mind, won't you?
  • In response to: If someone has a problem with me, I'd like to feel they would come to my talk page to help me address the problem. :) --Cameron* 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC) PoC offers: Well yes, but talking with you is productive.
  • G2 has pretty conclusively proven that there is no good faith to assume of him in that debate.
  • Cute, but no... there's really not much point in me attempting to argue any further with someone who 1) has repeatedly demonstrated bad faith, 2) sticks his fingers in his ears and yells "I don't hear you!," 3) Uses "because I say so" as the basis of all his arguments. Besides, even if I were 'unable to attack the issues' (re-read the page, you'll see how ridiculous that assertion is) and simply attacked my opponent instead (which I haven't done; facts are not attacks), it would be a page right out of your book. So you really wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about it, now would you? Bye bye.
  • I have wasted more than enough time giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are not the sole arbiter of truth, and rather more on point, you are distinctly in the minority with your beliefs and your POV-pushing.
  • I do understand that consensus does not mean 'do what G2bambino says,' despite your clear opinion to the contrary.
  • Misplaced Pages does, however, run on consensus (in which you are outnumbered), and verifiability. Terribly sorry that you don't agree, but multiple sources--your attempts to label them as 'irrelevant notwithstanding--clearly and explicitly disagree with your one source.
  • Your continued dismissal of sources as irrelevant solely because you don't agree with them is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your selective quoting of sources in the article, ignoring the conclusions they made, is proof you are not acting in good faith. Your behaviour here, in keeping with your standard behaviour when involved in disputes, is reprehensible and completely against the policies and guidelines you love to quote at people. Your continued insistence on dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you is proof that you are acting in bad faith. Your repeated insults are proof that you are acting in bad faith. I trust that is perfectly clear, and I hope that somehow, someday, you will look at how your actions appear and how they affect others, and adjust your treatment of other people accordingly.
  • I won't lie just to give you what you want... And that's very typical of you to say; numbers are important. Consensus doesn't mean 'everyone agrees', and it certainly doesn't mean 'what G2bambino says'.
  • I find it endlessly fascinating that relevancy of sources is based entirely on whether you agree with them or not. Anything you disagree with? Irrelevant, or gets selectively quoted, as you did with Corbett. Anything you agree with? Relevant, naturally. Anyway, there's no point in continuing this discussion; you are, as GoodDay said, quite outnumbered on this, whether you choose to accept it or not.
  • Oh, goody. We're at the part of the argument where G2bambino becomes insulting. Are you going to say I'm having imaginary conversations, next? Does this need to go to a MedCab that you'll ignore when you don't get the answer you want as well?
  • Sorry. As GoodDay has already said, you're outnumbered here. Give in gracefully, won't you?
  • Do stop implying things I haven't said, will you? Thank you ever so much... and yes, you're going to say it's irrelevant, your standard response for 'doesn't say what I want'... consensus is wildly against you, just give it up already.
  • Just saw your tags. Cute! Accuse me of original research, and now of violating NPOV. Is there nothing you won't do to prevent admitting that you're wrong? What are you going to accuse me of next, I wonder?

Edit summaries

  • 17:13, 7 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m Pretender ‎ (Undid revision 217773475 Again: SHE SAYS SHE IS ILLEGITIMATE. Therefore, not libel. Don't do this again.)
  • 21:37, 15 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Order of Canada ‎ (Actually, it's an excellent reason. Got a problem? Take it to talk.)
  • 02:46, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Order of Canada ‎ (It's the INFOBOX, not the TOC. Why is this such a big deal???)
  • 06:22, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Order of Canada ‎ (→Resignation: Sorry, but no.)
  • 17:29, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Order of Canada ‎ (→Resignation: And again... no.)
  • 17:29, 20 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Order of Canada ‎ (Undid revision 226829862 by Mecandes (talk) It has NOT led to resignation. See talk page. Stop doing this please.)
  • 20:17, 8 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gavin Scott ‎ (→EIIR: Get your facts straight, kid.)
  • 18:03, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Kbthompson ‎ (→Olympics 2012: Hint? Some people need a clue-by-four..)
  • 14:29, 22 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Order of precedence in England and Wales ‎ (Undid revision 233540312 by Proteus (talk) Don't be rude. See your talk page.)
  • 15:21, 22 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Proteus ‎ (→Precedence.: Grow up.)
  • 23:00, 7 September 2008 (hist) (diff) m House of Windsor ‎ (For the last time, fixbunching has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITESPACE.)
  • 23:03, 7 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (→EIIR bunching: Enough is enough. You don't understand what you're doing, and you're ignoring what you yourself have said to me.)
  • 01:14, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (→Break: Oh good, we're done. Now stop making layout changes that pertain to your computer only.)
  • 16:10, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (→Break: For God's sake.)
  • 16:15, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Monarchy of Canada ‎ (Undid revision 237052691 by G2bambino Be civil in edit summaries. Also stop until you learn how formatting works.)
  • 16:28, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (→Break: For crying out loud. Fine, go find someone to resolve it, and STOP editing until then.)
  • 18:14, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (→Break: Go away.)
  • 20:02, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Images: For God's sake. READ.)
  • 20:29, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Images: wikilawyering is bad, mmkay?)
  • 20:40, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Images: You really are digging your own grave, you know.)
  • 20:42, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:G2bambino ‎ (→Your choice: How unsurprising.)
  • 21:30, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→GoodDay's suggestion: Too bad.)
  • 22:09, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Canada ‎ (A screenshot, you say? Also: discussion over.)
  • 22:52, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom ‎ (→Images: Oh my GOD DO YOU NEVER GIVE IT UP?)
  • 23:12, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom ‎ (→Images: Oh God.)
  • 23:57, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Images, again: Oh God.)
  • 23:59, 8 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom ‎ (→Images: Abuse: It's what's for dinner.)
  • 00:03, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Images, again: Please, I am begging you, just stop. I don't know what you're getting out of this, but just stop.)
  • 00:06, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom ‎ (→Images: Oh my GOD.)
  • 00:17, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Images, again: I am sick and bleeding tired of your abuse.)
  • 02:56, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:GoodDay ‎ (→PoC: For God's sake, what the hell is wrong with you?)
  • 17:29, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gavin Scott ‎ (→Advice for you: Oh, how heartwarming.)
  • 20:43, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (Undid revision 237360370 by G2bambino (talk) You are not welcome at this page. Go elsewhere.)
  • 21:21, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:GoodDay ‎ (→PoC: Yeah, no.)
  • 21:48, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→User:G2bambino: Yeah, but no.)
  • 22:08, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→User:G2bambino: Yeah, no.)
  • 22:22, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→User:G2bambino: Still no. And now this needs to go elsewhere? Fun.)
  • 23:10, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (Undid revision 237387129 by Gavin Scott (talk) don't edit my talk page, please.)
  • 23:13, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (Undid revision 237387994 by Gavin Scott (talk) I repeat, do not edit my talk page, please.)
  • 23:16, 9 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (Because it's my talk page and I don't want you editing it. Stop, please.)
  • 18:58, 10 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:G2bambino ‎ (→To GoodDay and Cameron: As if.)
  • 19:01, 10 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:G2bambino ‎ (Restoring my intriguingly removed comment. Don't like it when people tell the truth, eh?)
  • 20:54, 10 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Gavin Scott ‎ (→My intentions: Vandalism warning? Ha.)
  • 21:18, 10 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:G2bambino ‎ (→Reserved section: Lying is bad, mmkay? Also restoring deleted comment.)
  • 21:22, 10 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:G2bambino ‎ (Undid revision 237578145 by G2bambino (talk) Stop lying.)
  • 21:27, 10 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:G2bambino ‎ (Undid revision 237579132 by Gavin Scott (talk) I will not let lies about me stand uncontested.)
  • 21:30, 10 September 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PrinceOfCanada ‎ (Undid revision 237579323 by Gavin Scott (talk) Removed fake vandalism warning.)
  • 16:34, 15 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Monarchy of Barbados ‎ (→Image: As if)
  • 21:24, 15 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Diff from PrinceOfCanada: Do not ever again twist my words like that.)
  • 21:30, 15 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Diff from PrinceOfCanada: And I am done with this.)
  • 21:19, 16 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada ‎ (→Suggested way forward: reply. also, G2, stop moving my comments. I put them where I put them on purpose. Got it? Good.)


  • 02:38, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Order of Canada ‎ (because the formatting looked ugly with the infobox going over the dividing line.)
  • 04:12, 19 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom ‎ (Undid revision 232810936 by U-146 (talk) If we must, let's make it less ugly, shall we?)
Category: