User talk:Diskadia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi Diskadia, welcome to Wikipedia!
Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.
If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian!
Andre (talk) 22:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. It's great to see people are intrested in me. - Diskadia 22:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Canada infobox
Diskadia, thanks for your comments on the talk page. This is not the first time that I have crossed swords with Vanman2010. I have found him to be an aggressive and un-cooperative editor who is here to push his POV, as he has made clear at User_talk:JimWae.
Having said that, I recognize that he is relatively new, and that is why I provided several links to wikiquette articles to try to encourage him to play nice with others. I have asked him twice now to withdraw his personal attacks. He responded to my first request by making even stronger attacks. He has ignored my second request, although he is still around editing.
Can you suggest how I could have handled this better? I would like to learn how to deal with difficult people like him better. Thanks. Ground Zero 18:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe Vanman2010 knows exactly which comments are personal attacks. I belived if you told him which ones you were offended by, he may be inclined to change them.
Ground Zero. I am trying to mediate both sides here by providing hard facts, and offering suggestions. He believes what you are saying is very opinionted, as he claims the only hard fact you have supplied is the fact the monarchy only used thier powers in Canada in 1925. I have no doubt Canada would fall into disaray if the Queen ever tried to make an unfavourable decision here, but that's looking into a crystal ball, isn't it? Moreover I'm not sure calling, (or implying), Vanman2010 is a monarchist is such a good idea.
Vanman2010. I would reccomend citing your sources and using the discussion page before you add any major changes. By doing that you stand less chance that your additions will be targeted as being POV and they will be of higher caliber when you officialy add them. We appreciate a good argument once in a while, but let's try to keep it civil. I should also point you over to my user page and read my Wikipedia policy. It seems we are both patriotic in nature. This is a good trait to have, but you need to be carefull how you wield it on Wikipedia. While good knowledge of a country comes with such a trait, it is often opinionted.
I would reccomend presenting hard facts, in the discussion page, that we can all agree on. Then, agreeing on a finished product that can be added. Let's try to turn our differences into a civilized debate and produce something positive from it.
Finally I would like your opinion on how I can better handle this. Diskadia 21:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Diskadia, thank you for offering to mediate. It is very useful to have a third party try to resolve issues between users.
Here are my concerns about his personal attacks:
"you are just bending the truth and changing the facts." User:Vanman2010 7:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I replied " "you are just bending the truth and changing the facts". Vanman, please No personal attacks. That is Wikipedia policy. Please withdraw that remark." User:Ground Zero 17:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He replied": "I really don't care what you think the head of state does or what you think it should do but facts are facts so don't go around filling wikipedia with your lies and opinions and your false staements without any backing or any factual reasons to why you believe something is so." Unsigned comment by User:Vanman2010
- I replied with the following advice and request:
- Vanman: I am not going to respond to your abusive comments even though you have again misrepresented my position. This issue is not as important as the issue of your behaviour, which violates both Wikipedia policies and accepted Wikipedai behaviour. Please review Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, and Wikipedia:Civility. I note again Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and request that you review that article, and edit both of your last posts to remove the personal attacks. If you don't, then I may Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. It would be preferable for you to do so, however, so I will wait. If you continue in this abusive way, I will explore the avenues provided through Wikipedia of addressing your behaviour. If you are going to stay on Wikipedia, I encourage you to learn how to deal with people with whom you disagree in a civil manner. Otherwise, you will not enjoy your time here, and you will create aggravation for other people. I want to believe that you don't want to do that. Ground Zero 19:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vanman did not reply, did not withdraw any of his remarks.
As far as the remark about him being a monarchist, I did not intend to give offence, and I am not sure why any would be taken. That is not a derogatory term (since monarchists use it to describe themselves), and seems to be consistent with his spirited defence of maintaining the monarchy in Canada. You don't have to be a member of the Monarchist League to be a monarchist. If he is offended by my characterization of him as being a monarchist, I will withdraw the remark.
With respect to your comment, "I have no doubt Canada would fall into disaray if the Queen ever tried to make an unfavourable decision here, but that's looking into a crystal ball, isn't it?", I would agree. But then it would also be looking into a crystal ball to suggest that the Crown ever will exercise its powers again. My point was that the Crown has not exercised any political power in Canada, and therefore it is better to put the reference to constitutional monarchy under "head of state" rather than under "political system". I think that the fact that the Crown has not exercised poltical power for such a very, very long time is a compelling argument, along with the whole "the monarch is apolitical" argument. The only reponse seems to be that the Crown has powers in theory. Although I've come back to add some more remarks to my earlier comments, because you seemed to want an explanation of my position, I think the debate on the Template is over: I can live with the current version as Vanman2010 and JimWae have revised it, and don't see the need to belabour the point, except of course as an off-line discussion out of interest.
I remain concerned, however, about Vanman's behaviour, and would like to see him learn to play nicely with the rest of us.
I think that the best thing that you can do is, to the extent that you agree with my concerns about his behaviour, encourage his to read the article that I have linked above, and to conduct himself according to those guidelines. Any assistance that you can provide in encouraging him to play nicely would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Ground Zero 14:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) and Ground Zero 17:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I award you the Wiki Thanks Award 
for your efforts to mediate my dispute with Ground Zero. I with draw all remarks i made that offended him or anyone on wikipedia and have you to thank for showing me the wiki way. Vanman2010 13:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
