Dear g2bambino, As one of the users I come accross most frequently (especially monarchy related pages!)I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! Cameaeron
My 'recent' conversation at talk: Kevin Rudd, has gotten me bewildered - they prefer inconsistancy (even among the Aussie PM infoboxes). There's certainly is a need for consistancy across the board. GoodDay ( talk) 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ya may have trouble getting the 'across the board consistancy' passed. The editors at the Australian related articles, don't seem like they would accept it. GoodDay ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that too (but it's difficult to proove). I do know this much, the 2% will put up a fight to remain the way they are. The Australian editors (for exmple), seem united in keeping out the 'Monarch'. GoodDay ( talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer a 'guideline' aswell. Though even with a guideline, there'd still be resistance. GoodDay ( talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't making fun of your beliefs with that last remark m8. I was just suggesting that if the Queen isn't the occasion of much debate in Canada, is there really much value in the article?-- Gazzster ( talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave the Canada page alone for now and focus on the Quebec page for now. You've been a great help in moving along the discussion, and we now have a consensus between Ramdrake and myself. Let's broaden the consensus. -- soulscanner ( talk) 16:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please specify on the article's talk page exactly what your objections are. The governor general appointing the Prime Minister is a fundamental part of how Canada's government works, so you will have to be a bit more clear about what part of the sentence you feel is factually inaccurate. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on Talk:Most Gracious Majesty. It makes me mad if people comment on things they dont know the slightest bit about. With you I know you take an active interest in monarchy related topics. Thanks -- Camaeron ( talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit on Canadian Majesty also! I didnt know there was a seperate article on styles of the canadian sovereign. Thought Id meet you there somehow, how did you find it? -- Camaeron ( talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/pe/precedence_e.cfm which I think you'll agree is definitive. Unless you have a source that suggests otherwise your reversions are, at best, original research and at worst absolutely contrary to documented evidence. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey G2. I know the discussion got a bit heated. I just want to tell you that I'm not your enemy or anything, I'm just trying to get it right (or at least as right as we can get it based on our sources). I'm sure that if we come across each other on other issues we'll be on the same side. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well look, I think you may be right and that in practice when a royal other than the Queen is present they are given precedence - I just don't see any documentation that says that. Even a newspaper report would be helpful. If you can find a clipping or something that makes it clear that a visiting royal enjoyed a certain position in precedence it would help. The problem though is that I believe this sort of thing would generally come up at military ceremonies, honour guards etc, non-military examples are harder to find. (And actually, if it's a fact that military applications of the order of precedence are far more common than non-military ones that would be an argument for giving the military table more attention - do you know of any documents, articles, reports or books that discuss how and when precedence is applied ie frequency of it being done for military purposes vs civilian?). Perhaps we can find an example of a state dinner or something or a reception at an airport? As for the order for the royals themselves I don't think there'd be very much practical evidence on that front as it's quite rare in Canada to have more than one royal show up for an event (unless they are married but in that case it would be pretty clear who is a royal by birth and who is a royal by virtue of being married to the other). My guess is that when minor royals visit their official duties are usually related to the military - presiding over a regimental dinner, inspecting troops, granting of regimental colours etc. They might attend a dinner held by the federal, provincial or municipal government but then it would always be as a "guest of honour" so their place in the order of precedence wouldn't be an issue. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks G2. I'm certain the Russian Constitution says only the President can nominate someone for prime minister. Medvedev is only 'President-elect'. GoodDay ( talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted that Project, concerning MP office tenures. Care to take a peek? GoodDay ( talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, did you know Tharky's got a growing fan club? You just gotta check out his home page. I actually get a kick out of it. GoodDay ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you edited one of my comments on a talk page for no reason? It wasn't offensive in any way. I was under the impression that people weren't suppose to edit other people's comments. Gopher65 ( talk) 23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why, thank you. Thankyouverymuch. :) The truth is, it just annoyed the heck out of me and seemed very contentious considering he had never dealt with me or an article on which I've worked before. It was out of line. I know that there are people out there who are like that, but it's always a little difficult for me to bite my...erm... fingers. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wessex-LW2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, every table before the one I edited was "governor from" and "governor until," so I assumed that it was the same as all of the others! The setup is rather confusing. Thanks for catching that.-- Nkrosse ( talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe I was against such an article before; but I've softened in the last few months. If you create (re-create) that article, I'll support its existants. GoodDay ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Fear not. I've made a recommendation at Monarchy of Canada, for shortening that article. GoodDay ( talk) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Nearly 2 years have past. If I can change? so can they. GoodDay ( talk) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, the opposition to Canadian Royal Family still exists. GoodDay ( talk) 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, since you commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey g2, As the only monarchist I regularly come accross I wondered if you would be interested in co-founding a Wikiproject with me. I have noticed a lack of guidance on articles that are commonwealth realms (obviously the British have their own one but the other 15 dont have any guidance at all). So I was thinking something along the lines of Wikiproject:Commonwealth realms. I also contacted GoodDay and he recommended you too... I have a rough idea here. Please take the time to have a look and feel free to edit anything there. Hoping for a positive response, regards -- Camaeron ( t/ c) 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC).
Hi! Good Lord, don't you ever sleep? I wonder if you can shed any light on the statement in Monarchy of Australia: Legal Role, to which I have placed a verification tag.-- Gazzster ( talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have raised concerns at Talk:UKUSA Community and Template talk:UKUSA about your addition of head of state details to Template:UKUSA which you created and placed in several articles . You appeared to have ignored my edit summaries when I reverted your earlier additions of the head of state details. -- Matilda talk 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey g2bambino! Ever though about going for adminship? I have noticed you spend a lot of time "mopping" up (after me!) and people in general! Your edit count is very high and you contribute on a daily basis! Just a thought... Regards -- Cameron ( t/ c) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the struggle. PS- You'll probably meet SFC shortly. GoodDay ( talk) 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not completely comfortable with nation being in that article's introduction, either. I'd still argue that the 'Scottish' (the people) are a nation, not Scotland (the land). PS- that was a heated discussion there, aswell. GoodDay ( talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed, I'm not very popular on that article. Oh well, I've been claiming 'group ownership' there; guess it fair for them to suggest I'm a conspirator. It hurts all the more, as I've got Scottish lineage. GoodDay ( talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realize of course, we are being 'watched'. GoodDay ( talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's in the very first sentence of the article .. a nation in NW Europe.. GoodDay ( talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to give me a tutorial of "that thing" you added to the WikiProject CR page? Ive had a look at the on the BRoy page but I still cant see how it can works when used by mulitple editors...Thanks in advance...-- Cameron ( t/ c) 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. An anon (78.16.122.227, who's on the verge of being blocked) has been 'edit warring' on those 2 articles. I've reached my personal limit of 2-reverts, would you revert his/her last changes? PS- I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do what I'm doing (calling for reverter help). GoodDay ( talk) 22:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...-- Cameron ( t| p| c) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A few articles have been nominated for merging by a mergoholic. Would you can to take part in the discussion again? The articles in question are "Most Excellent Majesty", "Britannic Majesty" and "Most Gracious Majesty". I suggest you comment soon if you wish to as the nominator has a history of merging without consensus. The discussion for all three articles is taking place here. -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Notice you created History of monarchy in Australia. No objections, but what happened to the footnotes? Could you fix that up, mate? Cheers.-- Gazzster ( talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey G2, havent seen you around for a while. Are you well? Here's a userbox to make you smile... = )
This monarchist is fond of republican pass the parcel...so you'd better watch out! |
Thanks for the info...I didnt know that...I've almost no knowledge of candian constitution. I have been arguing for days here that you can't legally dispose of the queen without her royal assent! They still dont believe me! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey what do you think of this one? Sweet eh?
I see things have stalled (again) at the Stephen Harper article. We haven't seen anything from the anti-monarch and/or anti-governor general editors lately. I've considered restoring the 'monarch' to the infoboxes of the first 9 Canadian PMs (as they're currently at the other 13 PMs); but you know what'll happen - I'll get reverted (again). GoodDay ( talk) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to toss a compliment in your direction. I've looked at the Norway/France page many, many times and see that you were probably the major contributor to that page and its continued maintenance. It is certainly one of the best pages of its type on Wiki. -- OneCyclone ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
RIP Moses, Taylor, Ben-hur, Michelangelo etc. -- GoodDay ( talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind adding you interests to our "new" member list!? The link is here. Thanks so much! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - wouldn't mind your opinion of the incomplete but developing section at Commonwealth realm#Chronology. I am quite prepared to be bold but would appreciate confirmation at Talk:Commonwealth realm#Chronology that I am not way off beam. The scope of the chronology is an issue for me but I am focusing on events relating to current Commonwealth realms and how they got there. Some inclusions of those who have ceased to be Commonwealth realms but were such. I wouldn't include for example the USA as it was never Commonwealth.-- Matilda talk 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your statement about the original Queen Elizabeth in the QE2 article - can you actual prove that what your saying about her being an outdated design from new and what relivence that has to the QE2 article as there was over three decades of change in the maritime world when these ships were designed?
I have a large collection of books on these ships and a number of retired commodores / captains autobigraphies and what you stated is not mentioned in any of these books so it should be removed if it is a personal point of view.
I would welcome your input on this subject.
Regards
msa1701 ( talk) 09:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted Image:EIIR-DofE-Vimy.jpg. In order to have fair use all 10 of the polices in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria must be met. in this case the source was commercial enterprise to sell images. The fair use claim is is not compatible with #2 # Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Jeepday ( talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to the article. Anyways, I was wondering if we can start to fix the references on the article. We can use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php as a tool to help us with this goal. Wish to help me? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you also operate under this name? If so thanks for Image:Prince William 1.jpg It is a very good pic! = ) -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you and Lonewolf BC, depart that article. Agree to disagree. GoodDay ( talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Your dispute does not belong on that page; please take it elsewhere otherwise I will consider blocking both of you for disruption. You should at least agree, if nothing else, on a suitable venue. Thanks. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Before you add your comments back about the "Dated" designs of the original Cunard Queens, can you prove what you are saying is correct and what does it have to do with the original RMS Queen Elizabeth?
The Queen Elizabeth was launched in the 1930s and the QE2 was at the end of the sixties so there over thirty years of change and what you added to the article has nothing to do with the latter ship.
Cunard designed the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth to be nothing more than the smallest and slowest ship to carry out the task as an Atlantic ferry and nothing else - which was Sir Percy Bates' own discription of the two ships and he knew what the traveller wanted was not something light years away like the Normandie and more homely like the Queens.
Cunard tried to send the Queens cruising and they both failed and lost money - they were deep draft ocean liners with fuel and water and other supplies for no more than five days service at 28.5 knots service speed and their design did not allow for cruising.
The QE2 needed to be more of a cruise ship than a ocean liner for the majority of the time in service - so not only had time passed so had the role of the liner. Harking back to the design of the first Queen Elizabeth has nothing to do with the artice.
This can be proved if you read the books written about the Queens by leading ocean liner officiados' and authors like William H Miller and John Maxton-Graham.
Regards msa1701 ( talk) 07:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In the section of concept and construction it is already mentioned that the original Queens were "Relics" of the pre war era and that is all you need when discribing the previous ships in the article.
And can you tell me what you mean by a riveted hull has to do with being outdated as Welded hulls are built simply because you add less weight to the ship during building and you get a smoother hull to reduce water resistence - However i would like to point out that the majority of aircraft that are built these days STILL use the rivet method of construction as welding does not allow for minute movement in unpressurised aircraft and that a riveted structure is easier to inspect than a welded seem that would have to be Eddy Currented or X-ray inspected compaired to a simple visual inspection.
Things like "Stodgy old wood panelling" would have had to change regardless due to ever changing SOLAS regulation as this would now have to be fire resistant and the reason she is going out os service is the new reulations that are coming in which would means serious structual work which is uneconomican due to her age. Her seventies styling did not last well and was upgraded quite quickly - like reverting the funnel to the Cunard red with bands for example - It was Bil Warwick (he spelt his name with one "L") as Master Designate who convinced the company to paint the funnel white to move with the times and was proved wrong by the critics.
Try reading QE2: The autorised story by Neil Potter & Jack Frost.
You also need to remember that when she was being designed she was to be as economical as possible for the era ahead unlike the older vessels, such as she was supposed to have four boilers - which was reduced to three, her plumbing system was simplified to save expense and weight (To help with the seven foot draft reduction) and a computer was added to reduced her fuel consumption. There was various other things deleted or changed before fitting out, also at this time the company had mortgaged or sold off various ships to pay for the QE2 and the book listed above will tell you this.
msa1701 ( talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Never put "see X for details" in an article because each article is supposed to be self-contained i.e. you can read a page, even in print, and it still makes sense and is followable. The only way to refer to other pages is through inline links, which don't ask the user to click on them explicitly. Gary King ( talk) 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. I'm assuming you were just kidding, about Cherie Blair. PS- At least you & Cameron, haven't called for her 'head' (Henry VIII style). GoodDay ( talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Doh. I didn't look properly at the template. I'll have to create a stub for Dutch Royalty subjects, I guess? PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't get that article 'zapped' or 're-directed'. Those republics aren't secondary members. GoodDay ( talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:EIIR-Can-1957.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Padraic 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Before you correct the Normandie comments on the S.S France / Norway the comments i added are from the late Frank O Braynard about the power and fuel consumption of the Normandie, your comments on the fuel saving of the France seem to be very optimistic for a 30 knot service speed ship.
Regards msa1701 ( talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. Just wanted to say good luck on that article - you'll need it. GoodDay ( talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ohhh, those articles England, Northern Ireland, Wales and (mostly) Scotland are without a doubt, migraine causers. 3 of them call themselve constituent country and 1 calls itself a country. GoodDay ( talk) 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your spelling The Queen with a capital 'T' mid sentence, might I direct you to this discussion? -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 11:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you have instated the dab on one page. Has the dab been agreed upon? If so you and I need to make sure the dab is in place on all of the monarchy articles. regards, -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure If I'm dozing-off during soulscanner's explanations of his position, but I still can't see what would need to change to answer his initial problems (the longish bit at the top). His later contributions suggest that he's looking for something like "the GG's functions could as easily be filled by a smiling and waving foot-tall statue with a rubber stamp for feet and Great Seal for a bum". Might I suggest that you ask him questions that demonstrate the GG is still necessary. For instance, what would happen in Canada if something similar Israel's problem from last year occurred? The Israeli PM went into a coma, and it took forever to replace him. Imagine it this way: The PM goes into a coma, and it is pretty clear he will never come out of it. Who has the right to advise the GG to dismiss the PM? If it is merely the government, what would happen if the government refused to do so? Wouldn't the GG have the right to dismiss the PM in the interest of Canada? - Rrius ( talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
See his official parliamentary biography which lists him as "Minister of Foreign Affairs (Acting) 2008.05.27 -". Reggie Perrin ( talk) 16:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your great edits (and creations) in the Royalty space. And since you're an Ontarian.. if you're in Toronto, let's get some other Royalists together and have a fun meetup. I suggest sometime in August, to celebrate Albert's birthday. PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 05:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank goodness, that IP has been blocked. PS- Why do so many of these vandals, have an obsession with homosexuality? GoodDay ( talk) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the two other templates you mention on Template talk:Infobox minister office but on WT:MOS you said there where 3 other templates ("The other three templates need updated to match") so I wonder if there is one more that should be changed?
Also, if you want to change the colors, the color coding is done like this: rgb stands for red, green and blue and each color is specified as rgb(r, g, b), where r, g and b are numbers between 0 and 255 specifying the intensity of each color (where 255 is brightest and 0 is black). The resulting color is the mix you would get if you mixed light of those colors with the specified intensity. This scheme is often used in computers since monitors typically represent color that way (in
CRTs by using red, green and blue fluorescing phosphors). Many programs that deals with colors can typically show you these values. There are also other ways of specifying colors in css, there are keywords for some common colors (e.g. red, blue, yellow) and there are other numbering schemes (e.g. #af3400) but the former don't cover as many colors and the latter is not very human friendly. The actual specification of the standard is available here
[1] it's pretty technical, but at least it can come in handy as a reference sometimes. The part about colors is here for example:
[2].
—
Apis (
talk)
04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
hey, someone when you altered the honorary appointment section of order of canada the people appointed to officer grade to not apear...i've tried hacking it it with no luck. Any suggestions ? Dowew ( talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The word "many" is well sourced. Read the references in the article and the additional references at [3] the references page. Wotapalaver ( talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. Would you happen to know if MacKay, is still the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party? GoodDay ( talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here about a possible expansion of Wikiproject Commonwealth realms to incorporate all the British Empire topics! Please take the time to comment = ). -- Cameron ( T| C) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. The toughest thing about that discussion? even if a solution is reached, it's highly unlikely 'all 4 articles' will consent to it. GoodDay ( talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to check out User_talk:Rockfang#Royal_tours_of_Canada_in_the_20th_century and User_talk:SriMesh#a_couple_of_subjects_:.29-- Rockfang ( talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Your article Royal tours of Canada in the 20th century has been nominated for being a Did you know? candidate, and hopefully the DYK hook is featured on Wikipedia's main page. Good job on the article by the way! Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Re your message: Thanks. I blocked him indefinitely. He's made zero useful edits. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey.. I hope you don't mind the change I made to the MoC article (Organization with Royal etc). I've actually been somewhat in awe of the amount of editing you've been doing over the past few days. Are you on vacation or something? ;) PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 00:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers -- fone 4 me 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey.. the map is repeatedly changed back by an anonymous user. I don't know why s/he is so dead set on pink, but I think it's probably a fool's errand to keep changing it back to the (far more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention more traditional) blue. PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 03:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see my suggestion here. Cheers -- fone 4 me 12:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand the requirements for moving an article. It is not necessary to reach a consensus before rectifying a spelling error. Only if someone disagreed with The Times Style and Usage Guide would they be justified in moving the article back. Timeineurope ( talk) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am investigated articles listed at "Copyright Problems" and noticed that you had removed the copyvio tag from this article, with a note that it was an "improperly placed tag". However, the first paragraph here does seem to entirely duplicate language from this website, which includes a licensing note that "all rights [are] reserved". Prior to addressing this apparent copyright violation, I thought to see if there was an element to this that isn't obvious that would make re-usage of language from the source appropriate. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
'...The monarch need not act to favour themselves, any donors, or political party; when they follow the partisan advice of their ministers, they do so because it keeps government stable and working, and they may disregard their ministers' partisan advice for exactly the same reason.'
'...As long as the sovereign exists as he/she does, there is a body above both the Prime Minister and viceroy where ultimate responsibility to ensure the working of government rests.'
' Having never needed to unilaterally exercise her constitutional authority is not the same as never being able to; the fact that it's not been done is a testament to the working of the system..'
'It's definitely no support for a system wherein a president could be put in and taken out at the Prime Minister's pleasure, with zero ability to do anything to control the abuse of executive power.'
Lol. My, I do enjoy our discussions (no sardonic snarl there!) I see you are aquainted with the brash Aussie sense of pride! In my 20s I was a monarchist, and at the even riper age of 43 (it is true what they say about your forties - look forward to it!) I'm a convinced republican. Back to the discussion: nothing I stated is irrational. A tempered love of one's country, and the desire to see it appropriately honoured, is not based on 'ill- founded emotion'. If I wanted to get rid of HM because she's 'a stuck-up b**** who thinks everyone should k*** her a***' that would be irrational emotion. But I don't. I don't know of any of my republican friends who think that. Perhaps I choose my friends well. And I'm not misinformed. I keep myself very well informed. And I've demonstrated that. Naive? Most definitely not thank you. Aussies have a more than healthy suspicion of politicians, thank you very much. That's why most constitutional amendments have failed (yes, including the last one). Mass hysteria? That's a bit over the top, isn't it? And besides, sentuiment and emotion is a huge part of the monarchist argument. No, I believe that E2, long may she reign in the UK, and in Canada, if the choose to retain her, has served us well, for the most part. But her time is over. If I might quote the ARM:
Many people believe that this arrangement is no longer either appropriate or suitable for Australia. We believe that the office of Head of State should be attained on merit, not birthright. We believe that our Head of State should be an Australian Citizen. We believe that our Head of State should live in Australia and know what it means to be Australian.
Australia can reach this goal by becoming a republic, with our own Head of State who is chosen on merit rather than on birthright and who unquestionably represents Australia both at home and abroad. Our own Head of State will meet the Queen and other Heads of State as an equal.
I think that neatly summarises my own opinion. Now disagree with that if you will. Produce objections, which, on face value, may be quite reasonable. But you certainly could not judge those sentiments borne of 'hysteria'. Personally I am impressed by their dignity and patriotism.
If we want our own head of state, we should be allowed to (not that anyone could stop us), because we are a democracy. And we are a mature nation. If South Africa, India, Pakistan, Myramar, Cyprus, Ireland and Malta can be trusted to exist without the monarchy, why can't Australia. Sure, those countries have had their problems (often because of the monarchy, not for lack of it), but isn't it those countries right to make their own destinies?-- Gazzster ( talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies for the lengthy post. Secondly, following your last posting:
They've had a choice since before 1901,
No actually. The first non-indigenous Australians were transported there at HM’s pleasure; the indigenous Australians likewise had no opportunity to choose their sovereign. In fact, they were not recognised as Australian citizens until 1967, due to a clause in the Constitution to which Victoria penned her name. Until 1967 the Aboriginal peoples were officially classified as ‘fauna’. This consideration is an important, often overlooked factor in the debate. The indigenous nations should be given an opportunity to consent or not to the regime which invaded their lands.
…and made their choices thereafter, including in '99.
Some made their choices, and paid the penalty. Some fell at the Battle of Vinegar Hill, as others did at the Eureka Stockade. In 1856 self-government was granted to the colonies. But their freedom was always subject to a minister in London. And after 1901 this continued: in the Commonwealth until 1942; in the states until 1986. So this is really the first time in our history we have been free to make a choice.
Personally speaking, I'm not adverse to debate, but the facts have to be presented as they are, not manipulated so as to mislead.
You’re making a lot of accusations about misleading facts, which I find incomprehensible. Reminds me of some pretty misleading directions from the AML and other organisations. But more of them later.
Now, one may well hold opinions such as "this arrangement is no longer either appropriate or suitable for Australia"; but, the question then is: why?
Isn’t that a question the Australian people must answer?
If the answer is: "the office of head of state should be attained on merit, not birthright," then the question, again, is: why?
Why not?
It's silly, of course, to argue that merit is not necessary; I think we can all agree that a head of state must be competent and well trained for the job. Of course.
But to say that election will pick a more qualified individual for the role more often than constitutionally governed hereditary succession does is an unproven statement.
Well, on the whole, Australia does not elect complete idiots as prime ministers, which tends to lend some credibility to the contrary. And how could you compare, given that elections are by far more frequent than coronations?
A monarch can be replaced (Edward VIII), but the necessity arises very rarely; a monarch, unlike most presidents, is raised their entire lives to be a constitutional sovereign and head of state,
Poor old Edward. I suppose he might have been a Nazi. And thank God we were preserved from a Nazi who reigned over the Empire. But he did have to sacrifice his personal happiness for what was, even then, an antiquated norm. But we’re not discussing that of course. An individual, after a career of public service in the military or judiciary or some other field, seems competent enough to perform the office of Governor-General, who performs the functions of a monarch. And we’ve had some bloody good ones. And a good many lawyers, teachers and trade unionists have made competent to excellent prime ministers, who advise the GG. They bring their varied life experiences to the role. The life experiences of a monarch are likely to be more limited.
so it's difficult to imagine an unmeritorious (thank you for the correct spelling!) king or queen ever ascending to the throne.
I can think of several.
In other words, merit, as it relates to the job we're talking about, is honoured along with birthright, and the former can even trump the latter, if necessary.
I should hope so. And I should hope it would be the norm, rather than a 'trump'. But I don't see how.
This selection process is hardly less equitable than an election process that leaves a large chunk of the population with someone they didn't vote for.
That’s all part of the democratic process! We may not like the result, but hallelujah- we had the choice. And what if ‘a large chunk of the population’ don’t like their monarch? They don’t get any choice at all. And that’s the point. Sounds to me as if you’re minimalising the role of democracy. Which I would find a little scary.
And why must the head of state be a citizen? Citizenship is just a legal classification; a bureaucratic system of classifying people, and plenty of countries get by without their head of state being a citizen.
No. Citizenship confers inviolable rights and privileges, and a dignity. Someone without citizenship may be dealt with by the state in whatever manner it sees fit, good or ill.
Further, why must one have to live in Australia to share national experiences?
Well, I suppose she could watch Australian television in Buck Palace. The princes could barrack for teams in the Australian Football League and wear their guernsies. The butler could serve meat pies. But I doubt it would have the same impact.
How long is long enough? As though the Queen has no idea what her Australians are up to... tisk, tisk!
Well then. As long as mother is watching us, where does it matter where she is.
There are two propositions that are not unreasonable: a resident head of state, and a singularly Australian head of state. Plenty of countries have a non-shared head of state that lives within the borders. But, obviously, a number of other countries have a shared head of state who lives, predominantly, beyond their borders, and they function perfectly well; very well, in fact. So, if where the head of state lives, and whether or not they're shared, makes no difference,
Perhaps other countries want their head as far as way as possible from them. Personally, I would’ve thought it was perfectly natural for a people to want the representative of the nation actually with them. I fail to see what there can be to object to in that.
what reasons are left to switch from a Commonwealth realm to a republic of some sort?
If you’re asking me, personally? For the reasons I’ve stated, not answering to the assumption that there are only two reasonable grounds, which I don’t accept.
All the rest of the arguments are simply not founded on any fact; as I said, they're based on personal feelings, misinformation, and play to patriotic sensibilities.
You keep saying that. I do not know what ‘personal feelings’ and ‘misinformation’ you are referring to.
Surely, as a cautious buyer, you can see that!
Thank you for the complement. But we are not buying anything, as it were a packet of crisps from the bargain bin.
Australia should give her allegiance to her monarch for as long as the system that monarch heads works perfectly well. Nothing lasts perpetually, so, clearly, something will change sometime. But it should be only when it's necessary, when something has failed, or some unforeseen event shifts the course of history (which abolition of the monarchy in the UK might be, but not necessarily). Right now republicans in the realms want change for change's sake, and no other reason.
Pardon the language (I am an Australian), but in reference to the last statement –crap. You seem to think republicanism is so shallow. But, in the words of the immortal John Cleese, ‘now for something completely different.’
You mentioned the European Union, which intrigued me. I wondered what connection the EU could have. I thought I knew the answer, but I wanted to be sure. So I found the Australian Monarchist League website. And I found the not uninteresting speech of Phillip Benwell, MBE:
That Britain has abrogated sovereignty to Europe is now undoubted. The question is whether it may also have illicitly endangered the sovereignty of the Queen’s Realms and broken the intent of the Statute of Westminster.
Indeed? Didn’t you say Australia was a fully independent nation? What influence then, could Europe have on the sovereignty of Australia? I read on:
In past years, your colonies and particularly the British Realms of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, without reservation rushed to the defence of Great Britain when it was in danger and few families in our lands were untouched by the loss of loved ones.
Jolly good. Feel free to bleed for us next time our freedoms are violated. But don't big note yourselves too much. We didn't have much choice in the matter, and the Japanese were on our doorstep. You weren't the only ones on the brink of invasion.
We did this not just because we are one People but also in gratitude for the gift of constitutional freedom and democracy Britain freely gave to us.
One people? Right, so we’re not independent. Sorry, I’m a little confused here. I continue:
However just sixteen years following the closure of the last World War, we of the Realms who all fought with you as one, were discarded as you would a faithful but unwanted dog, for in 1961 your Government sent out Duncan Sandys, your Commonwealth Minister, to tell us that Britain was joining Europe and its special relations with the Commonwealth and its commitments to the British Realms one to another were to be put to an end.
Oh dear! I blush.
Having betrayed us in the Realms, your Government then continued to humiliate Britain by humbling itself at the feet of Europe and committed upon its course then lied to and deceived not only the Commonwealth but the British People themselves.
Well, Britain never thought of itself as European. It is natural enough that it would regard any deference to European peace and prosperity a ‘humiliation’. But how does this involve Australia?
Magna Carta and that other mainstay of our democracy, the Bill of Rights, have always been looked upon with derision by European politicians, for in Europe it is the State which is always supreme whereas within the British sphere it has always been our practice to place the rights and the liberties of the Individual above the interests of the State.
‘Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves’. Hang on, I can catch a faint chorus of ‘Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt,’.
Above me is the statue of Nelson and, indeed all around London there are monuments to Britain’s great men and women who gave their lives to protect these shores. Their glory now lies shattered along with the freedom they and so many others fought so bravely for.I am here to put forward the case on behalf of the People of Australia, who fought so very hard to protect our own sovereignty; that in its insane purpose to submit to European domination, Britain has not only disqualified itself from membership of the Commonwealth of Nations; it has greatly endangered the sovereignty of The Crown which we all share.
No, sorry, still confused. How is our sovereignty tied with Europe?
The breaking of the links with the British Realms, the tacit moves of support for Australia to become a Republic, are these all not a part of a greater plan to isolate this Kingdom, this bastion of democracy, to make it easier to merge it into Europe?
Oh, I’m beginning to see now! There’s a conspiracy to subvert the Crown and the liberties it protects to the sovereignty of Europe!
Never forget that Europe will not tolerate the dilemma that is Northern Ireland and it will not be long before the British Government betrays the North and forces through union with Eire regardless of the consequences in bloodshed! Similarly with Gibraltar and Spain! Like an army of white ants, these Fabian inspired creatures, following the ideology of the Roman general Fabius Cunctator himself, "For the right moment you must wait, ... but when the time comes you must strike hard" have for years chipped away, changing the foundations of our liberty, whilst we, the people, sat idly by, steeped in our own apathy and ignorance, as so many did in the years before the last World War mocking the warnings of Churchill with ridicule and derision
Those awful Irish! Those terrible ‘Fabian inspired creatures’. And after the English were so good as to invade their country! They read far too much Cunctator. Actually wanting to determine their own destinies! For shame! Well! As I read on, I began to see. It is all so obvious. The European Community is a gigantic attempt to subvert the freest nation in the world, England, to the poisonous absolute (and papist, I may add) rule of Europe. If England falls, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and even St Kitts and Nevis, will fall also.
The mockery is not, of course, a personal insult. In fact, my friend, I have no reason to credit you with these bizarre ideas at all. But I quote and comment to demonstrate the monarchist position is not necessarily always about the liberties and independence of Australia. And it is not always rational and tempered, as Benwell eloquently, if bizarrely, demonstrates.
With sincerest respect, -- Gazzster ( talk) 09:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, and thanks for relieving me that you don't subscribe to Benwell's imperialist diatribe. Though I note with some trepidation that you did not entirely distance yourself from him. I posted it not to confront you personally, of course, but to demonstrate that untruths and misinformation may appear on both sides of the divide. And this was the official site of the Australian Monarchist League, so one may suppose it represents the views of the AML ('Fenian creatures!!! - the AML states it defends liberty!). I have also read (not from the AML) that the Crown must remain Protestant, and a republic is a popish plot to bring the Jesuits and the inquisition to Australia! (well, the Jesuits are already here)
Well, we seem to have reached an impasse. I claim the core arguments of the republican voices are reasonable and sound as points of consideration. You will concede only two, and claim all are misinformed, misleading and unreasonably emotive. I must say, I still don't see that. It is you who mention words like 'xenophobia' and 'hysteria'. I haven't said a word against the British people. I have not raised a mental finger against anyone. And I might remind you that it is Mr Benwell, MBE, who derides the 'Fenian creatures' and a Europe that he obviously believes is fascist. I wonder how much of this sword-rattling hooliganism is in your own mind.AS I've said, all the people I know in favour of a republic are educated, honourable, community spirited and ethical people, including my own mother, who is English. And as for 'their demand that elections are the ultimate deliverer of democracy is similarly unproven'- my jaw drops stunned by that statement. And I wonder if you realise what you said? Democracy by decree- isn't the word for that 'oxymoron'?
But on a couple of points: no, I am not crying victim. As I pointed out rather clearly I thought, this is really the first opportunity we, as a nation, have had the opportunity and national will to ask ourselves this question: do we want to be a republic? The 'you didn't shed your blood for your liberty so what right do you have to want anything better' idea is rather odd, to say the least. But Australians have died by the Crown. I'm highly offended that you dismiss the Aboriginal consideration out of hand as 'irrelevant'. I am surprised, considering how your great nation has done much to repair the injustices done to the Innuit peoples. For it is the Aboriginal peoples who have, above all Australians, died and suffered under the system which, yes, brought liberty to others. That is of course not the responsibility of the Crown alone. But it must bear a weighty responsibility.While that alone is not an argument for the abolition of the Crown, it is a mighty consideration in the debate. Most Australians had opportunity to consent to Crown rule in 1901. And now many wish to reassess that consent. But the Aboriginal peoples never had the opportunity. Concommittent with the republic/monarchy dialogue is a movement to reconcile the nation with it's original peoples. You may have heard that the first Parliament this year was ceremonially welcomed by the indigenous peoples. This was an event unprecedented in Australia's history- an official acknowledgement by the highest power in the land that the Australian Crown and government occupies Aboriginal land, the first official disavowal of terra nullius. From now on, any dialogue concerning Australia's future must assimilate this. I suggest the issues at stake are not so straightforward as you and others seem to suppose. -- Gazzster ( talk) 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, adding to what I said would be a shorter post. But I rather enjoy exchanging views with you. Another thought occurs to me. All parties to the debate need to be aware that Australia is not dependent upon British institutions for its glorious Constitution. Remember it was not composed in Britain, but in Australia. And it is a hybrid Constitution: combining the Westminster model with the federalism and separation of powers which is a feature of the US Constitution. So the Constitution is uniquely Australian. There is no reason then, that it could not be further adapted to accommadate an Australian head of state. My point being that the same ingenuity that adapted the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty to Australian conditions could do the same again.-- Gazzster ( talk) 08:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget those systems that have a strictly figure head President. Sure, such a President is elected as having been a political party members; but he/she has to leave his/her politics at the Inauguration door. GoodDay ( talk) 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What social contract, Dlatimer? The 'right' of the Sovereign to reign is based on an ancient tradition when privilege implied responsibility. The king contracted with his vassals to rule and protect them in return for their allegiance. The monarchy used to be elective in the sense that the king ruled by the consent of his subjects. But today the elective nature is gutted from the monarchy. And so the contract is broken. I'll admit your idea is interesting: I have never heard the monarchy defended on the grounds that they live lives of luxury and indolence. And I never heard the argument that wealth protects people from corruption. One could say that privilege without power corrupts, making one unmotivated and listless. The French aristocracy learned that the hard way. -- Gazzster ( talk) 12:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've never heard of Bagehot. I believe in some countries a 'lottery' is called an election. But we're in a pretty theoretical area. I don't know if it would be useful to explore further. But do so if you wish. I would enjoy the discussion.-- Gazzster ( talk) 03:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey... I'm too tired to edit properly right now, but I think that 'self-described pro-life groups' is less POV than 'anti-abortion'. (FWIW, I am resolutely pro-choice, but I think the former wording has moderately less POV attached to it than the latter). Just a thought. Prince of Canada t | c 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Look I am only providing a statement made by someone who is active in the fight against abortion. regardless of what your convictions are, there is no doubt that this person can be used as a source. 24.37.126.33 ( talk) 05:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoa.. Larre.. that is messed up. It's okay to physically abuse children and stay in the Order, but his 'morality' won't let him stay because of Morgenthaler? The cognitive dissonance that these people live with is astounding. (I agree that it doesn't really belong in the article, though.) Prince of Canada t | c 16:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm not really sure that I agree with your usage of Commonwealth flags in the Edward & Andrew (and I'm guessing soon to be others) articles for the RVO honours. That honour is not given by HM as Head of the Commonwealth, and it is not a Commonwealth honour--there is no such thing, as far as I know, as a Commonwealth honour. Putting that flag there is, I think, a POV, unless you can cite an authoritative source which indicates that HM presents the RVO as a Commonwealth honour as opposed to a personal honour stemming from her as Queen. Yes, I understand that all Commonwealth citizens are eligible, but that's a fine difference from a Commonwealth honour. If that makes sense. Prince of Canada t | c 03:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
{{flagicon|Commonwealth}}
. I can try an mimic it with EIIR's cypher. --
G2bambino (
talk)
04:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(indent) I don't think DBD meant that they're only British. But they are arguably primarily British in nature. That being said, I really do think that if a flag must be used, the closest-to-appropriate one is the old girl's personal standard. That being said, I really don't think that a flag is necessary, as these awards are relatively transnational, and the flags are meant to indicate national origin for orders & awards. Prince of Canada t | c 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed myself from that discussion, as it doesn't look like it can go anywhere good.. just wanted to say that it's starting to look like that person is going to question detail after detail after detail, and I think it's going to all end in a mess :/ Prince of Canada t | c 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note a few points:
Thanks. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. Aren't I a little stinker sometimes, he he he. GoodDay ( talk) 18:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to delete the King of Canada ref. to Edward VIII, it really doesn't matter to me that much. I don't agree with the style as there has never been a style of King/Queen of Canada but I will leave it to GA/A level review to figure it out, when the article it comes to it. Labattblueboy ( talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As you've already discovered, we've an interesting anon at that article's talk-page. GoodDay ( talk) 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Calm down, guys... Prince of Canada t | c 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. I don't know if it was purposefully planned that way - but those Olympics (which will be opened by an 86 yr-old Elizabeth II, assuming she's healthy), will coincide with Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee. GoodDay ( talk) 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Just kidding about the purposely planning thingy, of course. GoodDay ( talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
G2bambino ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I accept the (very slim) 3RR breach, as outlined below; I won't bother with the technicalities and subtleties that probably show 3RR wasn't actually broken. However, I will acknowledge that I skirted 3RR, and will say that there isn't any particular excuse for this; it was purely my own carelessness. I will also elaborate that it was User:Dlatimer's blatant mission of agitation that I was reacting to; if one follows his recent edit history, it will be revealed that, after failing to have his way without objection at Republicanism in Australia, he took it upon himself to seek revenge by going through my edit history and making arbitrary reverts to my previous edits at other articles, thereby involving himself in a dispute I was having with the equally uncooperative and uncommunicative User:Lonewolf BC at Rideau Hall ( see above for but a very brief glimpse at the difficulties he alone creates); Dlatimer had no previous interest in the article, did not take the time to familiarise himself with the issues and their history, simply made blind reverts, and would not engage in discussion. In other words, he baited, and I bit. He, remaining unchided for his juvenile tactics, has since gone on to other pastures; as the fires at Rideau Hall have subsided (the present format resting for the last 20 hours, and acceptable to me), and blocks are preventative and not punitive, I believe it's safe, and just, to lift the present block on myself. I will henceforth have to be yet even more careful when dealing with these obstructionist types, who have been the main, if not the only, common factor in all of my troubles at Wikipedia. -- G2bambino ( talk) 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Requests that include personal attacks aimed at others are not even taken under consideration. — Sandstein 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Calling out someone's problematic behaviour constitutes a "personal attack"? There is seemingly a confusion, on the part of the intervening admin, between what is criticism and what is insult. Regardless, let's then try this again:
G2bambino ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I accept the (very slim) 3RR breach, as outlined below; I won't bother with the technicalities and subtleties that probably show 3RR wasn't actually broken. However, I will acknowledge that I skirted 3RR, and will say that there isn't any particular excuse for this; it was purely my own carelessness. User:Dlatimer, remaining unchided, has since gone on to other pastures; thus, as the fires at Rideau Hall have subsided (the present format resting for the last 20 hours, and acceptable to me), and blocks are preventative and not punitive, I believe it's safe, and just, to lift the present block on myself. I will henceforth have to be yet even more careful when dealing with obstructionist types, who have been the main, if not the only, common factor in all of my troubles at Wikipedia. -- G2bambino ( talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Honestly, after such a long block record, many of them involving 3RR, and several unblocks that presumably came with a promise to be more careful, I don't believe you. Luckily this block is only a few hours away from being over anyway, so I suggest you simply wait. Mango juice talk 14:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Mango, do you always make presumptions in your administrative actions? Further, if you say you don't believe me, that means you think I would immediately head off and revert at Rideau Hall, but, as I was the last person to edit there, I would be reverting myself.
The moral of this story - indeed, all the tales behind most of my blocks - seems to be that blind enforcement is all that matters to administrators; who's purposefully being disruptive and who's genuinely trying to thwart such behaviour simply doesn't matter; it's all about who's good at fying under the radar and who isn't. Thus, he who engages in an edit war for no other reason than to agitate goes unpunnished simply because he was able to piggy back on another agitators's reverts and stay himself under 3RR, while he who finds this type of behaviour reprehensible and is left alone to stand against two or more such obstructionists, gets yet another punnishment simply because he skirted 3RR. Not only that, the former's reputation goes unscarred while it's the latter who's made to look like the jerk! It's a ridiculous system, and one that I find myself again questioning whether or not I bloody well want to keep putting up with it; I'm sick of being made to look like the bad guy. -- G2bambino ( talk) 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A summary of my actions at Rideau Hall since 22:02, 23 August 2008:
Fear not G2, 31hrs will go by quickly. GoodDay ( talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear g2bambino, As one of the users I come accross most frequently (especially monarchy related pages!)I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! Cameaeron
My 'recent' conversation at talk: Kevin Rudd, has gotten me bewildered - they prefer inconsistancy (even among the Aussie PM infoboxes). There's certainly is a need for consistancy across the board. GoodDay ( talk) 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ya may have trouble getting the 'across the board consistancy' passed. The editors at the Australian related articles, don't seem like they would accept it. GoodDay ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that too (but it's difficult to proove). I do know this much, the 2% will put up a fight to remain the way they are. The Australian editors (for exmple), seem united in keeping out the 'Monarch'. GoodDay ( talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer a 'guideline' aswell. Though even with a guideline, there'd still be resistance. GoodDay ( talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't making fun of your beliefs with that last remark m8. I was just suggesting that if the Queen isn't the occasion of much debate in Canada, is there really much value in the article?-- Gazzster ( talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave the Canada page alone for now and focus on the Quebec page for now. You've been a great help in moving along the discussion, and we now have a consensus between Ramdrake and myself. Let's broaden the consensus. -- soulscanner ( talk) 16:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please specify on the article's talk page exactly what your objections are. The governor general appointing the Prime Minister is a fundamental part of how Canada's government works, so you will have to be a bit more clear about what part of the sentence you feel is factually inaccurate. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on Talk:Most Gracious Majesty. It makes me mad if people comment on things they dont know the slightest bit about. With you I know you take an active interest in monarchy related topics. Thanks -- Camaeron ( talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit on Canadian Majesty also! I didnt know there was a seperate article on styles of the canadian sovereign. Thought Id meet you there somehow, how did you find it? -- Camaeron ( talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/pe/precedence_e.cfm which I think you'll agree is definitive. Unless you have a source that suggests otherwise your reversions are, at best, original research and at worst absolutely contrary to documented evidence. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey G2. I know the discussion got a bit heated. I just want to tell you that I'm not your enemy or anything, I'm just trying to get it right (or at least as right as we can get it based on our sources). I'm sure that if we come across each other on other issues we'll be on the same side. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well look, I think you may be right and that in practice when a royal other than the Queen is present they are given precedence - I just don't see any documentation that says that. Even a newspaper report would be helpful. If you can find a clipping or something that makes it clear that a visiting royal enjoyed a certain position in precedence it would help. The problem though is that I believe this sort of thing would generally come up at military ceremonies, honour guards etc, non-military examples are harder to find. (And actually, if it's a fact that military applications of the order of precedence are far more common than non-military ones that would be an argument for giving the military table more attention - do you know of any documents, articles, reports or books that discuss how and when precedence is applied ie frequency of it being done for military purposes vs civilian?). Perhaps we can find an example of a state dinner or something or a reception at an airport? As for the order for the royals themselves I don't think there'd be very much practical evidence on that front as it's quite rare in Canada to have more than one royal show up for an event (unless they are married but in that case it would be pretty clear who is a royal by birth and who is a royal by virtue of being married to the other). My guess is that when minor royals visit their official duties are usually related to the military - presiding over a regimental dinner, inspecting troops, granting of regimental colours etc. They might attend a dinner held by the federal, provincial or municipal government but then it would always be as a "guest of honour" so their place in the order of precedence wouldn't be an issue. Reggie Perrin ( talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks G2. I'm certain the Russian Constitution says only the President can nominate someone for prime minister. Medvedev is only 'President-elect'. GoodDay ( talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted that Project, concerning MP office tenures. Care to take a peek? GoodDay ( talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, did you know Tharky's got a growing fan club? You just gotta check out his home page. I actually get a kick out of it. GoodDay ( talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you edited one of my comments on a talk page for no reason? It wasn't offensive in any way. I was under the impression that people weren't suppose to edit other people's comments. Gopher65 ( talk) 23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Why, thank you. Thankyouverymuch. :) The truth is, it just annoyed the heck out of me and seemed very contentious considering he had never dealt with me or an article on which I've worked before. It was out of line. I know that there are people out there who are like that, but it's always a little difficult for me to bite my...erm... fingers. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wessex-LW2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, every table before the one I edited was "governor from" and "governor until," so I assumed that it was the same as all of the others! The setup is rather confusing. Thanks for catching that.-- Nkrosse ( talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe I was against such an article before; but I've softened in the last few months. If you create (re-create) that article, I'll support its existants. GoodDay ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Fear not. I've made a recommendation at Monarchy of Canada, for shortening that article. GoodDay ( talk) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Nearly 2 years have past. If I can change? so can they. GoodDay ( talk) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, the opposition to Canadian Royal Family still exists. GoodDay ( talk) 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, since you commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey g2, As the only monarchist I regularly come accross I wondered if you would be interested in co-founding a Wikiproject with me. I have noticed a lack of guidance on articles that are commonwealth realms (obviously the British have their own one but the other 15 dont have any guidance at all). So I was thinking something along the lines of Wikiproject:Commonwealth realms. I also contacted GoodDay and he recommended you too... I have a rough idea here. Please take the time to have a look and feel free to edit anything there. Hoping for a positive response, regards -- Camaeron ( t/ c) 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC).
Hi! Good Lord, don't you ever sleep? I wonder if you can shed any light on the statement in Monarchy of Australia: Legal Role, to which I have placed a verification tag.-- Gazzster ( talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have raised concerns at Talk:UKUSA Community and Template talk:UKUSA about your addition of head of state details to Template:UKUSA which you created and placed in several articles . You appeared to have ignored my edit summaries when I reverted your earlier additions of the head of state details. -- Matilda talk 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey g2bambino! Ever though about going for adminship? I have noticed you spend a lot of time "mopping" up (after me!) and people in general! Your edit count is very high and you contribute on a daily basis! Just a thought... Regards -- Cameron ( t/ c) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the struggle. PS- You'll probably meet SFC shortly. GoodDay ( talk) 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not completely comfortable with nation being in that article's introduction, either. I'd still argue that the 'Scottish' (the people) are a nation, not Scotland (the land). PS- that was a heated discussion there, aswell. GoodDay ( talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed, I'm not very popular on that article. Oh well, I've been claiming 'group ownership' there; guess it fair for them to suggest I'm a conspirator. It hurts all the more, as I've got Scottish lineage. GoodDay ( talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You do realize of course, we are being 'watched'. GoodDay ( talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's in the very first sentence of the article .. a nation in NW Europe.. GoodDay ( talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to give me a tutorial of "that thing" you added to the WikiProject CR page? Ive had a look at the on the BRoy page but I still cant see how it can works when used by mulitple editors...Thanks in advance...-- Cameron ( t/ c) 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. An anon (78.16.122.227, who's on the verge of being blocked) has been 'edit warring' on those 2 articles. I've reached my personal limit of 2-reverts, would you revert his/her last changes? PS- I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do what I'm doing (calling for reverter help). GoodDay ( talk) 22:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...-- Cameron ( t| p| c) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A few articles have been nominated for merging by a mergoholic. Would you can to take part in the discussion again? The articles in question are "Most Excellent Majesty", "Britannic Majesty" and "Most Gracious Majesty". I suggest you comment soon if you wish to as the nominator has a history of merging without consensus. The discussion for all three articles is taking place here. -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Notice you created History of monarchy in Australia. No objections, but what happened to the footnotes? Could you fix that up, mate? Cheers.-- Gazzster ( talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey G2, havent seen you around for a while. Are you well? Here's a userbox to make you smile... = )
This monarchist is fond of republican pass the parcel...so you'd better watch out! |
Thanks for the info...I didnt know that...I've almost no knowledge of candian constitution. I have been arguing for days here that you can't legally dispose of the queen without her royal assent! They still dont believe me! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey what do you think of this one? Sweet eh?
I see things have stalled (again) at the Stephen Harper article. We haven't seen anything from the anti-monarch and/or anti-governor general editors lately. I've considered restoring the 'monarch' to the infoboxes of the first 9 Canadian PMs (as they're currently at the other 13 PMs); but you know what'll happen - I'll get reverted (again). GoodDay ( talk) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to toss a compliment in your direction. I've looked at the Norway/France page many, many times and see that you were probably the major contributor to that page and its continued maintenance. It is certainly one of the best pages of its type on Wiki. -- OneCyclone ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
RIP Moses, Taylor, Ben-hur, Michelangelo etc. -- GoodDay ( talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind adding you interests to our "new" member list!? The link is here. Thanks so much! -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - wouldn't mind your opinion of the incomplete but developing section at Commonwealth realm#Chronology. I am quite prepared to be bold but would appreciate confirmation at Talk:Commonwealth realm#Chronology that I am not way off beam. The scope of the chronology is an issue for me but I am focusing on events relating to current Commonwealth realms and how they got there. Some inclusions of those who have ceased to be Commonwealth realms but were such. I wouldn't include for example the USA as it was never Commonwealth.-- Matilda talk 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your statement about the original Queen Elizabeth in the QE2 article - can you actual prove that what your saying about her being an outdated design from new and what relivence that has to the QE2 article as there was over three decades of change in the maritime world when these ships were designed?
I have a large collection of books on these ships and a number of retired commodores / captains autobigraphies and what you stated is not mentioned in any of these books so it should be removed if it is a personal point of view.
I would welcome your input on this subject.
Regards
msa1701 ( talk) 09:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted Image:EIIR-DofE-Vimy.jpg. In order to have fair use all 10 of the polices in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria must be met. in this case the source was commercial enterprise to sell images. The fair use claim is is not compatible with #2 # Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Jeepday ( talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to the article. Anyways, I was wondering if we can start to fix the references on the article. We can use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php as a tool to help us with this goal. Wish to help me? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you also operate under this name? If so thanks for Image:Prince William 1.jpg It is a very good pic! = ) -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you and Lonewolf BC, depart that article. Agree to disagree. GoodDay ( talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Your dispute does not belong on that page; please take it elsewhere otherwise I will consider blocking both of you for disruption. You should at least agree, if nothing else, on a suitable venue. Thanks. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Before you add your comments back about the "Dated" designs of the original Cunard Queens, can you prove what you are saying is correct and what does it have to do with the original RMS Queen Elizabeth?
The Queen Elizabeth was launched in the 1930s and the QE2 was at the end of the sixties so there over thirty years of change and what you added to the article has nothing to do with the latter ship.
Cunard designed the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth to be nothing more than the smallest and slowest ship to carry out the task as an Atlantic ferry and nothing else - which was Sir Percy Bates' own discription of the two ships and he knew what the traveller wanted was not something light years away like the Normandie and more homely like the Queens.
Cunard tried to send the Queens cruising and they both failed and lost money - they were deep draft ocean liners with fuel and water and other supplies for no more than five days service at 28.5 knots service speed and their design did not allow for cruising.
The QE2 needed to be more of a cruise ship than a ocean liner for the majority of the time in service - so not only had time passed so had the role of the liner. Harking back to the design of the first Queen Elizabeth has nothing to do with the artice.
This can be proved if you read the books written about the Queens by leading ocean liner officiados' and authors like William H Miller and John Maxton-Graham.
Regards msa1701 ( talk) 07:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
In the section of concept and construction it is already mentioned that the original Queens were "Relics" of the pre war era and that is all you need when discribing the previous ships in the article.
And can you tell me what you mean by a riveted hull has to do with being outdated as Welded hulls are built simply because you add less weight to the ship during building and you get a smoother hull to reduce water resistence - However i would like to point out that the majority of aircraft that are built these days STILL use the rivet method of construction as welding does not allow for minute movement in unpressurised aircraft and that a riveted structure is easier to inspect than a welded seem that would have to be Eddy Currented or X-ray inspected compaired to a simple visual inspection.
Things like "Stodgy old wood panelling" would have had to change regardless due to ever changing SOLAS regulation as this would now have to be fire resistant and the reason she is going out os service is the new reulations that are coming in which would means serious structual work which is uneconomican due to her age. Her seventies styling did not last well and was upgraded quite quickly - like reverting the funnel to the Cunard red with bands for example - It was Bil Warwick (he spelt his name with one "L") as Master Designate who convinced the company to paint the funnel white to move with the times and was proved wrong by the critics.
Try reading QE2: The autorised story by Neil Potter & Jack Frost.
You also need to remember that when she was being designed she was to be as economical as possible for the era ahead unlike the older vessels, such as she was supposed to have four boilers - which was reduced to three, her plumbing system was simplified to save expense and weight (To help with the seven foot draft reduction) and a computer was added to reduced her fuel consumption. There was various other things deleted or changed before fitting out, also at this time the company had mortgaged or sold off various ships to pay for the QE2 and the book listed above will tell you this.
msa1701 ( talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Never put "see X for details" in an article because each article is supposed to be self-contained i.e. you can read a page, even in print, and it still makes sense and is followable. The only way to refer to other pages is through inline links, which don't ask the user to click on them explicitly. Gary King ( talk) 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. I'm assuming you were just kidding, about Cherie Blair. PS- At least you & Cameron, haven't called for her 'head' (Henry VIII style). GoodDay ( talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Doh. I didn't look properly at the template. I'll have to create a stub for Dutch Royalty subjects, I guess? PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't get that article 'zapped' or 're-directed'. Those republics aren't secondary members. GoodDay ( talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:EIIR-Can-1957.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Padraic 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Before you correct the Normandie comments on the S.S France / Norway the comments i added are from the late Frank O Braynard about the power and fuel consumption of the Normandie, your comments on the fuel saving of the France seem to be very optimistic for a 30 knot service speed ship.
Regards msa1701 ( talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. Just wanted to say good luck on that article - you'll need it. GoodDay ( talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ohhh, those articles England, Northern Ireland, Wales and (mostly) Scotland are without a doubt, migraine causers. 3 of them call themselve constituent country and 1 calls itself a country. GoodDay ( talk) 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your spelling The Queen with a capital 'T' mid sentence, might I direct you to this discussion? -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 11:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you have instated the dab on one page. Has the dab been agreed upon? If so you and I need to make sure the dab is in place on all of the monarchy articles. regards, -- Cameron ( t| p| c) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure If I'm dozing-off during soulscanner's explanations of his position, but I still can't see what would need to change to answer his initial problems (the longish bit at the top). His later contributions suggest that he's looking for something like "the GG's functions could as easily be filled by a smiling and waving foot-tall statue with a rubber stamp for feet and Great Seal for a bum". Might I suggest that you ask him questions that demonstrate the GG is still necessary. For instance, what would happen in Canada if something similar Israel's problem from last year occurred? The Israeli PM went into a coma, and it took forever to replace him. Imagine it this way: The PM goes into a coma, and it is pretty clear he will never come out of it. Who has the right to advise the GG to dismiss the PM? If it is merely the government, what would happen if the government refused to do so? Wouldn't the GG have the right to dismiss the PM in the interest of Canada? - Rrius ( talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
See his official parliamentary biography which lists him as "Minister of Foreign Affairs (Acting) 2008.05.27 -". Reggie Perrin ( talk) 16:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your great edits (and creations) in the Royalty space. And since you're an Ontarian.. if you're in Toronto, let's get some other Royalists together and have a fun meetup. I suggest sometime in August, to celebrate Albert's birthday. PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 05:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank goodness, that IP has been blocked. PS- Why do so many of these vandals, have an obsession with homosexuality? GoodDay ( talk) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the two other templates you mention on Template talk:Infobox minister office but on WT:MOS you said there where 3 other templates ("The other three templates need updated to match") so I wonder if there is one more that should be changed?
Also, if you want to change the colors, the color coding is done like this: rgb stands for red, green and blue and each color is specified as rgb(r, g, b), where r, g and b are numbers between 0 and 255 specifying the intensity of each color (where 255 is brightest and 0 is black). The resulting color is the mix you would get if you mixed light of those colors with the specified intensity. This scheme is often used in computers since monitors typically represent color that way (in
CRTs by using red, green and blue fluorescing phosphors). Many programs that deals with colors can typically show you these values. There are also other ways of specifying colors in css, there are keywords for some common colors (e.g. red, blue, yellow) and there are other numbering schemes (e.g. #af3400) but the former don't cover as many colors and the latter is not very human friendly. The actual specification of the standard is available here
[1] it's pretty technical, but at least it can come in handy as a reference sometimes. The part about colors is here for example:
[2].
—
Apis (
talk)
04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
hey, someone when you altered the honorary appointment section of order of canada the people appointed to officer grade to not apear...i've tried hacking it it with no luck. Any suggestions ? Dowew ( talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The word "many" is well sourced. Read the references in the article and the additional references at [3] the references page. Wotapalaver ( talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. Would you happen to know if MacKay, is still the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party? GoodDay ( talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on here about a possible expansion of Wikiproject Commonwealth realms to incorporate all the British Empire topics! Please take the time to comment = ). -- Cameron ( T| C) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. The toughest thing about that discussion? even if a solution is reached, it's highly unlikely 'all 4 articles' will consent to it. GoodDay ( talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You may want to check out User_talk:Rockfang#Royal_tours_of_Canada_in_the_20th_century and User_talk:SriMesh#a_couple_of_subjects_:.29-- Rockfang ( talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Your article Royal tours of Canada in the 20th century has been nominated for being a Did you know? candidate, and hopefully the DYK hook is featured on Wikipedia's main page. Good job on the article by the way! Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Re your message: Thanks. I blocked him indefinitely. He's made zero useful edits. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey.. I hope you don't mind the change I made to the MoC article (Organization with Royal etc). I've actually been somewhat in awe of the amount of editing you've been doing over the past few days. Are you on vacation or something? ;) PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 00:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers -- fone 4 me 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey.. the map is repeatedly changed back by an anonymous user. I don't know why s/he is so dead set on pink, but I think it's probably a fool's errand to keep changing it back to the (far more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention more traditional) blue. PrinceOfCanada ( talk) 03:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see my suggestion here. Cheers -- fone 4 me 12:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand the requirements for moving an article. It is not necessary to reach a consensus before rectifying a spelling error. Only if someone disagreed with The Times Style and Usage Guide would they be justified in moving the article back. Timeineurope ( talk) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I am investigated articles listed at "Copyright Problems" and noticed that you had removed the copyvio tag from this article, with a note that it was an "improperly placed tag". However, the first paragraph here does seem to entirely duplicate language from this website, which includes a licensing note that "all rights [are] reserved". Prior to addressing this apparent copyright violation, I thought to see if there was an element to this that isn't obvious that would make re-usage of language from the source appropriate. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
'...The monarch need not act to favour themselves, any donors, or political party; when they follow the partisan advice of their ministers, they do so because it keeps government stable and working, and they may disregard their ministers' partisan advice for exactly the same reason.'
'...As long as the sovereign exists as he/she does, there is a body above both the Prime Minister and viceroy where ultimate responsibility to ensure the working of government rests.'
' Having never needed to unilaterally exercise her constitutional authority is not the same as never being able to; the fact that it's not been done is a testament to the working of the system..'
'It's definitely no support for a system wherein a president could be put in and taken out at the Prime Minister's pleasure, with zero ability to do anything to control the abuse of executive power.'
Lol. My, I do enjoy our discussions (no sardonic snarl there!) I see you are aquainted with the brash Aussie sense of pride! In my 20s I was a monarchist, and at the even riper age of 43 (it is true what they say about your forties - look forward to it!) I'm a convinced republican. Back to the discussion: nothing I stated is irrational. A tempered love of one's country, and the desire to see it appropriately honoured, is not based on 'ill- founded emotion'. If I wanted to get rid of HM because she's 'a stuck-up b**** who thinks everyone should k*** her a***' that would be irrational emotion. But I don't. I don't know of any of my republican friends who think that. Perhaps I choose my friends well. And I'm not misinformed. I keep myself very well informed. And I've demonstrated that. Naive? Most definitely not thank you. Aussies have a more than healthy suspicion of politicians, thank you very much. That's why most constitutional amendments have failed (yes, including the last one). Mass hysteria? That's a bit over the top, isn't it? And besides, sentuiment and emotion is a huge part of the monarchist argument. No, I believe that E2, long may she reign in the UK, and in Canada, if the choose to retain her, has served us well, for the most part. But her time is over. If I might quote the ARM:
Many people believe that this arrangement is no longer either appropriate or suitable for Australia. We believe that the office of Head of State should be attained on merit, not birthright. We believe that our Head of State should be an Australian Citizen. We believe that our Head of State should live in Australia and know what it means to be Australian.
Australia can reach this goal by becoming a republic, with our own Head of State who is chosen on merit rather than on birthright and who unquestionably represents Australia both at home and abroad. Our own Head of State will meet the Queen and other Heads of State as an equal.
I think that neatly summarises my own opinion. Now disagree with that if you will. Produce objections, which, on face value, may be quite reasonable. But you certainly could not judge those sentiments borne of 'hysteria'. Personally I am impressed by their dignity and patriotism.
If we want our own head of state, we should be allowed to (not that anyone could stop us), because we are a democracy. And we are a mature nation. If South Africa, India, Pakistan, Myramar, Cyprus, Ireland and Malta can be trusted to exist without the monarchy, why can't Australia. Sure, those countries have had their problems (often because of the monarchy, not for lack of it), but isn't it those countries right to make their own destinies?-- Gazzster ( talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies for the lengthy post. Secondly, following your last posting:
They've had a choice since before 1901,
No actually. The first non-indigenous Australians were transported there at HM’s pleasure; the indigenous Australians likewise had no opportunity to choose their sovereign. In fact, they were not recognised as Australian citizens until 1967, due to a clause in the Constitution to which Victoria penned her name. Until 1967 the Aboriginal peoples were officially classified as ‘fauna’. This consideration is an important, often overlooked factor in the debate. The indigenous nations should be given an opportunity to consent or not to the regime which invaded their lands.
…and made their choices thereafter, including in '99.
Some made their choices, and paid the penalty. Some fell at the Battle of Vinegar Hill, as others did at the Eureka Stockade. In 1856 self-government was granted to the colonies. But their freedom was always subject to a minister in London. And after 1901 this continued: in the Commonwealth until 1942; in the states until 1986. So this is really the first time in our history we have been free to make a choice.
Personally speaking, I'm not adverse to debate, but the facts have to be presented as they are, not manipulated so as to mislead.
You’re making a lot of accusations about misleading facts, which I find incomprehensible. Reminds me of some pretty misleading directions from the AML and other organisations. But more of them later.
Now, one may well hold opinions such as "this arrangement is no longer either appropriate or suitable for Australia"; but, the question then is: why?
Isn’t that a question the Australian people must answer?
If the answer is: "the office of head of state should be attained on merit, not birthright," then the question, again, is: why?
Why not?
It's silly, of course, to argue that merit is not necessary; I think we can all agree that a head of state must be competent and well trained for the job. Of course.
But to say that election will pick a more qualified individual for the role more often than constitutionally governed hereditary succession does is an unproven statement.
Well, on the whole, Australia does not elect complete idiots as prime ministers, which tends to lend some credibility to the contrary. And how could you compare, given that elections are by far more frequent than coronations?
A monarch can be replaced (Edward VIII), but the necessity arises very rarely; a monarch, unlike most presidents, is raised their entire lives to be a constitutional sovereign and head of state,
Poor old Edward. I suppose he might have been a Nazi. And thank God we were preserved from a Nazi who reigned over the Empire. But he did have to sacrifice his personal happiness for what was, even then, an antiquated norm. But we’re not discussing that of course. An individual, after a career of public service in the military or judiciary or some other field, seems competent enough to perform the office of Governor-General, who performs the functions of a monarch. And we’ve had some bloody good ones. And a good many lawyers, teachers and trade unionists have made competent to excellent prime ministers, who advise the GG. They bring their varied life experiences to the role. The life experiences of a monarch are likely to be more limited.
so it's difficult to imagine an unmeritorious (thank you for the correct spelling!) king or queen ever ascending to the throne.
I can think of several.
In other words, merit, as it relates to the job we're talking about, is honoured along with birthright, and the former can even trump the latter, if necessary.
I should hope so. And I should hope it would be the norm, rather than a 'trump'. But I don't see how.
This selection process is hardly less equitable than an election process that leaves a large chunk of the population with someone they didn't vote for.
That’s all part of the democratic process! We may not like the result, but hallelujah- we had the choice. And what if ‘a large chunk of the population’ don’t like their monarch? They don’t get any choice at all. And that’s the point. Sounds to me as if you’re minimalising the role of democracy. Which I would find a little scary.
And why must the head of state be a citizen? Citizenship is just a legal classification; a bureaucratic system of classifying people, and plenty of countries get by without their head of state being a citizen.
No. Citizenship confers inviolable rights and privileges, and a dignity. Someone without citizenship may be dealt with by the state in whatever manner it sees fit, good or ill.
Further, why must one have to live in Australia to share national experiences?
Well, I suppose she could watch Australian television in Buck Palace. The princes could barrack for teams in the Australian Football League and wear their guernsies. The butler could serve meat pies. But I doubt it would have the same impact.
How long is long enough? As though the Queen has no idea what her Australians are up to... tisk, tisk!
Well then. As long as mother is watching us, where does it matter where she is.
There are two propositions that are not unreasonable: a resident head of state, and a singularly Australian head of state. Plenty of countries have a non-shared head of state that lives within the borders. But, obviously, a number of other countries have a shared head of state who lives, predominantly, beyond their borders, and they function perfectly well; very well, in fact. So, if where the head of state lives, and whether or not they're shared, makes no difference,
Perhaps other countries want their head as far as way as possible from them. Personally, I would’ve thought it was perfectly natural for a people to want the representative of the nation actually with them. I fail to see what there can be to object to in that.
what reasons are left to switch from a Commonwealth realm to a republic of some sort?
If you’re asking me, personally? For the reasons I’ve stated, not answering to the assumption that there are only two reasonable grounds, which I don’t accept.
All the rest of the arguments are simply not founded on any fact; as I said, they're based on personal feelings, misinformation, and play to patriotic sensibilities.
You keep saying that. I do not know what ‘personal feelings’ and ‘misinformation’ you are referring to.
Surely, as a cautious buyer, you can see that!
Thank you for the complement. But we are not buying anything, as it were a packet of crisps from the bargain bin.
Australia should give her allegiance to her monarch for as long as the system that monarch heads works perfectly well. Nothing lasts perpetually, so, clearly, something will change sometime. But it should be only when it's necessary, when something has failed, or some unforeseen event shifts the course of history (which abolition of the monarchy in the UK might be, but not necessarily). Right now republicans in the realms want change for change's sake, and no other reason.
Pardon the language (I am an Australian), but in reference to the last statement –crap. You seem to think republicanism is so shallow. But, in the words of the immortal John Cleese, ‘now for something completely different.’
You mentioned the European Union, which intrigued me. I wondered what connection the EU could have. I thought I knew the answer, but I wanted to be sure. So I found the Australian Monarchist League website. And I found the not uninteresting speech of Phillip Benwell, MBE:
That Britain has abrogated sovereignty to Europe is now undoubted. The question is whether it may also have illicitly endangered the sovereignty of the Queen’s Realms and broken the intent of the Statute of Westminster.
Indeed? Didn’t you say Australia was a fully independent nation? What influence then, could Europe have on the sovereignty of Australia? I read on:
In past years, your colonies and particularly the British Realms of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, without reservation rushed to the defence of Great Britain when it was in danger and few families in our lands were untouched by the loss of loved ones.
Jolly good. Feel free to bleed for us next time our freedoms are violated. But don't big note yourselves too much. We didn't have much choice in the matter, and the Japanese were on our doorstep. You weren't the only ones on the brink of invasion.
We did this not just because we are one People but also in gratitude for the gift of constitutional freedom and democracy Britain freely gave to us.
One people? Right, so we’re not independent. Sorry, I’m a little confused here. I continue:
However just sixteen years following the closure of the last World War, we of the Realms who all fought with you as one, were discarded as you would a faithful but unwanted dog, for in 1961 your Government sent out Duncan Sandys, your Commonwealth Minister, to tell us that Britain was joining Europe and its special relations with the Commonwealth and its commitments to the British Realms one to another were to be put to an end.
Oh dear! I blush.
Having betrayed us in the Realms, your Government then continued to humiliate Britain by humbling itself at the feet of Europe and committed upon its course then lied to and deceived not only the Commonwealth but the British People themselves.
Well, Britain never thought of itself as European. It is natural enough that it would regard any deference to European peace and prosperity a ‘humiliation’. But how does this involve Australia?
Magna Carta and that other mainstay of our democracy, the Bill of Rights, have always been looked upon with derision by European politicians, for in Europe it is the State which is always supreme whereas within the British sphere it has always been our practice to place the rights and the liberties of the Individual above the interests of the State.
‘Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves’. Hang on, I can catch a faint chorus of ‘Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt,’.
Above me is the statue of Nelson and, indeed all around London there are monuments to Britain’s great men and women who gave their lives to protect these shores. Their glory now lies shattered along with the freedom they and so many others fought so bravely for.I am here to put forward the case on behalf of the People of Australia, who fought so very hard to protect our own sovereignty; that in its insane purpose to submit to European domination, Britain has not only disqualified itself from membership of the Commonwealth of Nations; it has greatly endangered the sovereignty of The Crown which we all share.
No, sorry, still confused. How is our sovereignty tied with Europe?
The breaking of the links with the British Realms, the tacit moves of support for Australia to become a Republic, are these all not a part of a greater plan to isolate this Kingdom, this bastion of democracy, to make it easier to merge it into Europe?
Oh, I’m beginning to see now! There’s a conspiracy to subvert the Crown and the liberties it protects to the sovereignty of Europe!
Never forget that Europe will not tolerate the dilemma that is Northern Ireland and it will not be long before the British Government betrays the North and forces through union with Eire regardless of the consequences in bloodshed! Similarly with Gibraltar and Spain! Like an army of white ants, these Fabian inspired creatures, following the ideology of the Roman general Fabius Cunctator himself, "For the right moment you must wait, ... but when the time comes you must strike hard" have for years chipped away, changing the foundations of our liberty, whilst we, the people, sat idly by, steeped in our own apathy and ignorance, as so many did in the years before the last World War mocking the warnings of Churchill with ridicule and derision
Those awful Irish! Those terrible ‘Fabian inspired creatures’. And after the English were so good as to invade their country! They read far too much Cunctator. Actually wanting to determine their own destinies! For shame! Well! As I read on, I began to see. It is all so obvious. The European Community is a gigantic attempt to subvert the freest nation in the world, England, to the poisonous absolute (and papist, I may add) rule of Europe. If England falls, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and even St Kitts and Nevis, will fall also.
The mockery is not, of course, a personal insult. In fact, my friend, I have no reason to credit you with these bizarre ideas at all. But I quote and comment to demonstrate the monarchist position is not necessarily always about the liberties and independence of Australia. And it is not always rational and tempered, as Benwell eloquently, if bizarrely, demonstrates.
With sincerest respect, -- Gazzster ( talk) 09:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, and thanks for relieving me that you don't subscribe to Benwell's imperialist diatribe. Though I note with some trepidation that you did not entirely distance yourself from him. I posted it not to confront you personally, of course, but to demonstrate that untruths and misinformation may appear on both sides of the divide. And this was the official site of the Australian Monarchist League, so one may suppose it represents the views of the AML ('Fenian creatures!!! - the AML states it defends liberty!). I have also read (not from the AML) that the Crown must remain Protestant, and a republic is a popish plot to bring the Jesuits and the inquisition to Australia! (well, the Jesuits are already here)
Well, we seem to have reached an impasse. I claim the core arguments of the republican voices are reasonable and sound as points of consideration. You will concede only two, and claim all are misinformed, misleading and unreasonably emotive. I must say, I still don't see that. It is you who mention words like 'xenophobia' and 'hysteria'. I haven't said a word against the British people. I have not raised a mental finger against anyone. And I might remind you that it is Mr Benwell, MBE, who derides the 'Fenian creatures' and a Europe that he obviously believes is fascist. I wonder how much of this sword-rattling hooliganism is in your own mind.AS I've said, all the people I know in favour of a republic are educated, honourable, community spirited and ethical people, including my own mother, who is English. And as for 'their demand that elections are the ultimate deliverer of democracy is similarly unproven'- my jaw drops stunned by that statement. And I wonder if you realise what you said? Democracy by decree- isn't the word for that 'oxymoron'?
But on a couple of points: no, I am not crying victim. As I pointed out rather clearly I thought, this is really the first opportunity we, as a nation, have had the opportunity and national will to ask ourselves this question: do we want to be a republic? The 'you didn't shed your blood for your liberty so what right do you have to want anything better' idea is rather odd, to say the least. But Australians have died by the Crown. I'm highly offended that you dismiss the Aboriginal consideration out of hand as 'irrelevant'. I am surprised, considering how your great nation has done much to repair the injustices done to the Innuit peoples. For it is the Aboriginal peoples who have, above all Australians, died and suffered under the system which, yes, brought liberty to others. That is of course not the responsibility of the Crown alone. But it must bear a weighty responsibility.While that alone is not an argument for the abolition of the Crown, it is a mighty consideration in the debate. Most Australians had opportunity to consent to Crown rule in 1901. And now many wish to reassess that consent. But the Aboriginal peoples never had the opportunity. Concommittent with the republic/monarchy dialogue is a movement to reconcile the nation with it's original peoples. You may have heard that the first Parliament this year was ceremonially welcomed by the indigenous peoples. This was an event unprecedented in Australia's history- an official acknowledgement by the highest power in the land that the Australian Crown and government occupies Aboriginal land, the first official disavowal of terra nullius. From now on, any dialogue concerning Australia's future must assimilate this. I suggest the issues at stake are not so straightforward as you and others seem to suppose. -- Gazzster ( talk) 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, adding to what I said would be a shorter post. But I rather enjoy exchanging views with you. Another thought occurs to me. All parties to the debate need to be aware that Australia is not dependent upon British institutions for its glorious Constitution. Remember it was not composed in Britain, but in Australia. And it is a hybrid Constitution: combining the Westminster model with the federalism and separation of powers which is a feature of the US Constitution. So the Constitution is uniquely Australian. There is no reason then, that it could not be further adapted to accommadate an Australian head of state. My point being that the same ingenuity that adapted the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty to Australian conditions could do the same again.-- Gazzster ( talk) 08:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget those systems that have a strictly figure head President. Sure, such a President is elected as having been a political party members; but he/she has to leave his/her politics at the Inauguration door. GoodDay ( talk) 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What social contract, Dlatimer? The 'right' of the Sovereign to reign is based on an ancient tradition when privilege implied responsibility. The king contracted with his vassals to rule and protect them in return for their allegiance. The monarchy used to be elective in the sense that the king ruled by the consent of his subjects. But today the elective nature is gutted from the monarchy. And so the contract is broken. I'll admit your idea is interesting: I have never heard the monarchy defended on the grounds that they live lives of luxury and indolence. And I never heard the argument that wealth protects people from corruption. One could say that privilege without power corrupts, making one unmotivated and listless. The French aristocracy learned that the hard way. -- Gazzster ( talk) 12:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've never heard of Bagehot. I believe in some countries a 'lottery' is called an election. But we're in a pretty theoretical area. I don't know if it would be useful to explore further. But do so if you wish. I would enjoy the discussion.-- Gazzster ( talk) 03:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey... I'm too tired to edit properly right now, but I think that 'self-described pro-life groups' is less POV than 'anti-abortion'. (FWIW, I am resolutely pro-choice, but I think the former wording has moderately less POV attached to it than the latter). Just a thought. Prince of Canada t | c 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Look I am only providing a statement made by someone who is active in the fight against abortion. regardless of what your convictions are, there is no doubt that this person can be used as a source. 24.37.126.33 ( talk) 05:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoa.. Larre.. that is messed up. It's okay to physically abuse children and stay in the Order, but his 'morality' won't let him stay because of Morgenthaler? The cognitive dissonance that these people live with is astounding. (I agree that it doesn't really belong in the article, though.) Prince of Canada t | c 16:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm not really sure that I agree with your usage of Commonwealth flags in the Edward & Andrew (and I'm guessing soon to be others) articles for the RVO honours. That honour is not given by HM as Head of the Commonwealth, and it is not a Commonwealth honour--there is no such thing, as far as I know, as a Commonwealth honour. Putting that flag there is, I think, a POV, unless you can cite an authoritative source which indicates that HM presents the RVO as a Commonwealth honour as opposed to a personal honour stemming from her as Queen. Yes, I understand that all Commonwealth citizens are eligible, but that's a fine difference from a Commonwealth honour. If that makes sense. Prince of Canada t | c 03:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
{{flagicon|Commonwealth}}
. I can try an mimic it with EIIR's cypher. --
G2bambino (
talk)
04:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(indent) I don't think DBD meant that they're only British. But they are arguably primarily British in nature. That being said, I really do think that if a flag must be used, the closest-to-appropriate one is the old girl's personal standard. That being said, I really don't think that a flag is necessary, as these awards are relatively transnational, and the flags are meant to indicate national origin for orders & awards. Prince of Canada t | c 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed myself from that discussion, as it doesn't look like it can go anywhere good.. just wanted to say that it's starting to look like that person is going to question detail after detail after detail, and I think it's going to all end in a mess :/ Prince of Canada t | c 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note a few points:
Thanks. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. Aren't I a little stinker sometimes, he he he. GoodDay ( talk) 18:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to delete the King of Canada ref. to Edward VIII, it really doesn't matter to me that much. I don't agree with the style as there has never been a style of King/Queen of Canada but I will leave it to GA/A level review to figure it out, when the article it comes to it. Labattblueboy ( talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As you've already discovered, we've an interesting anon at that article's talk-page. GoodDay ( talk) 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Calm down, guys... Prince of Canada t | c 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello G2. I don't know if it was purposefully planned that way - but those Olympics (which will be opened by an 86 yr-old Elizabeth II, assuming she's healthy), will coincide with Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee. GoodDay ( talk) 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Just kidding about the purposely planning thingy, of course. GoodDay ( talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
G2bambino ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I accept the (very slim) 3RR breach, as outlined below; I won't bother with the technicalities and subtleties that probably show 3RR wasn't actually broken. However, I will acknowledge that I skirted 3RR, and will say that there isn't any particular excuse for this; it was purely my own carelessness. I will also elaborate that it was User:Dlatimer's blatant mission of agitation that I was reacting to; if one follows his recent edit history, it will be revealed that, after failing to have his way without objection at Republicanism in Australia, he took it upon himself to seek revenge by going through my edit history and making arbitrary reverts to my previous edits at other articles, thereby involving himself in a dispute I was having with the equally uncooperative and uncommunicative User:Lonewolf BC at Rideau Hall ( see above for but a very brief glimpse at the difficulties he alone creates); Dlatimer had no previous interest in the article, did not take the time to familiarise himself with the issues and their history, simply made blind reverts, and would not engage in discussion. In other words, he baited, and I bit. He, remaining unchided for his juvenile tactics, has since gone on to other pastures; as the fires at Rideau Hall have subsided (the present format resting for the last 20 hours, and acceptable to me), and blocks are preventative and not punitive, I believe it's safe, and just, to lift the present block on myself. I will henceforth have to be yet even more careful when dealing with these obstructionist types, who have been the main, if not the only, common factor in all of my troubles at Wikipedia. -- G2bambino ( talk) 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Requests that include personal attacks aimed at others are not even taken under consideration. — Sandstein 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Calling out someone's problematic behaviour constitutes a "personal attack"? There is seemingly a confusion, on the part of the intervening admin, between what is criticism and what is insult. Regardless, let's then try this again:
G2bambino ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I accept the (very slim) 3RR breach, as outlined below; I won't bother with the technicalities and subtleties that probably show 3RR wasn't actually broken. However, I will acknowledge that I skirted 3RR, and will say that there isn't any particular excuse for this; it was purely my own carelessness. User:Dlatimer, remaining unchided, has since gone on to other pastures; thus, as the fires at Rideau Hall have subsided (the present format resting for the last 20 hours, and acceptable to me), and blocks are preventative and not punitive, I believe it's safe, and just, to lift the present block on myself. I will henceforth have to be yet even more careful when dealing with obstructionist types, who have been the main, if not the only, common factor in all of my troubles at Wikipedia. -- G2bambino ( talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Honestly, after such a long block record, many of them involving 3RR, and several unblocks that presumably came with a promise to be more careful, I don't believe you. Luckily this block is only a few hours away from being over anyway, so I suggest you simply wait. Mango juice talk 14:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Mango, do you always make presumptions in your administrative actions? Further, if you say you don't believe me, that means you think I would immediately head off and revert at Rideau Hall, but, as I was the last person to edit there, I would be reverting myself.
The moral of this story - indeed, all the tales behind most of my blocks - seems to be that blind enforcement is all that matters to administrators; who's purposefully being disruptive and who's genuinely trying to thwart such behaviour simply doesn't matter; it's all about who's good at fying under the radar and who isn't. Thus, he who engages in an edit war for no other reason than to agitate goes unpunnished simply because he was able to piggy back on another agitators's reverts and stay himself under 3RR, while he who finds this type of behaviour reprehensible and is left alone to stand against two or more such obstructionists, gets yet another punnishment simply because he skirted 3RR. Not only that, the former's reputation goes unscarred while it's the latter who's made to look like the jerk! It's a ridiculous system, and one that I find myself again questioning whether or not I bloody well want to keep putting up with it; I'm sick of being made to look like the bad guy. -- G2bambino ( talk) 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A summary of my actions at Rideau Hall since 22:02, 23 August 2008:
Fear not G2, 31hrs will go by quickly. GoodDay ( talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)