User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon

Your page

Don, I deleted this page because of the publication of a user name that had been changed. You probably know which one, but please don't repeat it here. I was asked to delete only that thread, but unfortunately there are 187 earlier deletions on this page, presumably made for the same reason. To delete the new thread, I would have to undelete the others, and then it would be hard to see what needed to be re-deleted. It's a bit of a bug in the deletion process.

Anyway, in order not to fiddle around, I decided to delete the entire page. Perhaps we could discuss the situaton by e-mail. You may remember roughly when the previous deletions were, so I can look for them more easily. Normally they are visible, but for some reason I'm not seeing them, which could be a problem with my browser, so I may need to ask another admin to help me out. Anyway, that's why the history is missing in case you wondered. I'm very sorry for the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SlimVirgin, I trust you implicitly, and I shan't repeat the "UserName" here ever again. I apologise for doing so. Anyways, take care and best wishes eh :)

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin: What is your opinion on the veracity of my Dominion of Canada article?

Do you feel, upon reading the below, that I am attempting to spread falsehoods about my country?

Take care, and best wishes,

Don

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominion of Canada was founded on July 1, 1867, as a Federation of four British Colonies in British North America. The Federal Government structure was divided into the Dominion Government (i.e, the entire country), and the Provincal Government(s) (i.e., the regional sub-units). The original Provinces were the Province of Nova Scotia, Province of New Brunswick, Province of Quebec, and Province of Ontario. This was the first independent country within the British Empire to be granted Dominion Status. This event was codified via the British North America Act 1867, passed by the Imperial Parliament at Westminster (i.e., London, United Kingdom) on March 26, 1867, and coming into effect on July 1, 1867.^[1]

==See Also==

Canada

No edit wars please

Please post on discussion page before summarily blanking this. Thank you.

==Footnotes==

^ Canada Day

Oh good lord

Hi AVD, I think that we need to work together to fix the historic british settlement in north america pages. I find the British North America page pretty bad wiki. I wonder what the best way to proceed is? You identified British Colonies in North America, British Colonial Regions, British America, British West Indies, British North America and the British West Indies as key names and administrative divisions. We should work together to make it so... WayeMason 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Great Britain

I have been entirely reasonable all along. You have been the one vandalising that page. If you want ArbCom, be my guest. I have been the one suggesting using that formal procedure all along. Bastin 11:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Colour commentary

Could you please stop writing in different colours on Talk pages? It makes it look like something's a link when it isn't and is very distracting. Thanks. Type 40 23:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Because your quote is a title, and in a title all the beginning letters of the principal words are capitalised, irrespective of whether the individual words are capitalised when standing alone or not.--Gazzster 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gazzster. Thank you very much the explaination of the capitalisation of principle words. I appreciate the info alot. I did not know that.

Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --Gazzster 10:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom (?) of Great Britain

I took a look through your posts to the Kingdom of Great Britain pages. I had always taken the convention wisdom but I must say I'm convinced. These might help your cause. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - then again, on second looking: ".. the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN ..." But, certainly there's room and you've a good point. It's a tough one to call.

Ar aon nós, nice chatting. Good night. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NZ

For your interest http://www.stuff.co.nz/4220515a11.html Brian | (Talk) 07:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not break up posts

You've broken up my post on the Canada discussion page. Please fix it. It could qualify as vandalism. --Soulscanner 11:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

Hello Don. Discussing religion, ethnic stuff etc; doesn't bother me a bit (I can't be offended by such things). I was worried others might get too upset & cause an uproar at the discussion page. By the way, I speak English only. GoodDay 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GoodDay. It is very nice to talk to you. Yaa ... sometimes "touchy" stuff comes up. The thing is weither we Canadians like to admit it or not, there is an English-Canada, and a French-Canada. Even all these years after Confederation ... we still are the "Two-Solitudes" . Thanks alot for the conservations eh.

Take care, and best wishes eh ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Don, and the same to you. GoodDay 19:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I need to say that I am concerned that you seem to be assuming political viewpoints in editors based on what you assume is their cultural background. In your last response to me you were defending the division between English Canadian and French Canadian as if I was disputing that. I wasn't, and I think you know that. I think you've backed yourself into a corner and your avoiding the issue. As you say, you can believe what you like. But on the discussion page everyone has to be civil. And if we respond to editors quite reasonable observations and arguments with remarks that, quite frankly, border on ethnic slurs, the whole discussion is going to suffer. And, I might add, your own points are going to be lost in the heat. Please be aware of how your remarks are affecting the discussion. Cheers.--Gazzster 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

Don, I have avoided the recent discussion at Talk:Canada because I do not think that there is any point in trying to reason with you, and because your chronic disregard for Wikipedia policies make it very frustrating to engage you in any discussion. However, your repeated flouting of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL must not continue. Here is a selection of your abusive language from [1]:

However, the majority of Wikipedians are "ill-informed" on this issue, and unfortunately Wikipedia is run by the majority vote of the "ignorant-mob".
What utter circular non-sensical rubbish.... Get a grip eh.
Are you daft? [for which you apologized]
This talk page epitomises what I hate about Wikipedia ... consensus of the Ignorant-Mob running amok.
People like JimWae are just being willfully stupid.

If you hate Wikipedia and are unwilling to abide by its policies, your repeated involvement in the same old debates is unproductive and as frustrating to other editor as I am sure it is to you. I encourage you once again to read and understand and follow these and other Wikipedia policies. If you continue your abusive language, I will begin the appropriate processes within Wikipedia (with which you are unfortunately too familiar) to put a stop to it. I regret that I have to raise this with you again. Ground Zero | t 11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GroundZero. Thank you for your warning, I appreciate it alot. I am not interesting in continuing the debate on the Canada page. However, I will take this opportunity to offer you my humble apology to you. I have exchanged "harsh words" with you in the past, and I was at fault for them, and I am sorry. I do not consider you apart of the "ignorant-mob" (although this said mob does exist). For what it is worth, I have always found you to be a very intelligent open-minded member of Wikipedia. You and I just don't agree on much so ... sometimes I get "huffy".

Take care eh ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's edits

Don, I do not object to including the long form names, and they appear in each case in the articles that I have edited today. There is no need for them to appear in each instance in the same article. That make the text unnecessarily long-winded. We do not use "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northn Ireland" in the United Kingdom article in every instance, only in the first line.. After that, it is understood that the short form name is sufficient. Also, there is no United Province of Canada article: this is a redirect to Province of Canada. Per WP:CONTEXT, repeating links is discouraged, except in long articles where it may be appropriate to repeat a link once. Ground Zero | t 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you have a reference for calling Canada East and Canada West "districts"? I have never seen that before. I am inclined to believe you, but I'd like to see a reference. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- here and here are the references. nat.utoronto 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for this. the fact that Google comes up with effectively only one reference for each so-called long form name convinces me that these names did not exist. I don't think that someone's memoirs are an authoritative source. I think that if they existed, JMS Careless and Jacques Monet would have mentioned them in their Canadian Encyclopedia articles (see Talk:Province of Canada for links.) Ground Zero | t 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ground Zero.

The Province of Canada had the alternate long-form name of the United Province of Canada, as cited in the first sentence of the article.

Next up, the tradition of Canada is to have Provinces and Territories. The tradition of America is to have States/Commonwealths (i.e., the same Rank) and Territories. The next lowest sub-division is a District. In other words Provinces are divided into Districts, States/Commonwealths are divided into Districts, and Territories are divided into Districts.

Within the Districts of Provinces, States/Commonwealths, the next lowest sub-division is Counties.

Examples

(1). The United Province of Canada was sub-divided into the District of Canada West, and the District of Canada East.

(2). The Northwest Territories were sub-divided into the many Districts of the Northwest Territories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_Northwest_Territories

(3). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts a State of the US, possessed a District of Maine, which later separated and became the State of Maine in 1820.

(4). The Commonwealth of Virginia a State of the US, possessed a District of Kentucky, which later separated and became the Commonwealth of Kentucky a State of the US in 1792.

District of Kentucky

http://usgenmap.rootsweb.com/us1783.htm

"Virginia included West Virginia, the "District of Kentucky" and claimed the Central/Southern portions of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio."

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't disagree that the Province of Canada was also called the United Province of Canada. The point that I am making is only about linking. The article is called Province of Canada and that's how it should be linked. United Province of Canada is a redirect page to Proovince of canada (you can check this for yourself) so it makes no sense to link to it, especially when Province of Canada has alreaedy been linked earlier in the article.

2. Do you have any reference for the names "District of Canada West" and "District of Canada East" ever being used by anyone at the time? The fact that you providedno reference for (1) in the evidence you've presented above suggests to me that this is an entirely ex post construction (that, by the way, qualifies as original research you bad boy). If no one used it at the time, it is absloutely incorrect to create those labels now. I am really hoping that you can provide some reference indicating that this is something more than your own construction. Ground Zero | t 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion should take place on an article talk page instead of your talk page so that others can weigh in. I have begun the discussion here. Regards, Ground Zero | t 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long-form name of "Province of Quebec", ou "Province du Quebec" en francais

Hello Ramdrake.

long-form name: Province of Quebec, Province du Quebec

short-form name: Quebec.

These are facts.

Fine, then it should be simple enough to provide citations to this effect.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try the British North America Acts (1867-1975).

ArmchairVexillologistDon (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Quebec. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Tomj (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Canada Day

[1]