Talk:Monarchy of Barbados

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Commonwealth
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon

Fair use rationale for Image:Barbados coa.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Barbados coa.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Save_Us_229 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Though, as the person who's move to change the original is being contested, it is PrinceOfCanada's place to open discussion on the matter, I'll take the initiative from him and start the resolution process here. However, I can do no more than that; only he alone can explain what problem it is he percieves and is trying to "fix." --G2bambino (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy. Problem: You're removing an image that doesn't need to be removed. Fix: I've put it back. All done. Prince of Canada t | c 01:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Please explain "doesn't need to be removed." According to whom? --G2bambino (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
According to me. The photo serves the purpose of illustrating who the heir to the Barbadian throne is. There is no justification for removing it. Besides, you're the one making the change, you need to justify it. Since you can't, well, the image stays. Have a nice day. Prince of Canada t | c 01:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe your refusal to place it anywhere other than in a location that causes ugliness is reason to remove it; though I'd rather see it in the article, where I want to place it obviously disturbs you, and you won't explain why, so taking it out is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to avoid problems. You, however, seem to desire continued disruption. Will you, or will you not, be a cooperative element of resolving this? --G2bambino (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I will be a cooperative element when you do these things. You are formatting so it lays out perfectly solely on your screen. I have made my position clear. This discussion is over. Prince of Canada t | c 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the discussion is not over when you say it is. However, thank you for making it clear that you will continue to only be an obstacle as opposed to an assistance. This, therefore, goes to the next level. --G2bambino (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I made it clear that I will not cooperate with you unless and until you acknowledge your hypocrisy, you acknowledge and apologize for your lies, half-truths, and general incivility. So you have only yourself to blame if I am not cooperating with you. Prince of Canada t | c 02:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You are only creating artificial obstacles here: refusing to participate unless your oponent fulfills your own personal, yet unrealistic requirements. That is not going to get us anywhere. --G2bambino (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right; it's obvious that any attempt to get you to admit to wrongdoing is utterly doomed to failure, despite that wrongdoing (you know, like blatantly lying about me) is right out there in the open. Getting you to acknowledge your own statements is impossible. One wonders why. Prince of Canada t | c 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, the sole key to your cooperation lies in my admitting that your personal interpretations about my behaviour are right, and that I should be sorry for acting in the manner you say I have. Well, I don't agree with your take on things, nor do I see a large number of people backing up your claims. With my gross incivility unproven, there remains nothing for me to apologise for. Violating your uniquely high standards of civility just doesn't count. So, as I said, you are only creating artificial obstacles to the proper editing of article space. --G2bambino (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
So you never said on your talk page that I edited your comments? You never claimed that I was unblocked with a promise not to start a dispute? Your accusation of vandalism? You never said any of those things? You never said, quote, "you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen"? And your continued edits to make things look right on your screen are not in direct opposition to that, and you didn't revert edits that I had made that were similar to the edits you are now making, calling them bad formatting, and you didn't use your statement as the reason for doing so? You did none of these things? Prince of Canada t | c 03:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't make sense of your random complaints. The only thing in there that matters, if I'm seeing it right, is your final questions about how things appear on different screens; that is exactly what I am trying to deal with, with or without your cooperation. --G2bambino (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Random? Okay, let me list them for you:
  1. Did you or did you not state on your talk page that I had edited your comments? You did, and it was a lie.
  2. Did you or did you not claim on your AN3 notice regarding me that I had been unblocked with a promise to refrain from further dispute? You did, and it was a lie.
  3. Did you or did you not accuse me of vandalism? You did.
  4. Did you or did you not say, quote, "you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen"? You did.
  5. Did you or did you not revert edits I had made to the Order of Canada article, citing the above statement as your reason? You did.
  6. Did you or did you not refer to those edits as, quote, "bad formatting"? You did.
  7. Given #'s 4-6 above, are you or are you not engaging in editing that is "bad formatting" because the formatting in question "doesn't look the same on every computer" as it "all depends on the size of your screen"? You are.
So, given all that, what possible justification do you have? Is your justification that when I do it, it's wrong, but when you do it, it's okay? Do you have anything more than that? Prince of Canada t | c 04:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
[deindent] Whether or not I did those things has little to do with what you're accusing me of. Making a mistake is not the same as being rude. Commenting negatively on the result of edits is not the same as being rude. Making negative critiques of behaviour is not the same as being rude. Now, I'm sure you'll note from the MedCab case you've recently jumped into, that I've never changed my stance regading how layout can appear differently on different screens. That does not mean, however, that I believe your edits are better than anyone else's, and should remain unchallenged. --G2bambino (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no 'whether or not'. You did those things. Unquestionably. Commenting negatively when it is things like 'hideous' and 'you make everything look like shit' is, actually, rude. As for 'not changing your stance', you still refuse to acknowledge what you said, and you still refuse to understand how it applies to you, and you still refuse to understand that you are editing for your computer and I am editing for every computer. Tsk. Prince of Canada t | c 16:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Only from your viewpoint are things as black and white. Hopefully the MedCab will work this out, and, if not, it goes to the next level after that. --G2bambino (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so the things you tell other people don't apply to you, then? Is that what you're saying? You have made it clear time and again that you are formatting based solely on what you see on your computer. But I guess that doesn't matter, seeing as we have to do what you say while you go and do whatever you like. Prince of Canada t | c 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever makes you happy, Prince. --G2bambino (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? Whatever makes me happy? Honest? Then acknowledge what you said, and acknowledge that it applies to you! That would make me happy. Apologies for your lies and accusations would be nice, too. Prince of Canada t | c 21:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Why? You've already come to the conclusion that all you believe to be true about me is true. You're obviously happy with that, so, whatever. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you claim to be acting in good faith. Acknowledging your own statements and that they apply to you as well would be acting in good faith. Continuing to ignore them because they are inconvenient to you is not acting in good faith. Your choice, really: show some good faith, or remain a hypocrite. I certainly know which one I would choose. Prince of Canada t | c 22:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; I think a number of people now know which of the two you have chosen. Regardless, as your demands for an expression of good faith are based solely on your unique take on reality, there's no way I could possibly meet them without taking part in your fantasy. But, as you have constructed things in such a way as to ensure that I will never be a good person, there's no incentive for me to even entertain the idea of playing along. Fortunately, for me, the evidence stands as it does. --G2bambino (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am here from the notice on Talk:Monarchy of Canada as I guess the dispute boiled over there? I am completely new to the dispute and am not familiar with your personal animosities but PrinceOfCanada's statement above that he will not be a co-operative element is concerning. If he truly meant that, it could be grounds for blocking. I choose to believe he over-stated himself but should be more careful to say what he means.
I have not looked at the dispute on this page but it appears from the talk here that you both have legitimate concerns and should co-operate or seek outside help to find a solution that satisfies you both and makes the article better for all. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In the meantime, I've begun the dispute resolution process by creating a mediation cabal case for Monarchy in Canada specifically (as it is the more well known article), but the result of which would obviously also apply here. --G2bambino (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The MedCab case is now open here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Barbados really doesn't recognize the Monarchy?[edit]

From: At the top they list the Governor-General. The Queen's representative. It is current as of this administration in power now. July 2008. CaribDigita (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Barbados.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Coat of arms of Barbados.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

" Most of the Queen's domestic duties are performed by this vice-regal representative."[edit]

I'd love to see a verifiable source that shows the Queen's domestic constitutional duties in Barbados. The sentence should read "All of the Queen's domestic duties are performed by this vice-regal representative." --LJ Holden 04:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)