User talk:Formeruser0910/archive1

Hi Gbambino.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for deciding to contribute. If you haven't already done so please have a look at Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and Wikipedia:Manual of style.

A few things to watch out for. Please don't move important and popular articles such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom without discussing it on the talk page. The names of these articles have been agreed on after much discussion, and it does not help to have someone arbitrarily move them.

You might also like to look at Talk:Canada where there is some discussion of changes you have made.

Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise. We operate here mostly by consensus rather than by conflict. Have fun, and happy editing. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please look at Talk:Canada before making more edits to that article. DJ Clayworth 20:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

If you move Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom again you will be blocked for vandalism. — Dan | Talk 20:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You've been blocked for repeatedly obnoxious behavior which constitutes vandalism. — Dan | Talk 20:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked you at jguk's request. However, please know that your edits and page-moves are bound to be controversial, so please discuss them beforehand. — Dan | Talk 20:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

HM The Queen

Gbambino

Just a note to say that we have established standards on how to deal with articles on people who have titles and styles. You may wish to refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), which says that styles, such as "Her Majesty" are not used in article names. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) her style should, however, be used in the article itself. We usually refer to someone's style right at the start of the biography, when we give their full formal name.

If you wish to discuss these policies, the best place is on the relevant talk pages, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). In the meantime, may I advise you not to make moves such as you have done to HM The Queen unless you have established a consensus to change the policy (otherwise it may get mistaken for vandalism)?

Finally, may I wish you many productive hours contributing to Wikipedia in the future? Kind regards, jguk 20:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi again

Seems like you've run into a bit of disagreement with your proposed changes to Canada. When Wikipedians make edits that others disagree with, we go to the talk page, Talk:Canada to see what others' concerns are, and to see if we can come to a compromise wording acceptable to all. It generally tends to be much more productive rather than just reinserting your edit, and we tend to end up with better articles to the benefit of all. Good luck! jguk 20:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, you should be aware that there is a rule that you should not revert an article more than three times in one day. This rule is an attempt to stop people from having to waste their time on revert wars. You should use the Talk page to discuss any issues, and to present evidence to make your case for the change that you want to make. You have already reverted the Canada page three times today, so you have used up your allotment. Please present any evidence that you might have (e.g., from the Canadian Constitution or federal legislation) on the talk page. Thank you. If other Wikipedians are persuaded by your evidence, then the change can be made. Otherwise, you can expect that your changes will not stand because there are more people who disagree with your changes than there are of you. Kevintoronto 20:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Thanks for your note. This is your user talk page, where people can leave you messages (and whenever someone besides you edits this page, you'll see a nice yellowish-orange "New messages" notice). To respond, you can leave a note on the user talk page of the person who left you the message (mine is User talk:Rdsmith4 - click the "leave me a message" link at the top).

As for the name of the EIIR article, the best place to discuss it would be that article's talk page (Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom), though I should warn you that Wikipedia has a set of guidelines regarding the titles of articles on royalty and monarchs - that's why the article on HM The Queen is titled as it is. Page moves are often controversial changes, so it's a good idea to discuss them first on the article's talk page. — Dan | Talk 21:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert wars

Please try not to get into revert wars with other users. If you continue, you may be blocked under the three revert rule, or get into further trouble. Read dispute resolution for profitable ways to settle your differences. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chronology

Can you please explain why your chronology of the Monarchist League of Canada is copied almost word for word from the chronology on the MLC website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a photocopier. Please do not cut and past material from other websites onto wikipedia.AndyL 00:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Countless pages on Wikipedia get their information from other internet sources. I did not copy the cronology verbatim, but edited it to remove any POV, and added relevant links to other Wikipedia pages. A MLC cronology is most certainly appropriate in the 'history' section of the MLC page. gbambino

If it were original, yes, but given that 90% or so is cut and paste an external link does the job nicely. AndyL 01:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's the test. Had you submitted that chronology as a school assignment, even with the changes, you would have gotten a zero for plagiarism. AndyL 01:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eventual

"Sorry, "eventual" imlpies a predetermined outcome."

No, it doesn't. It implies a gradual outcome. Look in the dictionary. AndyL 15:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether gradual or not, there is nothing to prove or guarantee that any transformation of the GG's office will eventually happen.

That's not what the sentence says! The sentence simply states the CCR's goal, not an objective fact. If you're going to be an editor try to improve your reading comprehension. AndyL 17:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CCR does not advocate a republic as a "possibility". That is what your rewriting of the sentence wrongly implies. The sentence is about what the CCR advocates and they advocate an eventual transformation to a republic. Is this really so hard for you to understand? Saying that they advocate an eventual transformation does not mean there will be an eventual transormation, it's merely a statement of their position. Most people with an elementary grasp of English would understand this. If you disagree, please consult another editor about the statement but do not revert it again unless you really want people to start thinking you're illiterate. AndyL 17:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could well understand what point the paragraph was trying to make, however I could also see that the paragraph was worded in such a way as to make it seem as though the transformation of the GG was an unavoidable eventuality in preparation for which CCR was advocating a "democratization" and codification. Subtle, but important.

You're right that "possible" was not appropriate either.

Personally, I'm content with the way it is worded now. There is no doubt anymore that the 'eventualuality' is one only percieved by CCR. And that's all it really needed -- some clarification.

I must say, your charming personality and manner always makes it such a pleasure to deal with you, AndyL. gbambino

I get frustrated by your habit of making points (such as your misdefinition of words) that have no basis in reality. 21:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi Gbambino,

Re: Elizabeth II. As you know, I still think 16 articles on Elizabeth II (and her father, and his abdicating brother, and her grandfather, and her successors) is not very useful. She is one human being -- it is her office that is unique to each Realm. I have now come to believe, therefore, your content should be at Queen of Canada. This is distinct from Monarchy in Canada which can be made to refer to the Crown. I know you feel each individual Sovereign of Canada has done many notable things for Canada, and this is true. I think it better, however, to subsume these under an "History" section in Queen of Canada. This is because much information on her physical person is redundant (if she is given 16 articles), and also because I fear less powerful Commonwealth Nations won't be represented equally in the articles that arise.

I share your view that the title of the main article is prejudicial, and I believe the Queen, were she aware, would be displeased. However, I just don't think it is possible to conform Wikipedia to strict royal protocol. I have long been fascinated with the Commonwealth as a legal entity, and I barely understand it. :) Anyway, I'd appreciate thoughts... Xoloz 06:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

16 articles for every sovereign is indeed ridiculous -- there surely could not be enough information to fill that many pages! But, it would certainly be appropriate, and feasible, for some, like Elizabeth II and possibly George VI. As I said over at the Elizabeth II of Canada deletion discussion, I'm not opposed to Queen of Canada, but still suspect it remains somewhat vague as it doesn't clarify which monarch of Canada. The thought of a possible Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada (and therefore a George VI as King of Canada) is running through my head, but, I've had trouble sleeping and its now 6:30 am! -- so maybe present thoughts should be reconsidered later...

I more view this as an issue of constitutional reality, rather than something as fleeting as royal protocol. It's a myth that the UK is still superior to the other Commonwealth Realms in this day and age, one which seems to be perpetuated in the media and schools everywhere, and one which Wikipedia seems to want to perpetuate as well. As I said elsewhere, monarchist or republican leanings aside, this is about existent fact, not opinions, and to place the UK over any other Realm is nothing more than opinion.

Have you read any works by Richard Toporoski about the Crown and it's relationship to the Commonwealth Realms-- specifically to Canada? I've read some of his articles, as well as having 'spoken' to him on the Monarchist League message board, and found his opinions and points to be really very interesting. I've basically learned all I currently know about the Crown and the Commonwealth Realms (which, admittedly, isn't too terribly much) from him. gbambino

Violation of the 3RR

I have blocked you in accordance with the 3RR policy for your reverts on Monarchist League of Canada.

The block is in effect for 24 hours. Inter\^Echo 14:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your email. The reason AndyL was not blocked is that he did not violate the policy. He reverted 3 times within 24 hours, not four, like you did. I did indeed check for this as it happens sometimes that the person reporting someone for 3RR have also violated the policy. Hope this clear things up. Inter\^Echo 17:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

The mediation committee is inactive. AndyL 20:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing factual information is vandalism. I've warned you once yet you pesist in removing information on Rouleau's ruling. I've reported the matter on the incident page and am asking that you be banned. Given that you've been banned twice before, once for vandalism, once for 3RR, I expect this ban will be longer if not permanent.AndyL 21:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Banned for valdalism? I don't recall. Unless that was back when I first came to Wikipedia and didn't know anything about procedures and policies (not an excuse, anyway).

But, as I said over at Talk:Monarchy in Canada, I'm glad you've raised the issue to others. --gbambino 21:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look at the top of your talk page. You were banned for vandalism on February 8, 2005. AndyL 22:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I thought. Caused more by ignorance than any intended malice. But, it's really irrelevant.--gbambino 22:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And do you also plead ignorance in regards to your vandalism in the Monarchy in Canada article?AndyL 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can say that I am ignorant of any vandalism taking place. Someone challenging your posting of misguided personal doubts about proven facts on a Wikipedia page does not constitute vandalism. In fact, you could be the one valdalizing by graffiti-ing your POV all over Wikipedia pages. But, I'd like for other parties to decide on the matter. --gbambino 22:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because the MLC says something doesn't make it a "proven fact". If you keep going on like this people are going to start thinking the MLC is some sort of cult. AndyL 03:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your misinterpretation of things is staggering. That the Crown is one body operating as a multiple distinct legal entites in the Realms, each equal in status and therefore giving no supremacy to Britain, is not propaganda created by the MLC. To suggest such a thing only proves that you discount the Balfour Report, the Statute of Westminster, the Canadian Department of Justice, countless legal documents, and the words of constitutional experts (all of whom support and prove the fact that the Crown in Canada is not "British") as worthless because they run contradictory with your theory. If you keep going on like this people will start thinking you're a nutjob rather like creation or holocaust deniers.--gbambino 14:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My "misinterpretation of things" is not "staggering". It is simply different from yours and indeed, in accord with the interpretation of many others. If you're going to be an editor you have to learn to accept the fact that your interpretation is not the only one that has validity and also you'll have to learn to distinguish between theory and fact and not pass off the latter as the former. Rather than cast insults at people you disagree with you need to learn how to compromise and accomodate divergent views in articles or, to be frank, you're not going to last very long as an editor. AndyL 15:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've just pointed out over at Talk:Monarchy in Canada the examples I've provided are not my theories, but the words of others to back up my point and prove that the Crown in Canada is not British.

If your interpretation is in accord with many others then provide the "others" to back up that claim.

And, just to clarify things, I never cast any personal insults at you. Please stop trying to defame me. --gbambino 15:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You just falsely accused me of editing Royal Style and Titles "simply because they do not conform to your theory" when, in fact, I was implementing a decision to merge the articles. That sounds like a personal attack to me, rather at odds with your claims to have made none. AndyL 16:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think anyone would easily recognise why you might be suspected of editing out whatever does not conform to your theory, especially when taking into consideration the fact that you did not note any reason for removing the passages. From the history of that article it seemed as though the words simply disappeared. --gbambino 16:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you lack the grace or maturity to simply apologise when you've made a mistake. Instead you rationalise and cast blame on others instead of just taking responsibility and saying sorry.

"I think anyone would easily recognise why you might be suspected of editing out whatever does not conform to your theory" Please don't project your own behaviour on to me. I try to edit in a responsible and factual manner regardless of whether the material in question is in accord to my own views. For instance, I added the info about the HMCS prefix even though I'm not a monarchist. I've also, in some places, changed "appointed by the Prime Minister" to "appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister". Where have you added facts or evidence that might be seen to support the republican side? Nowhere. All you've been doing is pushing a particular agenda to the point of removing factual information that contradicts your preferences. You are in no position to cast aspersions. AndyL 16:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you really are pulling this down to a personal level. I'm not going to get into a debate over who is more rude than who, or about who admits their mistakes and who doesn't, or about who is more impartial than who. It's silly and childish and will give aid to nothing. --gbambino 17:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You attacked me on a false premise and refuse to apologise, blaming me for your attack instead. I think that says a lot about you. AndyL 19:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Didn't blame you. Just pointed out that you were in error as well. --gbambino 19:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instead of apologising.AndyL 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DW

Just out of curiosity, are you User:DW? HistoryBA 01:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. --gbambino 14:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

The arbitration request will be rejected as I have not violated any policy (sorry, disagreeing with you over an article isn't against the rules).AndyL 03:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also don't think you can bring Peter into this without his permission. Did you actually have the courtesy to ask him if he was willing to join you in a complaint?AndyL 15:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Peter Grey has been contacted, and we have been in discussion off Wikipedia. --gbambino 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no indication of that on the RFA. Peter has ignored your request for a comment and has made no indication he agrees to be a co-complainant. AndyL 15:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Like most of what you claim on the monarchical articles, that is an assumption on your part. As I said, we're speaking about it. --gbambino 15:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not an assumption. The fact is there is nothing at the RFA that affirm's Peter's consent. I'm not assuming it, I've read the RFA myself. I would be making an assumption if I speculated that you didn't "speak about it" to Peter until after you'd gone ahead and implicated him in something but you'd have to be quite rude to have done that. AndyL 15:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe we could just set aside these procedural technicalities in the spirit of cooperation. Peter Grey 19:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I only wish that was feasable. As I said to you via email, Peter, all our attempts at discussion, provided proofs, compromise, etc., have been met with more challenge and negativity. Even when defeated, he moves on to another "problem" and starts up a fight there. Until AndyL demonstrates some kind of civility and an acceptance that what he believes may not necessarily be true, I feel I must proceed with the technicalities. As it stands now, I can't handle his purposefully antagonistic attitude any longer. I do have patience, and a hope that people with differing views can get along, but it has certainly reached its limit.

That said, I appreciate your further attempts at diplomacy, and do hope it has effect. But as I said, until I see some change in AndyL (and, franky, I hope I do), I'll proceed with the course of action I have already started. --gbambino 20:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

gbambino, I can't help reading what you've written above and thinking that you really should follow your own advice. Everything you say above actually applies to you, not me, (particularly the "defeated" part or have you forgotten all the arguments you've lost with myself and others these past few months?)20:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Negociation, maybe?

I've put up a suggestion that might suit everyone. (Stranger things have happened!) See Talk:Monarchist League of Canada#Compromise Proposal A Peter Grey 09:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monarchist League of Canada and Monarchy in Canada

Please review Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Monarchist League of Canada and Monarchy in Canada and if you agree to Mediation, sign in there. Thank you. User:Ed Poor, Mediation Committee Chairman pro tem. July 4, 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Mediation request

I have done so. Thank you for your attention towards this matter. --gbambino 8 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

• I wasn't involved from the beginning, and I'm not sure what specific issue was originally identified, but I've added a list of problems with the current version. Peter Grey 17:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

In your comment line you wrote " Statute of Westminster 1931 (ÆCommonwealth powers over the monarchy - point irrelevant-- parliaments still bound by constitution) "

Pleae read the article on parliamentary supremacy. The point is in those countries with no codified constitution the constitution can be changed by a simple statute and no statute has supremacy over another so no, parliaments are not bound by the constitution in the sense you are thinking since they can change the constitution by simply passing a bill whereas in Canada, Australia etc a constitutional amendment is required which necessitates consent from outside of parliament (ie by provincial or local legislatures, referenda etc). AndyL 8 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

Parliamentary supremacy is still irrelevant to the altering of a Realm's line of succession as the preamble to the Statute is not leaglly binding, it is a convention only. Though Canada does face more challenges than New Zealand when it comes to constitutional ammendments, the Canadian governments could still alter the line of succession to the Canadian Throne without the consent of the other Realms anyway! Whether or not the words in the preamble to the Statute are there or not, each Realm can alter its line of succession if it so chooses. The words merely verbalise the importance of the maintenance of the amicable and agreed upon relationship between the Commonwealth Realms as central to the unity of the Crown. --gbambino 8 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Rouleau ruled that the preamble was legally binding (in Canada anyway), otherwise he couldn't have dismissed O'Donohue's challenge. 70.48.90.143 8 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

AndyL failed with this line of reasoning before. As discussed on Talk:Monarchist League of Canada: "There are two principles in the succession of the Crown in Canada: the succession is unchanged from the constitutional situation in 1931, and the succession is identical in all the Commonwealth Realms. (Rouleau alluded to these.)" There are hypotheticals that could bring these into contradiction, create ambiguity, possibly precipitate a constitutional crisis (somewhere). It may or may not merit discussion. Peter Grey

He didn't say the preamble is legally binding -- the preamble to an Act is not a part of the Act itself, and therefore not a part of law! What Rouleau makes blatantly clear is that it is the cooperative relationship between the Commonwealth Realms, which the preamble to the Statute of Westminster verbalises, that is supreme. Though Canada has the ability to alter the Act of Settlement as it sees fit, to do so unilaterally would a) contradict constitutional convention, b) break the cooperative relationship between the Commonwealth Realms, and c) fracture the unity of the Crown. --gbambino 8 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

But the only part of the Statute of Westminster that deals with the monarchy and the succession is the preamble and it is the wording of the preamble that Rouleau based his ruling upon. Therefore the preamble is legally binding, at least in Canada. If the preamble were not binding Rouleau would have had no choice but to rule that the Charter of Rights supercedes the rules of succession since the Act of Settlement is not actually in the schedule of the Canadian Constitution and thus could be struck down by the Charter if it weren't for the preamble to the Statute of Westminster.AndyL 8 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

the Act of Settlement is not actually in the schedule of the Canadian Constitution Wrong. From Rouleau: despite the fact that it was not listed in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, the Act of Settlement was intended to be a component of our constitutional enactments. Peter Grey 8 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

[3] The Act of Settlement is an imperial statute adopted by the United Kingdom in 1701. By its terms it provides that it is an act "established and declared" in the "Kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging". As a result it became and remains part of the laws of Canada.

Then it's "received law" much like much of the law in Canada at least in the early years after confederation. Received law is treated like statute law and amendable by statute. If this wasn't the case the Criminal Code of Canada, along with thousands of other pieces of legislation, could not have been passed unilaterally by the Canadian Parliament.

But in any case, in clause 31 of his ruling, Rouleau specifically invokes the preamble to the Statute of Westminster without any qualification whatsoever and treats it as the equal of ever other part of the codified constitution, ie that part of the constitution that is supreme law (there are other parts of the Canadian Constitution that are simple statute law and thus are not supreme, I suspect the Act of Settlement would be an example of this were it not for the preamble to the Statute of Westminster which Rouleau cites as legally binding.). AndyL 8 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

What exactly is the argument here? The Act of Settlement is a part of Canadian constitutional law. The Statute of Westminster is a part of Canadian constitutional law. Canada has the power to ammend or repeal these laws in regards to the line of succession to the Canadian Throne, however, the preamble to the Statute of Westminster verbalises the constitutional convention that any alterations to the Canadian line of succession should be agreed upon and implimented by the other 15 Realms. As you stated to me once earlier AndyL, in your typical condescending manner, the constitution is not merely made up of written law, but includes many very important unwritten conventions. These conventions are not "supreme laws", nor are they even a legal part of any Act of Parliament, but that does not, in any way, undermine their constitutional importance. Not only is the convention outlined in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster central to Canada's constitutional structure, as Rouleau points out, but it is also central to the relationship of Canada to the other Commonwealth Realms under the shared Crown, as Rouleau also points out. It is because of this that nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can override this convention. It seems that everyone, including Rouleau, is clear on this, and it is only you, AndyL, who adamantly refuses to let existant fact in any way diminish your need to lie and manipulate on Wikipedia in the hopes you can convert people to republicanism. --gbambino 8 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

1) It's amend, not ammend.

2) The problem is you needlessly removed a factual, and yes, relevant, section from the Statute of Westminster article (and no, I wasn't its author). Evidently, Peter Grey does not agree with your attempt to remove the sentences in question given his edits so you're alone on this one.

Please be more careful in the future. AndyL 9 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Is there actually anything under question? (AndyL's PoV, errors of fact, and original research don't count.) Peter Grey 9 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)

Amazing, AndyL, constitutional convention suits you when you wish to use it (or manipulate it) to back up your argument, yet you can toss it aside when it doesn't. I suppose this is why you ignored my earlier point, which I will repeat here again for you: What Rouleau makes blatantly clear is that it is the cooperative relationship between the Commonwealth Realms, which the preamble to the Statute of Westminster verbalises, that is supreme. Though Canada has the ability to alter the Act of Settlement as it sees fit, to do so unilaterally would a) contradict constitutional convention, b) break the cooperative relationship between the Commonwealth Realms, and c) fracture the unity of the Crown.

"[33] As a result of the Statute of Westminster it was recognized that any alterations in the rules of succession would no longer be imposed by Great Britain and, if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to he maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth. This arrangement can be compared to a treaty among the Commonwealth countries to share the monarchy under the existing rules and not to change the rules without the agreement of all signatories. While Canada as a sovereign nation is free to withdraw from the arrangement and no longer be united through common allegiance to the Crown, it cannot unilaterally change the rules of succession for all Commonwealth countries. Unilateral changes by Canada to the rules of succession, whether imposed by the court or otherwise, would be contrary to the commitment given in the Statute of Westminster, would break symmetry and breach the principle of union under the British Crown set out in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867. Such changes would, for all intents and purposes, bring about a fundamental change in the office of the Queen without securing the authorizations required pursuant to s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982."

"[38] In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of the Crown, one of the branches of our government, but rather to disrupt the core of how the monarchy functions, namely the rules by which succession is determined. To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure."

Nowhere does Rouleau say the preamble is "legally binding," but everywhere he does make clear the fact that the conventions and intentions outlined in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and the Constitution Act are integral components of our constitutional structure, as well as being central to the relationship between the Commonwealth Realms, and Canada's position amongst them. These conventions must be adhered to in all the other Realms, for the same reasons Rouleau outlines in his ruling in regard to Canada (quoted above), meaning those Realms too are bound, by the conventions outlined in the Statute of Westminster in their constitutions, not to unilaterally alter the line of succession. Therefore, New Zealand and the U.K. recognising Parliamentary supremacy is meaningless in regards to the Statute of Westminster in Canada, as well as being irrelevant to the agreement in regards to the Monarchy between all 16 of the Commonwealth Realms. --gbambino 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

British Crown

Thanks for your message. Unfortunately AndyL is under the mistaken impression that I know nothing of Canada (stereotypical attitude towards Americans), despite my own personal connections there (and also having spent a significant amount of time in Canada over the years as such), not that I have to justify my interest in Canada to anyone on here. That said, I also agree with you concerning balance - the main reason I opposed the inclusion of a republican web link on Monarchist League of Canada was due to the fact that there is no link to the League in the CCR article. While I believe in balance, I also do not believe in double-standards - it's bad enough that the existence and validity of the Canadian monarchy must be justified on WP (as if things are such that the whole system will collapse if monarchy remains) - WP should be used to promote education (free of bias), not hinder it.

Also, please see my comments on Talk:British monarchy. Currently, British Crown redirects there. I believe that the Crown deserves its own article, as it is shared equally between the realms. The way it is right now, it might appear that the Crown favours the UK above all others (which as I'm sure you are well aware of, is false). What are your thoughts? SouthernComfort 9 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

The Crown over the Commonwealth Realms, AKA the British Crown by default, the Queen reigning as a seperate entity in each realm, and the shifting nomenclature attached to all of it, is a very complex matter. I've been giving some thought as to how to deal with this -- perhaps a section on the British Crown article, with links to articles related to the Crown's operation in each Realm, but I just haven't had the time to sort out a clear proposal. --gbambino 16:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Articles about the monarchy

I put together a list of articles related to the monarchy (essentially for my own personal reference) on my talk page. I'd be grateful for any suggestions you might want to make as to other relevant articles. Peter Grey 11:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Personall union

Can you please help me at Talk:Personal union? Homey 13:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen's Privy Council

I see you've broken the 3 revert rule. It would be better to sort this out in the talk page before you continue to revert. Astrotrain 21:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have not. 3 is my limit, and 3 is all I have done. Discussion is encouraged, however. --gbambino 21:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

QPC

We have both reverted three times. If you revert again you've broken the 3RR. A silly thing to break the 3RR over as you've already admitted that the point you are reverting is correct. Homey 16:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't count edits as reverts. The text has changed substantially over the course of the morning. I have just done my first direct revert now as I never stated what you inserted was "correct" -- only that it was logical, but still an assumption. --gbambino 17:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Actually, I take that back. It seems I've just done my third revert. One more and I will violate 3RR. --gbambino 17:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be far more productive if, instead of wasting my time and yours with nit-picking, you actually go out and find a copy of McWhinney's book. I'm not going to have time to do it until the weekend, at least.Homey 17:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You're wasting an equal amount of time here, Andy/Homey, mostly because you seem somewhat irritated that your assumptions have been called into question and you don't actually have the proof to back them up. (Sound familiar?) Anyway, likewise, all I can do now is limited to whatever's available on the internet. I may be able to swing by Chapters on my lunch & see if his book is in stock there. --gbambino 17:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"You're wasting an equal amount of time here" um, yes, I did say we're both wasting time. You should try to get past this "tit-for-tat" mode of argument. You do have things worth listening to but your habit for knee-jerk responses discourages one from reading your comments seriously. That's a shame, you're better than the debating strategies you employ. Homey 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Intriguing... --gbambino 18:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to the offensive message you left on my talk page: So you've expanded your range of arguments by adding "you're picking on me" to "I know you are but so am I". Please try to be more mature, given that you're trying to reverse my addition to Queen's Privy Council for Canada your claims of being "stalked" are not only offensive but bizarre. I find arguing with you a chore and a bore, believe me, I do not seek it out. Queen's Privy Council for Canada is on my watchpage because I was editing it long before you ever came on the scene (try checking the history and you'll see I'm the fifth person to have ever edited it). As for Commonwealth Realm, I created that article in the first place so stop acting as if you're the only one with a right to edit those articles and anyone else is trespassing or worse "stalking" when, in fact, I was editing them long before you which is why they are on my watch page and which is why I monitor changes to them. Homey 00:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

On July 31 I edited Adrienne Clarkson, you edited it on Aug 1. On Aug. 26 I edited Head of the Commonwealth, you edited it Aug. 26. On Jul. 23 I edited Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II, you edited it July 23. And, most strangely of all, I edited Upper Canada College on Aug. 28, you edited it on Aug. 29. Are all these on your watchlist as well? I'm curious to know what interest you have in UCC...

Anyway, and by the way, my comments were somewhat tongue in cheek, with a slight hint of sarcasm. Lighten up. --gbambino 00:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I created the article Head of the Commonwealth and have been editing the Adrienne Clarkson since long before you which is why they're on my watchlist, along with Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II. As for UCC, if you check the history, you'll see I edited it on July 2nd of this year, about six weeks before you first contributed to it, so obviously my "interest in" it has nothing to do with you.

I'm sorry but in my book the term "stalking" is not a "tongue in cheek" or light comment. It is true that more experienced editors will go over edits of less experienced editors or editors who have a habit of making mistakes, that's the nature of collaborative editing, a concept which it seems you still don't really appreciate. Homey 00:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to admit anything other than it's all a bit strange -- your undoubted suveilance of my editing, as well as your hyper-sensitivity. Collaborative editing is one thing (which I have no problem with), but people who think they are the Wikipolice and then get all huffy when someone spots them is another thing all together. --gbambino 15:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"as well as your hyper-sensitivity". You leave a hysterical message on my talk page accusing me of stalking and *I'm* the one being hyper-senstive?Homey 16:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The "hysteria" was all your own creation. --gbambino 16:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh that's right, you were just being "tongue in cheek".

I have tried to be more respectful and nicer to you in the past few days than I was in our previous dispute a few weeks ago. I am still going to try but it would be helpful if you tried as well. Homey 17:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

ROM Article Expansion

Just wanted to thank you for the extensive work you've done adding extra content to the "Building" section of the Royal Ontario Museum article -- you've saved me from undertaking the research I was planning on doing in this area myself. Don't take offense, but I will likely make some changes later to your referenced link and turn it into a referencable footnote, which I found out the hard way is the proper way of adding proper references to articles rather than inline links (which is admittedly common practice).

I don't know if you have anything to contribute in this area, but I have been working on an article on the building adjacent to the ROM, the McLaughlin Planetarium. If you have any further architectural info on this building or can fill any informational holes (especially those I've referenced here), it would be much appreciated!

Cheers! Captmondo 19:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm actually still in the middle of editing the section, but I certainly won't take any offence to your editing to include more info or correct mistakes I've made! --gbambino 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just did my copyedit/spell check along with some *minor* additions. Am impressed with what you have added. Next time I head to the Museum (hopefully over the next week) will see if I can take some shots of the architecture elements that you reference, and add them to the article.

I also wanted to query you about one line which wasn't clear to me, under "First Expansion": "The new building required the demolition of Argyle House, a Victorian mansion at 100 Queen's Park, the structure was designed by Alfred H. Chapman and James Oxley." Are the architects mentioned here the designers of Argyle House, or of the ROM expansion (which was mentioned in the line before)? And I seem to remember that one of the complaints about the Terraced Galleries was that they were prone to leaks, and possibly other problems as well. Can't find any documentary evidence about that, but just thought I'd ask you in case you know anything more -- was the demolishion of the Terraced Galleries perhaps *necessary*?

Arguably the next thing that needs to be done with the ROM article is to describe the names/types of galleries and collections on display at the ROM in more detail than is currently there. In addition, an rough architectural plan of the building would be a good thing to have, perhaps showing the development of the ROM over time.

If you ever feel so inclined, anything you can weigh in on from an architectural point of view on such topics as the buildings of the CNE (another pet project of mine) would be appreciated! Cheers, and thanks again for your efforts! Captmondo 13:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the confusing wording about the architects and the Victorian mansion - that was a sloppy slip on my part. As was my spelling!

I don't know anything about leaking in the Terrace Galleries. I never liked the spaces in there, but as far as I know the building was sound.

I also don't know much about the galleries themselves, but would figure that any information about them should wait until the renovations are complete. Perhaps I could add more later about the original galleries in the first two buildings.

And I'll have a look at the CNE buildings articles when I get a chance. --gbambino 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Was doing some more research on the history of the building of the ROM, and I ran across a good article in an old copy of Rotunda magazine, dating from just before the Terraced Gallery expansion was due to open. I am currently working on expandng the McLaughlin Planetarium article further (based, in part, on another article from the same magazine), and figured that you may be interested in a copy of the article in the meantime. If so, go to: http://www.frantics.org/ROM-Article/ where I have opsted scans the individual pages that comprise it. It has some interesting pics which may be possible to include under "fair use". Will remove said pages once I know you have a copy. Cheers! Captmondo 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain

Hi. I'm curious about your edit comment, "gay" is a bit POV for Brokeback. To me, gay and same-sex are synonyms. Why would one be POV and the other not? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

They're not synonyms to many people. One can have a same-sex relationship and not be gay (ie. bisexuals, for a simple example). There's no agreement between reviewers, critics, or even the cast and crew of Brokeback, as to whether the characters are gay, or this is a gay love story, or not. So, as whether it's "gay" is open to interpretation, but whether it's "same-sex" is not, it would seem that "same-sex" is the safest route to go within an encyclopaedia. --gbambino 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chalice.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chalice.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 09:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chrch2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chrch2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

discipline

You orter know by now that if you create a mistake article such as Queen elizabeth II definitive stamp (Canada), you do not blank it, you mark it {{db-author}} or (as in this case) convert it to a redirect. -- RHaworth 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I "orter" know, but unfortunately I made the new article before I redirected, thereby negating any attempt to redirect. Also, I wasn't aware there was an actual template for such a thing. But thanks for pointing it out. --gbambino 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You get around

Hi. Just thought I'd check out your user page as we're currently debating matters of mutual interest. You have certainly been places, man. Just one thing - the "Devon" in Tasmania was probably Devonport. Cheers. JackofOz 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, if that's where you caught the ferry, it's definitely Devonport. JackofOz 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:UCC-duke.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:UCC-duke.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

It looks like Canadian copyright comes into existence automatically when the work is created just like in the U.S., so the image cannot be considered public domain without specific release from the website (which I do not see). The image source you reference seems to be from an ftp site and not accessible from the main UCC page. If this is not a "published" image then fair use will not apply and the image should not be on Wikipedia. If it was a published image, then you need to use the {{fairusein|Upper Canada College}} tag and provide rationale for fair use per Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law -Nv8200p talk 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The image is published on the site, in the History section located here: Then & Now: 1970s. I'll try and follow your advice for fair use ASAP. --gbambino 17:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice job. I removed the PUI tag and withdrew the nomination Thanks. -Nv8200p talk 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't taken out the pictures deliberately, I was just trying to revert to the last 2-column table. Homey 05:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:QE-1967-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:QE-1967-1.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701

A user is trying to re-wrtie this article as a piece of English legislation only, ignoring its current context as the main law governing the succession of the thrones in each Commonwealth Realm. I had attempted to NPOV it earlier, but I fear he may start an edit war over this. You may want to take a look. Astrotrain 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:CApic15.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CApic15.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Flag-MLC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag-MLC.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Excuse me, why did you revert my change to Upper Canada College? It makes sense when writing for an international audience to identify the country in which the school is located very, very early in the article. The province, for most readers, is very much a secondary issue. Many if not most readers outside of canada will be only vaguely aware of what Ontario is. Telling them that the school is in Canada gives them the info the need to place the school geographically. Ground Zero | t 22:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It was unintentional. My restoration of the removed material occurred simultaneously with yours, and your edit was lost in the process. You'll note that I've replaced your version. --gbambino 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine. I have semi-protected the page due to vandalism, as you will see. The anon user seemed to be removing large portions of text to make a point, which is not what editing is all about. I hope that you do not disagree with the semi-protection. regards, Ground Zero | t 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree with the move at all. --gbambino 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Upper Canada College

Please be careful. You removed the tag, here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand... --gbambino 08:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm doubly sorry - now I think I do see what you mean - the "semi-protected" tag. Yes, that was my carelessness. My apologies. --gbambino 08:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No problems. I thought it funny that it sat for two days and nobody noticed as they were too busy arguing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

G: with considerable trepidation, and all possible fingers crossed, I have lifted semi-protection. Let's hope that things don't all fall apart too quickly. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MLC-Aimers-Anne.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MLC-Aimers-Anne.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MLC-aimersanne.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MLC-aimersanne.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:QE-1951-2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:QE-1951-2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 09:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:QE-2002-11.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:QE-2002-11.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 14:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

John Aimers/MLC

I'm a bit unclear on the meaning of your edit to John Aimers (and particularly your edit note). I've taken it to mean he's no longer Dominion Chairman and have made an edit to that effect (ie changed "is" to "was") but I want to be sure I haven't misunderstood you. IE has he resigned (or been removed) from the position or is he simply inactive or on some sort of leave of absence?Homey 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I see how it was a little unclear. I've tried to edit it to remedy the problem. --gbambino 22:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth I - Monarch of Canada?

Hi Gbambino,

I've raised the question of the encyclopedic validity of categorising Elizabeth I as Monarch of Canada on her talk page. If you can help out, I'd really appreciate your input. Thanks.  :-) --Estarriol ^talk 08:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Residences of Queen Elizabeth II

Hi,

I see you've almost managed an edit war with User:Adam Carr at Governor-General of Australia. I think you would do well to desist, and if you feel strongly and have relevent cites, discuss it on the talk page. Queen Elizabeth II does not have an official residence in Australia - she stays at the official residences of the Governor-General or state Governors. I also note that the Rideau Hall website says it is the official residence of the Governor-General, not the monarch, so I undid your edit to that article, too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:EIIR-80-sm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EIIR-80-sm.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Great edit

Great edit on the Canada politics section :) -- Jeff3000 17:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Govt-Can-chart.jpg- excellent diagram! Astrotrain 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --gbambino 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I observe that you have done a footnote cleanup (as they say) in the article on the Royal Family in right of Canada. I can't work out how to negotiate the footnoting protocols in Wikipedia; perhaps you could lend a hand by adding the following, regarding George VI and Queen Elizabeth's (as she then was) side trip to Washington and New York in 1939, accompanied by Mackenzie King rather than by a British minister, by way of making a point: the citation is Doris Kearns Goodwin, No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The home front in World War II (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994). Thanks. It would be useful if Wikipedia would just lay down some ironclad protocols in citation of sources but even the MLA has gone all mealy-mouthed on the subject and look at the fix that quite respectable academics are getting into over plagiarism! Masalai 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:EIIR-80.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:EIIR-80.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Angr (t • c) 10:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family Brian | (Talk) 09:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since its likely Canadian Royal Family will be deleted in the next day or so I've copied the contents to User:Gbambino/Canadian Royal Family.Homey 03:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already merged much of the not-repeated info to Monarchy in Canada. The Canadian Royal Family article can be deleted without worry. --gbambino 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR reminder

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jkelly 16:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. As you can probably see from previous discussions here, I'm well aware of 3RR. It obviously isn't my intent to engage in wars, but one would think cited material wouldn't be so "controvercial." --gbambino 16:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

thumb size in RMS Queen Elizabeth 2

I notice you undid my generalization of the thumbs in RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. Your comment says replacing thumb sizes for article appearance which I agree is a worthy goal. However, the article's appearance greatly depends on the size and resolution of the viewing computer display, choice of browser and browser window size (not everyone maximizes their browser). Undoubtedly, that which looks good to you won't necessarily look the same for anyone else, let alone be readable. According to WP:EIS:

... the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences).

Do you think a special circumstance is warranted here? EncMstr 17:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I wouldn't say it's an exceptional circumstance - though, I don't know what criteria make an article or image exceptonal, really. But, when the thumbs were generalized they appeared tiny within the article - to me, at least, and on two different computers. The appearance of the images stays the same, regardless of whether my window is minimised or maximized = again, for me anyway. Further, images in about 99% of the articles I've ever worked on had the px size stated, so that's the way I've always done it. Is there really any advantage to generalizing them? --gbambino 01:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What size do you have your thumbnail preference set to? Click here, then on "files".

The chief advantage is for those with slow connections. The data transfer is limited with smaller images—unlike many websites, the wiki projects perform image scaling on the fly (rather than transfer the whole image and specify browser scaling). A user of a slow connection can always click on the thumbnail to see a larger rendition of it. EncMstr 15:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)