User talk:G2bambino/Archive 5

Adminship request

Dear g2bambino, As one of the users I come accross most frequently (especially monarchy related pages!)I would like to ask you to see if you would be willing to take the time to review some of my work and post your vote on my adminship request page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Camaeron). Thanks and keep up the good work! Cameaeron

PM infoboxes content

My 'recent' conversation at talk: Kevin Rudd, has gotten me bewildered - they prefer inconsistancy (even among the Aussie PM infoboxes). There's certainly is a need for consistancy across the board. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya may have trouble getting the 'across the board consistancy' passed. The editors at the Australian related articles, don't seem like they would accept it. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding this all quite bizzarre. It seems we have 98% of PM articles with a head of state listed in their infobox; one person may have put them there, but there's as of yet no evidence this was the case, and that doesn't change the fact that's the way it currently stands. Canada and Australia are now part of the 2% of articles that don't have a head of state in the infoboxes. For consitency's sake, one would think Canada and Australia should follow suit; if they don't, it leaves the impression, when compared to other PM articles, that Canada and Australia don't have a head of state, or that the PM somehow is head of state.

Methinks political motivations are outweighing a desire for uniformity and clarity of information. --G2bambino (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that too (but it's difficult to proove). I do know this much, the 2% will put up a fight to remain the way they are. The Australian editors (for exmple), seem united in keeping out the 'Monarch'. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Austrlian editors who see keeping out the HoS as big enough an issue to unite on it. It really is mob rule, and this is why I'd like to see a guideline set up to avoid such situations - on either side of the coin. --G2bambino (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a 'guideline' aswell. Though even with a guideline, there'd still be resistance. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted at Wikipedia: WikiProject Canada 'bout a couple of days ago. So far? no response from them. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't taking the Mickey

I wasn't making fun of your beliefs with that last remark m8. I was just suggesting that if the Queen isn't the occasion of much debate in Canada, is there really much value in the article?--Gazzster (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but, actually, I didn't take it in that way at all. I've responded there, anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dominion. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Quebec page

Let's leave the Canada page alone for now and focus on the Quebec page for now. You've been a great help in moving along the discussion, and we now have a consensus between Ramdrake and myself. Let's broaden the consensus. --soulscanner (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed tags in Canada

Could you please specify on the article's talk page exactly what your objections are. The governor general appointing the Prime Minister is a fundamental part of how Canada's government works, so you will have to be a bit more clear about what part of the sentence you feel is factually inaccurate. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. --G2bambino (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Most Gracious Majesty. It makes me mad if people comment on things they dont know the slightest bit about. With you I know you take an active interest in monarchy related topics. Thanks --Camaeron (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. --G2bambino (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit on Canadian Majesty also! I didnt know there was a seperate article on styles of the canadian sovereign. Thought Id meet you there somehow, how did you find it? --Camaeron (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... maybe I just spend too much time on Wikipedia! ;) --G2bambino (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Precedence

Please see http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/pe/precedence_e.cfm which I think you'll agree is definitive. Unless you have a source that suggests otherwise your reversions are, at best, original research and at worst absolutely contrary to documented evidence. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hey G2. I know the discussion got a bit heated. I just want to tell you that I'm not your enemy or anything, I'm just trying to get it right (or at least as right as we can get it based on our sources). I'm sure that if we come across each other on other issues we'll be on the same side. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. Our precedence discussion is nothing compared to others I've been in, and, in fact, I've appreciated your level-headedness. --G2bambino (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well look, I think you may be right and that in practice when a royal other than the Queen is present they are given precedence - I just don't see any documentation that says that. Even a newspaper report would be helpful. If you can find a clipping or something that makes it clear that a visiting royal enjoyed a certain position in precedence it would help. The problem though is that I believe this sort of thing would generally come up at military ceremonies, honour guards etc, non-military examples are harder to find. (And actually, if it's a fact that military applications of the order of precedence are far more common than non-military ones that would be an argument for giving the military table more attention - do you know of any documents, articles, reports or books that discuss how and when precedence is applied ie frequency of it being done for military purposes vs civilian?). Perhaps we can find an example of a state dinner or something or a reception at an airport? As for the order for the royals themselves I don't think there'd be very much practical evidence on that front as it's quite rare in Canada to have more than one royal show up for an event (unless they are married but in that case it would be pretty clear who is a royal by birth and who is a royal by virtue of being married to the other). My guess is that when minor royals visit their official duties are usually related to the military - presiding over a regimental dinner, inspecting troops, granting of regimental colours etc. They might attend a dinner held by the federal, provincial or municipal government but then it would always be as a "guest of honour" so their place in the order of precedence wouldn't be an issue. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

Thanks G2. I'm certain the Russian Constitution says only the President can nominate someone for prime minister. Medvedev is only 'President-elect'. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Governments of Canada

I've contacted that Project, concerning MP office tenures. Care to take a peek? GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fan Clubs

By the way, did you know Tharky's got a growing fan club? You just gotta check out his home page. I actually get a kick out of it. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that. I sense too much sarcasm therein for me to believe they're true fans, but I gotta give 'em an A for creativity! And, hey - Tharky likes the attention. --G2bambino (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm AGF of course. I'm just hoping there's no sockpuppetry involved. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes; not trying to jump to conclusions or anything. But Thark is known to make enemies ;) Funny, though; sockpuppetry crossed my mind too. But, somehow I doubt it. --G2bambino (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll sock you with a puppet! For DARING to doubt the legitimacy of our Order! Just wait until I get the Anthem written..ShieldDane (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah! I scoff in the face of your mealy, flea-bitten puppets! Begone before I thwart you Tharkites with a thunderous THWAK! --G., Second Baron Bambino of Old York Town (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The follower ShieldDane, has giveth help to the Lord Tharky at an article. Hopefully, if it becomes a habit, the overseer Checkuser, won't be suspicious. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I got guizzy feeling in my guizzard, that ShieldDane's posting at Tharky's ANI, may cause sock-pupperty accusations (and a Checkuser intervention). GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm doubting more and more whether there's any sockpuppetry going on - at least between Thark and ShieldDane. --G2bambino (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm keeping my fingers crossed, for Tharky's sake. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Man they've been hounding me all day. When that guy decided to delete the Coat of Arms image, he also tried to get deleted an image I uploaded for an article I made. Then that Joshua guy went all personal mission on Thark, and then me. And then some random admin kid starts demanding i change my user page, and then i think he nearly gets some bot/admin/user to delete my user page but then undoes it. And for the record, I nor is any one of my minions a sock puppet, we're all real people with one account. >< I'd expect you two to have a good enough idea on that by now. Speaking of which how does Checkuser work and will I be able to see the results (force them in joushuaroony's face) ShieldDane (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They've all been found 'not guilty' of sockpuppetry. Also Joshuarooney has 'ironically' been blocked for what appears to be suspected sockpuppetry. Hmm, I wonder if Josh is actually Eliot Spitzer? -- GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No one from my Crew is from Australia, and i think they tried to count Adrien Fletcher as one of us, and said we were from 'GB, USA, Canada and Australia...which means Adrien was from Australia. Now what I wonder is if Adrien and Joshua aren't the same? (also that should be really a good case example how biased admin's or admin's who are too busy defeating alleged "raciest" posters, with 'concern raising' userpages, can totally miss what is actually going on...) ShieldDane (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I'm curious as to why you edited one of my comments on a talk page for no reason? It wasn't offensive in any way. I was under the impression that people weren't suppose to edit other people's comments. Gopher65 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but "(Canada Has No Pants, Canada Needs No Pants. Hahahahaha.)" would appear to be vandalism. Others' talk page comments can indeed be altered if they contain offensive remarks, copyvios, or utter nonsense. I believe the sentence you're balking about falls into the last category. --G2bambino (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jaw drops open* HOW exactly is that an offensive comment? It is a play on an internet meme (Gondor Has No Pants, Gondor Needs No Pants) based on the Lord of the Rings ("Gondor Has No King, Gondor Needs No King"). It comes from the fact that in the 1978 film adaptation of the tLoTR by Ralph Bakshi Aragorn wears a loincloth, and therefore "wears no pants". We were talking about Canada as a kingdom, so therefore "Canada needs no pants" ----> "Canada needs no King" seems to flow quite nicely in my mind. Gopher65 (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was offensive, I said it fell into the last category: nonsense. You'll have to understand Wikipedia is full of users who insert babble just to be juvenile and cause a stink; often they include things like "Hahahahaha," and not many have an underlying message behind their actions. I'm sorry I didn't get the obscure reference. Perhaps next time you should start off with: "To paraphrase Tolkien..." At least that way I, and others, would have known what you said was based on something else. --G2bambino (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point.Gopher65 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonestown

Why, thank you. Thankyouverymuch. :) The truth is, it just annoyed the heck out of me and seemed very contentious considering he had never dealt with me or an article on which I've worked before. It was out of line. I know that there are people out there who are like that, but it's always a little difficult for me to bite my...erm... fingers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wessex-LW2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wessex-LW2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Governors General of Canada

Sorry, every table before the one I edited was "governor from" and "governor until," so I assumed that it was the same as all of the others! The setup is rather confusing. Thanks for catching that.--Nkrosse (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family article

I believe I was against such an article before; but I've softened in the last few months. If you create (re-create) that article, I'll support its existants. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't; Canadian Royal Family has been permanently locked as a redirect to Monarchy of Canada. There's a process to go through to reinstate the article, but it would mean convincing others to do it. --G2bambino (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fear not. I've made a recommendation at Monarchy of Canada, for shortening that article. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I fear. I fear that's going to raise a stink because there were/are some people who'll vehemently oppose such a move. Just check out some of the nasty, POV commentary at the articles's AfD entry for a taste. --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nearly 2 years have past. If I can change? so can they. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the opposition to Canadian Royal Family still exists. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles revisited

Hello, since you commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey G2

Hey g2, As the only monarchist I regularly come accross I wondered if you would be interested in co-founding a Wikiproject with me. I have noticed a lack of guidance on articles that are commonwealth realms (obviously the British have their own one but the other 15 dont have any guidance at all). So I was thinking something along the lines of Wikiproject:Commonwealth realms. I also contacted GoodDay and he recommended you too... I have a rough idea here. Please take the time to have a look and feel free to edit anything there. Hoping for a positive response, regards --Camaeron (t/c) 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

I've endorsed the idea. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you brought such an idea up before, GoodDay. Personally, I can't see a reason why this shouldn't be pursued, but there might be some people who'd try to hijack it to promote their agendas. But I don't think that should necessarily thwart you. So, sign me up! --G2bambino (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You must sign up 'yourself', as I can't use your moniker. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I did at Camaeron's Sandbox version of the project page, but, now that you mention it, I see he didn't transfer those over to the real thing. I've put my moniker there now. --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So you have; welcome aboard. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt transfer the monikers but that is classed as me "using you moniker". --Cameron (t/c) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Verification Tag at Monarchy of Australia

Hi! Good Lord, don't you ever sleep? I wonder if you can shed any light on the statement in Monarchy of Australia: Legal Role, to which I have placed a verification tag.--Gazzster (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:UKUSA

I have raised concerns at Talk:UKUSA Community and Template talk:UKUSA about your addition of head of state details to Template:UKUSA which you created and placed in several articles . You appeared to have ignored my edit summaries when I reverted your earlier additions of the head of state details. --Matilda ^talk 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This user would like to nominate you!

Hey g2bambino! Ever though about going for adminship? I have noticed you spend a lot of time "mopping" up (after me!) and people in general! Your edit count is very high and you contribute on a daily basis! Just a thought... Regards --Cameron (t/c) 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Whatcha say G2? GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem... well, thanks for the thought! But, really, I've too storied a history here at Wikipedia for any adminship nomination to go through successfully. I'm not sure I'd want the responsibility either. --G2bambino (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What's in the past is in the past. Even the guys at Rfa know that! GD agree's....we could co-nominate you. co-noms always look good. You'd make a great admin...go on! --Cameron (t/c) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

G2, from working with you in the past on certain issues, I also recommend you give a go for adminship. Roguegeek (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to ponder on it. --G2bambino (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Expect that a couple people who strongly dislike you will oppose on some flimsy ground or another, but it'll probably be less than you expect (certainly I got less than I expected). If you can give good answers to questions and defend your block log, you might well make it. I dunno, I'd support you, I think. WilyD 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Welcome to the struggle. PS- You'll probably meet SFC shortly. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not completely comfortable with nation being in that article's introduction, either. I'd still argue that the 'Scottish' (the people) are a nation, not Scotland (the land). PS- that was a heated discussion there, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now I see what you mean; there appears to be a gang of nationally motivated editors who've decided their narrow group creates a consensus and have taken ownership of the article in order to maintain it. Nasty indeed. I think this group ties the "nation" issue and the map issue together. Well, these things usually work themselves out in the end. --G2bambino (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed, I'm not very popular on that article. Oh well, I've been claiming 'group ownership' there; guess it fair for them to suggest I'm a conspirator. It hurts all the more, as I've got Scottish lineage. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that when the topic was taken beyond the Scotland article a vast majority seemed to favour the Scotland-in-UK map, while the same obstinate three or four still fight for the Scotland-alone map, I think ownership issues might indeed be present. UKPhoenix did earlier raise a viable alternative, which I think got lost in the fray, but is quite plausible. However, that doesn't mean the "Scottish Clan" won't fight against that as well. --G2bambino (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize of course, we are being 'watched'. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, aboslutely! In fact, I know I have quite the following. No reason why things should be different in this case. --G2bambino (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Response from Tharky's page

It's in the very first sentence of the article .. a nation in NW Europe.. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, jeez. That's a definite sign I've been here at work too long... --G2bambino (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial

Would you care to give me a tutorial of "that thing" you added to the WikiProject CR page? Ive had a look at the on the BRoy page but I still cant see how it can works when used by mulitple editors...Thanks in advance...--Cameron (t/c) 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh... to be honest, I don't know much about it myself. I figured I'd figure it out over time by looking at other examples. It has something to do with setting up categories and templates for the talk pages. So, your guess is as good as mine! --G2bambino (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess we can just figure out together... = ) --Cameron (t/c) 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles & Northern Ireland

Hello G2. An anon (78.16.122.227, who's on the verge of being blocked) has been 'edit warring' on those 2 articles. I've reached my personal limit of 2-reverts, would you revert his/her last changes? PS- I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do what I'm doing (calling for reverter help). GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation for Scotland article

As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How aggravating (the Scottish cabal, that is). Of course I support mediation. --G2bambino (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do be careful of what you say, as your page might be on somebody's watchlist. PS- Am I getting paranoid? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are, GoodDay. Is Wikipedia really getting that much like North Korea? --G2bambino (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nay! I'm just being silly (for me? it works off tension). So no, our pages aren't being bugged. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Although some pages are probably on the CIA's watchlist! I have my eye on User:CIA_Agent_who_likes_to_edit_articles_on_Ronald_Reagan_and_CIA_directors = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Round 2

A few articles have been nominated for merging by a mergoholic. Would you can to take part in the discussion again? The articles in question are "Most Excellent Majesty", "Britannic Majesty" and "Most Gracious Majesty". I suggest you comment soon if you wish to as the nominator has a history of merging without consensus. The discussion for all three articles is taking place here. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you against the idea of placing these articles as subs of Style of the British Sovereign? I think that's a decent proposal that won't see your good work lost. --G2bambino (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey G2x2

Hi. Notice you created History of monarchy in Australia. No objections, but what happened to the footnotes? Could you fix that up, mate? Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bugger! Sorry about that; sloppy on my part. --G2bambino (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No sweat, bud!--Gazzster (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cromwell userbox

Hey G2, havent seen you around for a while. Are you well? Here's a userbox to make you smile... = )

This monarchist is fond of republican pass the parcel...so you'd better watch out!

Thanks

Thanks for the info...I didnt know that...I've almost no knowledge of candian constitution. I have been arguing for days here that you can't legally dispose of the queen without her royal assent! They still dont believe me! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe it. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New Ubx

This user knows Elizabeth and Philip were made for each other.

Hey what do you think of this one? Sweet eh?

It's... cute. --G2bambino (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

PM infobox content, Part II

I see things have stalled (again) at the Stephen Harper article. We haven't seen anything from the anti-monarch and/or anti-governor general editors lately. I've considered restoring the 'monarch' to the infoboxes of the first 9 Canadian PMs (as they're currently at the other 13 PMs); but you know what'll happen - I'll get reverted (again). GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just leave it alone; the first 9 PMs are pre-1931, so Canada wasn't an independent country at that time and the PM couldn't advise the monarch directly. Though, I do notice that some articles have both the GG and monarch listed, which I'm pretty sure was not an accepted idea at Talk:Stephen Harper. --G2bambino (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Though... on second thought, the monarch was still technically head of state and the ultimate executive authority over Canada. I wonder if the first 9 should have both GG and monarch and then just monarch from then onwards. --G2bambino (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The leading suggestions (via Polling) were have Governor General or nothing. I've calmed down & have decided to continue the discussion. With 2 remaining options, perhaps we can get a preference. It looks too odd (to me) to have nothing in the first 9, then something in the last 13. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything more to discuss, GoodDay; we were already going round in circles before the last fizzle-out. I think we either leave it as it is - it's obviously not causing anyone that much issue - or revive the dead discussion with mediation. --G2bambino (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a compliment

I just wanted to toss a compliment in your direction. I've looked at the Norway/France page many, many times and see that you were probably the major contributor to that page and its continued maintenance. It is certainly one of the best pages of its type on Wiki. --OneCyclone (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Well, thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1923-2008

RIP Moses, Taylor, Ben-hur, Michelangelo etc. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Add your special interest

Would you mind adding you interests to our "new" member list!? The link is here. Thanks so much! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm - chronology

Hi - wouldn't mind your opinion of the incomplete but developing section at Commonwealth realm#Chronology. I am quite prepared to be bold but would appreciate confirmation at Talk:Commonwealth realm#Chronology that I am not way off beam. The scope of the chronology is an issue for me but I am focusing on events relating to current Commonwealth realms and how they got there. Some inclusions of those who have ceased to be Commonwealth realms but were such. I wouldn't include for example the USA as it was never Commonwealth.--Matilda ^talk 01:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Queen Elizabeth 2 article

Your statement about the original Queen Elizabeth in the QE2 article - can you actual prove that what your saying about her being an outdated design from new and what relivence that has to the QE2 article as there was over three decades of change in the maritime world when these ships were designed?

I have a large collection of books on these ships and a number of retired commodores / captains autobigraphies and what you stated is not mentioned in any of these books so it should be removed if it is a personal point of view.

I would welcome your input on this subject.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this earlier.

I'm sure that there is a source for the assertions r.e. the QE, besides it being obvious, when she's compared to the Normadie and France, that she was of a much less daring, more stauchly tradtional design. There were indeed thirty years between the first and second QE, but the first QE was retired only a year before the QE2 set sail; the QE and QM were the image of Cunard, and the company wanted to break with that with their new ship for the '60s and onward. I'll have to dig through my books at home or some internet sites to find again where I've read this. --G2bambino (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:EIIR-DofE-Vimy.jpg

I have deleted Image:EIIR-DofE-Vimy.jpg. In order to have fair use all 10 of the polices in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria must be met. in this case the source was commercial enterprise to sell images. The fair use claim is is not compatible with #2 # Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Jeepday (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of Canada

Thanks for your edits to the article. Anyways, I was wondering if we can start to fix the references on the article. We can use http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php as a tool to help us with this goal. Wish to help me? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gbambino06

Do you also operate under this name? If so thanks for Image:Prince William 1.jpg It is a very good pic! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know why the pic hasnt been added to the Prince William article? The current one is horrible...it makes him look rather distorted! --Cameron (t|p|c) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of Canada

I recommend that you and Lonewolf BC, depart that article. Agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, if only it were that easy. As I think you well know, GoodDay, Loner's history shows him to be a disturbingly obsessed individual with arrogant illusions of authority and a god-given charge to impose it. It's too bad Wikipedia doesn't have anything akin to a restraining order. --G2bambino (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR noticeboard

Your dispute does not belong on that page; please take it elsewhere otherwise I will consider blocking both of you for disruption. You should at least agree, if nothing else, on a suitable venue. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, how is one to know they're causing disruption if nobody informs them of it? Besides being threatened with a block, that is. Regardless, you do have a point that I agree with. --G2bambino (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Queen Elizabeth 2

Before you add your comments back about the "Dated" designs of the original Cunard Queens, can you prove what you are saying is correct and what does it have to do with the original RMS Queen Elizabeth?

The Queen Elizabeth was launched in the 1930s and the QE2 was at the end of the sixties so there over thirty years of change and what you added to the article has nothing to do with the latter ship.

Cunard designed the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth to be nothing more than the smallest and slowest ship to carry out the task as an Atlantic ferry and nothing else - which was Sir Percy Bates' own discription of the two ships and he knew what the traveller wanted was not something light years away like the Normandie and more homely like the Queens.

Cunard tried to send the Queens cruising and they both failed and lost money - they were deep draft ocean liners with fuel and water and other supplies for no more than five days service at 28.5 knots service speed and their design did not allow for cruising.

The QE2 needed to be more of a cruise ship than a ocean liner for the majority of the time in service - so not only had time passed so had the role of the liner. Harking back to the design of the first Queen Elizabeth has nothing to do with the artice.

This can be proved if you read the books written about the Queens by leading ocean liner officiados' and authors like William H Miller and John Maxton-Graham.

Regards msa1701 (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already addressed this above. Further, this has nothing to do with the purposes of the ships, but the appearances of the ships; QE was already outmoded in style before she took to full time passenger service at the end of the '40s. She, and the QM, carried her art deco look right through to the year before the first sailing of the QE2. It was that stodgy, wood panneled, riveted hull, look that Cunard wanted to get away from with their new ship. I'm sure I can find where this was said before, but as I mentioned yesterday, I'll have to do a bit of re-research. --G2bambino (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In the section of concept and construction it is already mentioned that the original Queens were "Relics" of the pre war era and that is all you need when discribing the previous ships in the article.

And can you tell me what you mean by a riveted hull has to do with being outdated as Welded hulls are built simply because you add less weight to the ship during building and you get a smoother hull to reduce water resistence - However i would like to point out that the majority of aircraft that are built these days STILL use the rivet method of construction as welding does not allow for minute movement in unpressurised aircraft and that a riveted structure is easier to inspect than a welded seem that would have to be Eddy Currented or X-ray inspected compaired to a simple visual inspection.

Things like "Stodgy old wood panelling" would have had to change regardless due to ever changing SOLAS regulation as this would now have to be fire resistant and the reason she is going out os service is the new reulations that are coming in which would means serious structual work which is uneconomican due to her age. Her seventies styling did not last well and was upgraded quite quickly - like reverting the funnel to the Cunard red with bands for example - It was Bil Warwick (he spelt his name with one "L") as Master Designate who convinced the company to paint the funnel white to move with the times and was proved wrong by the critics.

Try reading QE2: The autorised story by Neil Potter & Jack Frost.

You also need to remember that when she was being designed she was to be as economical as possible for the era ahead unlike the older vessels, such as she was supposed to have four boilers - which was reduced to three, her plumbing system was simplified to save expense and weight (To help with the seven foot draft reduction) and a computer was added to reduced her fuel consumption. There was various other things deleted or changed before fitting out, also at this time the company had mortgaged or sold off various ships to pay for the QE2 and the book listed above will tell you this.

msa1701 (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm causing confusion here. Firstly, I'm not making personal judgments on the first Queens compared to the QE2, I'm repeating what I've read elsewhere; as I said, I'll have to dig that out again. As you allude to with the Warwick anecdote, it was all about image, and that's the jist of the paragraph in question. With the QE2, Cunard wanted to break, for economic reasons, from the traditional style of its older ships, i.e. the QE and QM. So, the QE2 was designed to look ultra-modern; SOLAS and construction techniques had little to do with this aspect (ships in the 60s were still being outfitted with wood paneling, and being built with rivets). The QE2 was a deliberate break from the company's previous image; that is the only point I'm trying to get across. --G2bambino (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

'See X for details'

Never put "see X for details" in an article because each article is supposed to be self-contained i.e. you can read a page, even in print, and it still makes sense and is followable. The only way to refer to other pages is through inline links, which don't ask the user to click on them explicitly. Gary King (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Hello G2. I'm assuming you were just kidding, about Cherie Blair. PS- At least you & Cameron, haven't called for her 'head' (Henry VIII style). GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aruba

Doh. I didn't look properly at the template. I'll have to create a stub for Dutch Royalty subjects, I guess?PrinceOfCanada (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth republic

Please don't get that article 'zapped' or 're-directed'. Those republics aren't secondary members. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I ever inferred that they are. My primary concern is if the article is redundant; if not, then my issue would be with the title. But, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, as they say. --G2bambino (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can live with a 'title change'. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess the first task is to decide whether the article is needed or not. I have my doubts that it is. --G2bambino (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:EIIR-Can-1957.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:EIIR-Can-1957.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Padraic 19:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Normandie mentioned in Norway article

Before you correct the Normandie comments on the S.S France / Norway the comments i added are from the late Frank O Braynard about the power and fuel consumption of the Normandie, your comments on the fuel saving of the France seem to be very optimistic for a 30 knot service speed ship.

Regards msa1701 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not my comments. They're cited, so please stop just removing them. If you have additional information, present it and we can try and work something out. --G2bambino (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cited where???? msa1701 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The footnote at the end of the paragraph, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

According to your statement the Normandie used over 1100 tons of fuel oil per 24 hours and according to the books i have you are incorrect - you also stated that the France would use 750 tons per 24 hours, add the 50% you say that the Normandie burned more than the France and that works out to be 1125 tons per 24 hours - that is more both of the Queens burned at 28.5 knots or 1000 tons per 24 hours or up to 1200 tons if they needed to make up time. it stated in many books by maritime authors the Normandie was designed to use 20% less power than the Queens and fuel savings were made due to her more efficient streamlined hull design.

Regards msa1701 (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not my statement. If it does contradict some other source, then, as I said, there must be a way to deal with this; one could say there are conflicting reports about the France's fuel economy, one says X, and another says Y. However, it appears the calculations you're providing above are your own, which borders on original research; that's not to say, though, that you're incorrect. I'll have to get the book out and put here exactly what it says in regards to this (along with searching out the commentary r.e. QE2's appearance vis a vis the older Queens). --G2bambino (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well where are you getting these statements from - the information i have aquired is by former Cunard and White Star line officers in their autobiographies/bio's or leading authorities on the subjects of ocean liners such as Braynard, Miller and Maxtone-Graham?

Regards msa1701 (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The France info comes from the source cited: Offrey, Charles; 303 Arts, recherces et créations:SS Normandie/SS France/SS Norway: The France, the Last French Passenger Liner. The QE2 stuff, if I remember correctly, actually comes from Maxtone-Graham's The Only Way to Cross. --G2bambino (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (again)

Hello G2. Just wanted to say good luck on that article - you'll need it. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks, but I'm not going to fight much there; they can have a crap opening if they want, but I'm more concerned with some of the ownership issues that seem to abound. --G2bambino (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, those articles England, Northern Ireland, Wales and (mostly) Scotland are without a doubt, migraine causers. 3 of them call themselve constituent country and 1 calls itself a country. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, to The Queen

I noticed your spelling The Queen with a capital 'T' mid sentence, might I direct you to this discussion? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Dab

I see you have instated the dab on one page. Has the dab been agreed upon? If so you and I need to make sure the dab is in place on all of the monarchy articles. regards, --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistake! I mistakenly thought the dab was country-neutral! I was relieved to see you make the same mistake though! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed all the realm monarchy articles now. I decided to make the move because no more opinions were expressed at the discussion you initiated eleven days ago. Based on that, I trust the change won't cause any issues, but, if it does, the old dab can be put back. --G2bambino (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for implementing the change. You have been bold after all. = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article (Canada)

I'm not sure If I'm dozing-off during soulscanner's explanations of his position, but I still can't see what would need to change to answer his initial problems (the longish bit at the top). His later contributions suggest that he's looking for something like "the GG's functions could as easily be filled by a smiling and waving foot-tall statue with a rubber stamp for feet and Great Seal for a bum". Might I suggest that you ask him questions that demonstrate the GG is still necessary. For instance, what would happen in Canada if something similar Israel's problem from last year occurred? The Israeli PM went into a coma, and it took forever to replace him. Imagine it this way: The PM goes into a coma, and it is pretty clear he will never come out of it. Who has the right to advise the GG to dismiss the PM? If it is merely the government, what would happen if the government refused to do so? Wouldn't the GG have the right to dismiss the PM in the interest of Canada? -Rrius (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what he wants; hence he sticks to pushing the one source he's found that says something vaguely like this, but at the expense of all others that explain the situation in more detail. Your questions are very good, but, for the time being, I don't think it's necessary to convince him through debate about hypothetical situations (he'd probably just concoct some wierd solution based on his biased views). The sources stand pretty firmly on their own, and I don't believe he has the ability to overpower them. --G2bambino (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll probably just disengage from the discussion on the talk page then. -Rrius (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you won't go too far away! You've certainly been a help. --G2bambino (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources are selective. The sources I give on the discussion page is in fact one that you cite several times. You just cite it selectively. The is also the department of justice quote that you deleted. As well, there are several from constituional scholar Andrew Heard that I've posted in previous discussions.

As well, Rius has pointed out that government sources are suspect. Most of your sources are government sources, except the one editorial by a newspaper columnist. --soulscanner (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources are not selective, they are what they are. Nobody, including me, is ignoring the sources you've provided; I've just taken them in combination with all the others. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that your sources stand alone as the epitome of accuracy and validity. The challenge is to compose something for the Canada article that takes all the sources into account, not just those that reflect your personal biases. --G2bambino (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

David Emerson

See his official parliamentary biography which lists him as "Minister of Foreign Affairs (Acting) 2008.05.27 -". Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that the site uses the term "acting"; however, what does that mean? Has Bernier not been dismissed from Cabinet? His official parliamentary biography seems to imply that he has, which then begs the question: in whose stead is Emerson "acting"? This is why saying Emerson's stint as Minister of Foreign Affairs will be short-term is better, as opposed to an act on someone else's behalf. We need not use the exact wording of media sources to get the same point across. --G2bambino (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're getting into WP:OR territory. It's not for us to decide that the Information Service of the Parliament of Canada (which operates the parliamentary website) is wrong or that a formulation we come up with is "better" than what it says on an official site. You can email the site at infonet@parl.gc.ca and make your argument and if they agree with you they'll change it (I'm not kidding, I've sent emails about information I thought was wrong and they have made corrections) but otherwise we have to go with either "interim" which is what the media universally says or "acting" which is what the official site says. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While I get where you're coming from, are we, at the same time, supposed to repeat unclear wording just because a source does? "Short-term" is one of the synonyms of "interim," doesn't have multiple meanings like the latter does, and couldn't possibly be construed as OR, so I can't see what's wrong with using it. --G2bambino (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if you look at the lists of past ministries on the Privy Council Office site you'll see the designation of some ministers as (Acting) is standard. For instance in the list for the 24th Ministry there are two "Acting" minister listed under Minister of Communications, one under Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, several under Environment etc. Similarly in the list of the First Ministry "Acting" minsters are listed under Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, Minister of Inland Revenue, Minister of Militia and Defence. So "acting" minister is an accepted, regular and standard entry in the official records. You might find the term "acting" unclear but since it's the official term that's the one we need to go with. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still contend that "short-term" is fine as a synonym of "interim," but will concede to the use of "acting." --G2bambino (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for your great edits (and creations) in the Royalty space. And since you're an Ontarian.. if you're in Toronto, let's get some other Royalists together and have a fun meetup. I suggest sometime in August, to celebrate Albert's birthday. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ps, I'm going to steal some of your infoboxes. That's because I am a thief. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. --G2bambino (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal blocked

Thank goodness, that IP has been blocked. PS- Why do so many of these vandals, have an obsession with homosexuality? GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes, images and text; 3 or 2 more templates

I have changed the two other templates you mention on Template talk:Infobox minister office but on WT:MOS you said there where 3 other templates ("The other three templates need updated to match") so I wonder if there is one more that should be changed?

Also, if you want to change the colors, the color coding is done like this: rgb stands for red, green and blue and each color is specified as rgb(r, g, b), where r, g and b are numbers between 0 and 255 specifying the intensity of each color (where 255 is brightest and 0 is black). The resulting color is the mix you would get if you mixed light of those colors with the specified intensity. This scheme is often used in computers since monitors typically represent color that way (in CRTs by using red, green and blue fluorescing phosphors). Many programs that deals with colors can typically show you these values. There are also other ways of specifying colors in css, there are keywords for some common colors (e.g. red, blue, yellow) and there are other numbering schemes (e.g. #af3400) but the former don't cover as many colors and the latter is not very human friendly. The actual specification of the standard is available here [1] it's pretty technical, but at least it can come in handy as a reference sometimes. The part about colors is here for example: [2].
—Apis (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking through the articles again, I think there are only three in total, not four. I'm not sure why I said "the other three templates." Thanks for the colour tutorial as well; I've been slowly venturing into the realm of template and infobox design, and so complex colour and font code is still something new to me. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Order of Canada x2

hey, someone when you altered the honorary appointment section of order of canada the people appointed to officer grade to not apear...i've tried hacking it it with no luck. Any suggestions ? Dowew (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was missing a </ref>. I fixed it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. I've done that before, but usually I catch myself. Thanks for fixing it. --G2bambino (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi. The word "many" is well sourced. Read the references in the article and the additional references at [3] the references page. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily believe that to be true. The sources I looked at express a number of personal opinions, but that doesn't make them true. I understand this is a complicated issue, but, accordingly, we should be absolutely sure we're presenting it in an unambiguous manner. I'm sure there's a way to properly present the issue. --G2bambino (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that it is poor form to remove a citation tag; clearly there is a still open discussion about the matter. The tag lets others clearly identify what the debate is centered on, as well as drawing attention to it so that others may weigh in with opinions or help. I suggest that you don't remove it again until the problem is resolved. --G2bambino (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter MacKay

Hello G2. Would you happen to know if MacKay, is still the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party? GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the expansion of Wikiproject:Commonwealth realms

There is a discussion going on here about a possible expansion of Wikiproject Commonwealth realms to incorporate all the British Empire topics! Please take the time to comment = ). --Cameron (T|C) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen the new WikiProject? If you are having trouble adding yourself (you wouldn't be the first), just leave me a note telling me your related interests/specialist areas and I will do it on your behalf. Regards, --Cameron (T|C) 14:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at United Kingdom

Hello G2. The toughest thing about that discussion? even if a solution is reached, it's highly unlikely 'all 4 articles' will consent to it. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure why. Remember the one discussion about moving all of the Commonwealth realm monarchy articles? --G2bambino (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, in Scotland I see possible difficulties ahead. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong; in fact, I pretty much agree that there'd be trouble there. But, surely consensus applies, no matter where it was reached. If people cause enough trouble, well... you know what happens. --G2bambino (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting my football helmet ready; taking precautions. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

lol! --G2bambino (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

just a heads up

You may want to check out User_talk:Rockfang#Royal_tours_of_Canada_in_the_20th_century and User_talk:SriMesh#a_couple_of_subjects_:.29--Rockfang (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal tours of Canada in the 20th century=

Your article Royal tours of Canada in the 20th century has been nominated for being a Did you know? candidate, and hopefully the DYK hook is featured on Wikipedia's main page. Good job on the article by the way! Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Though, you may already have noticed that the DYK fact you highlighted actually isn't on the page you linked to. I've commented on this at the DYK page. --G2bambino (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandal is back

Re your message: Thanks. I blocked him indefinitely. He's made zero useful edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada

Hey.. I hope you don't mind the change I made to the MoC article (Organization with Royal etc). I've actually been somewhat in awe of the amount of editing you've been doing over the past few days. Are you on vacation or something? ;) PrinceOfCanada (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country

There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers --fone4me 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there was one originally, but anyway, I wasn't the one who started the centralized discussion.

I personally don't understand how the consensus from the centralized discussion can be disguarded however.

--fone4me 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I haven't been too deeply involved in the debate, but the few times I poked my head in I didn't see any notices. Also, I appreciate that you didn't begin the discussion; it just seems you've taken to conducting the polls and trying to bring it to some resolution, and are combatting with some few users who have arbitrarily decreed that a discussion about an article cannot take place off that article's talk page. --G2bambino (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a mediation on the whole Scotland's refusal to accept consensus thing: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom --fone4me 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Will check it out. --G2bambino (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wearing my football helmet. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth Map

Hey.. the map is repeatedly changed back by an anonymous user. I don't know why s/he is so dead set on pink, but I think it's probably a fool's errand to keep changing it back to the (far more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention more traditional) blue. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We are walking ourselves into a stalemate

Please see my suggestion here. Cheers --fone4me 12:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bowes Lyon

You seem to misunderstand the requirements for moving an article. It is not necessary to reach a consensus before rectifying a spelling error. Only if someone disagreed with The Times Style and Usage Guide would they be justified in moving the article back. Timeineurope (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not misunderstanding anything. The discussion on the matter has started at Talk:Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. --G2bambino (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles get moved all the time without preexisting consensus, which has never been a requirement to move an article. Insisting on moving the article back to Bowes-Lyon when you know that The Times Style and Usage Guide shows that it's Bowes Lyon is simply disruptive. Timeineurope (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Take it to the discussion you've been pointed to. --G2bambino (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns, Royal Society of Canada

Hi. I am investigated articles listed at "Copyright Problems" and noticed that you had removed the copyvio tag from this article, with a note that it was an "improperly placed tag". However, the first paragraph here does seem to entirely duplicate language from this website, which includes a licensing note that "all rights [are] reserved". Prior to addressing this apparent copyright violation, I thought to see if there was an element to this that isn't obvious that would make re-usage of language from the source appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmm.. I just seems that I reverted because, as far as I know, there can be no copyvio on a blank page; in otherwords, the impropoerness was in deleting the text. I should have placed a tag again at the head of the page, as you have now done, but, obviously, neglected to do so. --G2bambino (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Actually, the template that was placed on that page is meant to replace its content. I chose to go with a less aggressive tag because so far as I can see only the first paragraph is problematic. Generally, when substantial portions of the page are copyright violations, we do blank it to avoid risking violating that law while the matter is investigated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I thought it was odd to say there was a problem, but then clear out everything that was causing the problem. But, I agree; if there's only a part of the article that might be plagerised, then the huge, angry COPYVIO tag was probably a bit excessive... --G2bambino (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued Discussion

'...The monarch need not act to favour themselves, any donors, or political party; when they follow the partisan advice of their ministers, they do so because it keeps government stable and working, and they may disregard their ministers' partisan advice for exactly the same reason.'

• So may a president. Nothing would compel him or her to do otherwise unless the Constitution were amended to give a president that liberty.

'...As long as the sovereign exists as he/she does, there is a body above both the Prime Minister and viceroy where ultimate responsibility to ensure the working of government rests.'

• But she does not exercise any practical responsibility. That was tested in the '75 crisis. In any case, your appeal to ultimate responsibility does not solve anything. If one is to fear that a rogue PM may go off the rails, there is the GG to restrain him. If one fears a rogue GG, the monarch may restrain him (although there is only one power in the Constitution that would allow her to do so-but as that power has never been tested, we really don't know).But might one fear a rogue monarch? Who will protect us from an abuse of monarchical power? After all, if a constitutional president who is supposed to act on ministerial advice, can abuse power, why can't a constitutional monarch? So you need a string of authorities, ad infinitum to prevent the abuse of power by the preceding authority! But these considerations do not take the separation of powers into account. For it is the High Court of Australia, not the monarch, which is the guardian of the Constitution. And it does make regular decisions to overule government acts judged unconstitutional. Remember that the UK has no such organ, for it has no written constitution.

' Having never needed to unilaterally exercise her constitutional authority is not the same as never being able to; the fact that it's not been done is a testament to the working of the system..'

• Not necessarily. That's like saying, 'houses with taffata drapes have not been destroyed by earthquakes. Therefore taffata drapes keep away earthquakes'.

'It's definitely no support for a system wherein a president could be put in and taken out at the Prime Minister's pleasure, with zero ability to do anything to control the abuse of executive power.'

• But the Prime minister can nominate the GG, and the Queen is obliged to appoint the nominee, 'with zero ability to control the abuse of executive power'. But why do you suppose a president (or whatever office is created - the office may remain simply 'Governor-General'- will abuse executive power? And why do you suppose there will be no constitutional restraints to minimalise the possibility? As far as I know, there are no proposals to abolish the High Court.'--Gazzster (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A president may act with the common good of all the people in mind, over his own interests. But no constitutional writing could guarantee this to always be, for either president or monarch; in Westminster systems, both monarchical and republican, different bodies weigh against each other to keep a balance. However, the important difference rests in the fact that a president needs the support of a specific segment of the population, and their money, to maintain his position and power, whereas a monarch does not, and is thus more free to act for the good of the entire nation. You seem to be under the impression that this is irrelevant, as the monarch can never act at all, without direction, that is (yet, a president can?). But the impression is false, and the situation in Australia in 1975 does not prove it to be otherwise; it may not have been constitutionally correct for the Queen to have acted in that situation, but that does not mean there could never be a case where she must intervene. The whole crux of the system is that all state power is ultimately held out of the hands of the politicians, being only lent to them, in essence, for exercise. If that were not the case, the state would be ripe for abuse by individuals intent on increasing their personal power. Even the High Court is subject to the monarch (and would be, theoretically, to any president), so it's not as though Australia is an oligarchy.

I suppose that a president will abuse power because it is in the nature of humans to try to covet as much power - and wealth - as they can. Hence, history is rife with coups, wars, assasinations, revolutions, political deals, and the like. I did not say, however, that a republic would have no barriers in place to protect against a power-hungry person taking advantage; if you read again what I wrote, you will, I hope, see that I said I think there are less obstructions in republican constitutions. Thus, republics are not automatically doomed to failure, but they are weaker than constitutional monarchies, in my opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have not proposed the abolition of the Westminster system. We are only discussing the replacement of the monarch with an Australian head of state. We already have the balance of power you refer to. That is why we have the High Court. That is also why we have a Senate and the definition of powers of the Commonwealth executive.You still seem to fear an uncrowned head could not bear the temptation to go mad with power.
• Why?
• But the monarch is not free. The monarch is constrained to act according to advice.
• The monarch can't. And especially not in Australia, where the powers of head of state repose in the Governor-general, not the sovereign. I said nothing about the powers of an uncrowned, Australian head (who may be named 'president'). I was talking in fact about a person who would play the same role as a GG does now. And the GG has the same role in Australia as the monarch has in the UK.
• What might that situation be? No-one seems to know. So your argument appears to be that we must preserve the monarch for the sake of an obscure, untested and unknown power that she may, in an unforeseeable circumstance, exercise.
• You appear to have a strange notion of the monarch's power in Australia. You seem to suppose she has absolute power, which she only 'lends' out to the state. You are incorrect, and, even if you were not, it would be more of an incentive to abolish the monarchy. For your model of government is not a democracy; it is an absolute monarchy, where the monarch could withdraw her mandate at any time. But this is clearly a nonsense. If this is not the case in the United Kingdom, why should it be in Australia? How can the Queen's powers be more absolute in Australia than in the UK?
• My apologies- but that is absolute nonsense. The High Court is not accountable to the monarch. That would be an unconscionable confusion of power. The dignity and power of the High Court lies in its separation from all other organs of sovereignty. Again, you seem to suppose that the Queen is an absolute monarch constrained only by what freedoms she chooses to allow her subjects. Again, why do you suppose 'individuals' would be 'intent on increasing their personal power'? Again, why do you suppose there would be no constitutional restraints (as there already are)? And why do you suppose a monarch would not be subject to the same temptation to corruption? But suppose the monarch did hold absolute power in all three branches of government, as you suppose. Wouldn't that be an inducement to diminish or abolish that power, rather than preserve it, for the very reason you argue such power ought not be given to a non-hereditary head of state!--Gazzster (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Again, why are not monarchs prey to the same temptations? Charles I certainly was? George III? If you will, as I suppose, grant wisdom and liberty to the British people to curb their sovereigns, why won't you do the same for the Australian people to curb their head of state? And your fear seems to be based on an underdeveloped idea of human nature: as if we were all children who needed to be restrained.
• The pages of British history are littered with the corpses of people slaughtered by their monarchs. Yet they seem to have won out in the end.
• So if you essentially agree an Australian republic could work, why are we having this discussion?--Gazzster (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be revolving around whether or not the monarch may exercise executive power without the advice of ministers; you say they cannot, I say they can. In a sense you are right; a constitutional monarch is called such because they are bound by constitutional rules and conventions in the exercise of their duties, and so normally will only act on direction. But, what I'm talking about is abnormal situations, when the advice of ministers is either not available or the cause of crisis. Legal scholars have written that the sovreign's "reserve powers" are there to be used in emergencies, history has shown they are, and simple logic dictates that they must be. I imagine, though, that you still disagree.

Only when we've settled whether or not the head of state in a Westminster system holds all power and may exercise it unilaterally if needed can we move on to who is better to hold and use that power: a politician or a sovereign. --G2bambino (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said that there are no reserve powers or that the reserve powers must never be exercised in certain situations. But the reserve powers in Australia belong to the GG as the sovereign's representative, not to the sovereign personally. This is what the Constution says: this has been the interpretation of the Legislature (which had to pass a bill to allow the Queen to act in the GG's stead when she is in the country) and the interpretation of the judiciary. This is also the stated position of the Crown itself.So when you talk about the reserve (or 'abnormal') powers of the Sovereign I do not know what you mean. There are only two powers laid down by the Constitution which the Sovereign may exercise personally: the appointment (and removal) of a Governor-General; and the disallowal of a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament and signed by the Governor-General. The first power is done on ministerial advice. Since the GG's office has no direct part in politics it is difficult to foresee a situation in which the monarch would be obliged to use his or her own discretion. In the second case, the clause granting the power is a dead letter. Let us suppose an unlikely scenario: if the GG gave the royal assent to a Bill that may violate the constitution, dissenters would appeal to the High Court, not the sovereign, to strike it down. And if the Sovereign were appealed, he or she would refer the matter to the High Court, which is the competent body for judgement. So the monarch has no reserve powers in Australia anyway. And by the way, remember that even reserve powers must be exercised upon ministerial advice, except where this is impossible.--Gazzster (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you bring up the point about the Queen exercising her powers when in Australia; the Australia Act explicitly states that she may do so for each of the states as well (and we haven't even moved to how the states would relate to Canberra in any republic). Regardless, you recognise that the only person who may appoint the Governor-General of Australia is the monarch of Australia. I agree that the possibility of the sovereign having to do so, or dismiss a GG, against or without ministerial advice, is slim. But, the selection process of the head of state in any Austrlaian republic is a very large, maybe the largest, part of the debate. As it stands now, an impartially chosen monarch is vested with the ability to appoint a viceroy; in any situation where a prime minister wished to dispose of a sitting Governor-General who was getting in his way, he would have to go through the monarch, which means that there is still an authority who can block a rogue PM. Take the monarch away, and what stops the same PM from getting what he desires? --G2bambino (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The GG isn't a very dangerous person. There is no danger of him or her being used as a tool of the cabinet, because he already does act on cabinet's advice. So having a pet GG means nothing. So I don't know what ghastly scenario you have in mind. Make one up and we'll discuss it.--Gazzster (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. The Governor-General is not a tool of the Cabinet, and so can't currently be a pet of it. In the proposed republic where the monarch has simply been erased from the constitution, however, the GG would be nothing but a pet of the PM, because you've taken the power to appoint and dismiss the head of state from the hands of the sovereign and placed it in those of the head of government. Whatever the exact mechanics, the "ghastly scenario" we're tossing around here is one wherein the Governor-General is opposing the desires of a rogue PM; if it is not up to the sovereign to accept or dismiss the PM's advice, who would stop the PM from simply discarding the offending president and clear the way for his fiendish plans? --G2bambino (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What fiendish plan? I have an image of a bloke in a black suit and chimney hat, stroking his moustache, saying, 'Aha! My rival is out of the way! My evil plan is working. Australia is mine - bwa-ha-ha!' Why don't we wait for the Australian electorate to decide how to thwart Dr Evil? There are alternatives to a monarch. After all, many countries do. The governments of Switzerland, France, even the humbly Republic of San Marino, have done so quite happily for quite some time.--Gazzster (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The monarchy didn't save Fiji.--Gazzster (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you'd get a kick out of my choice of words. ;) But, really, what's to say that there never would be a person who wanted to make Australia theirs? There are plenty of examples in history where the electorate has been ineffective in thwarting such things in other countries. Of course, a monarch is not a guarantee that someone will not take power for themselves (Italy and Egypt have shown that, though a military coup is something all-together different), and of course there are alternatives to a monarch, but my point still is that an apolitical monarch is better than a political president to hold the position they do. Switzerland is an interesting example, but, as far as I know, a Swiss style republic was never on the table for Australia, and it raises all sorts of questions. As for France: monarchy, republic, monarchy, republic... Not a country I'd hold up as an illustration of constitutional success. --G2bambino (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

LOl Yes, I thought you'd like that. France? Yes, I'll give you that. There have been plenty of examples where the electorate has been effective in thwarting coups: the Phillippines, Russia, Spain. I agree that an apolitical head is better. But why can't an unainonted head be apolitical? There are precedents. The GG is apolitical, now. It seems to me, as I've remarked before, that if you need John to Jim in line, you'll need Jane to keep John in line, and Jasmine to keep Jane, etc, etc, etc, to the crack of doom. So having a monarch doesnt solve that problem. But there are alternatives that can serve to minimalise the abuse of power: constitutional definitions of power: criteria for eligibility; electoral safeguards ( which might include an electoral college), scrutiny by the Electoral Commission and the Judiciary; right of impeachment, etc, etc, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, a constitutional monarchy does not guarantee indefinite stability, just more stability than a republic. No matter what selection process one comes up with, a president will always be independently, politically biased; even if the electorate is as small as an electoral college, the presidential candidate must still appeal to the majority of those who must have, themselves, been elected to the college. An armed coup is, like I mentioned, something that could probably be survived better by neither republic nor monarchy (though, King Juan Carlos did a pretty good job of getting his troops to resist an attempted coup). However, in a constitutional crisis I would prefer to have the situation handled by someone who doesn't need to pander to a particular group in order to maintain their position, than someone who does. --G2bambino (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If the head of state is chosen by popular vote, and if there are insufficient checks and balances, I agree. That is why the republican prototype must be thought out, checked, counter-checked, and checked again, most carefully. I have confidence that my nation can do that.--Gazzster (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course checking and counter-checking is absolutely necessary! But, the reality is that one can only go with either a system that's been tried before (pre-checked and counter-checked), or something completely new. As I see it, amongst the tried and tested, constitutional monarchy has the best track record in terms of stability and continuity; something I think is extremely important to government. If, however, Australia's going to go with something new, well, you guys become the guinea-pigs in a very high-stakes experiment. What is it that's so worth either moving to an inferior system or risking something totally different? One thing I found very sleasy about the republican movements is their propogation of lies and misinformation in order to attract followers. If your plan is so good, and a republic is so needed, why lie to the public about still being a colony, appeal to xenophobic sensibilities by calling the Queen a foreigner, or resort to slander of the Royal Family? Hell, I've even heard them here say the Queen doesn't have a "Canadian accent," and comparing Queen Victoria to Hitler! All that in itself makes me suspicious of the whole endeavour. --G2bambino (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Humphry Appleby: 'Many things must be done, but nothing must be done for the first time.' (lol, presuming you are familiarly with Yes Minister)I guess if the English had not the courage reject Charles I's absolute rule, and try an untested system, parliamentary rule, you would not have the regime you admire so much now. I can't answer for the more extreme statements of some of my compatriots. Yet I have heard outlandish statements in the opposite camp, like Australia will slide into totalitarianism without the monarchy. And you have already intimated that an Australian head of state, for what reason I cannot fathom, could not resist the temptation to turn into Mr or MS. Hitler.Why is it worth it? We're a sovereign nation. And we should have the dignity of a sovereign nation:

• It is in keeping with the dignity of an independent nation to have a head of state that lives in the country.
• Hereditary privilege has no place in a modern democratic nation, especially in one like Australia, where the people have strong egalitarian values.
• In a democracy, the head of state should preside by consent, not by feudal right.
• For many, the monarchy represented links with Britain, especially solidarity during the WWII. But most Australians now have no recollection of war, and many do not come from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds. So the cultural link with the monarchy is of ever diminishing significance.
• The monarchy, at least in its present form, represents sexism and religious prejudice.

At least, that is why the question is important to me. It is our right to determine our own destinies. And we can do without the prophecies of doom. Whichever way we go, we will decide it according to the best interests of the nation.--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But, in the example you cite there was a reason for the changes. Hence, my question about what the reason is for Australia to alter itself. You've provided some comments, but they're only opinions; dignity is subjective, modernity is transient, egalitarianism doesn't exist, democracy and monarchy easily co-exist, the Crown would not block completely possible changes to the succession laws, solely Anglo-Celtic associations are selectively narrow, culture can be affected by lies and manipulations. Even under the feudal boot of that foreign, stuck-up monarch, you've never been denied your right to determine your own destiny. Perhaps because the system has provided you with a continuity of democratic government that too many other countries haven't had the luxury of enjoying. But, of course, you are free to rush off into the unknown because it is trendy and adventurous to discard the old as uncool and lacking in self-indulgence. And what have you to fear? Obviously nothing, because, with adolescent delusions of omnipotence, the great Australian people will give a collective middle finger and a raspberry to mom and tell her to shove off. Right? I know I'm descending into slightly sardonic metaphor here, but the point is that you are right about making decisions that have the best interests of the nation at heart, and that means making choices that are based not on ill founded emotion, xenophobic patriotism, misinformation, naiveté, inferiority complexes, mass hysteria, historical revisionism, or whatever other irrational forces might be put into play. I haven't yet heard an argument put forward by a republican anywhere that didn't use any of the above, and so I remain unconvinced as to why a politician president is superior to a constitutional monarch, even one that is shared. --G2bambino (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez.. re-reading that, I'm coming to realise that at the ripe old age of 32 I'm starting to sound like a crusty old crumdudgeon waving his cane at the young'uns! Oh well, as Francois Guizot said: "not to be a republican at 20 shows lack of heart. To be one at 30 shows lack of head." --G2bambino (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

God bless Australia

Lol. My, I do enjoy our discussions (no sardonic snarl there!) I see you are aquainted with the brash Aussie sense of pride! In my 20s I was a monarchist, and at the even riper age of 43 (it is true what they say about your forties - look forward to it!) I'm a convinced republican. Back to the discussion: nothing I stated is irrational. A tempered love of one's country, and the desire to see it appropriately honoured, is not based on 'ill- founded emotion'. If I wanted to get rid of HM because she's 'a stuck-up b**** who thinks everyone should k*** her a***' that would be irrational emotion. But I don't. I don't know of any of my republican friends who think that. Perhaps I choose my friends well. And I'm not misinformed. I keep myself very well informed. And I've demonstrated that. Naive? Most definitely not thank you. Aussies have a more than healthy suspicion of politicians, thank you very much. That's why most constitutional amendments have failed (yes, including the last one). Mass hysteria? That's a bit over the top, isn't it? And besides, sentuiment and emotion is a huge part of the monarchist argument. No, I believe that E2, long may she reign in the UK, and in Canada, if the choose to retain her, has served us well, for the most part. But her time is over. If I might quote the ARM:

Many people believe that this arrangement is no longer either appropriate or suitable for Australia. We believe that the office of Head of State should be attained on merit, not birthright. We believe that our Head of State should be an Australian Citizen. We believe that our Head of State should live in Australia and know what it means to be Australian.

Australia can reach this goal by becoming a republic, with our own Head of State who is chosen on merit rather than on birthright and who unquestionably represents Australia both at home and abroad. Our own Head of State will meet the Queen and other Heads of State as an equal.

I think that neatly summarises my own opinion. Now disagree with that if you will. Produce objections, which, on face value, may be quite reasonable. But you certainly could not judge those sentiments borne of 'hysteria'. Personally I am impressed by their dignity and patriotism.

If we want our own head of state, we should be allowed to (not that anyone could stop us), because we are a democracy. And we are a mature nation. If South Africa, India, Pakistan, Myramar, Cyprus, Ireland and Malta can be trusted to exist without the monarchy, why can't Australia. Sure, those countries have had their problems (often because of the monarchy, not for lack of it), but isn't it those countries right to make their own destinies?--Gazzster (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not particularly sure who it was that said you should not be allowed to have your own head of state (by that I'm assuming you mean no longer sharing); in fact, I explicitly stated that nobody holds Australians back from being self-determining. But, being in control of one's affairs means being responsible - if one wants to be successful - and having a strong sense of national pride should, generally, ensure that people will treat their country with care. However, on the flip side, patriotism can be abused; people can be convinced that they must do something for the good of their country, when, in fact, it's for the good of nobody but an elite few. For example, the ARM propaganda you've quoted is full of false implications, weasel words, and begs a number of questions. It assumes that birth and merit are incompatible. It assumes that elections ensure the elevation of the most meritous. It assumes a head of state must be a citizen. Are Australians defined only by their citizenship act? Does the Queen really not know "what it's like to be Australian"? Is there actually any question of when the Queen is and is not representing Australia? And the final sentence is a real kicker; it implies that currently the Queen of Australia is inferior to the Queen of the UK! So, why all this verbal trickery if not to stir up nationalist passions? The ARM is attempting to tell Australians that they are a second-class people ruled over by a foreign, spoiled, and unqualified monarch who is indifferent to the goings on of her southern-most realm. What is that other than a broadcast that preys on the naiveté of a populace left ignorant of their constitution, that preys on their patriotic emotions by creating an inferiority complex, and that revises not only history but the present as well! No mass-hysteria, I must admit (though the collective pouting and foot-stomping of the ARM mob in Sydney that night in 1999 was pretty hysterical), but I was thinking more of French-revolution-type scenarios, which hasn't happened in Australia, yet. So, make your own choices, sure. But, be careful what you buy and whom you buy it from. --G2bambino (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what I have been saying. But monarchists appear to be terrified that we should even be given the choice. But let us analyse the paragraph in question:

Many people believe that this arrangement is no longer either appropriate or suitable for Australia.

• This is perfectly true throughout all elements of Australian society.This is a phenomenon to which the republican movements are a response, not a cause. A good many of these people are quite rational, including former Governors-General and Prime Ministers, who, by the way, are unlikely to be tainted by ignorance or naivite.

We believe that the office of Head of State should be attained on merit, not birthright.

• A perfectly reasonable proposition. Merit and birthright can, indeed, go together. But they very often don't. But more to the point, why should the principle of birthright be honoured before merit? That is unatural. Does election always choose the most meritorious? Not always. But it is more likely to. And it is more equitable than succession. It is a matter of natural justice. Dispute it if you will. But you cannot say the proposition is unreasonable (and is, by the way, one of the principles of the reform of the House of Lords).

We believe that our Head of State should be an Australian Citizen.

• Again, in itself, a perfectly reasonable proposition.

We believe that our Head of State should live in Australia

• Well, hush ma mouth! What an outrqageous notion!

and know what it means to be Australian.

• In other words, living our life, sharing our national experiences, cheering with us, laughing with us, weeping with us. Again, a perfectly reasonable proposition.

Australia can reach this goal by becoming a republic, with our own Head of State who is chosen on merit rather than on birthright and who unquestionably represents Australia both at home and abroad.

• If you want to be painfully correct you can say Liz puts on a different tiara when she represents Australia abroard. ARM understands that, and something else is obviously being observed here. In the eyes of the world she is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom first.

Our own Head of State will meet the Queen and other Heads of State as an equal.

• I see nothing wrong with that. Obviously hev or she, as a head iof state, would be equal to the Queen or any other head of state.

And God save us, the charming old girl herself has no problem with the idea.

Now let me ask you a question: how long should Australia swear allegiance to a monarch? When will this nation, which you seem to think so fragile, ever have its own head of state. You surely don't imagine it should be in perpetuity. And when the UK abolishes its monarchy? Will Australia sink screaming into the sea?--Gazzster (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which monarchists are terrified of Australians being given a choice; they've had a choice since before 1901, and made their choices thereafter, including in '99. Personally speaking, I'm not adverse to debate, but the facts have to be presented as they are, not manipulated so as to mislead. Now, one may well hold opinions such as "this arrangement is no longer either appropriate or suitable for Australia"; but, the question then is: why? If the answer is: "the office of head of state should be attained on merit, not birthright," then the question, again, is: why? It's silly, of course, to argue that merit is not necessary; I think we can all agree that a head of state must be competent and well trained for the job. But to say that election will pick a more qualified individual for the role more often than constitutionally governed hereditary succession does is an unproven statement. A monarch can be replaced (Edward VIII), but the necessity arises very rarely; a monarch, unlike most presidents, is raised their entire lives to be a constitutional sovereign and head of state, so it's difficult to imagine an unmeritorious (thank you for the correct spelling!) king or queen ever ascending to the throne. In other words, merit, as it relates to the job we're talking about, is honoured along with birthright, and the former can even trump the latter, if necessary. This selection process is hardly less equitable than an election process that leaves a large chunk of the population with someone they didn't vote for. And why must the head of state be a citizen? Citizenship is just a legal classification; a bureaucratic system of classifying people, and plenty of countries get by without their head of state being a citizen. Further, why must one have to live in Australia to share national experiences? How long is long enough? As though the Queen has no idea what her Australians are up to... tisk, tisk!

There are two propositions that are not unreasonable: a resident head of state, and a singularly Australian head of state. Plenty of countries have a non-shared head of state that lives within the borders. But, obviously, a number of other countries have a shared head of state who lives, predominantly, beyond their borders, and they function perfectly well; very well, in fact. So, if where the head of state lives, and whether or not they're shared, makes no difference, what reasons are left to switch from a Commonwealth realm to a republic of some sort? All the rest of the arguments are simply not founded on any fact; as I said, they're based on personal feelings, misinformation, and play to patriotic sensibilities. Surely, as a cautious buyer, you can see that! Australia should give her allegiance to her monarch for as long as the system that monarch heads works perfectly well. Nothing lasts perpetually, so, clearly, something will change sometime. But it should be only when it's necessary, when something has failed, or some unforeseen event shifts the course of history (which abolition of the monarchy in the UK might be, but not necessarily). Right now republicans in the realms want change for change's sake, and no other reason. Very dicey indeed. --G2bambino (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Long Post, I'm Afraid

Firstly, apologies for the lengthy post. Secondly, following your last posting:

They've had a choice since before 1901,

No actually. The first non-indigenous Australians were transported there at HM’s pleasure; the indigenous Australians likewise had no opportunity to choose their sovereign. In fact, they were not recognised as Australian citizens until 1967, due to a clause in the Constitution to which Victoria penned her name. Until 1967 the Aboriginal peoples were officially classified as ‘fauna’. This consideration is an important, often overlooked factor in the debate. The indigenous nations should be given an opportunity to consent or not to the regime which invaded their lands.

…and made their choices thereafter, including in '99.

Some made their choices, and paid the penalty. Some fell at the Battle of Vinegar Hill, as others did at the Eureka Stockade. In 1856 self-government was granted to the colonies. But their freedom was always subject to a minister in London. And after 1901 this continued: in the Commonwealth until 1942; in the states until 1986. So this is really the first time in our history we have been free to make a choice.

Personally speaking, I'm not adverse to debate, but the facts have to be presented as they are, not manipulated so as to mislead.

You’re making a lot of accusations about misleading facts, which I find incomprehensible. Reminds me of some pretty misleading directions from the AML and other organisations. But more of them later.

Now, one may well hold opinions such as "this arrangement is no longer either appropriate or suitable for Australia"; but, the question then is: why?

Isn’t that a question the Australian people must answer?

If the answer is: "the office of head of state should be attained on merit, not birthright," then the question, again, is: why?

Why not?

It's silly, of course, to argue that merit is not necessary; I think we can all agree that a head of state must be competent and well trained for the job. Of course.

But to say that election will pick a more qualified individual for the role more often than constitutionally governed hereditary succession does is an unproven statement.

Well, on the whole, Australia does not elect complete idiots as prime ministers, which tends to lend some credibility to the contrary. And how could you compare, given that elections are by far more frequent than coronations?

A monarch can be replaced (Edward VIII), but the necessity arises very rarely; a monarch, unlike most presidents, is raised their entire lives to be a constitutional sovereign and head of state,

Poor old Edward. I suppose he might have been a Nazi. And thank God we were preserved from a Nazi who reigned over the Empire. But he did have to sacrifice his personal happiness for what was, even then, an antiquated norm. But we’re not discussing that of course. An individual, after a career of public service in the military or judiciary or some other field, seems competent enough to perform the office of Governor-General, who performs the functions of a monarch. And we’ve had some bloody good ones. And a good many lawyers, teachers and trade unionists have made competent to excellent prime ministers, who advise the GG. They bring their varied life experiences to the role. The life experiences of a monarch are likely to be more limited.

so it's difficult to imagine an unmeritorious (thank you for the correct spelling!) king or queen ever ascending to the throne.

I can think of several.

In other words, merit, as it relates to the job we're talking about, is honoured along with birthright, and the former can even trump the latter, if necessary.

I should hope so. And I should hope it would be the norm, rather than a 'trump'. But I don't see how.

This selection process is hardly less equitable than an election process that leaves a large chunk of the population with someone they didn't vote for.

That’s all part of the democratic process! We may not like the result, but hallelujah- we had the choice. And what if ‘a large chunk of the population’ don’t like their monarch? They don’t get any choice at all. And that’s the point. Sounds to me as if you’re minimalising the role of democracy. Which I would find a little scary.

And why must the head of state be a citizen? Citizenship is just a legal classification; a bureaucratic system of classifying people, and plenty of countries get by without their head of state being a citizen.

No. Citizenship confers inviolable rights and privileges, and a dignity. Someone without citizenship may be dealt with by the state in whatever manner it sees fit, good or ill.

Further, why must one have to live in Australia to share national experiences?

Well, I suppose she could watch Australian television in Buck Palace. The princes could barrack for teams in the Australian Football League and wear their guernsies. The butler could serve meat pies. But I doubt it would have the same impact.

How long is long enough? As though the Queen has no idea what her Australians are up to... tisk, tisk!

Well then. As long as mother is watching us, where does it matter where she is.

There are two propositions that are not unreasonable: a resident head of state, and a singularly Australian head of state. Plenty of countries have a non-shared head of state that lives within the borders. But, obviously, a number of other countries have a shared head of state who lives, predominantly, beyond their borders, and they function perfectly well; very well, in fact. So, if where the head of state lives, and whether or not they're shared, makes no difference,

Perhaps other countries want their head as far as way as possible from them. Personally, I would’ve thought it was perfectly natural for a people to want the representative of the nation actually with them. I fail to see what there can be to object to in that.

what reasons are left to switch from a Commonwealth realm to a republic of some sort?

If you’re asking me, personally? For the reasons I’ve stated, not answering to the assumption that there are only two reasonable grounds, which I don’t accept.

All the rest of the arguments are simply not founded on any fact; as I said, they're based on personal feelings, misinformation, and play to patriotic sensibilities.

You keep saying that. I do not know what ‘personal feelings’ and ‘misinformation’ you are referring to.

Surely, as a cautious buyer, you can see that!

Thank you for the complement. But we are not buying anything, as it were a packet of crisps from the bargain bin.

Australia should give her allegiance to her monarch for as long as the system that monarch heads works perfectly well. Nothing lasts perpetually, so, clearly, something will change sometime. But it should be only when it's necessary, when something has failed, or some unforeseen event shifts the course of history (which abolition of the monarchy in the UK might be, but not necessarily). Right now republicans in the realms want change for change's sake, and no other reason.

Pardon the language (I am an Australian), but in reference to the last statement –crap. You seem to think republicanism is so shallow. But, in the words of the immortal John Cleese, ‘now for something completely different.’

You mentioned the European Union, which intrigued me. I wondered what connection the EU could have. I thought I knew the answer, but I wanted to be sure. So I found the Australian Monarchist League website. And I found the not uninteresting speech of Phillip Benwell, MBE:

That Britain has abrogated sovereignty to Europe is now undoubted. The question is whether it may also have illicitly endangered the sovereignty of the Queen’s Realms and broken the intent of the Statute of Westminster.

Indeed? Didn’t you say Australia was a fully independent nation? What influence then, could Europe have on the sovereignty of Australia? I read on:

In past years, your colonies and particularly the British Realms of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, without reservation rushed to the defence of Great Britain when it was in danger and few families in our lands were untouched by the loss of loved ones.

Jolly good. Feel free to bleed for us next time our freedoms are violated. But don't big note yourselves too much. We didn't have much choice in the matter, and the Japanese were on our doorstep. You weren't the only ones on the brink of invasion.

We did this not just because we are one People but also in gratitude for the gift of constitutional freedom and democracy Britain freely gave to us.

One people? Right, so we’re not independent. Sorry, I’m a little confused here. I continue:

However just sixteen years following the closure of the last World War, we of the Realms who all fought with you as one, were discarded as you would a faithful but unwanted dog, for in 1961 your Government sent out Duncan Sandys, your Commonwealth Minister, to tell us that Britain was joining Europe and its special relations with the Commonwealth and its commitments to the British Realms one to another were to be put to an end.

Oh dear! I blush.

Having betrayed us in the Realms, your Government then continued to humiliate Britain by humbling itself at the feet of Europe and committed upon its course then lied to and deceived not only the Commonwealth but the British People themselves.

Well, Britain never thought of itself as European. It is natural enough that it would regard any deference to European peace and prosperity a ‘humiliation’. But how does this involve Australia?

Magna Carta and that other mainstay of our democracy, the Bill of Rights, have always been looked upon with derision by European politicians, for in Europe it is the State which is always supreme whereas within the British sphere it has always been our practice to place the rights and the liberties of the Individual above the interests of the State.

‘Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves’. Hang on, I can catch a faint chorus of ‘Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt,’.

Above me is the statue of Nelson and, indeed all around London there are monuments to Britain’s great men and women who gave their lives to protect these shores. Their glory now lies shattered along with the freedom they and so many others fought so bravely for.I am here to put forward the case on behalf of the People of Australia, who fought so very hard to protect our own sovereignty; that in its insane purpose to submit to European domination, Britain has not only disqualified itself from membership of the Commonwealth of Nations; it has greatly endangered the sovereignty of The Crown which we all share.

No, sorry, still confused. How is our sovereignty tied with Europe?

The breaking of the links with the British Realms, the tacit moves of support for Australia to become a Republic, are these all not a part of a greater plan to isolate this Kingdom, this bastion of democracy, to make it easier to merge it into Europe?

Oh, I’m beginning to see now! There’s a conspiracy to subvert the Crown and the liberties it protects to the sovereignty of Europe!

Never forget that Europe will not tolerate the dilemma that is Northern Ireland and it will not be long before the British Government betrays the North and forces through union with Eire regardless of the consequences in bloodshed! Similarly with Gibraltar and Spain! Like an army of white ants, these Fabian inspired creatures, following the ideology of the Roman general Fabius Cunctator himself, "For the right moment you must wait, ... but when the time comes you must strike hard" have for years chipped away, changing the foundations of our liberty, whilst we, the people, sat idly by, steeped in our own apathy and ignorance, as so many did in the years before the last World War mocking the warnings of Churchill with ridicule and derision

Those awful Irish! Those terrible ‘Fabian inspired creatures’. And after the English were so good as to invade their country! They read far too much Cunctator. Actually wanting to determine their own destinies! For shame! Well! As I read on, I began to see. It is all so obvious. The European Community is a gigantic attempt to subvert the freest nation in the world, England, to the poisonous absolute (and papist, I may add) rule of Europe. If England falls, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and even St Kitts and Nevis, will fall also.

The mockery is not, of course, a personal insult. In fact, my friend, I have no reason to credit you with these bizarre ideas at all. But I quote and comment to demonstrate the monarchist position is not necessarily always about the liberties and independence of Australia. And it is not always rational and tempered, as Benwell eloquently, if bizarrely, demonstrates.

With sincerest respect, --Gazzster (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your analysis of Benwell's words is interesting. But, though I disagree with some of your commentary, overall, I disagree with him even more, which means, in a sense, I side with you! I seem to recall having read this speech before; and I couldn't buy what Benwell was saying then either; he, like anyone else, is entitled to his opinions, and some of his points do ring a little true, but words like "British Realms" and "one people" make me suspicious of his underlying beliefs. I feel that he's an Australian Anglophile who's more lamenting the dilution of Britain into Europe than anything else, and using potential "threats" to the "British Realms" to bolster his argument.

As for Australia itself: I repeat: Australians have had a choice of self-determination since before 1901 - arguments about Aboriginal classifications and convict shipments are irrelevant. As are words about Eureka and ministries in London. It actually makes it sound a bit like you're crying victim. If your past country men didn't have the ability to form the nation's destiny, you wouldn't be where you are now; and you certainly never had to literally fight against British oppressors in an American style revolution for the right to exercise that ability.

The rest of my points and questions also still stand as is; you didn't really answer or disprove them. If I take your responses overall, however, they kind of read to me as though you're saying "a republic could be okay." Well, sure, a republic could be okay; but would it inherently be as good or even better that what you have now? Having the head of state live in the country, having the head of state hold citizenship, having the head of state an elected individual, are these things really necessary in order to make the country better? Republicans keep saying yes, but they seem to have to rely on skewing people's impressions of reality and play on their sensibilities in order to convince them of why "yes" is the correct answer. Their demand that the Queen is foreign is unproven and only seems to try to incite xenophobia; their demand that elections are the ultimate deliverer of democracy is similarly unproven and only seems to try to put doubt in minds about their individual freedoms; their demand that a monarch shared with the UK puts Australia is a colonial position (and embarrasses Australia internationally) is narrow in scope, completely unfounded, and only seems to try to put doubt in minds about their nation's freedom and stature; and so on, and so on. These demands - note: not questions or opinions up for debate, but demands delivered with the utmost fervor in order to make them sound more right - and all the ones like them, are the misinformation I speak of. There certainly must be monarchists who make ridiculous claims as well, but, they don't have (fortunately) the majority voice of that side of the debate. The republican cause, on the other hand, and as I've mentioned, rely on the above points to further their mission. As I've earlier alluded to, the legitimacy of the points is not pertinent - anyone in a free society may say what they wish, for the most part. It is, rather, whether or not the points have more truth and more merit to them than those from the other side of the deliberation. So far, they don't seem to at all, and the need to appeal to people's more base emotions only further undermines their credibility. --G2bambino (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so long (I hope)

Thanks for responding, and thanks for relieving me that you don't subscribe to Benwell's imperialist diatribe. Though I note with some trepidation that you did not entirely distance yourself from him. I posted it not to confront you personally, of course, but to demonstrate that untruths and misinformation may appear on both sides of the divide. And this was the official site of the Australian Monarchist League, so one may suppose it represents the views of the AML ('Fenian creatures!!! - the AML states it defends liberty!). I have also read (not from the AML) that the Crown must remain Protestant, and a republic is a popish plot to bring the Jesuits and the inquisition to Australia! (well, the Jesuits are already here)

Well, we seem to have reached an impasse. I claim the core arguments of the republican voices are reasonable and sound as points of consideration. You will concede only two, and claim all are misinformed, misleading and unreasonably emotive. I must say, I still don't see that. It is you who mention words like 'xenophobia' and 'hysteria'. I haven't said a word against the British people. I have not raised a mental finger against anyone. And I might remind you that it is Mr Benwell, MBE, who derides the 'Fenian creatures' and a Europe that he obviously believes is fascist. I wonder how much of this sword-rattling hooliganism is in your own mind.AS I've said, all the people I know in favour of a republic are educated, honourable, community spirited and ethical people, including my own mother, who is English. And as for 'their demand that elections are the ultimate deliverer of democracy is similarly unproven'- my jaw drops stunned by that statement. And I wonder if you realise what you said? Democracy by decree- isn't the word for that 'oxymoron'?

But on a couple of points: no, I am not crying victim. As I pointed out rather clearly I thought, this is really the first opportunity we, as a nation, have had the opportunity and national will to ask ourselves this question: do we want to be a republic? The 'you didn't shed your blood for your liberty so what right do you have to want anything better' idea is rather odd, to say the least. But Australians have died by the Crown. I'm highly offended that you dismiss the Aboriginal consideration out of hand as 'irrelevant'. I am surprised, considering how your great nation has done much to repair the injustices done to the Innuit peoples. For it is the Aboriginal peoples who have, above all Australians, died and suffered under the system which, yes, brought liberty to others. That is of course not the responsibility of the Crown alone. But it must bear a weighty responsibility.While that alone is not an argument for the abolition of the Crown, it is a mighty consideration in the debate. Most Australians had opportunity to consent to Crown rule in 1901. And now many wish to reassess that consent. But the Aboriginal peoples never had the opportunity. Concommittent with the republic/monarchy dialogue is a movement to reconcile the nation with it's original peoples. You may have heard that the first Parliament this year was ceremonially welcomed by the indigenous peoples. This was an event unprecedented in Australia's history- an official acknowledgement by the highest power in the land that the Australian Crown and government occupies Aboriginal land, the first official disavowal of terra nullius. From now on, any dialogue concerning Australia's future must assimilate this. I suggest the issues at stake are not so straightforward as you and others seem to suppose. --Gazzster (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, adding to what I said would be a shorter post. But I rather enjoy exchanging views with you. Another thought occurs to me. All parties to the debate need to be aware that Australia is not dependent upon British institutions for its glorious Constitution. Remember it was not composed in Britain, but in Australia. And it is a hybrid Constitution: combining the Westminster model with the federalism and separation of powers which is a feature of the US Constitution. So the Constitution is uniquely Australian. There is no reason then, that it could not be further adapted to accommadate an Australian head of state. My point being that the same ingenuity that adapted the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty to Australian conditions could do the same again.--Gazzster (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget those systems that have a strictly figure head President. Sure, such a President is elected as having been a political party members; but he/she has to leave his/her politics at the Inauguration door. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess someone forgot to tell that to Xanana Gusmão, Girija Prasad Koirala, Mahmoud Abbas, etc., etc. --G2bambino (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but not all 'figure-head Presidents' are politically-biased in office. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. My point is, though, that they can be; sometimes by necessity, and sometimes not. --G2bambino (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A constitional monarch can be politically biased aswell; even though parliaments discourages it. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they could be. Sometimes by necessity, and sometimes not; but they have little reason for the latter. I can't think of a constitutional monarch having ever abused power for his own personal interests. --G2bambino (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the UK, a Charles III/George VII reign will be interesting (if it ever occurs). GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If I might add a few belated comments: To G2bambino: I loved the "The whole crux of the system is that all state power is ultimately held out of the hands of the politicians, being only lent to them, in essence, for exercise." quote! Do you want to come and hold a lecture at my college? = ) To GoodDay: We do not have any reason to believe that Charles will continue to be as involved in politics as he is at the moment when he inherits the throne. To Gazzster If The Queen can't ever act on her according to her own free will and is only ever controlled and advised by her ministers, what exactly is the problem? Besides, the separation of powers doesnt work all that well in a lot of countries. In Germany everything is kept very separate...but also very boring (no state opening of parliament, no oaths of allegiance, coronations, garden parties)! --Cameron* 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cameron! Good to have your input! As I said to G2 in another place, it's not a question of 'if it's not broken, don't fix it.' There are positive arguments for an Australian head of state:

• It is in keeping with the dignity of an independent nation to have a head of state that lives in the country.
• Hereditary privilege has no place in a modern democratic nation, especially in one like Australia, where the people have strong egalitarian values.
• In a democracy, the head of state should preside by consent, not by feudal right.
• For many, the monarchy represented links with Britain, especially solidarity during the WWII. But most Australians now have no recollection of war, and many do not come from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds. So the cultural link with the monarchy is of ever diminishing significance.
• The monarchy represents sexism and religious prejudice.

There are others, but these are the ones that occur to me. About the separation of powers: it works perfectly well here. Ceremony is a significant part in the life of a nation, sure, but we don't have many coronations or garden parties here! Though the GG holds functions; there is a state opening of Parliament every year. Officials do swear allegiance to Australia and its people, as do new citizens, and there are inauguration cereminies and awarding of state honours, state funerals, etc. I doubt any of these would change with an Australian head of state.

I wouldn't quote G2 too quickly. As I remarked to him, it is simply not true. He's describing an absolute monarchy, which Australia is not. And even if he were right, it would be an incentive to abolish the monarchy, not preserve it. But the bedrock of the UK constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty, not monarchical sovereignty. In other words, HM shares power with Parliament. Why do you suppose it should be any different in Australia [4] , Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, or anywhere else? I for one, do not want my fate in the hands of an unelected person, as charming as she may be personally, whose only claim to be my lord is that her ancestor slaughtered a bunch of men in a field in the south of England. I've no problem with the person: it's the institution that is the problem.--Gazzster (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I can add several layers of armour to G2's argument. There is a big difference between a constitutional monarch and a president. The system presents a monarch (a person) with an extraordinary contract. A life of luxury, prestige and influence, extended to not just the person but their family and their decendents. There is no need for ambition, because the monarchial role trumps almost all achievement. No opportunity for corruption as the Queen is rich beyond comprehension. The only downside is to be outwardly disinterested in politics and 99% of people are disinterested in politics. If you are in that 1% you can chat with the PM whenever you want AND you can see how foolish it would be to reject this social contract. The constitutional system borrows from this inversion of normal human affairs (eg merit based appointment) down along lines of executive authority eg to the police, military and courts. --Dlatimer (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of my close relatives are/were politicians but I still believe it is the best idea not to have a politician as head of state. If I had to pick any system other than a monarchy I would undoubtedly go for the German system. Their head of state does more or less the same as The Queen does (representing the nation, going on trips abroad, welcoming other heads of state...). Whereas the Chancellor makes all the actual decisions, rather like our Prime Minister. --Cameron* 12:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: The majority of Australians are still of Anglo-Celtic descent are they not? And one other thing: The Queen is part of parliament (at least here in the UK, she is the third component). --Cameron* 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer such a head of state too. Australia is very much a multiracial nation, like the UK. Yes, she is part of Parliament, which was my point about parliamentary sovereignty, not monarchical.--Gazzster (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the next Australian plebescite (on this issue). GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't think many average Australians share your zest. Though, from what I understand, the republicans are up to their usual machinations already, figuring that a series of plebicites preceeding a referendum will make their job easier. I have my doubts, too, that they'll be completely honest in their campaign, again. On the other hand, I could possibly live with another referendum (minus the dodgy plebicites); only 8 of the 44 referendums held in Australia have ever recieved the required majority, and zero referendums held twice have ever passed. So, another failure would pretty much put the issue to bed for another century or more, though I'm not sure it would silence the skwaking of the republican elites (note: not you Gazz (unless you're Greg Barns)). They frequently remind me of the pushers of a constitution for the EU; to the countries of Europe who keep voting down their proposals, they say: we know what you need and we'll keep doing this until you know it too! --G2bambino (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An Australian republic is inevitable. When it'll occur though, is beyond my clairvoyant powers. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(to GoodDay) Me too! But I doubt there will be one during the first term of our PM. Climate change, the economy and petrol (what you call gas) prices have taken the forefront.(to G2) 'Machinations'? 'Not completely honest'? lol. And you accuse our camp of emotional language! I suppose the Queen's people will be as honest as the driven snow.Now I'm not being nasty: I acknowledge the doffing of the hat to me - returned- but that last remark about the EU was interesting. Is the monarchist position only about the monarchy, but about the UK as well? Mull over that one and get back to me.--Gazzster (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Social Contract

What social contract, Dlatimer? The 'right' of the Sovereign to reign is based on an ancient tradition when privilege implied responsibility. The king contracted with his vassals to rule and protect them in return for their allegiance. The monarchy used to be elective in the sense that the king ruled by the consent of his subjects. But today the elective nature is gutted from the monarchy. And so the contract is broken. I'll admit your idea is interesting: I have never heard the monarchy defended on the grounds that they live lives of luxury and indolence. And I never heard the argument that wealth protects people from corruption. One could say that privilege without power corrupts, making one unmotivated and listless. The French aristocracy learned that the hard way. --Gazzster (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I am talking about the modern constitutional monarchy. This is the new contract. In terms of their political role and voice, indeed, the point is to have monarchs unmotivated and listless. The system allows them to be motivated about something else - charities, sports, culture, architecture, horseracing. What would you do in the Queen's place - your investments earn millions each year? --Dlatimer (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about constitutional monarchy too. My point is precisely is that is not based on contract. When was this 'new contract' made? Not in the sense understood by Hobbes and Rousseau.I repeat: privilege without responsibility is destructive. I find the idea of society maintaining a family to live in indolence monstrous! Not the least because the members of the RF are human beings like you and I. They have dignity, and like us, seek value in their lives through work. If I were in the Queen's place, I would abdicate and do a job I enjoy. But I will never sit on a throne and can't possible know what it could be like for her. She may be very happy, she may be discontent. It may be that Her Majesty and her family are prisoners of tradition themselves. Poor young Harry said as much when they pulled him out of Iraq. No doubt his father and grandmother were relieved. But he might have been thinking, 'can't anyone forget that I'm a prince! I want to live a normal life.' His mother tried to buck the system, and she was an extraordinarily popular member of the RF, for all gher faults, with the People.--Gazzster (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Try Walter Bagehot. This contract is not formal or stated, of course. The Queen is ultimately a free person too - there is always someone next in line. There are some who propose a lottery to choose a Head of State, which obviously attempts to stradle the monarchist-republican gulf. The disadvantages you point to. The main issue is how that resolves down the lines of authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.101 (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've never heard of Bagehot. I believe in some countries a 'lottery' is called an election. But we're in a pretty theoretical area. I don't know if it would be useful to explore further. But do so if you wish. I would enjoy the discussion.--Gazzster (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Order of Canada/Controversial

Hey... I'm too tired to edit properly right now, but I think that 'self-described pro-life groups' is less POV than 'anti-abortion'. (FWIW, I am resolutely pro-choice, but I think the former wording has moderately less POV attached to it than the latter). Just a thought. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a little groggy (and cranky) myself, but I just read the Pro-life article, and it starts right off by saying that "pro-life" refers to more than just those against abortion. I somehow doubt people against stem cell research care much about Morgentaler. --G2bambino (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "pro-life" is POV because it implies the opposing side is either "anti-life" or "pro-death". 99.231.128.251 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

True enough. --G2bambino (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Order of Canada/Controversial Part II

Look I am only providing a statement made by someone who is active in the fight against abortion. regardless of what your convictions are, there is no doubt that this person can be used as a source.24.37.126.33 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never made my convictions known, so please don't presume one way or the other. I also never contested the source, only the place the information is being put. As I said in my edit summary, the article is not a soap-box for abortion debate. Put it in Henry Morgentaler, put it in Abortion in Canada, put it in Campaign Life Coalition, but it isn't notable enough in relation to the Order of Canada to go in that article; too much detail. --G2bambino (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine but you should have made this clear before the editing and re-editing and so on...it would have saved a lot of time. I assumed what your convictions were...where did you get that from? All I said was 'whatever your convictions may be'...I never assumed anything.24.37.126.33 (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought that "Not here" was sufficient to say that the commentary did not belong, well, there. I also didn't say you assumed anything; I just asked you not to; we seemed to be edging dangerously close to a debate along those lines. Anyway, as I mentioned above, I was tired and cranky last night; little patience for an anon trying to put excess detail about a particular stance on abortion into an article on the Order of Canada. --G2bambino (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it should have been perfectly clear to anyone that an article about the Order of Canada is not the place for any debate on any subject except the Order of Canada. Any debates that intersect with the Order (abortion, sovereignty, etc) should be dealt with only in passing, with appropriate links to the appropriate page(s). G2bambino didn't need to 'make it clear' because it's generally understood that most things have their own articles, where the important information resides. And again, I suggest that you register yourself a username; it's considered good etiquette around here to do so. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa.. Larre.. that is messed up. It's okay to physically abuse children and stay in the Order, but his 'morality' won't let him stay because of Morgenthaler? The cognitive dissonance that these people live with is astounding. (I agree that it doesn't really belong in the article, though.) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hey there. I'm not really sure that I agree with your usage of Commonwealth flags in the Edward & Andrew (and I'm guessing soon to be others) articles for the RVO honours. That honour is not given by HM as Head of the Commonwealth, and it is not a Commonwealth honour--there is no such thing, as far as I know, as a Commonwealth honour. Putting that flag there is, I think, a POV, unless you can cite an authoritative source which indicates that HM presents the RVO as a Commonwealth honour as opposed to a personal honour stemming from her as Queen. Yes, I understand that all Commonwealth citizens are eligible, but that's a fine difference from a Commonwealth honour. If that makes sense. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions for what other flag to use? I'm not beholden to the Commonwealth one, but there are no other appropriate flag icons to use, as far as I know. --G2bambino (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that one is necessary, is it? The only one that would jump to mind is HM's personal cypher (which, yes, I know changes from nation to nation) if one really must be used. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, actually her personal cypher is the same in every country, and I'd thought about using it. But, there's no icon template for it - at least, not that I could find - and I don't know how to make one. I could try and fudge it, I suppose... --G2bambino (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that her personal flag changes from nation to nation.. actually it does. Wait. No. Sorry.. the Royal Standard varies from country to country, the personal flag does not. Hmm.. here you go: [[Image:Personal flag of Queen Elizabeth II.svg|20px]] :) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 04:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It's just that the commonwealth flag has an icon template ({{flagicon|Commonwealth}}, which comes out like this: {{flagicon|Commonwealth}}. I can try an mimic it with EIIR's cypher. --G2bambino (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey woah, so we're saying that stuff like ADC(P) and RVO aren't British now, despite being British orders? Intriguing... Could you please bring this to discussion at the BRoy and Commonwealth WPs? I'll be back mid-next-week. Cheers DBD 12:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said they aren't British. It's just POV to say they're only British as they expand to, and are included in the orders lists, of other coutnries. If you want to discuss this further it'll have to go beyond just the Broy project; it applies to a broader scope than that. --G2bambino (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I don't think DBD meant that they're only British. But they are arguably primarily British in nature. That being said, I really do think that if a flag must be used, the closest-to-appropriate one is the old girl's personal standard. That being said, I really don't think that a flag is necessary, as these awards are relatively transnational, and the flags are meant to indicate national origin for orders & awards. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldest realm...

I've removed myself from that discussion, as it doesn't look like it can go anywhere good.. just wanted to say that it's starting to look like that person is going to question detail after detail after detail, and I think it's going to all end in a mess :/ Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Questioning may be no bad thing. Some of these articles have necome quite complacent in their assumptions. --Gazzster (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more clear.. I meant that this looks like questioning with an agenda, if you know what I mean. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I do. But even so, this may no bad thing either. These kind of challenges test the original agendas that may underline texts. And here I believe there's a prima facie case for suspecting that the text is (unwittingly, of course) scewed to an English view of history.--Gazzster (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Governors-General of Canada

Please note a few points:

• The rank comes before "The Right Honourable", as it was originally.
• The postnominal PC comes after honours and decorations, as it was originally.
• Please don't makes postnoms small - it looks awful, it is almost never done in real life, and it is in conflict with the rest of Wikipedia.
• There is no such thing as PC (UK) - it is simply the Privy Council.
• Infoboxes don't take precedence - information (such as ranks) should also be given in the body of the article.

Thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • It appears you are right about the rank and style. My apologies.
  • Post-nominals PC come before all honours in Canada besides the VC and CV; see Canadian order of precedence (decorations and medals)
  • It doesn't look awful at all; it's far more clean than a large string of letter-period-letter-period-comma-letter-period-letter-period-letter-period-comma-letter-etc.
  • How do you propose to differentiate between the UK Privy Council and the Canadian Privy Council?
  • I can't find any guidelines on the use of military rank in the article body; however, honorific styles are said to not be included not be included in the text inline. I assumed this to apply to military rank as well. --G2bambino (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

These people, however, were not Canadian, but British, and in Britain (and in Canada for most of its existence, since it used the same precedence as Britain) PC comes after honours and decorations. Their stints as GG of Canada were only a small portion of their career. As I said, the small postnoms are not used in real life, so there is no need to use them on Wikipedia - almost every other biography on WP uses the normal-sized version, so please don't be a maverick. There is no need to diferrentiate between the Canadian and "British" (not actually British, in actual fact) Privy Councils - Alexander was British. There has been much debate as to ranks, but it is not generally held to be an honorific and thus should be included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking to start a Canadian-British war over this, but the subjects of some of these articles will include both Canadian and British honourifics. If there's no need to differentiate between the two privy councils, then which does one link to? Saying "he was British" isn't good enough a reason to link only to the Imperial Privy Council, as though we're going to rewrite history to say the two councils were one, or the Canadian one didn't exist. Further, there are a number of biographies that put the post-nominals in a small format; it is the neater of the two options. If some still use full size letters, they should be corrected. I will concede, though, on the precedence; I suppose that until 1967, Canada followed the British order. --G2bambino (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say we should only link to the British Privy Council. I said that the British Privy Council is not abbreviated as PC (UK), but only as PC, since for most of its existence it was the only Privy Council in the Empire and, particularly since Alexander was British, an unqualified PC after his name should naturally be assumed to be that one. Of course we should link to the Canadian Privy Council too if he was a member of it. You may think that small postnoms is the "neater of the two options", but I don't and I'm afraid that normal usage, both on Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia, agrees with me. Please don't unilaterally decide that something is the better option without discussing it in the appropriate place, which in this instance is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You said: "There is no need to diferrentiate between the Canadian and "British" (not actually British, in actual fact) Privy Councils." Without distinguishing between the two (which is what the "UK" and "Can" additions were for, obviously), we're left with two options: have one "PC" following the subject's name, or two; PC PC. As the latter seems... well, to appear like a mistake, we're left with the former option. Hence, I asked which article the "PC" would link to. However, it seems that the latter was your intended solution; I wonder now how long it will be before someone tries to "fix" the double "PC."

As for the size of the letters, it wasn't I who started making them small. I just carried on. If it seriously needs to be discussed, then please start to do so, where appropriate. --G2bambino (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the differentiation should be on the side of the British appointment, since Alexander was British. Remember he wasn't appointed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, but simply to HM Privy Council. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to say what Alexander was, given that it was he, acting on behalf of the King of Canada, who granted royal assent to the Canadian Citizenship Act. But, regardless, he was appointed to two separate councils, no one superior to the other. Thus, he gained two identical sets of post-nominal letters: PC. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, currently possesses the same. --G2bambino (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

Hello G2. Aren't I a little stinker sometimes, he he he. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Stinker? No, I would never call you a stinker. --G2bambino (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian National Vimy Memorial

I'm not going to delete the King of Canada ref. to Edward VIII, it really doesn't matter to me that much. I don't agree with the style as there has never been a style of King/Queen of Canada but I will leave it to GA/A level review to figure it out, when the article it comes to it. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Never been a style "King/Queen of Canada"? Might I direct you to Style of the Canadian sovereign for further information? Regardless, I was only trying to clarify in what role Edward VIII was there in 1936 at Vimy, lest someone think he was there on behalf of the British government and not the Canadian one. --G2bambino (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I should clarily as I typed out that response out far too quickly. Never been a style of King/Queen of Canada utilized during the event for which the monument is dedicated nor at the period in time (1936) of dedication. Far as I know he was acting as monarch of the entire realm, not simply canada. But not going to split hairs. Labattblueboy (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I see; yes, the style did not come into use until his brother was king, and then not officially until 1953. However, there was no "entire realm" in 1936; after 1931 Canada was an independent country; in fact, the need for Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act to allow for Edward's abdication later that year is proof that Canada was soverign of the UK at that point (other demonstrations came later). I'm not stuck on keeping mention of his position in the infobox; just thought I was clarifying. Perhaps it isn't so clear after all. --G2bambino (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Canada

As you've already discovered, we've an interesting anon at that article's talk-page. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Interesting" is putting it mildly. --G2bambino (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

He/she has become disruptive & quite childish. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

An obvious hallow threat from the anon, who's now being a dick. But nevertheless, a threat was made. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Meh, the Wikimachine will do what it will to him. --G2bambino (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Most likely it's the same editor (the parents thingy? is a laugh). Oh well, it's out of our hands, from here. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspected that myself. Regardless, do you think a notice at ANI is needed, r.e. the dickery and threats? Or is the one I put at ANI/3RR about the 3RR breach enough? --G2bambino (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Globe & Mail threat was border-line; but the RCMP threat was over-the-line. Should it be reported at ANI? I'm not certain, as he/she is a newbie. Had this been an established editor (or a sock-puppert) - then such a report would be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmm.. true. --G2bambino (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good morning. I see Pcurrie has been indef blocked; It's too bad he/she couldn't reform. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Michaëlle Jean

Calm down, guys... Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am trying to maintain patience; Dlatimer is simply trying to irritate me because of goings on between us at Republicanism in Australia. He'll burn himself out eventually. --G2bambino (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care who did what, which is why I posted the exact same message on both your pages. I strongly suggest that you both take a step back from the page for 24 hours, and calm down. You have both hit 3RR. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't expect you to care any more than you have already; just letting you know that I'm in control and am aware of my 3RR status. But, again, thanks for the warning anyway. --G2bambino (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are in 3RR territory. Play multiple edit wars and you'll make mistakes. --Dlatimer (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you should be equally afraid for youself; more so, perhaps, as 'twas you who purposefully inflamed matters purely to be a pain. No prior involvement in the disputes; not one, single meaningful contribution; just a search through my edit history to make arbitrary reverts of my work. Not good. --G2bambino (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I found no valuable edits, but a lot of annoyed users. Have you read all the negative comments you make against people? Do you realise what it is to play games against them? or to bait them? the circular questioning? Is this your legacy? Do you think its so great to waste everyones time? Today, if I was annoying to you its just a taste of what you put everyone through all the time. And be sure I know that I am telling you what you already know about yourself. --Dlatimer (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Logging off --Dlatimer (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, perhaps you should stop annoying people and start making worthwhile edits. If you took less time making wild and embellished claims about me, and invested more effort in reading, discussing, and, yes, answering questions, then you'd probably have less users annoyed with you. --G2bambino (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is annoyed with me. But your edit waring days are finished. --Dlatimer (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Think again; I know of one editor who's annoyed with you, so that isn't nobody. Making threats isn't going to get you any friends, either. --G2bambino (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics

Hello G2. I don't know if it was purposefully planned that way - but those Olympics (which will be opened by an 86 yr-old Elizabeth II, assuming she's healthy), will coincide with Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I somehow doubt George VI's death could have been planned to be exactly 60 years before the 2012 summer Olympics; at least, not without some major conspiracy! ;) Here's to seeing her in Vancouver, 2010! --G2bambino (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just kidding about the purposely planning thingy, of course. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at rideau Hall. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I accept the (very slim) 3RR breach, as outlined below; I won't bother with the technicalities and subtleties that probably show 3RR wasn't actually broken. However, I will acknowledge that I skirted 3RR, and will say that there isn't any particular excuse for this; it was purely my own carelessness. I will also elaborate that it was User:Dlatimer's blatant mission of agitation that I was reacting to; if one follows his recent edit history, it will be revealed that, after failing to have his way without objection at Republicanism in Australia, he took it upon himself to seek revenge by going through my edit history and making arbitrary reverts to my previous edits at other articles, thereby involving himself in a dispute I was having with the equally uncooperative and uncommunicative User:Lonewolf BC at Rideau Hall (see above for but a very brief glimpse at the difficulties he alone creates); Dlatimer had no previous interest in the article, did not take the time to familiarise himself with the issues and their history, simply made blind reverts, and would not engage in discussion. In other words, he baited, and I bit. He, remaining unchided for his juvenile tactics, has since gone on to other pastures; as the fires at Rideau Hall have subsided (the present format resting for the last 20 hours, and acceptable to me), and blocks are preventative and not punitive, I believe it's safe, and just, to lift the present block on myself. I will henceforth have to be yet even more careful when dealing with these obstructionist types, who have been the main, if not the only, common factor in all of my troubles at Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Requests that include personal attacks aimed at others are not even taken under consideration. —  Sandstein  22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Calling out someone's problematic behaviour constitutes a "personal attack"? There is seemingly a confusion, on the part of the intervening admin, between what is criticism and what is insult. Regardless, let's then try this again:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

G2bambino (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I accept the (very slim) 3RR breach, as outlined below; I won't bother with the technicalities and subtleties that probably show 3RR wasn't actually broken. However, I will acknowledge that I skirted 3RR, and will say that there isn't any particular excuse for this; it was purely my own carelessness. User:Dlatimer, remaining unchided, has since gone on to other pastures; thus, as the fires at Rideau Hall have subsided (the present format resting for the last 20 hours, and acceptable to me), and blocks are preventative and not punitive, I believe it's safe, and just, to lift the present block on myself. I will henceforth have to be yet even more careful when dealing with obstructionist types, who have been the main, if not the only, common factor in all of my troubles at Wikipedia. --G2bambino (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Honestly, after such a long block record, many of them involving 3RR, and several unblocks that presumably came with a promise to be more careful, I don't believe you. Luckily this block is only a few hours away from being over anyway, so I suggest you simply wait. Mangojuice^talk 14:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mango, do you always make presumptions in your administrative actions? Further, if you say you don't believe me, that means you think I would immediately head off and revert at Rideau Hall, but, as I was the last person to edit there, I would be reverting myself.

The moral of this story - indeed, all the tales behind most of my blocks - seems to be that blind enforcement is all that matters to administrators; who's purposefully being disruptive and who's genuinely trying to thwart such behaviour simply doesn't matter; it's all about who's good at fying under the radar and who isn't. Thus, he who engages in an edit war for no other reason than to agitate goes unpunnished simply because he was able to piggy back on another agitators's reverts and stay himself under 3RR, while he who finds this type of behaviour reprehensible and is left alone to stand against two or more such obstructionists, gets yet another punnishment simply because he skirted 3RR. Not only that, the former's reputation goes unscarred while it's the latter who's made to look like the jerk! It's a ridiculous system, and one that I find myself again questioning whether or not I bloody well want to keep putting up with it; I'm sick of being made to look like the bad guy. --G2bambino (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A summary of my actions at Rideau Hall since 22:02, 23 August 2008:

• 22:02, 23 August 2008 Not a revert
• 22:07, 23 August 2008 Not a revert
• 22:09, 23 August 2008 Not a revert
• 22:00, 24 August 2008 1st revert in 24 hrs.
• 22:03, 24 August 2008 2nd revert in 24 hrs. (only if adhering to stringent technicalities; this was actually a restoration of what was agreed on in August 2007, and should really be lumped in with the above edit)
• 22:21, 24 August 2008 3rd (or 2nd) revert in 24 hrs.
• 22:26, 24 August 2008 Not a revert
• 23:47, 24 August 2008 4th (or 3rd) revert in 24 hrs.
• 23:53, 24 August 2008 Revert of self, cancelling out 4th (or 3rd) revert in 24 hrs., resulting in a total of 3 (or 2) reverts in 24 hrs.
• 23:56, 24 August 2008 Not a revert
• 16:06, 25 August 2008 4th (or 3rd) revert in 24 hrs.
• 00:24, 26 August 2008 2nd revert in 24 hrs.

Fear not G2, 31hrs will go by quickly. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure they'd go by any quicker than, well, 31 hours. Still seems a tad long when all I did was try to rein in a user on a petulant rampage; I just did it poorly. --G2bambino (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of archiving the rest of this page, feel free to revert my impertinence. ;) Regards, --Cameron* 10:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)