User talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Example (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Unfinished work to "putter-on"


Unfinished work (i). The Dominion of Canada as the intended name.

Sir John A Mac Donald 1889 Letter


Bold text: Ewart's large type-face used,

Blue text: Sir John A MacDonald's own words,

Italised text:' Ewart's own italised text.


From J.S. Ewart, The Kingdom Papers, Volume II, Mc Clelland, Goodchild, and Stewart, Toronto, Canada, pp. 384-385, (1912-1917).


Sir John’s Testimony.—Twenty-two years later after the passing of our constitution act, Sir John was still resentful at the failure of Colonial Office sympathy with the great project of founding a Kingdom, and writing to Lord Krutsford (18 July, 1889) he said—

“A great opportunity was lost in 1867, when the Dominion was formed out of several provinces. This remarked event in the history of the British Empire passed almost without notice. The new Confederation had, at the time of the union, about the same population as the thirteen colonies when they rebelled and formed a nation imbued with the bitterest feelings of hostility towards England—feelings, which by the way, exist in as offensive a form now they did on the day of the ‘declaration of independence.’

“The declaration of all B.N.A. provinces, that they desired one Dominion to remain a portion of the Empire, showed what wise government and generous treatment would do, and should have been marked as an epoch in the history of England. This probably would have been the case had Lord Carnarvon, who had Colonial Minister had ‘sat at the cradle’ of the new Dominion, remained in office. His ill-omened resignation was followed by the appointment of the late Duke of Buckingham, who had as his advisor the then Governor-General, Lord Monck—both good men, certainly, but quite unable from the constitution of their minds, to rise to the occasion. The Union was treated by them as if the B.N.A. Act were a private Bill uniting two or three English parishes. Had a different course been pursued—for instance, had Canada been declared to be an auxiliary Kingdom, as it was in the Canadian draft of the Bill—I feel sure (almost) that the Australian Colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed at the same rank as ‘The Kingdom of Canada.’

“Pray pardon this long discursive letter, which I have been tempted to bore you with by the pleasant and cool breezes of the Lower St. Lawrence, where I am spending so weeks to escape the heat of Ottawa, and by the hope that, the time this reaches you, you will have been able to get away from official cares.

“Should I be able to visit England this year, I shall refrain from pressing my views on Her Majesty’s Government at even greater length than I now venture to trouble your lordship with.


“Meanwhile, believe me, dear Lord Knutsford,

“Faithfully yours,

“John A. MacDonald.”


“P.S.—On reading the above over, I see that it will convey the impression that the change in the title from Kingdom to Dominion was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. That is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then Foreign Minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees. I mentioned this to Lord Beaconsfield at Hughenden in 1878, who replied: ‘I was not aware of that circumstance, but it is so like Derby, a very good fellow but one who lives in a region of perpetual funk.’—J.A.M.D.”


Note: Sir Joseph Pope, published the above letter of Sir John A MacDonald, in his book Sir John A MacDonald, Vol. I., pp. 311-313, and in Sir Joseph's letters to the Ottawa Citizen (newspaper) of July 26, 1917.



Unfinished work (ii). The Dominion of Canada as seen from early texts.

Joseph Cauchon, Etude sur l'Union Projetee des Province Britaniques de l'Amerique du Nord, Typograhie D'Augustin Cote, Quebec, pp. 36, (1858).


Acte Concenant l'Union et le Gouverenment du Canada, et de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, et de Nouveau Brunswick, Ainsi que les Objets qui s'y Rattachent (30e Victoria, Chap. 3) / An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick and the Government Thereof; and for the Purposes Contected Therewith (30 Victoria, Cap 3), Typographie D'Augustin Cote, Quebec, Canada, pp. 209, (1868). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BNA_Act1867_FrenchPreamble_page4.gif



ArmchairVexillologistDon 07:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon case →Raul654 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One-year block completed

I have removed the "blocked" tag from the top of the page. Welcome back. Ground Zero | t 23:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Howdy Ground Zero. Thank you very much for removing the blocked tag. I appreciate that very much indeed.
Take care and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It's been a year already, and as you can tell, the very shape of flag coverage on Wikipedia is pretty much changed since you were last here. I hold no grudge with you, and welcome you back to the community-at-large. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Kingdom of Great Britain. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. You are well beyond this rule now. -- zzuuzz(talk) 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zzuuzz, I presume that you are an Administrator. I am well aware of the 3RR rule, and frankly I know that I have exceeded it. Next up, If you check my record, I was banned from Wikipedia for 1 year. Thus, I am not ignorant of the penalties.
Frankly, could you explain why it seems that the onus is always on me, and the opponent always seems to get one more revert than me. I would dearly like this possible "mis-perception" of mine explained.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm aware of your previous. I couldn't find anything specific from the arbcom relating to this current revert war - if there was would you tell me? I think it is fair to say that both of you are being treated equally when it comes to 3RR. You were both warned together, and if a 3RR block is forthcoming you will probably be blocked together. I have not blocked either of you, despite both of you being 3RR-aware long-standing editors, in the hope that a 3RR reminder will work. Anyway, you have both been reported at the 3RR board, but it won't be me blocking you at this time. Please continue discussing this on the talk page or RFC instead of reverting. Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 15:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert rule report

I have reported a primâ facie breach of the three revert rule on the noticeboard. Please comment there. Sam Blacketer 15:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Primâ facie? Gotta love Latin eh. What particularly is your interest in this Sam Blacketer?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on February 24, 2007 to United Kingdom of Great Britain

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Sorry for removing your edits to Canada, It was inadvertent.

BrianGV talk 22:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello BrianGV, thank you very much for the kind note. I appreciate it alot. I was trying to make the Canadian Constitutional Independence part clearer, without raising the OLD ARGUEMENT over the long-form name of the Dominion of Canada.
That ole one (ie., the Dominion of Canada debate) sure makes "the shit-hit-the-fan" eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Canada. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/m/User_talk%7EArmchairVexillologistDon_6c45.html"