User talk:G2bambino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3 - Archive 4

Contents

[edit] 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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 1923-2008

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] A censored discussion

[A discussion started at User talk:Lonewolf BC, retracted by myself, reinstated by LW, but, true to form, deleted by LW when it started to expose too much about his bad habits. I'm giving it yet another renaissance here so as to allow myself the ability to respond, but also to keep it in the light of day; his self-percieved infallability is just too gobsmackingly funny to be cast away like that! --G2]

Is there any particular reason why you choose to ignore the first step of the dispute resolution process? You might want to note that "talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it." --G2bambino (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question is based on false assumptions that I "...choose to ignore...." and "...[fail] to pursue...", and is basically and accusation of bad faith. Viper-tongued messages of that sort are rude, unhelpful to the WP project, and unwelcome here. No more of them from you, please. We can discuss the editorial issue that has prompted your verbal attack on the talkpage of the article concerned.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's odd that you restore a message that I myself removed only to then complain about it. But, now that you have, I suppose it's only fair, and necessary, that I respond and say: you're right, perhaps you don't choose to ignore the first step of the dispute resolution process; maybe you just don't know about it. But, given the length of your experience here, I'd find that hard to believe. Regardless, there is indeed a dearth of contributions to talk pages on your part when it comes to disputes between you and I, especially; it's one of the main characteristics of your editing tactics that has always been most aggravating, and, as WP:DR#Discuss points out, makes good grounds for perceiving ill motive. If it is not your intent to provoke me into edit wars, then constructively and cooperatively participating in an open discussion would go a long way to proving that. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really so odd, given that you'd posted the message and I'd written an answer. Next time, don't post the noxious message to begin with.
Your impressions of me and my "tactics" -- your very choice of that word starkly shows your wrongheadedness -- are basically out to lunch, and verge on paranoid. You are gravely mistaken, but if you won't take my word for that then believe what you like and keep it to yourself.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Er, no, I posted the message and then deleted it before you placed your response. If you didn't want any "noxious" commentary, why put it back? Like I said: odd.
As I also said, if I'm mistaken about your motives, prove me to be so; but do it through improving your attitude and, yes, tactics. Making over-dramatic feigns of insult and injury to your precious, self-imagined flawlessness certainly won't win anyone over. --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes, you posted a noxious message on my talkpage and then you removed it while I, as it happened, was writing an answer, and then I decided to post the answer anyway, having troubled to write it and because you had "said" what you said to me, despite that you afterward erased it. I suggest that in the future you think more carefully before you post -- perhaps especially when addressing another editor on their own talkpage.
Your ongoing personal invective against me does not bother me insofar as that I doubt anyone but you finds it convincing. It would nevertheless be better if you knocked it off, so please do.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No need to think any more carefully than I do; I only removed the comment at your talk because I saw you had replied at Talk:Expo 67 in the meantime; hence I said in my edit summary that I was going to place the comments elsewhere, and did.
That said, there's no intention to "bother you" on my part; in fact, I'd love to see the back of you as soon as possible. My only desire is the bringing about of an end to your consistent log-jamming of the editing process. I can't help it if this means exposing your poor behaviours, and I certainly won't quit because you tell me to. --G2bambino (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You wrote: "I only removed the comment at your talk because I saw you had replied at Talk:Expo 67 in the meantime...
Now let's think about this... At 9:08 (UTC) I post on the article talkpage in response to your initial post there. Ten minutes later (9:18) you respond by saying "That's not good enough....". Twenty-two minutes later again (9:40) you post your accusations/complaints on my talkpage. In that same minute, the post from me which you seemingly felt was owing on the article talkpage arrives there, and so as 9:42 you erase your message (which meanwhile I've already read and so am busy answering). Does it not occur to you that maybe -- just maybe -- all of that does but point to hastiness on your part? Leaving aside the snarkiness and inaccuacy of your message, would it not have been wiser for you to wait some reasonable span of time for a further response on the article's talkpage, before posting on my talkpage?
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
To answer you frankly: no. My 9:40 comment at your talk was made after some time considering, and was in regard to, the larger issue that is repeatedly causing problems (i.e. your persistent pattern of leaving the resolution of your disputes to others), not at all about a 20 minute delay in your responding at Talk:Expo 67. It was obviously mere coincidence that you responded at that talk page the very minute I dropped my comment on yours, and the response you left actually turned out to be appropriate to the point I had made over at your talk. Hence, I moved my words, to a better location, not because I regretted any undue hastiness on my part; plus, you typically delete even the most vaguely critical comments from your talk anyway.
So, it seems all that's left is just the "snarkiness and inaccuracy" of my message, which, of course, I don't think is all that apt a description of it; it might not have been the most gracious commentary I've ever made, but it wasn't even close to snarky, and it certainly wasn't inaccurate. --G2bambino (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh well. I can only lead you to water. Incidentally, your writing of a "20 minute delay" seemingly exemplifies your attitudinal problem: Twenty minutes should not be seen as a delay in getting an answer. Also, I hope you are not being ironic with, "It was obviously mere coincidence..." (though I rather get the opposite impression), but it could scarcely have been anything but coincidence, as you may realise if you think on it, and (lest you miss my point here) it was in fact nothing other than coincidence. Had you but waited...
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"Delay" was used because you obviously thought that I had felt there was one; when I say I did not post my message at your talk because of any delay it was because I didn't think there was one. If I know from experience not to expect much further from you after dropping your un-elucidated judgment, why would I perceive a delay? I didn't think there was anything to wait for! But its seems, though, that it's a useless effort to try and get any other result here. I can see you have an interpretaion of what happened, and I can even maybe understand how that conclusion was come to, but you refuse to accept any other explanation. And that make this a prime example of the overreaching problem: from our present little discussion and your general pattern of behavior elsewhere, the way you see things must be the absolute truth, while anyone else's take - regardless of whether or not they're actually describing their own actions - is simply misguided and foolish. You don't even seem to feel the need to justify your superior ability to decide what is right and wrong, good and bad; we all must simply just take it. Egotistical delusions of grandeur. A way to protect yourself from admitting error, and thus flaw, maybe? I don't know, and I don't particularly care; unless, of course, those delusions get in the way of progress on an article again. I hope that doesn't happen, but, given your obstinacy, and penchant for tailing me around Wikipedia, I have my doubts. --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"I didn't think there was anything to wait for!"
Well... There it is. You didn't bother to wait for an answer, but just assumed you'd get none. So you posted a comment on my talkpage which obnoxiously assumes, quite similarly and in a "Do you still beat your wife?" way, that I don't take proper part in discussion.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on lengthy experience and observation. --G2bambino (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)