User talk:G2bambino/Archive 2

Cruise Liner

Regarding your comment in editing out the term "Cruise Liner" in the SS Canberra article. It is interesting that you should think cruise liner is an oxymoronic term, considering "cruise" and "liner" do not contradict each other. A liner is a ship that carries out scheduled voyages between A and B, either for the purposes of carrying cargo or passengers, or both. There is nothing to say a liner can not offer cruises along the way, if it is meeting its schedule. And how can there be no such thing, when "cruise liner" gets 975,000 hits in Google and many companies referring to their ships by that term?. A Cruise liner can be;

• A liner converted to a cruise ship
• A ship built to perform liner voyages and cruise, ie QE2 and QM2
• A passenger/ cargo liner that offers cruise holidays in addition to, or during the course of, its scheduled liner voyages- ie RMS St. Helena
• A loose marketing term for a cruise ship that supposedly offers the luxury and facilities of the liners of old

--Dashers 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a term coined by travel agents to pitch a sale can be taken too seriously. There has been for almost 50 years one distinct characteristic that defines what category a ship fits into: how it's built. Liners are constructed differently to cruise ships; narrower, stiffer, more curved hulls, with thicker steel and deeper drafts, and more powerful propulsion. An ocean liner can do cruise routes, and a cruise ship can line voyages, but that doesn't make the ocean liner a cruise ship, nor the cruise ship an ocean liner, or either a "cuise liner", otherwise every ship would be one. The Mauretania, Queen Elizabeth, Rotterdam IV, Normandie and many other liners undertook numerous cruises - have they ever been referred to as cruise liners?

Now, ships built purposefully for both crossing and cruising are a bit ambiguous, but their status as liners seems to take precedence amongst ship experts, as no matter whether she cruises or not, without the characteristics of a liner she cannot be one. Never have I heard of a ship historian (John Maxtone-Graham, Bill Miller, Lee Server, etc.) refer to anything called a "cruise liner", or refer to dual purpose ships like the QM2, QE2 and Rotterdam as anything other than ocean liners. In fact, I believe it was Maxtone-Graham who said "cruise liner" was oxymoronic - I guess I picked it up from him. --g2bambino 03:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start by saying that I have never used the term cruise liner myself, and passenger ships to me are either liners, cruise ships or ferries- but I would not go so far as to say never the twain shall meet. Having said that, I do not think that terms that have appeared in modern usage can be ignored or discarded, just because a bunch of maritime historians want to maintain the mystique of a bygone era. There are plenty of terms that come into common usage that as we get older and more set in our ways, we cringe at. Just because a phrase is a marketing term, it does not make it invalid- it is the level of usage that determines its validity. Past attempts to differentiate the larger, faster more luxurious vessels from the smaller slower ones by attempting to make the term Ocean Liner exclusive would have had as much to do with marketing as anything else.

I would argue that the characteristic that defines what category a ship fits into is its function, not its build- and a ship is built to take into account its function. The term liner has more to do with function- carrying out deep sea line voyages on set routes, to a regular schedule. They do not have to be powerful, as long as they meet the schedule they were designed for. Many cargo liners (a term that has been around much longer than Cruise Liner) would only have a top speed of 12 or 14 knots. Many of the ocean liners were built to perform their line voyages at high speed, for the benefit and comfort of their passengers and for prestige. Longer, narrower, stiffer hulls and more powerful propulsion enabled them to do this. However, many other passenger ships carrying out line voyages were not built to perform their function at high speed and did not have the long narrow hulls and powerful machinery of some of the transatlantic liners. Typically ships built by P&O and the British India Steam Navigation Company for servicing India and East Africa were more about comfort than speed, and the likes of the SS Uganda certainly did not have the long lines or powerful machinery of the likes of the RMS Queen Elizabeth. The Uganda was still a liner though.

When air travel first started to make inroads into markets formerly reserved for the shipping companies, many of the older (and, at the time, not so old) ships were deployed for cruising and most ceased performing line voyages altogether. When this happened, they ceased to be liners- they became cruise ships. When fuel prices started to climb in the 1970's, many had their machinery de-rated to be more fuel efficient- in effect, losing some of the specifications that, according to your argument, made them exclusively Ocean Liners. The desire to hang on to the term liner for these re-deployed ships would again have as much to do with marketing as technicalities. In this sense, the shipping companies trying to wring as much money out of an old ship would be trying to achieve the same goal as the maritime historians- preserving the mystique of that bygone era.

--Dashers 07:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg removed from your user page

An image or media file, Image:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg, has been removed from your userpage or user talk page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Thank you for your cooperation.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Image; Canberra-ship1.jpg

I have uploaded the photo Image:03-Ponta_Delgada_1984.jpg which I have released to the public domain, and used it to replace Image:Canberra-ship1.jpg, in line with Wikipedia's fair use policy which states; "Copyrighted material lacking a free licence such as GFDL may be used on the English-language Wikipedia under fair use if..." "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" --Dashers 04:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dominion

Thought you'd be interested in this, there is a discussion on the Canada article, to remove the word dominion from the intro. Regards, -- Jeff3000 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

SS France

You have reverted my deletion on the current location of Blue Lady. While I think the statement was current when first added to the article, the cited reference has changed and I could not see where it now supports the assertion as to the current location of the ship. Also, I don't think an enclyopedia article should state where it "now" is, but rather where it as as of a certain date. I haven't reverted it back but you may want to check the reference to see if supports the statement (and the cited source changes often), and also rephrase the statement so that it is not rapidly outdated, as would appear from a 6/28 article. [[1]]Kablammo 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't worded correctly, then I have no objection to it being edited. However, simply removing an entire sourced sentence seems inappropriate. I'll look at the link to see where the information came from. --g2bambino 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As alluded to above, I think the statement was correct when made, but no longer is. That is why it was deleted. Kablammo 18:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The article you cited above states that the ship left Fujairah on June 14. So, yes, it seems the SS France (1961) article here is out of date. But, the sentence in question should be reworded to reflect the changes, not deleted. That's a good article you provided, though. I'll use it as a reference. --g2bambino 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a date to your change, so that the article will be correct even if is not changed "in real time" with future developments. I like your additions to the France page, but I think the whole article could benefit by reorganization along a more chronological basis. That would require moving your design additions up towards the top, maybe with the remodeling for its life as Norway in a section devoted to its second career, and discussion of its post-retirement history at the end. Do you think that makes sense? Kablammo 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know what date she arrived at her current anchorage - thanks for adding that.

The article could be reorganized; I was simply trying to follow the format I set up for other ship articles, notably RMS Queen Mary 2 and RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. History is outlined first, followed by exterior design, interior design, technical specs, and so on. France/Norway just has such a storied carreer that her history section is much longer than all the others. --g2bambino 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the formats for SS Normandie and RMS Aquitania--that's what I had in mind. There may not be only one "right" answer. If I want to reorganize the France page I'll let you know first. Kablammo 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gbambino-- thought you might be interested in these articles: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?section=theuae&xfile=data/theuae/2006/june/theuae_june941.xml

and

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?section=theuae&xfile=data/theuae/2006/july/theuae_july194.xml

The plot thickens . . . Kablammo 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a (historical Canadian) beer

I like a man who can change his mind. Reverting your own revert is a noble thing. I wouldn't normally have noticed but I went back into history to check something and I saw your note. SilkTork 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth II image

Please stop reverting that page. It is not urgent which image appears on it. I've already warned your opposite number that if he reverts again I will block him, and I will you too, if you should revert. -Splash - tk 15:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Today's edit was my third (and obviously last) revert. I have opened a discussion about the issue on the associated talk page. --g2bambino 15:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the User Monty Python userbox

Hello there...I have come up with a whole slew of new usages for the User Monty Python userbox. They are currently located in my sandbox. I would like your opinion before I put them up for general consumption, and if you have any other suggestions, please let me know.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for creating Template:Commonwealth monarchism I was going to create it; but got sidetracked :) Brian | (Talk) 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Norway/Blue Lady comments

A terrific tribute to this grand vessel.. I admire the time and work you put into it. Such a shame that she has reportedly now been beached at Alang. --OneCyclone 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Filibuster Forums

As per your question, the guy behind Snafu Comics (who seems to be a new friend of J.J.) added a board on his forum for the discussion of Filibuster Cartoons and other political matters. It was just opened up a few days ago, so there really have only been three comics to talk about. You can read a little more about it on the homepage of Filibuster Cartoons, just immediately under the comic itself. RPH 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RMS

I wanted to ask you about your reversion to MS Queen Victoria. You said there's not evidence yet that it's no longer an RMS. By definition, she won't be. Queen Victoria is a cruise ship, not a liner. The designation of RMS is properly used by British ships that are transporting mail on contract. RMS isn't an automatic designation, but properly one that's only assigned to a ship when there's mail onboard. See Royal Mail Ship. I didn't want to revert your revert before talking to you, but RMS really isn't appropriate for the article. Akradecki 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry about that...foot in mouth, I misunderstood...you were talking about QE2 not QV. Sorry! Akradecki 00:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Help in explaining that Queen Elizabeth is not 1/16th of a monarch

Hello gbambino, I've seen from various discussions that you have an interest in Queen Elizabeth II. I was wondering if you could help me explain to User:CaribDigita on their talk page that Queen Elizabeth II is not "1/16th the Queen of Barbados" and is technically a separate legal monarch (although "shared" in a sense). The matter came up because CaribDigita is of the opinion that Barbados has no royal anthem (God Save the Queen), which I believe is incorrect so long as Barbados has a queen (the monarch being the symbolic embodiment of the State).Thanks!72.27.87.249 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

UCC Article: Sources on "most prestigious"

Hi there;

I do not disagree with the notion that UCC is Canada's most prestigious independent school. But when I removed 5 of the 6 notes on this, I did so for good reason. Several of these articles do not mention at any point the prestigiousness of UCC. One CBC one, as you mentioned, does; however, it does not note that UCC is the "most prestigious" school, as the wiki article states. The Globe article that I left clearly labels UCC the most prestigious.

And gee whiz, it's not like this is totally important, although I understand your pride as an Old Boy! If you would like to leave the lanaguage "often touted", I am willing to cede that this is accurate. However, I would urge you to take an objective look at the 6 sources and to decide which ones really apply to the point being made. Perhaps you can find other sources supporting the claim, as they surely exist. The Globe article behind the insider edition password section is not an acceptable source. The CBC one that mentions "prestigious": maybe. Otherwise, I don't think so. But I won't engage in a back and forth with you. Rather, I'll let you do what you think is appropriate. If you keep them all, then I'll let it be!

Ich dien, Stephen

P.S.: Were you a man of Trinity at UToronto? 142.151.162.189 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC) .. I don't have an account yet.

Truly, this isn't a matter of pride. I've sat out and merely watched the silly tit-for-tat edit war go on over whether UCC is "the most" or "one of the most," whether it's exclusive or prestigious, or what=have-you. All those six sources were dug out by others to affirm that the school is "often touted" as prestigious or exclusive, which seemed to settle the matter; it's been stable for quite some time now. So, that's why I'm a little objectionable to removing cites - I don't want to see the edit war start up again. --g2bambino 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for the explanation. I'd ask if you would agree with removing source #3, because most people do not have access to that article. The rest, I cede, should stay with good reason. What do you think? 142.151.162.189 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any rule regarding member-only websites being used as sources, but my logic is that the cite links to a newspaper article, which, though it may not be accessable to everyone through the internet, can be found for free in a library. Perhaps I could just rewrite the source as pure text, as would be done for a reference to a book; i.e.: Cheney, Peter; Globe and Mail: UCC's watershed moment; September 11, 2004. --g2bambino 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary in Image:Queen_of_canada.jpg

In regard to this edition, Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing..

But if instead, you want to politely discuss the matter, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_of_Canadian_politicians. --Abu Badali 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling a tag "silly" is abusive? Really? --g2bambino 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:BritanniaRestaurant2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BritanniaRestaurant2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PC

I'm sure you're acting in good faith but there is no double use of PC. Long before Canada existed Ireland had its own Privy Council and there were members of both the UK and the Irish PC. eg The Duke of Wellington. However members of both still used PC (once) not twice. By all means add to the Honours section that he is a member of both but he still gets only one PC either way Alci12 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this. Thank you. It leaves me wondering, though, how one differentiates between the two (or three) privy councils in someone's post-nominals. --g2bambino 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Titleholders templates

I asked Kingboyk this a few days ago, and have had no reply - I hope you don't mind my asking you... I've been working on some templates, and I've noticed that when one is placed under another, there is sometimes a gap, but sometimes not - could you take a look? An example is Charles, Prince of Wales - CPW joins to PW, whereas PW doesn't to DC... Could you possibly shed some light? Cheers - - DBD^R 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hello Gbambino, Thank you for the information about the Images,I am very New to Contributing and find the Copyrighting of Images difficult to understand and could do with some advice. Most of the images you have listed above are of Postcards or Images that I have collected Over the years. they have no copyright printed on them so I am not sure how I should Tag them with. Any advice would be very much appreciated.Stavros1 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. --gbambino 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:QM2FTL05.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:QM2FTL05.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Oden 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Stealing your Map Idea

Hi there; I just wanted to let you know that I have stolen your pins-in-world-map idea for my user page. I am just getting a little deeper into Wikieverything and I am finding it very interesting. I know we rubbed harshly on a UCC issue, and I apologise; I concede that the thrust of my objections were wrapped in pro-AC anti-UCC sentiment, which really has no place here (or anywhere). We seem to have a bit in common, and I would hope that we can wikigetalong! Cheers. Shagmaestro 12:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh!

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1432

Better dispatch the scribes to correct the PMO on this one!--SFont 11:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fiji - order of precedence (chiefs, etc.)

Hi there! Just my two cents' worth to clear up some confusion on the precedence of Fiji's President, Paramount Chief, and other chiefs.

There are hundreds of chiefs - each village has its own chief, sometimes more than one, as the various clans of a village may have individual chiefs also. But there is a definite hierarchy. Each Province chooses three representatives to sit on the Great Council of Chiefs - these 3 are usually very highly ranked chiefs, although on the odd occasion lower chiefs and even commoners have been chosen. The Great Council of Chiefs elects the country's President, Vice-President, and 14 of the 32 Senators.

Ratu Josefa Iloilo is the current President (or deposed President, depending on whether you go by de facto or de jure). He holds the hereditary title of Tui Vuda and as such is the traditional ruler of Viseisei and Vuda.

• The Tui Vuda recognizes the Roko Tui Dreketi (Paramount Chief of Burebasaga) as his overlord.

• The Roko Tui Dreketi recognizes the Tui Cakau (Paramount Chief of Tovata as her equal, and the Vunivalu of Bau (Paramount Chief of Kubuna) as her superior.

• All three chiefs (Roko Tui Dreketi, Tui Cakau, and Vunivalu of Bau) recognize Elizabeth II as their own Paramount Chief.

This order of precedence has nothing to do with political authority, but signifies seniority and is reflected in ceremonial protocol.

Perhaps the most influential chief in the 20th century was Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna. He held the title of Tui Lau - a title subordinate to the Tui Cakau and a number of others. He dominated the landscape like a colossus - but when it came to ceremonial matters, he deferred to the holders of more senior titles.

President Iloilo has a lower precedence than Queen Elizabeth in his capacity as Tui Vuda, not in his capacity as President. It is also as Tui Vuda that he is of lower rank than the Roko Tui Dreketi, the Tui Cakau, and the Vunivalu of Bau. On matters of state, they will defer to him, but when it comes to all traditional matters handled by the Great Council of Chiefs, he will certainly defer to them.

By custom (not law), the Presidency is rotated among the three chiefly hierarchies (Kubuna, Burebasaga, and Tovata). The first President, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, was the Tui Cakau, but his two successors have both been of lower rank.

I hope this helps. David Cannon 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'll ask a Fijian legal expert about your latest question and get back to you. As I understand it, though, the Great Council of Chiefs is not constitutionally above the president any more than America's electoral college is. I could be mistaken, though, and will look into it. I will also re-read the Constitution of Fiji (there is a link from that article to the text on Wikisource) and see what it says. David Cannon 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NZ walk-abouts

The walkabout referred to, is the first walkabout Elizabeth II, as the reigning sovereign. Have a look at the 80 facts about the Queen, that were released in April, (fact 41 says “The first 'Royal walkabout' took place during the visit by The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh to Australia and New Zealand in 1970. The practice was introduced to allow them to meet a greater number of people, not simply officials and dignitaries.”) The Queen and Country show, that was produced in 2002, for her Golden Jubilee, had some detail why they chose Wellington for her first walkabout Brian | (Talk) 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just been reading the Royal website kids "mailbox" for this month.

“ Q: June - Whitby

Can you tell me when the first Walkabout took place, please?

The first royal walkabout was undertaken by The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh during a visit to New Zealand in March 1970 for the 200th anniversary of Captain Cook's voyage. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness took crowds in Wellington by surprise by unexpectedly getting out of their car and walking along the street, talking to many of the assembled crowds of people. A British journalist dubbed the event a royal 'walkabout' - a term traditionally applied to the wanderings of the Australian aborigines. [2]

”

I wonder if the one in Canada by their late Majesty's was not a 'true walkabout'. I think you must be right, the one in 1970 in NZ was the first 'planned' walk-about whereas the previous had been unscripted Brian | (Talk) 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Iona Campagnolo picture copyright

I'm not sure if the Canadian public official template is right for that picture (Image:Campagnolo.jpg). I've tried to use it before on other pictures from Government House and it had to be changed because the template only applies to works by the federal government. --Ibagli (Talk) 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of Canada

Thanks for your edits to the article. There is one thing that it will be worth mentioning to you, but not on the article, but I did a recent search on eBay and copies of the Order were being sold for under 50 CAD. Sad, isn't it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #8

Re: [3]: The use of fair use images in gallery type formats such as found on this page has been discussed in a number of forums on Wikipedia. The conclusion of these discussions has been that such use is not permitted. There is no issue with, for example, displaying Image:Bigcancoat.png on Coat of arms of Canada as the coat of arms is discussed at length and it contributes significantly to the article about those coat of arms. Indeed, the article itself would be lacking significantly without that image. The Canadian royal symbols article is just a summary of information that already exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. Having fair use images replicated to pages like this does not add significantly to the project. Thus, such use is not permitted per terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #8. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 21:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II

Hello,

I see you are Canadian (like me) and I wanted to point out that you changed this article to say that The Queen is Soverign of the provincial Orders. This is not the case. Bizare isn't it. These were made by provincial legislation at various times. Until 1993 none of them were incorporated into the Canadian Honours System and therefore could not be worn with, for example, the Order of Canada. The Queen, according to the constitution of these orders, plays no part. Her representitives the Leutenant-governors do with the major exeption of the National Order of Quebec. This was created by Renee Levesque to be the Quebec version of the Legion of Honour. When Renee created it, he made himself (as "Prime Minister of Quebec") head of the order..just like in the legion of honour. I realize you are being bold...but please verify that the changes you are making are correct. This can be done with a simple google search..or even by reading the wikipedia articles of these order. Also, the Queen as far as I understand was similarly cut out of the jamaican honours system. The Queen's regular appointments to Orders to which she became soverign later ended upon her becoming soverign. She cannot hold multiple appointments to a single order and therefore her appointments to these orders ended in 1952. I haven't altered the article to say this yet though.

Otherwise, I like what you did with adding the flags to the list...great idea. But like I said, there is a time to be bold, and a time to fact check. Dowew 06:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussed at Talk:List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II --G2bambino 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Symbols

Your recent edit to Canadian royal symbols (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kingston Community Classifieds

G2bambino why did you delete the link for Kingstons Local Classifieds. This is not spam, but a local site designed by a Kingston resident for Kingstonians. I believe this link should appear under the sites and I am going to ad it back to the article. Kingston Local Classifieds([4]) Dude154 12:29, 17 January 2007

As User:Flibirigit stated after your re-insertion: classified ads are not encyclopedic. --G2bambino 15:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

UCC Houses

Really terrific work on this new page. Much more efficient that pages that had previously been in place. Well done. User:Synflame 8:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC -5)

UCC continued

I'm concerned that the UCC Architecture wont warrant its own page in the views of most Wikipedians, and it might be in our interest to reinclude it in a more terse form. -- Unsigned comment by User:Synflame

Part III

We should toss this in somewhere abouts, particularly considering its rave reviews and quotes from UCC's most prominent. http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1551990059/ref=pd_rvi_gw_2/702-4296498-6800850

User:Synflame 12:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC-5)

Actually, there's already a section in the article that discusses this book, and some of the reaction. --G2bambino 17:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada

I saw your edit of that article and noticed the follow:

"Most of the Queen's domestic duties are performed by the Governors General and Lieutenant"

Under the Constitution Act 1867, Section 12 "Lieutenant Governors of those Provinces"

It is not a repeated use of the word 'Governor' and the use of 'Lieutenant' alone might confuse people with a military personnel with the rank of Lieutenant.

--Cahk 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied to at User talk:Cahk --G2bambino 19:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: -- The use of proper title is significant in Common Law and the titles were set out under the Constitution Act 1867 and Constitution Act 1982. Whether or not it's a repetitive use is for one to judge. But the only correct way to address the role of the Queen's representative in the province is Lieutenant Governor.--Cahk 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

-- In that case.. you should just wipe out all the repetitive use of the word in the article or standardize the whole article with reference as Governor General and Lieutenant-Governor --Cahk 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Reply: I insist on having that change for several reasons:

1) General and Lieutenant are not the same as Governor General and Lieutenant Governor. The former ones are military ranks and the latter ones are titles.

2) The titles are set out by the law. Governor is different from Governor General in the tradtional British sense because Governors are usually head of a colony and have executive power in daily business in the colony(for which we did have such title before 1867) while Governor General is purely ceremonial.

3) Standardize the whole article when referencing to the title.

I can see where you coming from and your rationale behind it. However, it is like saying the GG is the Commander (a soldier), but in fact, she is the Commander-in-chief of CF which is a ceremonial role.--Cahk 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

First of all, I came from a law background and are familiar with the Constituional Law of Canada. Most of what you said is true, except

1. Lieutenant governors ARE NOT subordinate to the GG, he/she is the Queen's representative just like the GG is. The examples I used above is to illustrate to you there might be confusion when someone is looking on Wikipedia between General and Lieutenant vs. Governor General and Lieutenant Governor.

"Lieutenant Governors are not subordinate to the Governor General and the federal government but are as much the representative of Her Majesty for all purposes of the provincial government as the Governor General is for all purposes of the federal government " [5]

2. The role of CF Commander-in-chief is not shared. Militia Act 1904 states that the King is still the CIC, however, Letters Patent 1949 transferred all the duties of Head of State to the GG and thus discontinued the role of King/Queen as C-I-C. [6]

While it's true she does have reserve powers, that does not apply to her role as the C-I-C. She is a ceremonial body in that sense because she can no longer declare war under the Emergencies Act 1985[7] nor interfere with the CF.

"performs other ceremonial duties" [8] [hope this clears up misconceptions. --Cahk 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

---

After consultation with legal reference personnel,

In the UK, the head of the armed force declares war. In Canada, however, it is evident that in WWII when Canada declared war to Germany and a proclamation was issued, it was made by the Attorney General and not the GG (although he 'witnessed' it)[9] [10]

Prerogative power can be stripped by the Parliament by statue (Peter Hogg in Constitutional Law of Canada) and war declaring power was one of them.

In Canada, under Emergencies Act 1985, only the Governor General can declare war after consultation with the Federal Government and Provinces under S.44(4) and the Parliament must approve it. That said, her strength alone can not declare war on other nations even though it is a Prerogative power.

See [11] In 1947, the Letters Patent of King George VI transferred all the duties ofHead of State of Canada to the Governor General and the new Commission of Appointment referred to the Office of Governor General and Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada."

Therefore, after the transfer, The Queen is no longer the Commander-in-chief and therefore, can not declare war on behalf of Canada.

--Cahk 01:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Under Emergencies Act 1985 S. 37

"war emergency" means war or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving Canada or any of its allies that is so serious as to be a national emergency."

The fact we swear allegiance to the Queen (be it new citizens, Parliament officials and armed forces) is because the Queen is our de jure Head of State and has nothing to do with her being a part of the armed forces. (See legal references on Allegiance page.)

Even though it is a Prerogative power in the UK for the Queen to declare war, the use of Prerogative power in Canada has declined to almost non-existent and have only been recently used to refuse Canadian Passport on advice of the Minister of CIC. --Cahk 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governors

Bambino, why do you keep moving that LG page? That's the second time you've moved it manually. We can move it properly if it's really necessary, but isn't the hyphenated version incorrect? Adam Bishop 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, making a redirect and copying and pasting the text is never the correct procedure. Anyway, I've moved it properly now. Adam Bishop 09:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Baronets and knights

Hi, I notice that you have a strong interest in articles relating to the monarchy and honours. I've created two new categories Category:Canadian Baronets and Category:Canadian knights and I wonder if you can help me fill them out? You might also want to create a Category:Canadian peers to round things out. Thanks. Sixth Estate 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

UCC

Hi Bambino, I was just wondering: have you given a thought as to nominating "UCC" as one of Wikipedia's "featured article?" Given its prestige and status, I think that the world should know about UCC. Canadia 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have come to you at the right time. I believe we should begin to overhaul the article with respect to unsourced statements. Primarily to achieve "featured article" status. This will be patchy of course, as certain historical events are difficult to cite, despite assurances. Nonetheless, I have procured a few links - and will ask Paul Winnell to help. http://www1.ucc.on.ca/A01000_moreaboutus.html this page, unlinked on the reformed UCC webpage, provides us with a highly factural reference page. Let's get to work. User:Synflame 09 February 2007, 1:11 (UTC -5)

I'll respond here as there's now three people involved in this conversation.

I don't see any problem with putting the article up for nomination, though I don't know much about the process; I imagine there has to be some kind of review and further work done - as you point out, Synflame, there are still {{fact}} tags, as well as some incomplete lists.

I'm sure Paul will have a wealth of information at his hands. There's also the UCC archives, which might still be run by Marion Spence.

Shall we continue this at Talk:Upper Canada College? --G2bambino 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

World's largest ship

Hello-- good work on finishing the succession boxes. I believe that Queen Mary was never the largest; she would have been but Normandie was enlarged before QM entered service. When the French Line found out that QM would be larger, they enlarged Normandie before QM entered service. Talk:RMS_Queen_Mary#QM_vs._Normandie. Regards, Kablammo 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I also see a prior editor wrote that Independence of the Seas will be larger than Freedom of the Seas. Are you aware of any authority for that? From what I have Independence will be the same size. Kablammo 16:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll tag it and delete it after a week if there's no source. Kablammo 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PC

Your edit note in regards to Vanier reads "rv - he can't be a Governor General and a PC". Are you sure of this? I know that GG's who are not already members of the Privy Council are named to the body after their service but are those who are already members removed during their term of GG? If so why is there no record of, say, Jeanne Sauve or Romeo LeBlanc being reappointed PCs after their terms in office? Sixth Estate 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sauve et al

I do know of such evidence. Madam Sauvé is officially listed as having been sworn in on November 27, 1972[12]. . There's no reference to her being sworn in a second time after she was GG. [13].

Conversely, Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier is listed as having been sworn in twice on June 10, 1984 and then again on May 5, 2004. Further research shows that he resigned as a Privy Councillor when he ran to be Mayor of Longueuil (presumably for political reasons). Clearly, therefore, had Governors Generals been in the habit of resigning or somehow no longer being PC members while occupying their vice-regal positions and then being sworn in again after leaving office the dates of their being sworn in would be on record. Sixth Estate 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Further, as to Vanier, he was a member of the Privy Council in London, not the Privy Council for Canada so even if you were correct in your reasoning about the head of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada being unable to concurrently be a member this would not apply to the PC in London which is a body not headed by the Governor General of Canada.Sixth Estate 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and copyrights according to WP:EL

You misunderstood my RMS Queen Mary 2 revert. I was not saying that the link was a violation of a copyright owned by YouTube. WP:EL states that we can't link to copyright violations. It also states that YouTube pages are commonly violations of someone's (not YouTube) copyright. That is why I deleted the link. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The actual mention of YouTube is at Wikipedia:External Links#Restrictions on linking. As for how to tell and be sure, you might want to ask at the policy page of the village pump. As far as I am concerned, if YouTube is big enough of a problem to be specifically mentioned on WP:EL, perhaps that site should be banned from all external links. It would be far better to locate the original location and link to that. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

UCC Revert War

Please stop reverting the sections on Scandals and Ethnic & Gender Issues. Their presence in the article is the de facto state of the article now. Please wait for the mediator to resolve this issue instead of continuing to delete these sections. It will only incite more revert wars. Much thanks. Magonaritus 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no "de facto" state of an article. Further, your comments are welcome, but please familiarize yourself with the issue at hand before getting too critical. This "problem" is being discussed at Talk:Upper Canada College. --G2bambino 20:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am sure you know about 3RR. I have notified the other editor - please be reminded yourself. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work with achieving a compromise. Keep up the good work, it is one of the better school articles I have seen. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:UCC-clock.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:UCC-clock.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment for UCC

I rewrote your summary because the RFC instructions say: "List newer entries on top, stating briefly and 'neutrally' what the debate is about". However what you wrote lacked any neutrality. That type of behaviour truly demonstrates bad faith on your part. Please cease & desist. Thanks. Magonaritus 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hello and thank you for contacting me. The instructions are right, although they should be a little bit more explanatory. Some sockpuppet abuse cases can indeed be reported to WP:AIV, usually when the abuse is evident (e.g. a user creates an obvious sockpuppet in order to continue vandalism/disruption). But cases that require intricate investigation are better handled on WP:ANI. If proof is required to confirm sockpuppet abuse, then WP:RCU. :-) Regards, Húsönd 00:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Wikipedia has only a few core policies and Wikipedia:Civility is one of them. For good reason. We are here to build an encyclopedia not to debate. It's is a collegial activity not an adversarial one. And so we try keep our focus on the edits not the editors. I realize that some topics may seem controversial but Wikipedia doesn't have to decide any controversies; we merely summarize them. Let's all be civil and avoid referring to each other as we go about summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. -Will Beback · † · 08:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I assume this is in reference to my describing, at Talk:James Buchanan, User:Kscottbailey's editing style as "bullyish," and questioning the motives behind his demanding (literally) that certain information not be contained in the relevant article. Well, fair enough. I also note you've posted here on this "issue" at the insistance of Kscottbailey. Again, fair enough. Though, without sounding too self-centred, I'd say my generally rational and civil tone in the debate outweighs any comments I may have made on the attitude of my opponent. I'll keep the points you raise in mind, however. --G2bambino 15:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed your comments weren't "civil." I claimed that they did not conform with Wikipedia guideline WP:AGF, and provided multiple examples of why that was my opinion. One can certainly be "civil" while violating WP:AGF, as you certainly were. That's why I felt that the civility admonishment was inappropriate, both for my page and yours. One last thing: holding a civil tone does not exempt you from WP:AGF, just for the record.K. Scott Bailey 00:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:033278.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:033278.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DrKiernan 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I've fixed it. DrKiernan 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

American date formats in British article

Looking at this diff I would like two things from you:

1. An explanation of why you change the date format from International Dating to American Dating, in clear breach of the Manual of Style
2. An undertaking to edit the article (and any similar articles) to restore the correct date formats.

Thank you. --Pete 09:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing this to my attention. However, the link you provided to WP:DATE tells me "If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country." I fail to see how the article on George VI is a "British article"; or, perhaps you are forgetting he was sovereign of more than one state? --G2bambino 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take the view that this article does not concern a specific country, then you should also be aware that in such a case you cannot simply change the style to suit your own preference, and that there are well-known ArbCom cases for precedence, notably Jguk. See the Manual of Style for guidance. --Pete 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

SWG Editing

Sorry, didn't notice you removed the rumor article as I was editing it. You or another editor can remove it, I thought it was staying in and was making it at least sensible.BaronJuJu 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:BaronJuJu#SWG edits. --G2bambino 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions & Investigation

Dear G2bambino,

You shouldn't feel "paranoid" or "afraid," nor "ridiculous," because you don't understand the situation. Just be aware that some consider you to have a tendency to take a sometimes proprietary control over certain pages that you edit, and that this absolutely violates wiki-policy; and that some have accused you of wikistalking (probably out of frustration). You do good work here, obviously. I'd recommend letting more time pass between some of your postings though. Too much too soon makes a user seem angry.

All the very best, WormwoodJagger 10:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded to at User talk:WormwoodJagger#Information. --G2bambino 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for more information at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jonawiki and sockpuppetry. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonawiki sock puppets

I have started a sock puppet report on Jonawiki. It looks as if you've done far more research than I have so please contribute to the report. Let me know if there is anything else you can recommend. Roguegeek (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Roguegeek#Star Wars Galaxies --G2bambino 15:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Metro station in Santiago Chile.jpg

An image that you use from stock.xchng, Image:Metro station in Santiago Chile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Flag image size

It's because my browser blocks the images from loading when they're at 200px, and I don't know how to remedy that. --  Denelson83  19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Denelson83#Flag image size. --G2bambino 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing. I do not know how to fix this in my browser. --  Denelson83  00:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino, you have been accused of wikistalking

You have been reported to administrators for wikistalking at WP:ANI, specifically at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#G2bambino_wikistalking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.13.2 (talk • contribs)

Note: Above notice posted by sock puppeteer User:Jonawiki. --G2bambino 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for relentlessly defending Wikipedia against vandalism and sock puppetry. I greatly appreciate your service to this. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Verification?

Hi Bambino congratulations on your being awarded the Barnstar prize. For the List of UCC Alumni page, is it possible if you can verify which governor general graduated from UCC? If so, that would be great. Thanks Canadia 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nova Scotia Monarchy

I understand cleaning up formating. If you must you can be on top (I like it either way! :) howeve I don't understand deleting an infobox that clearly belongs there. The Monarchy in Canada page has both infoboxes. Both politics of Canada and politics of Nova Scotia infoboxes link to the respective Monarchy in... page. Please just respect that we have put a lot of work into organizing the NS politics pages, and clearly the role of the crown in Nova Scotia is a part of the politics and government on the place. Maybe your monarchy infobox should be a navbox on the bottom instead? WayeMason 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:WayeMason#Monarchy in Nova Scotia. --G2bambino 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The link to the Sovereign on the politics of box does link to the Monarchy in Nova Scotia page. At least some of the Politics in... templates are being redone to be polibox sidebars, as per Category:Politics by country sidebar templates and finally we are trying to as good Crown loyalists to make sure the monarchy is represented properly on all politics and government infoboxes. Thus Politics of the United Kingdom has an infobox that leads to British Crown, Politics of Canada has an infobox that leads to Monarchy in Canada and Politics of Nova Scotia now leads to Monarchy in Nova Scotia. Finally, I hope you will reconsider blowing up the NS crest so it is all pixilated like that, it just looks awful. Why not put it back on the left at its own render size? WayeMason 21:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just got your last edit to your message... I am just a part of Wikipedia Project Nova Scotia, I am not particularly worried or interested in what happens on the other Monarchy pages, but based on what is going on with the Template:Politics_of_Ontario I expect that it will be placed on all the pages shortly, for consistency. WayeMason 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:MacDs.jpg

This image has been deleted. In uploading the image, you indicated that you released your rights to the image and thus it was available under GFDL. Unfortunately, McDonald's retains rights to the image as well. As this is their logo, merely taking a photo of the logo does not transfer rights of the logo from them to you. They do in fact retain rights. Since the image was not used in any main namespace article, and since it was improperly licensed, it has been deleted. I've replaced all instances of it's use on your userpage with a bold, capitalized M. I know you're keeping track of where you have partaken of McD's fare :) Funny! So, I didn't want you to have that information wiped out. Thus, the replacement. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen's Privy Council

Please don't remove relevant (about the Privy Council) and sourced (from the Vancouver Sun) information from the article.

Please don't remove sourced information and replace it with unsourced info. Sourced info needs to remain, if you have sourced info that differs then add it rather than removing the info you dislike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.96.181 (talk • contribs)

Please don't assume my motives. It was an error on my part- I didn't read thoroughly enough and thought the McWhinney info wasn't pertinent to the QPC. I see now that it is. That's all. --G2bambino 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen's role

What is wrong with admitting that the only place the Queen has a direct role in govt. - weekly meetings with the PM for example - is the UK? Signing one law in 1982, or whatever, does not constitute a direct role in govt. Indeed, the constitutions of the dominions specifically excludes a direct role, vesting such powers in the GG. I was attempting to make the wording more encyclopedic, because as it stands it's too informal. TharkunColl 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No - that's too general a statement. For example, the Canadian constitution (and I only raise it because it's the one I know most about) still gives the Queen all powers of government. True, the ability to exercise those powers has also been granted to the GG either through statute law, convention or letters patent, but the Queen's powers remain the same. Hence, she can, and has, signed Canadian bills into law - your '82 Canada Act example is an appropriate one. Beyond that, she, and only she, can appoint a Governor General, and only she may create extra Senate seats, as she did in 1991. So, it's disingenuous to say her role in government is limited to only the UK. --G2bambino 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to take account of your concerns. I still think weekly meetings with the PM are a few orders of magnitude greater. TharkunColl 16:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I noted your changes, however, as I explained in my edit summary, the Queen is involved in more than just government. In fact, on the whole she's involved more often in non-government affairs of a more ceremonial nature. Perhaps the details of her meeting with British PMs as opposed to other Realm PMs could be covered elsewhere? --G2bambino 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Involvement. --G2bambino 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

You have now made four reversions to the same version in less than 24 hours, and are therefore in contravention of 3RR. Please revert back to the last version. TharkunColl 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) :Hmm... I may well have. However, the last was to remove something that was blatantly incorrect. I'll take my chances on whether or not that constitutes a violation. --G2bambino 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I take that back. It was technically correct, though against what was agreed to by consensus earlier. --G2bambino 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, G2bambino. Just wanted to let you know, I understand where you're comming from at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. However, in most publications she's known as Queen of the UK or Queen of the UK and the Commonwealth of Nations, but never Queen of the Commonwealth. I'm not trying to elevate the UK above the 15 other nations. Just wanted to let you know, I've no political motives behind my edits. GoodDay 22:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I surrender to your PoV. I know your 'Commonwealth equality' edits are in 'good faith', but I still disagree with them. However, 'Edit Wars' don't help editors and pages, they just get editors blocked and pages protected. Imagine the headaches, if Scotland gains independance? Anyway, no hard feelings. GoodDay 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not my POV; it's that of many constitutional scholars, judges, vice-regals, politicians and the like. I trust their knowledge more than I do the journalists of Time magazine or AFP. Can't disagree with you on the edit wars, though. --G2bambino 20:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest you get some other editor, to revert the page to the 'few days earlier' style, for you. You're dangerously close to the 3RR border, don't chance another revert (today). Some friendly advice. GoodDay 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm.. I'm gonna let it sit for a while - see what others have to say. Though readability is a concern, accuracy is primary for me. --G2bambino 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your exceptional work on the Monarchy in Canada article! Cahk 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (again)

Thoough I disagree with you recent edits at Elizabeth II, I respect your views and tireless efforts. Congratulations on your 'Barnstar'. GoodDay 17:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom)

Please do not change the result of a deletion debate like you did on the above article. After it's close, you redirected Canadian Royal Family to Royal Family of Canada, which was simple a cut and paste of the original article. This is a serious infringement of the GFDL which all wikipedia pages are licenced under - individual edits cannot be atributed to their sources. Don't do that again. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? The contents of the article were composed by me. Once Canadian Royal Family was redirected, there wasn't even any attempt to merge the text anywhere (though there was nowhere to merge it into), and was simply flat out deleted. You then deleted the full contents again. That I believe is a violation of WP policy. Redirecting Canadian Royal Family to Royal Family of Canada was simple common sense. --G2bambino 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Individual edits have to be attributed to a source, you were not the only editor - you cannot just cut and paste and place it on a new page. The result of the AfD was re-direct as the consensus was that the page did not need it's own page. You went against the AfD by creating a new page, with a new name but with the contents of the old page. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying it's acceptable to simply delete sourced and verifiable information? The AfD concluded that the page Canadian Royal Family should be redirected, not that the contents should be wholly deleted. Thus, the only point at which I went against the AfD was changing the redirect; reinstating the information elsewhere is not a violation of anything. --G2bambino 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that consensus in the AfD was to redirect the page, not merge it. Pasting the page in a new page is reposting it, so it gets deleted. In the AfD, it was decided that the content was too similar to Monarchy in Canada, so yes - it should be wholly deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the consensus is wrong. The information that was contained in Canadian Royal Family does not exist elsewhere, and so deleting it in the process of redirecting the article means it's deleted for good. Such an act is unwarranted by WP:Deletion policy. --G2bambino 23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's alway WP:DRV... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that will be necessary. --G2bambino 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop re-creating deleted content. The article in question was deleted and made into a re-direct per all of the usual wikipedia processes, in particular it had a full AfD. If you would like, you may take the article to deletion review, but I doubt that there would be any different result. Continuing to repost this article will be taken to be vandalism.

It is obvious that you have a lot to contribute to wikipedia. I hope that you will stop pursuing this current path, and start finding more constructive ways to help the project. Pastordavid 15:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not stop re-creating deleted content that's cited and verifiable. I won't touch the redirect, but to force the removal of relevant information is nothing more than censorship - which is hardly aiding the project. --G2bambino 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was clear, it wasn't even contentious. Stop recreating it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD said redirect, nothing about where the content contained in the article should go. --G2bambino 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect basically means delete, the content isn't wanted so the page is redirected to a similar page. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cited, verifiable and relevant content cannot be simply deleted. There is no "similar page" - look at the contents of Monarchy in Canada yourself and you'll see that very little of the previous text of Canadian Royal Family is repeated there, or even that any similar subject is touched upon. --G2bambino 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your personal opions are on it, effectively doesn't matter now - the consensus of the AfD was that it isn't needed here on wikipedia, and can quite happily live with a redirect to Monarchy of Canada. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't care. The consenus is wrong. If anyone has any suggestions as to where else the content should go, I'm all ears. But there's patently no reason to delete it, what-so-ever. --G2bambino 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:::The consensus is wrong? I've voted (in the majority) to Redirect the Canadian Royal Family to the Monarchy in Canada article (not to Merge). Why isn't my vote being respected?? PS- I've posted at notice board (below). GoodDay 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion's now being duplicated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Royal Family (second nom) - close here, and continue there. --G2bambino 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lise Thibault

I've noticed you changed Lise Thibault as though she've left the office. However, she is still the current LG of Quebec until installment of the next LG and thus your edit should be reversed.

ie. The announcement of the GG back in late July/early August 2005 did not make her automatically the GG that day.

--Cahk 07:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded to at User talk:Cahk#Lise Thibault. According to this report he has been appointed: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/05/18/quebec-lg-070518.html. This makes sense as the earlier announcement was that Mme. Thibault would serve until after the then next election, which has since happened. --G2bambino 15:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lise Thibault is still the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec. Pierre Duchesne has not been sworn in. [14]. According to the source, there will be at least a 2 week notice beforehand, and there has been no notice whatsoever of a date for the installation.--Ibagli (Talk) 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Prime Ministers

If anyone's here to add a comment about the activity on the Canadian prime ministers' articles, I've already tried to communicate with User:Lonewolf BC on his talk page, but, for some reason, he refuses to respond. Please leave comments there. Cheers. --G2bambino 22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You know already know why, just as you already know about the 3-revert rule. You've been in essentially this same disagreement all over Wikipedia. Please stop. -- Lonewolf BC 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems evident you're hell bent on insinuating on every page that the PM unilaterally appoints Supreme Court Justices. This is simply wrong. I should ask you to stop trying to insert misleading and unencyclopaedic wording. I should also think you're aware of the 3RR rule, which, if you decide to go another round of reverts, you'll be in breach of. --G2bambino 22:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the wording says "chose" because the PM chooses -- nothing about "unilaterally" and nothing about "appoints", neither said nor implied. The arcana about the GG's formal role are of no importance to articles about PMs. What matters to those topics is whom the PMs picked. A PM takes advice on the choice, of course, from cabinet and others, and does not choose at whim nor with impunity. (Poor or controversial choices are liable to come back on them). But finally it is the PM who makes the choice. After that, the formal appointment is bound to happen.
The language you want serves only to give a needless and even somewhat misleading emphasis to one of the monarchial formalities of Canadian govermnent. These are what they are and (for what it matters) I somewhat favour their keeping, but they are not the topic of these articles. They tell us nought about the particular Prime Ministers, and that is why there is no justification for their mention in articles about those particular PMs.
I do object to your abuse of Wikipedia to promote your monarchist views. Time and again, in article after article, you've gotten into essentially this same disagreement: You want language that emphasises the role of "the monarchy", at the expense of brevity, of sticking to the subject, and even of accuracy, with wording that often gives false impressions that theoretical, formal powers have some considerable chance of actual exercise (not so much that last, in these latest cases, but more so even in earlier go-rounds of them, mainly with other editors, if I rightly recall). This is wrong, because "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". -- Lonewolf BC 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't think anyone is going to buy the claim that your wording - which I now understand was your chosen wording on every prime minister's article, and hence I see now why you take such personal offence to this - is not unclear enough to lead readers to believe the PM is the only person involved in the appointment of Supreme Court judges. As I've already pointed out at your Talk page, there is damn little difference between "Prime Minister [X] chose the following jurists to sit as justices of the Supreme Court of Canada" and "President [X] appointed the following justices to the Supreme Court of the United States." Brevity, though important, does not override accuracy and clarity. If there is going to be some section about which people a particular prime minister put forward as Supreme Court justices, it has to be clear that he was not the end of the line in the appointment process. That has nothing to do with "emphasising of 'the monarchy'" and everything with being clear, easily understood, and encyclopaedic - indeed, the addition of the words "by the Governor General" hardly emphasises the Monarchy, nor makes the sentence convolutedly confusing. --G2bambino 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If I see one more edit from you on any prime minister I will block you for taking part in an edit war. This message has also been conveyed to your opponent. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. Thanks for the reminder, though. --G2bambino 22:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Royal anthem...

Please see the discussion on the talk page. Yes, it is a fact, but that is not the criteria for inclusion on the Australia page - rather 'notability' is what is required. That is is played every 5 years when a royal visits does not make it notable. And, it was not 'removed' - you should have clicked on the footnote. Please discuss. Merbabu 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been debated at length on the talk page. It is stated there that further reverts will result in blocks for edit warring. Please explain why I shouldn't block you now. Hesperian 04:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually threatening me? --G2bambino 04:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am giving you an opportunity to explain why I shouldn't follow through on what was a clear directive, with clearly defined consequences, on the talk page. Alternatively, you might prefer to revert yourself. If you don't choose to do either, I will block you. You may characterise that as a threat if you wish. Hesperian 04:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You have now lost the opportunity to revert, as the article has been protected yet again. I await your explanation. Hesperian 04:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading through the talk now, and I see no mention of blocking for making any edits. Maybe I'm missing something, or haven't got to it yet, but it doesn't really matter. I see now it's a contentious issue, but don't expect me to beg for your mercy by offering an explanation for my edit, certainly not after your parading in here and throwing threats of blocks around. Now bugger off and try to intimidate someone else. --G2bambino 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From Talk:Australia: "It's a start. I'm loathe to fully protect this article for extended period, so I'll be unprotecting it. If the dispute manifests itself again in edit warring, I'll be blocking the editors involved rather than locking the article.--cj | talk 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)"

Shall I assume from your response that you didn't know you were involving yourself in an edit war? Hesperian 04:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I might have been more accomodating to your requests for explanations had you not blown your chance at civil exchange right off the bat. It just isn't important why I made the edit now anyway. --G2bambino 04:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say I find it very hard to understand why you would spurn an invitation to talk yourself out of a block. You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Hesperian 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That was no invitation, it was a bullying demand. You're clearly on a power trip and acted too hastily. --G2bambino 04:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Hesperian's block. This sort of drive-through edit warring is highly disruptive, especially considering you have shown no willingness to engage constructively.--cj | talk 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, spare the accusatory assumptions - you have no idea why I made that edit. I would have been more cooperative had first contact not been from someone so infuriated by a single, unwitting edit that he will automatically launch threats of blocking, and then go ahead and do so within a scant ten thirty minutes of my making the edit - not even enough time to read through the lengthy section at Talk to find some buried instruction not to edit the article while simultaneously dealing with his heavy-handed tactics here! Threats, suppositions and bullying - I don't think anyone can call that constructive. --G2bambino 05:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have no idea why you made that edit because you did not, and seemingly, will not explain your action, despite requests. Your edit summary states that you were "replac[ing] the royal anthem", which indicates that you were aware of the dispute.--cj | talk 05:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it apparent already why I did not explain myself to Hesperian? I will answer civil requests; I will not respond to hounding. Truth be known, my attention was drawn to the removal of the link through this: Talk:Commonwealth of Nations#Royal Anthems; I looked at the linked edit history, and immediately restored the Royal Anthem link as I know it is a true fact that God Save the Queen is legally the Royal Anthem of Australia. No, I did not look at the full edit history of the page, and I did not go to read Talk:Australia until after my revision was made; so, no, I was not aware of the intensity and length of the dispute. By the time I brought myself up to speed, while dealing with Hesperian’s pressure, the latter had already decided his pure assumption was grounds enough for a block. I hope that's clear now. --G2bambino 05:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you have explained that you didn't know you were entering into an edit war, I shall unblock you. Hesperian 05:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think it was careless editing, and would hope you will be more cautious in future, but thank you for the explanation.--cj | talk 05:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was, but did it really deserve such rude and condemning repercussions? A tad heavy handed, in my opinion. --G2bambino 05:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hesperian 06:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Royal Family Arsenal fans

Here are some links that cite Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother and Prince Harry as Arsenal fans:

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

The majority of those links confirm both the Queen and her mother as Arsenal fans, and a couple of them say that Prince Harry is too. Hope those are sufficient. PeeJay 16:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to Talk:Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Arsenal. --G2bambino 16:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wessex-LW1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wessex-LW1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

Reporting me like that was very sneaky and underhand, since I have always given you friendly warnings instead. And I didn't even breach 3RR, unlike you. Thanks. TharkunColl 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You completely ignored my clear evidence of your reverts; twice, in fact, I asked you what you would like to do about them. With a lack of response, reporting you was hardly sneaky, nor underhanded; you were given a chance to do something and did nothing. --G2bambino 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who breached 3RR, not me. And what did you do about it? Nothing. These articles are not owned by you, and your own POV should not be the standard against which all new edits are judged. TharkunColl 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please try to calm down and work civilly together towards a consensus. I have protected the page to avoid more edit warring. Please use this time to work out your differences on the talk page. If you can come to an agreement before the protection time is up, please contact me or request for unprotection. Thanks for your consideration, and please do not edit war in the future.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Monarchy in Canada

Just to remind you that you have now reverted the fact tag 3 times - if you revert my next re-insertion I'll report you. It is an act of vandalism to remove a perfectly legitimate request for citation. TharkunColl 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I can count, but thanks for the notice anyway. --G2bambino 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)