| Revision as of 12:01, 8 August 2007 view source😂 (talk | contribs)16,573 editsm →Warning!: fmt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:29, 25 September 2014 view source Anachronist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators67,308 editsm Protected User talk:Chris Bennett: Deceased Wikipedian ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (131 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| Hello, I used to be known as Igor Sklar and was a regular contributor to soc.genealogy.medieval, so it's nice to see a familiar name in Misplaced Pages. I would like to thank you for helpful additions on ]. When I started that page, I left red links at the end hoping that someone more knowledgable will start the appropriate articles. I hope you know what I mean :) Happy edits, ] <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Colonial hang-overs, et al== | |||
| Thanks for that Chris. I was actually writing something as you were! The whole argument actually stems from the view taken by Gavin (Gbambino) that the monarchy in the Commonwealth is shared, thus any references to the "British monarchy" is wrong. This is of course silly, given the fact that the monarchy is almost always regarded as British. In fact I would argue that's what keeps it alive in the largely British-settled colonies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Anyway, the African leaders thing is really part of their overall worldview on gaining independence: they were anti-colonial; Pan-Africanist socialists. It is hard to see how anyone taking such views could see the monarchy as anything other than a colonial hang over! --] 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, I accept that the monarch is ''legally speaking'' shared, but of course what we all know is that it's a British institution. That is what Gbambino is trying to hide. --] 01:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Better than it being a sheep shagging Kiwi one!! ] 06:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Roman calendar== | |||
| I had hoped that the link to your website would have allowed any interested party to follow up your line of reasoning for any specific year or issue, though I agree that this could perhaps be made more clear in the introductory paragraph. As far as I can tell yours is by far the most comprehensive and chronologically extensive reconstruction available anywhere, and is certainly the best one I've seen. | |||
| The significant events column is really still a work in progress, but my original intention, amongst other things, was to show that the accepted dates given for events in Roman history, such as the births of Caesar and his successors, are not Julian dates, even though this is almost never made clear (check out the Misplaced Pages articles on ], ], ], and ] for example). This problem extends to all dates from this period, and more of these could easily be added to the table. | |||
| However, since the tables are based on your work, I shall not object if you wish to delete them. ] 07:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your suggestion - please feel free to delete the tables if you want. ] 15:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Good modification to my edit on the former status of ]. That paragraph needs some additional clean-up, whichever of us can get to it first. Regards, ] 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Errm, ] and ]. ] | ] 13:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Compare the position of Australia and New Zealand in 1939 with that of India, which had no discretion. Au and NZ did not have independent foreign policies because the government of the day had chosen not to have one (i.e. by not ratifying the Statute), not because they were unable to do so. That is my point. There is nothing wrong with repeating material within and article if it is an important point, which it is. As for Eire, see ]: it is a broad term and I defy anyone to show that Eire was not a Dominion before 1949. ] | ] 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you are still missing my point. I don't agree that it is "irrelevant" that the Statute of Westminter empowered Dominion governments, whether or not they chose to ''exercise'' that power. Menzies' speech declaring war, while it was technically correct, did not reflect the full range of options that were open to him — options which were not in any way available to the governments of India, Rhodesia or Jamaica. | |||
| ::: In regard to Eire, you have mistaken my purpose, which is not to show that Eire definitely was a Dominion before 1949, merely that there is an argument that it was. | |||
| ::: By the way, I don't respond well to the kind of approach that you employed in your last reply on my talk page. Please tone it down in future. ] | ] 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The word "Ireland" is ambiguous and controversial because it also includes ]. It was even more controversial in 1937-49. That is why the standard practice, at least in other articles, is to use ] for the period before 1937, "]" for 1937-49 and ] thereafter. | |||
| :I still don't understand why you think Australia and New Zealand's (latent) ability to remain neutral in 1939 is not relevant. Or is it just that you feel it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article? It certainly is not spelled out at present. Thanks. ] | ] 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Independence as a process == | |||
| In your edit summary at ] you wrote that '"independence between .. dominions .. and the UK" is meaningless'. But independence is a symmetric relationship; that's exactly why it's sought over the asymmetric dependence that precedes it. Regarded as a process, independence is the gradual reduction of dependence, and thus the approach towards relational symmetry. I think this makes more sense in the Commonwealth context than to regard independence as a specific goal achieved at one specific moment. Canada has never "declared independence" from Britain; many different moments mark the process, and dependencies still remain (some even in the reverse direction, e.g. Canadian citizens have the right to vote and stand for office in UK elections, but not British citizens in Canada). (In case you haven't guessed, 131.104.49.53 was me. I'm happy with your most recent edit.) ] 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You misunderstand my objection to your edit, which was much simpler: the phrase "indpendence between" implied a ''pre-existing'' symmtery. Independence wasn't established ''between'' Canada, Australia and the UK, because the UK was already a sovreign nation and the others were not. It was established ''for'' Canada and Australia and ''from'' the UK. What was established ''between'' them was equality. As to the method by which independence was established, I agree of course that it was a gradual process and that the choice of date is somewhat arbitrary.--] 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think I did misunderstand. I disagree that the phrase "indpendence between" implies a pre-existing symmtery. (I could also quibble about the use of the term "sovereign nation" in the Commonwealth context, and the use of the past tense in the last sentence, but it's not necessary. With what that part of the article itself says now, I'm reasonably happy.) ] 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Ptolemies == | |||
| . We need more expertise on these subjects here in Misplaced Pages. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Dablinks == | |||
| I had to restore all the dablinks as per ], which says: "Above all, do not ] the link. Show the entire linked article title ''as is'', to avoid confusion, which is the reason for the top link in the first place." I know it's silly to have ] as the article on the Monarch of Jamaica, but, we can't flout Misplaced Pages policy. --] 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd love to see ] retitled, but that opens up a seething bag of such vicious cats that it's essentially an impossible goal. That said, you can try and contravene the guidelines, but I'm sure some stickler for policy will eventually change one or all of them, which may lead to a battle royale; unless some explanation is offered... --] 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How about what I've just inserted at ]? --] 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay then, that works for me. However, I'll wait to change the others until we decide where to direct users for info on the monarchies themselves, as per the concerns I raised at ]. --] 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Well, it seems like the "stickler for policy" has spoken up already at ]. What to do now? --] 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've begun a discussion at ]. --] 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Commonwealth Realms (again)== | |||
| CB, I'm assuming you're not labeling me, ''a troll''. I also suggest 'less colorful' edit summaries. ] 21:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Wake up? Again, please control your emotions. Please, take notice that I support 'Commonwealth ''R''ealms'. As for me supporting ''UK, first among equals?'' I'm content with relating Commonwealth articles showing ''all equal'' status. I leave you & JDM, to duke it out. ] 22:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem, I'm signing out for the night. I'll check up on the progress tommorrow. 'Til then. ] 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for arbitration == | |||
| You have been named in a request for arbitration at ]. ] 00:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please vote! == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Since you've been involved in the recent discussions at ], your vote would be appreciated on ]. Thanks. -- ] 09:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning! == | |||
| Today I came across several edit summaries by you that fail to ] and are potentially ] as well. Edit summaries such as , are not tolerated. Please consider this your first and only warning. '''<font color="red">^</font>]'''<sup></font>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">12:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)</em> | |||
Latest revision as of 18:29, 25 September 2014
Redirect to: