text:
Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 2

Send in the Crowns
"Gbambino 1: 'I'm not contesting that there are conflicting opinions on Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy-- they do exist and should be acknowledged.' Gbambino 2: 'This is not a small debate, it is a non-existent debate.'" There seems to be a contradiction between previous and later statements, Gbam. -SV

 * If I might insert my point here: As Peter Grey explained above, differing opinions about Canada remaining as a kingdom, differing opinions on the logic of sharing a monarch, differing opinions on the current House of Windsor, etc. do certainly exist. What does not exist are differing opinions on the constitutional reality of Canada's sovereignty, her relationship to the Crown, and the organization of the Commonwealth Realms as laid out in the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster. --gbambino 14:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Republicans certainly do argue that having a non-Canadian monarch impugns Canadian sovereignty and yes, republicans like Jeffrey Simpson refer to the Queen as being "British" rather than Canadian (he refers to it as a "foreign monarchy") so obviously the question of sovereignty is a question even if you claim it doesn't exist.

As for the "organization of the Commonwealth Realms as laid out in the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster" this is a straw man argument, there's nothing in the article that says the realms are not constitutionaly equal and I haven't proposed saying such a thing (indeed, if you read the passage you'll see I've written the exact opposite). Indeed, many of the things you've said, gbambino, have nothing to do whatsoever with what's actually in this article. Please get focussed. AndyL14:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy L: "It's not a major debate. However, the contention that there are "multiple Crowns" and, the corollary, that therefore there can be and is a "Canadian monarchy" is an important part of monarchist ideology and it merits a mention." This sounds a bit confused, frankly, Andy. It seems like youre not quite sure what the argument is, but youre trying to represent it as well as you can ATM. If you concede that your explanations are a bit confusing and therefore somewhat misrepresentative of actual points made in the debate, then you can sort of understand how Gbambino's tendency toward wholesale exclusion can, in a superficial way, appear to be legitimate.

Naturally, conservatives of all shades and nations seek to exclude rather than include, so in that respect, youre correct that Gbambino is simply representing a conservative point of view. Whats not clear is what agreement can be reached with regard to how to sort and organize this argument. You say its small. Gbambino said it "should be acknowledged" and then changed this to 'it is "non-existent,"' which I consider to be likewise "confusing."

A zealous Christian can, for example, come to Wikipedia and cite the Bible, claiming on various talk pages that Biblical views are preeminent to other views, like culture, history, etc. Likewise, lawyers may cite the law in any local context, and claim that the law supercedes all culture, poltics, debate, and dissent. In other words, it seems clearer to me now. Republican arguments are scattered and unfocused, while Loyalist arguments are narrow and verbatim to doctrinal law, regardless if such law was the product of a democratic consensus or not. While it appears that Andy's arguments seem to be reflective of a minority view, Gbambino's assertion that such views are Andy's alone, (when he himself cites two different recent cases of legal court challenge toward the "trancendent" "single Crown," which is somehow separate for each "Realm," and yet bound "by commitment" to be the "same individual," referred to as "the Crown" over "the Crowns" although each Realm may determine its "own line of succession...") appear to be a bit overstated. It all perhaps sounds like a bunch of legalese nonsense to anyone living in any country not occupied by any formalized genetic aristocracies. Ceremonially established ones, anyway.

All that out of my system, Im quite happy with both of the general responses, and I feel much better informed about the nuance of the issue. Both of your comments have been quite telling of the great naive confusion, or otherwise convoluted lack of confusion, involved. Now, as a newbie to all of this, I was curious about a number of things cited by Gbambino, and while reading his entire post I simply bracketed those items which I was unclear of to link them, so that I can re-read it and get a deeper gist. For starters, theres no MLC article, so I hope someone will correct that. The concept of the Crowns as distinct from (and yet the same as) the Crown, certainly needs looking at. I really think that Gbambino, your response was extremely coherent and informative, and would like to see all of that in a single coherent article, provided more detail about the opposition and any dissenting jurist views are given. Sinreg and goodnight, friendly neighbors. -SV|t 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC) PS Correction: I linked about 2 dozen items in Gbam's point by point walkthrough, but lost those changes, while copying my own text. Alas, Im loathe to go through and re-link tonight.-SV|t 05:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't concede that there is any misrepresentation. There is no contradiction between the Crown being a "shared Crown" and "the British Crown" at least Rouleau did not find any such contradiction when writing his ruling. Remember it wasn't that long ago that the international body former colonies belonged to was the "British Commonwealth" and it wasn't that long ago, that Canadians were "British subjects" - both phenomena postdate the Statute of Westminster and I believer our status as British subjects may even postdate the late 1940s Citizenship Act (but I may be wrong about that). Anyway, gbambino is a bit confused here, the argument in this article is not whether or not the Crown is "British" but whether there are competing views on it being "multiple Crowns" or a shared "single Crown". As Peter Grey now concedes, at least as far as Canadian constitutional law is concerned it's the latter, notwithstanding Monarchist League of Canada propaganda suggesting the contrary. AndyL11:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't believe you should mis-represent Peter Grey by putting words in his mouth. Neither he nor I have ever denied the "single Crown"'s existence.  We've both acknowledged that the situation is far more complex than simply that, given the agreed relationship between the 16 Commonwealth Realms through the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster, combined with the individual constitutional structure and framework of each Realm which creates each country as a seperate and sovereign kingdom. --gbambino 15:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * First off, this all sounds like playing with words, so "propaganda" naturally is a suspicion. Second, I understand the difference between merely citing the law, and representing both sides in an argument. What is the argument? Is it that Canadas republicans claim it should excersise a legal right to seceed completely from The Crown? Its seems like the statutes made things uniform for all "Realms," and therefore the deal is either accepted or broken, but not changeable. So, its a binary issue. Either Canada has the monarchy its been given, or it has none. But you raise some interesting points that there have some apparent contradiction in either explicit law, statute, rhetoric, or culture, which Loyalists appear to want to gloss over. This is an interesting aspect, which of course requires documentation, and no doubt would be a long-term research project. Suffice it to say, there is some debate going on, and its worthy of a separate article, which explores these contradictions. -SV|t 13:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

An "operative" agreement

 * I certainly agree that the issue of the operation of the Crown in and over the Commonwealth Realms needs to be carefully looked at and dealt with on Wikipedia. The issue has arisen elsewhere (Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/5 Of the United Kingdom?, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/13 Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/16 Elizabeth II of Canada, Talk:Elizabeth II of Canada), and due to confusion or lack of knowledge has been dismissed or pushed aside for later attention.  However, I believe we need to be careful here, because this is a comlplex matter with many nuances open to interpretation, as well as established facts which are not.  For example, if Canada chose to separate from the other Realms under the "British Crown", it does have the added option of setting up its own resident monarchy, as was done by Malaysia, Tonga and Lesotho.  There is also the possibility, however unlikely, that Canada could alter its line of succession while remaining with the House of Windsor, thereby meaning one Windsor sovereign would reign over Canada, while another would reign over the UK.

 * But one point which cannot be debated is the existant, established, legal relationship between the Realms under the Crown, and the operation of the Crown within each Realm. This is not a matter of 'playing with words' or 'glossing' anything over, as it is all written out in black and white in law itself, as well as in court rulings, constitutional committee reports, and essays by constitutional scholars.  I think it's clear that this issue of the Crown in and over the Realms is a given fact immune to any republican/monarchist or conservative/liberal point of view.  Some politically motivated republicans may want to pull out selective pieces here and there and manipulate them to make it appear as though the situation is something which is patently is not, but it always remains just that -- manipulation and conjecture.

 * As I've said, numerous times now, if AndyL would care to provide some secondary sources to back up his claims that there is a debate (whatever size, and aside from his own) then I think we would all have to accept that it exists. However, so far he as provided nothing but his own interpretations and opinions.  I don't think I'm being unfair in pointing out that that constitutes original research. --gbambino 15:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I neglected to add that MLC stands for Monarchist League of Canada. --gbambino 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Given that you are now conceding both the "British crown" point and the "single crown" point I don't see how you can say that any of that is "original research". I'm impressed by how far Peter Grey's and your views have shifted towards mine, it's a shame you can't admit you were wrong in the first place but I guess that's human nature. AndyL16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Now conceding? Your attempted trickery is humerous.  You can't seem to grasp that everybody with any knowledge about this realises and accepts that the one "British Crown" and the multiple Crowns within the Realms are the same thing.  This alone demonstrates that you have no knowledge about this.  Your questioning of the established status of the Crown over and in the Realms is 'original research', and until you can provide other respectible sources which back up your claim that there is a debate on this matter, it will remain 'original research'. --gbambino 16:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, your claim of original research is itself original research: "one "British Crown" and the multiple Crowns within the Realms are the same thing". I can't imagine why anyone would view that as inherently contradictory or an act of sophistry. Andy 16:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not contradictory, and it's been reality in the Commonwealth for over 70 years. The key to AndyL line of reasoning is trying to combine 'British Crown' in it's general sense with 'British Crown' as subject to the authority of the UK Parliament. The only contradiction seems to be the one AndyL introduced. Peter Grey 17:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It must torture you then to think that your own beloved Rouleau is also inherently contradictory as he too refers to both the single "British Crown" and the "Crown of Canada". How do you deal with that? --gbambino 17:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I cope. Anyway, the mediator doesn't seem to have picked up your "original research" accusation and Peter confines his original research accusation to the Royal Style and Titles Act which isn't mentioned in this article. I'm afraid you haven't convinced anyone, not even your ally Peter. Are you willing to drop it?Andy 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * And look at what you have resorted to -- an attempt to simply dismiss the whole thing when faced with a question you can't answer, an attempt to cause a rift between Peter Grey and myself, an attempt to dictate what the mediator has and has not done, an attempt to reduce the credibility of my argument by simply saying it's "not convincing." Sorry, I don't think the mediator has made any real decisions yet, Peter Grey is perfectly right in contesting your Royal Style and Titles Act theories as 'original research', and I will continue to point out that your "one crown or several?" questioning remains 'original research' as well, whether Peter wants to aid with this or not.

YNGAWT!

 * You're not getting away with this-- so instead of changing the topic, answer the question: why does Rouleau refer to both the "British Crown" and the "Crown of Canada" when he says "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16....Arguably, without this statute, Edwards VIII's abdication would not have been effective in respect of the Crown of Canada," and "the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain"? --gbambino 17:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I see no support for your original research claim and your arguments seem to be based on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what original research is and is not. Given the lack of support for your view, your admission that everything in the passage is factual and your failure to identify one questionable sentence or word I see no reason to entertain your fallacious claim of original research for one more second, particularly as you don't seem to even understand your own argument. Andy 17:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Answer the question, Andy. --gbambino 17:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Because he feels the Crown of Canada is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie the Canadian Crown is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry. Canada is bound to the British constitution as a result. The question is whether the opposite is also true and that's a matter for debate. Andy 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Whether he meant equality or identity is open to interpretation (since both could apply), but it's very clear that he did not mean "under". Peter Grey 17:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Except, of course, that he said "under". Claiming that Rouleau didn't mean what he said is original research, is it not (or at the very least pure conjecture). Andy 18:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * He said Canada was under the Crown (true by definition in a monarchy), not that one crown was under another. This same misrepresentation of the quotation was pointed out a long time ago. Peter Grey 18:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah so Canada is under the British Crown (a slight omission on your part there) but the Canadian Crown isn't. Clear as mud. Andy 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If things are in a symmetic relationship, then one can't be under the other. Peter Grey 18:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * He said symmetry under the British Crown, not symmetry with the British Crown. Andy 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. He said Canada was in symmetry with the United Kingdom. Why do you waste people's time with these games? Peter Grey 18:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "He said Canada was in symmetry with the United Kingdom" You really need to distinguish between what is actually written and what you think should have been written. What he actually said was "symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown". Andy 18:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "Because he feels the Crown of Canada is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie the Canadian Crown is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry." You acknowledged some time ago that the Australian Crown exists, and you now acknowledge that the Canadian Crown exists.  We now all agree that they are both separate but both a part of the larger Crown (refered to by Rouleau as "the British Crown"), so that affirms that there is indeed a multiplicity of crowns within one (we have 3 of 16, so far).

 * However, I now want to ask, do you acknowledge the status of equality of the Realms, incuding the United Kingdom, under the Crown as laid out in the Balfour Declaration: "[The United Kingdom and the Dominions] are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations," and the Statute of Westminster: "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion"?

 * "Canada is bound to the British constitution as a result. The question is whether the opposite is also true and that's a matter for debate," The Statute of Westminster binds Canada's alterations to the line of succession to Britain's as much as it binds Britain's alterations to the line of succession to Canada's, and binds Canada and Britain to every other Realm in the same fashion. Otherwise, why does Rouleau state: "if symmetry among commonwealth countries were to he maintained, any changes to the rules of succession would have to be agreed to by all members of the Commonwealth," and "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16...Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster"? --gbambino 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Canada is bound by Britain's constitution. Britain is not bound by Canada's constitution. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is trumped by an 18th century piece of anti-Catholic legislation that had a purpose in British constitutional history but is quite irrelevent to Canadian history or Canadian reality and is actually anathama to Canadian values. Given the fact that 40% of our population is Catholic, Canada would not in and of itself devised a mechanism to exclude Catholics from the "Canadian throne", it must accept this device because it's in the British constitution.

 * Theoretically, Britain must get the permission of Canada and the other realms before changing the succession rules however, in practice, it can act unilaterally as under the concept of parliamentary supremacy the actions of one parliament do not bind its successors. Rouleau is correct in that from Canada's perspective the Statute of Westminster is "like a treaty". However, from Britain's perspective, it's just a statute. Andy 19:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Act of Settlement is a part of the patriated Canadian constitution. --gbambino 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Answer my question: If Britain is not bound to have the same line of succession as Canada then why did the UK have to wait for Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, as Rouleau points out?

 * Answer my question: If Canada is subsurvient to British constitutional law, then why does the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster specifically state that the Realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", as Rouleau points out? Your 'parliamentary supremacy' argument failed before. --gbambino 19:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Copied from Talk:Statute of Westminster 1931.

The myth is that since the legislative powers of Parliament in the UK are unlimited, it can amend the Statute of Westminster and then somehow the leap is made to implying that the versions outside the UK would change with it. If you think of Parliament abrogating the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and then going on to, say, abolish the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, you can see how silly the idea really is. Peter Grey 15:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Poor analogy as there is no constitutional link between the United States of America and the United Kingdom (and as a treaty cannot be unilaterally rescinded. As I said, the Statute of Westminster may be "like a treaty" as far as Canada is concerned but it is just a statute for Britain - incidentally Rouleau was drawing an analogy, he did not say the Statute *is* a treaty). Gbambino conceded that Canada was bound to the UK constitution, the question is whether the relationship is reciprocal and it isn't. If Canada tried to unilaterally change the Act of Settlement a Canadian court would be bound to strike down that change given the Statute of Westminster. If Britain passed a law unilaterally amending the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster no British court would have a reason to strike down the measure given parliamentary supremacy. Now of course Canada could pass a constitutional amendment but we're talking about our situation under the current constitution, not under a hypothetically amended one.

 * And regardless of whether Canada would be bound to follow Britain's lead in changing the succession, the fact remains that the only reason the succession in Canada is the way it is is because of an archaic British law that has no relevence to Canadian reality. Andy 19:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hypothetical future is meaningless (to an encyclopedia)

 * Hypothetical future situations are meaningless to an encyclopaedia. Now, again, answer my questions. --gbambino 19:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (BTW-- Britain cannot simply alter the Statute of Westminster at its whim -- the statute is a law touching the succession to the throne, and as the statute itself says: "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne... shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." And, the statute states: "4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion," so any alteration to the Act of Settlement or the Statute of Westminster in the UK would have no effect in Canada.) --gbambino 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm talking about the current constitution, not a hypothetical future one. Our current constitution does not allow Canada to unilaterally change the succession while Britain's current constitutional arrangement does allow this.

The reason why the Act of Settlement, a discriminatory document peculiar to British history, is part of Canada's constitution is also not "hypothetical", is it?

Answer my question: Why were the governments of Canada, Australia and the other realms *not* consulted in regards to the marriage of Charles, Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles when they were consulted in regards to the proposed marriage of Edward and Mrs. Simpson (Canada, South Africa and Australia favoured abdication while New Zealand and India had "no firm views)? Tony Blair was consulted on Charles' marriage but the other PMs were not. Why was this?Andy 19:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The Act of Settlement has a every important place in the Canadian Constitution, not only does it outline the Succession, it also ensures Judicial independence. Stipulated in the Act of Settlement is the clause stating that Judges remain in office during good behavior.  Prior to this, Judges remained in office during the Pleasure of the Monarch. User:Eddo

 * Ironically, Canada could authorize the UK Parliament to change the succession with an Act of the Dominon Parliament, but it would require (according to Rouleau) a section 41 Constitutional amendment in order to take effect in Canada. Peter Grey 19:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC) --Was the passing of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, not an example of Canada giving authorization to the UK Parliament to change the succession? --gbambino 20:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * As long as the Statute of Westminster is a part of Britain's constitution, Britain's constitutional arrangements do not allow it to unilaterally alter the line of succession. And even if it did alter the Statute, or breached the convention, whatever changes they made would have no effect in Canada, as I said above.

 * Canada could have convened the Privy Council to give or deny consent to the marriage of Prince Charles and Ms. Parker-Bowles, however, as the couple would produce no heirs to the throne, the Canadian government decided there was no need for debate or discussion, and so approval was automatic. --gbambino 20:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "Answer my question: If Britain is not bound to have the same line of succession as Canada then why did the UK have to wait for Canada to pass the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16, 1936, as Rouleau points out?" -

 * The short answer is it didn't and here's the proof: the UK did *not* wait for Ireland to pass legislation allowing the abdication. The abdication occured and the Duke of York was proclaimed King one day before Ireland passed its "External Relations Act" recognizing the abdication.Andy 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Then why does Rouleau state: "The operation of this commitment to symmetry and union of Canada under the British Crown was demonstrated by the adoption in 1937 of the Succession to the Throne Act, I Geo. IV, c.16...Absent this Canadian statute, the statutory change in Great Britain to account for Edward VIII's abdication would have been contrary to Great Britain's commitment in the Statute of Westminster"?

And my second question from earlier: If Canada is subsurvient to British constitutional law, then why does the Balfour Report and the Statute of Westminster specifically state that the Realms are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another", as Rouleau points out? --gbambino 20:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW- as tedious as this discussion is, we can now remove the "one crown or several?" secion as you've conceded that there exist numerous crowns within one. --gbambino 20:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, we can't because its contents are factual and relevent and because as Peter Grey says it is not the "legally correct" term to use in Canada and because the theory of mulitple crowns hold that they are equal when there is ample evidence that this is not the case and this is clear in Rouleau's wording.

 * Now answer the question. Is it a fact or isn't it that Edward VIII's abdication took effect in the UK without Ireland having passed legislation authorising a change in the succession? You hinged a lot on your Edward VIII abdication argument, the least you can do now is deal with the fact that you are wrong. Andy 20:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * They may be factual, but they're no longer relevant if you admit that the standing situation of numerous crowns in one is true and real. With that admission the question disappears.

 * I don't yet know enough about what happened in Ireland at that time to state whether what you say is fact or not. I can only comment on what we have before us.  And what I am asking you about pertains to those things: the Statute of Westminster, the Balfour Report, Rouleau's ruling, etc.  This is the second time I've asked you to do so for one, and the fourth for the other.  So, before you try and create distractions, answer the questions. --gbambino 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well no because obviously the Irish example shows that, in practice, consulation with the dominions was a nicety rather than a constitutional necessity and that, in fact, the British Crown is superior to the others and not equal as the "multiple crowns" theory would have us believe. Andy 20:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "I don't yet know enough about what happened in Ireland at that time to state whether what you say is fact or not." Then look it up. I can wait. Andy 20:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You've also failed to answer my question about Camilla which shows that the nicety of consulting other Prime Ministers in regards to the crown is no longer followed and the UK is quite happy to act unilatrally and expect the rest of the realms to lump it or leave it. Andy 20:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I did answer your question. Read before attacking people. --gbambino 20:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You haven't answered the question at all: "Canada could have convened the Privy Council to give or deny consent to the marriage of Prince Charles and Ms. Parker-Bowles, however, as the couple would produce no heirs to the throne, the Canadian government decided there was no need for debate or discussion, and so approval was automatic."

 * But why did the Queen consult Tony Blair but not Jean Chretien? That's my question and you haven't answered it. You only provided a remedy Canada could have followed but you are not explaining why the British government was consulted while Canada, Australia etc were not. The point is that the UK (and the Queen for that matter) do not feel the need to consult the other realms on monarchial matters. The point is about what Britain did or did not do, not Canada's possible response. Andy 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Canada's "possible response"? A "remedy" Canada "could have followed"?  What are you talking about?  If it's important to you, then ask Paul Martin, as he was the PM then, not Chretien.  But it's irrelevant anyway, the marriage of Charles and Camilla means nothing to the constitutional status of Canada's monarchy, hence there was no meeting of the Privy Council, and no formal approval needed from the Canadian Parliament.  Your claims that you somehow know what the UK and the Queen "feels" about the Realms is unfounded conjecture, and also means nothing in relation to constitutional reality.  So, let's stop wasting each other's time, and get on with the facts.

 * I'll try to find out what happened Between Ireland and the UK at that time. However, in the meantime, can you explain how alterations to the line of succession in the UK would affect Canada if the Statute of Westminster states that "4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion"?
 * And, can we now remove "one crown or several?" --gbambino 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No, as Peter points out elsewhere there is no such thing as the "Canadian Crown" at least not legally. Andy 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh? Where did Peter point that out? And what of Rouleau's speaking of the Crown of Canada? And, what happened to your acknowledgement of the Australian Crown, and then your admitting to the existence of the Canadian Crown? As you said: "Because he feels the Crown of Canada is under the British Crown rather than there being a multiplicity of equal crowns ie the Canadian Crown is part of the British Crown and must, therefore, remain in symmetry." Seems to me that's an admittance of the existence of the Canadian Crown, as well as it being united with others under the larger body of the "British Crown". --gbambino 21:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commonwealth realm/Archive 2


text:
Darcs

Darcs is a distributed version control system created by David Roundy. Key features include the ability to choose which changes to accept from other repositories, interaction with either other local (on-disk) repositories or remote repositories via SSH, HTTP, or email, and an unusually interactive interface. The developers also emphasize the use of advanced software tools for verifying correctness: the expressive type system of the functional programming language Haskell enforces some properties, and randomized testing via QuickCheck verifies many others. The name is a recursive acronym for Darcs Advanced Revision Control System.

Model
Darcs treats patches as first-class citizens. For the user, a repository can be seen as a set of patches, where each patch is not necessarily ordered with respect to other patches, i.e. the set of patches is only a partially ordered set. In many cases patches can be independently transmitted between various repositories.

Many branching, merging, and cherry-picking operations that would require additional commands with snapshot-based systems like Git or Mercurial can be directly done with Darcs with the usual "pull" and "push" commands. In terms of user interface, this means that Darcs has fewer commands. These commands are more interactive: one can choose more precisely which patches they want to exchange with remote repositories.

The patches of a repository are linearly ordered. Darcs automatically calculates whether patches can be reordered (an operation called commutation), and how to do it. These calculations implement a so-called "patch theory".

A Darcs patch can contain changes of the following kinds:
 * line changes,
 * file and directory creation and deletion,
 * file and directory moving,
 * word substitution (typically used in code refactoring, for instance rename all occurrences of "foo" to "bar" in a given file).

The notion of dependency between patches is defined syntactically. Intuitively, a patch B depends on another patch A if A provides the content that B modifies. This means that patches that modify different parts of the code are considered, by default, independent. To address cases when this is not desirable, Darcs enables the user to specify explicit dependencies between patches.

Since version 2.10, Darcs uses patience diff by default.

History
Darcs evolved out of David Roundy's efforts to design a new patch format for GNU arch in June 2002. These discussions didn't lead to any code being committed to Arch, but did lead to the conception of the theory of patches. After writing an initial version of Darcs in C++, the Haskell version was written in Autumn 2002 and released to the public in April 2003. Darcs 2.0 was released in April 2008 and introduced a more robust repository format, as well as a new patch semantic called "darcs-2", aimed at minimizing exponential merge conflicts. The current development strategy focuses on implementing optimizations and adding new features, while maintaining the same repository format.

Shortcomings
Darcs has been criticized for its performance issues. This includes challenges related to the merge algorithms of Darcs 1.x, which showed exponential work to merge certain conflicts. Although not resolved completely in the subsequent versions of Darcs, the frequency of exponential merges did show noticeable reductions.

Bugs still remain in which merging of recursive conflicts fails.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Darcs


text:
Talk:Anti-fortification weapon

Untitled
yes i'm a newbie.

but link from weapon article @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons is "Blank". This page should have a link to weapons subcategory

Category:Anti-fortification weapons @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-fortification_weapons

title: Talk:Anti-fortification weapon


text: Talk:Pereslavl-Zalessky

title: Talk:Pereslavl-Zalessky


text:
Jane Lindskold

Jane M. Lindskold (born September 15, 1962) is an American writer of fantasy and science fiction short stories and novels.

Early life
Jane M. Lindskold was born on 15 September 1962, and grew up in Washington, D.C., and the Chesapeake Bay area. Jane is the first of four siblings, the others being Ann M. Lindskold Nalley, Graydon M. Lindskold, and Susan M. Lindskold Speer. Lindskold's father, John E. Lindskold, was head of the Land and Natural Resources Division, Western Division of the United States Justice Department. Her mother, Barbara DiSalle Lindskold, daughter of Ohio Governor Michael DiSalle, also was an attorney. Jane received a Ph.D. in English from Fordham, concentrating on Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern British Literature.

Literary work
Mentored by her friend, Roger Zelazny, she started publishing stories in 1992, and she published her first novel, Brother to Dragons, Companion to Owls in December, 1994. In her Athanor series, she writes about the creatures of legend — shape-shifters, satyrs, merfolk, and unicorns — who have sworn to keep their existence hidden from a human race prone to kill what it does not understand. In her Firekeeper Saga, she writes about a woman who discovers that politics among the wolves she was raised by and politics among human royalty are not so different.

Critical reception
Charles de Lint, reviewing Changer, praised "Lindskold's ability to tell a fast-paced, contemporary story that still carries the weight and style of old mythological story cycles." Terri Windling called Brother to Dragons, Companion to Owls "a complex, utterly original work of speculative fiction."

Lindskold lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with her husband, archaeologist Jim Moore.

The Athanor series

 * Changer (1998)
 * Legends Walking (1999); republished in 2012 as Changer's Daughter: A Novel of the Athanor

The Firekeeper Saga

 * Through Wolf's Eyes (2001)
 * Wolf's Head, Wolf's Heart (2002)
 * The Dragon of Despair (2003)
 * Wolf Captured (2004)
 * Wolf Hunting (2006)
 * Wolf's Blood (2007)
 * Wolf's Search (2019)
 * Wolf's Soul (2020)

Breaking the Wall (a.k.a. Land of Smoke and Sacrifice) series

 * Thirteen Orphans (2008)
 * Nine Gates (2009)
 * Five Odd Honors (2010)

Captain Ah-Lee series
(Novellas all, published only as e-books)

 * Endpoint Insurance (2011)
 * Here to There (2011)
 * Star Messenger (2011)
 * Winner Take Trouble (2011)

Star Kingdom series (with David Weber)
David Weber was the sole author of the first book, A Beautiful Friendship

 * Fire Season (2012)
 * Treecat Wars (2013)
 * A New Clan (2022)

Artemis Awakening series

 * Artemis Awakening (2014)
 * Artemis Invaded (2015)

Overwhere series

 * 1) Library of the Sapphire Wind (2022)
 * 2) Aurora Borealis Bridge (2022)
 * 3) House of Rough Diamonds (2023)

Other novels

 * Brother to Dragons, Companion to Owls (1994)
 * Marks of Our Brothers (1995)
 * The Pipes of Orpheus (1995)
 * Smoke and Mirrors (1996)
 * When the Gods are Silent (1997)
 * Donnerjack (1997) with Roger Zelazny
 * Lord Demon (1999) with Roger Zelazny
 * The Buried Pyramid (2004)
 * Child of a Rainless Year (2005)
 * Asphodel (2018)

Stories

 * "Good Boy" (1992)
 * "Dark Lady" (1995)
 * "Domino's Tale" (1995)
 * "Kangaroo Straight" (1995)
 * "Relief" (1995)
 * "The Seventh Martial Art" (1995)
 * "Teapot" (1995)
 * "Noh Cat Afternoon" in Catfantastic IV (1996)
 * "Child of the Night" (1996)
 * "A Dreaming of Dead Poets (1996)
 * "Web-Surfing Past Lives (1996)
 * "Hell's Mark (1997)
 * "Small Heroes (1997)
 * "Auspicious Stars (1998)
 * "Winner Takes Trouble (1998)
 * "The Queen's Gambit" in Worlds of Honor (1999)
 * "The Beanstalk Incident" (1999)
 * "Out of Hot Water" (1999)
 * "The Big Lie" (2000)
 * "Endpoint Insurance" (2000)
 * "On the Edge of Sleep" (2000)
 * "Ruins of the Past" (2000)
 * "Sacrifice" (2000)
 * "The Road to Stony Creek" in The Blue and the Gray Undercover (2001)
 * "Promised Land" in The Service of the Sword (2003)
 * "Ruthless" in In Fire Forged (2011)

Non-fiction

 * Roger Zelazny (biography, 1993)
 * Chronomaster: The Official Strategy Guide (1996)
 * Wanderings on Writing (2014)

title: Jane Lindskold


text:
2001 Tour de France, Stage 11 to Stage 20

The 2001 Tour de France was the 88th edition of Tour de France, one of cycling's Grand Tours. The Tour began in Dunkirk with a prologue individual time trial on 7 July and Stage 11 occurred on 18 July with an individual time trial from Grenoble. The race finished on the Champs-Élysées in Paris on 29 July.

Stage 11
18 July 2001 — Grenoble to Chamrousse, 32 km (ITT)

A mountain time trial was part of the Tour de France for the first time in several years. Lance Armstrong once again showed that he is the #1 contender for this year's tour. Laiseka, Sevilla and Montgomery all have a good result. Kivilev, however, falters, placing 32nd at more than 6 minutes behind Armstrong. He is a good climber but not a skilled time trialist.

Rest Day 1
19 July 2001 — Perpignan

Stage 12
20 July 2001 — Perpignan to Ax-les-Thermes, 166.5 km

After stage 11 there was a rest day, although the amount of rest the riders actually did get was diminished by the fact that they had to make a long transportation. Stage 12 was the first of three stages in the Pyrenees. In the first stages of the race, Italian Paolo Bettini was the great attacker. Grouping with Stuart O'Grady and finally alone, he was ahead for a long time. In the final climb, however, he was caught by two other riders who were better climbers: Spain's David Etxebarria and Colombia's Felix Cardenas. By then, the Tour was already over for Christophe Moreau: He suffered what was probably a case of food poisoning, and abandoned.

Behind the three riders, Armstrong, Ullrich and Kivilev had escaped from the group of favorites. When Ullrich attacked, Kivilev was unable to follow. At the front, Etxebarria made a few attempts, which dropped Bettini but not Cardenas. When Cardenas himself attacked, Etxebarria was unable to follow. Armstrong and Ullrich were joined by Roberto Laiseka, who soon left the two favorites behind and started chasing Cardenas. Beloki tried to reach the Armstrong-Ullrich duo, but failed. Armstrong managed to get away from Ullrich, but he could not further overtake Laiseka and Cardenas. Simon lost another 4 minutes to Armstrong, who moved within half a minute of Kivilev.

Stage 13
21 July 2001 — Foix to Saint-Lary-Soulan Pla d'Adet, 194 km

A group of nine attacked early. On the first climb, Laurent Roux took the points, strengthening his position, then Laurent Jalabert attacked, and started a long solo. Behind him, the group got smaller and smaller, in the end only Alexandre Vinokourov and Stive Vermaut remained.

Jan Ullrich attacked on the Peyresourde, and escaped together with Lance Armstrong and Ullrich's teammate Kevin Livingston, who had escaped earlier. However, during the descent he mis-judged a curve, and ended up off the road. Luckily, both bicycle and rider had no severe damage, and Ullrich quickly was able to ride again. Armstrong had not mis-used Ullrich's problems to attack, and Ullrich rejoined a group with Armstrong, Beloki and a few others. By now, all original escapers but Jalabert had been caught back, between Jaja and the group-Armstrong/Ullrich, there was only Stefano Garzelli left.

Jalabert, understandably tired of his long solo on a very difficult stage, was in problems during the final climb. Armstrong had chosen this climb for yet another attack. First his teammate Rubiera led the group, then Heras took over. Only Armstrong and Ullrich were able to follow. Heras himself had to drop off too later, and Armstrong managed to ride away from Ullrich. Jalabert's long solo was not rewarded with a stage win, Armstrong and five others took him over. However, it did bring him both the mountains jersey and the first place in the most combative rider classification. He would keep both to the finish in Paris.

Armstrong dedicated his win to Fabio Casartelli, his (then) teammate, who died after a fall on the Portet d'Aspet, this stage's first climb, in the Tour de France of 1995. Apart from the stage, he also took over the first place in the general classification. Kivilev and Simon still hang on, in second and third place.

Stage 14
22 July 2001 — Tarbes to Luz Ardiden, 141.5 km

The last mountain stage of this Tour de France. At the first climb, a group of 10 riders was ahead, but at the second climb, the Tourmalet, the highest point of this year's Tour (2115 m), Sven Montgomery and Mario Aerts lost everyone but David Moncoutié and Bobby Julich, with the latter not looking good either. Julich did indeed drop off, as did Montgomery during the descent. The other two were caught back by Wladimir Belli, who attacked on the final climb to Luz Ardiden, hoping to win the stage in a solo.

However, the group with Armstrong, Ullrich and the other favourites was only one minute behind, and from this group Roberto Laiseka attacked, and passed the remaining escapers one by one, finally passing Belli and getting ready for the win 5 km before the finish. Armstrong again ordered Heras to turn up the speed, and again Armstrong and Ullrich were the only ones who were able to follow. When Heras also had to drop off, Ullrich attacked, but Armstrong did not break, and together the two went to the finish, hand-in-hand with Armstrong not contesting the third-place time bonus. Ullrich took the second place in the general classification, Beloki still has to gain 1'20" on Kivilev in the time trial to gain third place.

Rest day 2
23 July 2001 — Pau

Stage 15
24 July 2001 — Pau to Lavaur, 232.5 km

After the second resting day, and this time without a move, the last tour week started. Expected were some breaks to keep getting away, and a mass spurt in the last stage and maybe once or twice more. For the general classification, only the time trial (stage 18) seems important.

Stage 15 fits nicely in this pattern, but with a small twist. After a wild start, with many attacks, a group of 25 riders got away, and at the finish had 15 minutes over the peloton. In the final stages, attacks happened in this group too, and Italian Marco Pinotti managed to get away. However, Belgian Rik Verbrugghe did the same, and after a long chase managed to reach Pinotti – not really unexpectedly, as Verbrugghe is known to be a good time trialist. The rest of the group would finish just a few seconds after the two. The spurt was easily won by Verbrugghe, Pinotti simply having not enough energy already in the last kilometers.

The little twist is that one of the riders in the group ahead was Michael Boogerd, who managed to climb from 16th to 8th place in the general classification, thus causing some change in the top 10 after all. The Kelme team of Santiago Botero tried to diminish the group's lead, so as to keep their leader in front of Boogerd in the general classification, but to no avail. Still, Boogerd was not satisfied. He would gladly have given his top-ten position for the stage win. Even less satisfied was Alessandro Petacchi, who easily won the spurt of the group, but realised that he had missed his chance of a stage win.

Stage 16
25 July 2001 — Castelsarrasin to Sarran, 227.5 km

The stage went like the last one: Many attacks at the start, resulting in a group getting away and staying away. This time the group was smaller, just seven riders, but again someone escaped from the group around 25 km before the end. It was German attacker Jens Voigt; Australian time trialist Bradley McGee was the only one who was able to follow. In the uphill finish, McGee was not able to follow Voigt, who thus got a well-deserved stage win. In the peloton, a crash unfortunately forced several riders to resign.

Stage 17
26 July 2001 — Brive-la-Gaillarde to Montluçon, 194 km

Early on a group of 16 riders escaped. When US Postal gave up chasing, their lead rapidly grew, but then the Bonjour team of Damien Nazon decided to lead the chase, and some other teams with sprinters (in particular Telekom) joined in. This caused the gap to become less again. Up front, Lelli attacked, and Baguet and Piil joined in. The rest of the group was caught by the peloton. Lelli, suffering from cramps, stopped working at the front, but the riders managed to stay ahead nevertheless. Baguet won the sprint.

Stage 18
27 July 2001 — Montluçon to Saint-Amand-Montrond, 61 km (ITT)

The last stage that is supposed to be important for the final standings is an individual time trial. Armstrong, starting last because he is first in the general classification, shows once again his great form in this year's Tour, and gets his fourth stage, over 1 minute faster than number 2, Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano (although he is known as a good time trialist, still a slight surprise, as Ullrich is also a good time trialist and clearly the second-best in this Tour). Kivilev rode an excellent time trial given his weakness on this specialization, finishing 18th, but it was not enough to avoid losing third place to Beloki. Perhaps the greatest surprise of this stage was the fourth place of Frenchman Didier Rous.

Stage 19
28 July 2001 — Orléans to Évry, 149.5 km

Probably the least exciting stage of this year's Tour, stage 19 had no major escapes (Jens Voigt attacking more to help teammate Stuart O'Grady by avoiding too many points going to Erik Zabel), and ended in a mass sprint. Deutsche Telekom had worked hard to keep the group together, and was rewarded with Zabel's second stage win. O'Grady, finishing second, did remain ahead of Zabel in the points classification, but the difference is only 2 points now.

Stage 20
29 July 2001 — Corbeil Essones to Paris, 160.5 km

As traditional, the last stage went to the Champs-Élysées in Paris, and as traditionally a number of attackers was unable to stay away from a peloton led by the groups of the sprinters. Although Française des Jeux had been working hard for Jimmy Casper, it was Jan Svorada who found himself well ahead about 200 meters from the finish. None of the other sprinters had a chance to overtake him. Erik Zabel was second, and had amassed enough points to take the green jersey from Stuart O'Grady. Zabel now had won the points classification for the sixth year in row. No one else had succeeded in winning the classification six times.


text:
Yellow-chinned spinetail

The yellow-chinned spinetail (Certhiaxis cinnamomeus) is a passerine bird found in the tropical New World from Trinidad and Colombia south to Argentina and Uruguay. It is a member of the South American ovenbird family Furnariidae.

Taxonomy
The yellow-chinned spinetail was formally described in 1788 by the German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin in his revised and expanded edition of Carl Linnaeus's Systema Naturae. He placed it with the treecreepers in the genus Certhia and coined the binomial name Certhia cinnamomea. The specific epithet is from Modern Latin cinnamomeus meaning "cinnamon-coloured". Gmelin based his description on the "Cinnamon creeper" that had been described in 1782 by the English ornithologist John Latham. Latham had examined a specimen in the British Museum. Latham did not specify the origin of the specimen but in 1902 Hans von Berlepsch and Ernst Hartert designated the type locality as Cayenne. The yellow-chinned spinetail is now placed with the red-and-white spinetail in the genus Certhiaxis that was introduced in 1844 by the French naturalist René Lesson.

Eight subspecies are recognised:
 * C. c. fuscifrons (Madarász, G, 1913) – north Colombia
 * C. c. marabinus Phelps, WH & Phelps, WH Jr, 1946 – northeast Colombia and northwest Venezuela
 * C. c. valencianus Zimmer, JT & Phelps, WH, 1944 – central west Venezuela
 * C. c. orenocensis Zimmer, JT, 1935 – Orinoco Valley (east Venezuela)
 * C. c. cinnamomeus (Gmelin, JF, 1788) – Trinidad, northeast Venezuela, the Guianas and northeast Brazil
 * C. c. pallidus Zimmer, JT, 1935 – southeast Colombia and west, central Amazonian Brazil
 * C. c. cearensis (Cory, 1916) – east Brazil
 * C. c. russeolus (Vieillot, 1817) – east Bolivia to southeast Brazil, Uruguay and north Argentina

Description
The yellow-chinned spinetail is typically 15 cm long, and weighs 15 g. It is a slender bird with a long tail. The upperparts and head are chestnut brown, and the underparts are whitish apart from the pale yellow throat. The sexes are similar, but there are several subspecies, differing in forecrown colour or upperparts tone.

Its call is a shrill rattling.

Distribution and habitat
The yellow-chinned spinetail is found in all contiguous regions of Brazil, except specific parts of the Amazon Basin. In northern South America, the species is mainly found along the coast, in a continuous coastal strip that extends from the mouth of the Amazon River's mouth through northern Brazil's Amapá state, the Guianas – extending to the headwaters of the south-flowing Branco River in the north central of Brazil's Roraima state as it borders the Guiana Highlands –, Venezuela, where its range extends more widely inland along the Orinoco River, to northern Colombia where it ranges up the Madeira River valley beyond the Serranía de las Quinchas.

Further south, like its sister species, the red-and-white spinetail (C. mustelinus) it is found along the Amazon River corridor. From the upper Amazon exiting the Andes, it only occurs in the river corridor, then bifurcating up the Madeira River, southwestwards into Bolivia. From there, it ranges along the Andean foothills to northwestern Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and finally the Rio de la Plata. It is apparently absent from much of Pará and northern Mato Grosso states, essentially between the Madeira and Araguaia River corridors. But apart from that region it occurs in most of South America in the area enclosed by – running counterclockwise – the lower Amazon and the Madeira river, the Andes, the Paraguay and lower Paraná rivers, and the Atlantic Ocean.

This species is a common resident breeder in marshes and the edges of mangrove swamps; in general its habitat is open woodland in the vicinity of rivers. The yellow-chinned spinetail feeds on insects and spiders, keeping low and often in the open. It is a conspicuous, confiding and noisy bird. Unlike the related ovenbirds, the yellow-chinned spinetail constructs a large spherical stick nest, usually low in a mangrove or other marsh vegetation. The tubular entrance tunnel rises almost vertically from the base to the top of the nest. The normal clutch is three, sometimes four, greenish white eggs.

This spinetail is parasitised by the striped cuckoo (Tapera naevia), which lays one or two eggs in the nest, but it is not known how the cuckoo enters the nest or whether it or its offspring eject the host's young.

This widely ranging bird is not considered threatened by the IUCN.

title: Yellow-chinned spinetail


text:
Talk:List of suburbs in Greater Newcastle, New South Wales

Untitled
Lake Macquarie and Port Stephens should not be included on a list of Newcastle suburbs. The ABS does have a statistical subdivision equivalent to the area currently included on this page, but a list of suburbs in that region should be at Suburbs in the Newcastle statistical subdivision. "Newcastle" has a clearly defined meaning in common speech, and it is equivalent to the LGA. -- Tim Starling 05:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Reference: -- Tim Starling 05:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Table / grid of Newcastle suburbs
Hello! Below you will find a table / grid of Newcastle suburbs, which should hopefully help with adding missing redirects / disambig pages, and possibly help to find and merge duplicate articles. The quick primer on using it is this: Ideally everything in columns 1, 2, 5, and 6 should be blue (col 1 needs to be done first, to prevent redirects with missing targets being added, as these tend to get speedy deleted); and everything in columns 3 and 4 should either be red, or if it is blue it should be checked to make sure that it is either a redirect page, or a disambig page that includes a link to the Newcastle suburb of the same name, or includes a "see also" link to the Newcastle suburb of that name. Hope this is useful to you!

Note: As of MediaWiki 1.5 the "Easy Preview" links no longer work. A bug request to restore this functionality in MediaWiki has been logged. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 06:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of suburbs in Greater Newcastle, New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525224555/http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/ to http://imagery.maps.nsw.gov.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I need help with something
Someone, please fix all these errors with “Shared with (city names)”. Even for me. CoreyRobbo (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Rostov, Yaroslavl Oblast

WW II -- Great Patriotic War -- Correction needed
The reference to the war and to the Battle of Rostov is mistaken in this context, since it relates to the other Rostov, Rostov-on-Don. It would seem that the Germans (who were approaching from the West and South) never got significantly past Moscow, much less 100 mi. or more to the Northeast. So what is there to say about Rostov's history in WW II instead? Mrnatural (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Rostofa
Somebody knows about name Rostofa? It is correct? I never see this information, only here.

IPAAT 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Ipaat

 * This is from Tatiana Jackson's book about Norse place-names in Russia. I may supply appropriate citation when I get home. Anyway, I plan to rewrite this article sooner or later. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 09:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the reason you put here the name of the town in Old Norse. Why not Swahili? If you think that town was founded by scandinavians, please, prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rostofa
Thanks, I see all famous Russian encyclopaedia (from Dal to KM) and - nothing about this.

IPAAT 09:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Ipaat

 * Because it's fake and comes from some fantasies. Honesly, are you rely on wikipedia as a source of information??

Monk Nestor and his "Povest Vremennyh Let"
At Beloozero were Vepsäs, At Rostov ozero Merjas and also at Kleshino ozero are Merjas too. And along the Oka River, where it flows to Volga are their own language talking Muromas, and also their own language talking Tseremisses and Mordovians.

Slavonic language speakers in Rus are Poljans, Drevljans, Polotskians, Dregovitshes, Severjanes and Buzans. The Buzans have received their name from that they formely used to live along Buga River, but later they have been started to called Volhynians. The Novgorodians are added into the list only later in later versions.

Others, who pay tributes for Rus are Tshuds, Merjas, Vepsäs, Muromas, Tseremisses, Mordvas, Permas, Petshoras, Hämes, Littis, Zimigolas, Korsas, Narovas, Liivis. All these talk their own languages, they are the descendats of Jaafet, and who lives in the northern countries.

A.O. Ishimova: "Istorija Rossii v razskazah dlja mladshago vozrasta" Second edition by publishing house M.O.Wolff, Moscow 1866: The eldest towns of Finns were: Rostov, Muroma and Beloozero. The Slavs, in addition to Kiova, had other towns: Novgorod, Polotsk and Smolensk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.205.131 (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rostov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327005204/http://www.admrostov.ru/msu.php?doc=3 to http://www.admrostov.ru/msu.php?doc=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Coat of Arms of Yaroslavl Oblast (2011) full.svg

Source for Scythians?
The article says " Scythians also settled there.", but there is no source provided for this claim. Rostov is in the forest-zone, and outside of the known settlement areas of the Scythians. Is it possible that the author of this part mistaken info about Rostov-on-Don to info about Rostov? Scythians were abundant around the Sea of Azov. Slumbery (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus established to move Rostov to Rostov, Yaroslavi Oblast, and redirect Rostov to Rostov-on-Don per PRIMARY. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

– There's a good chance that this isn't the primary topic; see Rostov-on-Don. Move the dabpage to the basename per WP:NOPRIMARY. 162 etc. (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rostov → Rostov, Yaroslavl Oblast
 * Rostov (disambiguation) → Rostov

 * Support, as this is an improvement. But the subject is also known as Rostov the Great/Rostov Velikii/Rostov Velikiy (Ngram). And I would definitely consider Rostov-on-Don as the primary topic for the name on its own. —Michael Z. 14:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection to making Rostov a primary redirect to Rostov-on-Don, if other editors support that. 162 etc. (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Rostov-on-Don as PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 26 November 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Based on arguments, more users support the move than oppose it, and their arguments seem to be more persuasive and supported by evidence. However, the consensus is not very clear or strong, as there are also valid arguments against the move.

I'd suggest to consider the possibility of finding a compromise solution, such as using a natural disambiguator or a hatnote, that can satisfy both sides. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Rostov, Yaroslavl Oblast → Rostov – The previous move mightily screwed upo Wikipedia. Rostov-on-Don and Rostov are completely different names and should not be confused. For starters, Rostov is 500 years older than Rostov-on-Don and the move disruptedd a huge number of historical articles: Rostov has half-ythousand of incoming links. The move also introduced confusion it lots of bio articles. Rostov the Great and similar (screwed-up by renaming bot) is a nickname to historically great Rostov, not Rostov-on-Don. etc. This is a huge mistake to muve page with long-established usage and with huge number of links. - Altenmann >talk 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Historical age is not a factor when determining a primary topic; see WP:DPT. If broken wikilinks are a problem, then the solution is to fix them, not to rename the article.  162 etc. (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment the issue is not age, the issue is that the move screwed up a huge number of backlinks. - Altenmann >talk 23:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Broken links are no reason to move an article. See WP:AT. You can be WP:BOLD and simply fix them.  Nothing in this proposal suggests that Rostov, Yaroslavl Oblast is the primary topic. Oppose. 162 etc. (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * YEs 500 broken links after move means that the page should not be moved. - Altenmann >talk 04:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Typically, wikilinks are updated as part of the RM closure; see WP:POSTMOVE.  It appears that this may have been overlooked. 162 etc. (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @162 etc., indeed I may have overlooked this. Will look into this this couple of weeks. – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @162 etc., @Altenmann, done clean up on the links. – robertsky (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to say one thing though... unlike other requested moves that required me to clean up wikilinks in the hundreds (i.e. Australian), and invariably having to replace the original link with one of multiple possibilities, all the links here have been pointing to this article. – robertsky (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose not convinced that rostov-on-don isn't the primary topic. It is a larger more prominent city and the admin centre of the rostov oblast—blindlynx 22:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not matter that it is larger: it has a very different name. And you have yet to prove that it is commonly called as "Rostov". - Altenmann >talk 23:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're the one proposing this move not me. But the Rostov-on-Don article uses 'Rostov-on-Don' and 'Rostov' interchangeable; The oblast isn't named the 'Rostov-on-Don Oblast; obviously a search won't be particularly useful but news agency use just 'rostov' in recent articles clearly about rostov-on-don, , —blindlynx 00:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would rather see how the literature overall refers to the city rather than recent breaking news reports (WP:RECENTISM) which still refer to the city as Rostov-on-Don initially in those examples. Mellk (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * i'm having a hard time finding good data on this simply because searches for 'rostov' lead to a lot of hits for Rostov-on-Don. Advice would be appreciated—blindlynx 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Almost nowhere you'll find Rostov-on-Don being referred as Rostov. If Reuters did it, it's the jornalist's fault. Despite not being the centre of the oblast, Rostov has a great importance among Russian cities, being a spiritual and cultural tourist destination. Even in Russian Wikipedia the article is Ростов, albeit its southern counterpart being searched |%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%83 twice as much. ―Eduardogobi (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Both this article and the one in russian say that 'Ростов Великий' 'great rostov' is used colloquially...but this isn't russian wiki so all this has limited bearing on this discussion—blindlynx 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not move to Rostov Veliky or Rostov the Great? Natural disambiguation is best. —Michael Z. 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Rostov-on-Don can be and is also referred to as Rostov and is the primary topic. It would be incomplete disambiguation even if it were not (in which case we would turn Rostov into a disambiguation page). Claims that it's a "very different name" are, of course, ludicrous. It's just Rostov with a bit tacked on the end. It's no more "different" than Stratford, London and Stratford-upon-Avon. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: The arguments that "Rostov-on-Don" is the primary topic are not convincing. These are different entities; best not to create the confusion. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it's not the primary topic, moving this article would still create incomplete disambiguation, as Rostov-on-Don can be and is also referred to as Rostov. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This can be addressed with a hatnote. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Russia has been notified of this discussion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support Rostov is far more famous with larger significance. There already is a commonly-used natural disambiguator (Rostov-on-Don).  Any remaining ambiguity can be resolved with a hatnote. Walrasiad (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak support. I have not really seen the city Rostov-on-Don referred to as just Rostov before. Google is not useful here but the results returned still typically include Rostov-on-Don rather than just Rostov to refer to the city. It is probably somewhat similar with Veliky Novgorod which is often just known as Novgorod (which redirects to there) while Novgorod is rarely used to refer to Nizhny Novgorod, probably only erroneously. Mellk (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Necrothesp. --Yorkporter (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence that this Rostov is the primary use of the term, and simple internet searches for 'Rostov' rank Rostov-on-Don higher, indicating that it is the primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rostov, Yaroslavl Oblast


text:
Foreign body

A foreign body (FB) is any object originating outside the body of an organism. In machinery, it can mean any unwanted intruding object.

Most references to foreign bodies involve propulsion through natural orifices into hollow organs.

Foreign bodies can be inert or irritating. If they irritate they will cause inflammation and scarring. They can bring infection into the body or acquire infectious agents and protect them from the body's immune defenses. They can obstruct passageways either by their size or by the scarring they cause. Some can be toxic or generate toxic chemicals from reactions with chemicals produced by the body, as is the case with many examples of ingested metal objects.

With sufficient force (as in firing of bullets), a foreign body can become lodged into nearly any tissue.

Gastrointestinal tract
One of the most common locations for a foreign body is the alimentary tract.

It is possible for foreign bodies to enter the tract from the mouth or rectum.

Both children and adults experience problems caused by foreign objects becoming lodged within their bodies. Young children, in particular, are naturally curious and may intentionally put shiny objects, such as coins or button batteries, into their mouths. They also like to insert objects into their ear canals and nostrils. The severity of a foreign body can range from unconcerning to a life-threatening emergency. For example, a coin causes local pressure on the tissue but generally is not a medical emergency to remove. A button battery, which can be a very similar size to a coin, generates hydroxide ions at the anode and causes a chemical burn in two hours. An ingested button battery that is stuck in the esophagus is a medical emergency. In 2009, Avolio Luigi and Martucciello Giuseppe showed that although ingested nonmagnetic foreign bodies are likely to be passed spontaneously without consequence, ingested magnets (magnetic toys) may attract each other through children's intestinal walls and cause severe damage, such as pressure necrosis, perforation, intestinal fistulas, volvulus, and obstruction.

Pancreas
Sometimes foreign bodies can pass spontaneously through the gastrointestinal tract and perforate or penetrate the wall of stomach and duodenum and migrate into the pancreas. The laparoscopic approach before open surgery could be performed safely for the removal of foreign bodies embedded in the pancreas.

Airways
It is possible for a foreign body to enter the airways and cause choking. A choking case can require the fast usage of basic anti-choking techniques to clear the airway.

In one study, peanuts were the most common obstruction. In addition to peanuts, hot dogs, grapes, and latex balloons are also serious choking hazards in children that can result in death. A latex balloon will conform to the shape of the trachea, blocking the airway and making it difficult to expel with basic anti-choking techniques.

Eyes
Airborne particles can lodge in the eyes of people at any age. These foreign bodies often result in allergies which are either temporary or even turn into a chronic allergy. This is especially evident in the case of dust particles.

It is also possible for larger objects to lodge in the eye. The most common cause of intraocular foreign bodies is hammering. Corneal foreign bodies are often encountered due to occupational exposure and can be prevented by instituting safety eye-wear at work place.

Foreign bodies in the eye affect about 2 per 1,000 people per year.

Skin
Splinters are common foreign bodies in skin. Staphylococcus aureus infection often causes boils to form around them.

Tetanus prophylaxis may be appropriate.

Peritoneum
Foreign bodies in the peritoneum can include retained surgical instruments after abdominal surgery. Rarely, an intrauterine device can perforate the uterine wall and enter the peritoneum.

Foreign bodies in the peritoneum eventually become contained in a foreign body granuloma. In the extremely rare case of retained ectopic pregnancy, this forms a lithopedion, which involves the fetus being too large to be reabsorbed, and is calcified as a means of shielding the surrounding tissue from infection.

Other
Foreign bodies can also become lodged in other locations:
 * anus or rectum
 * blood vessels or thoracic system
 * ears
 * nose
 * teeth and periodontium
 * urethra
 * vagina

Other animals
Foreign bodies are common in animals, especially young dogs and cats. Dogs will readily eat toys, bones, and any object that either has food on it or retains the odor of food. Unlike humans, dogs are susceptible to gastrointestinal obstruction due to their ability to swallow relatively large objects and pass them through the esophagus. Foreign bodies most commonly become lodged in the stomach because of the inability to pass through the pyloric sphincter into the jejunum. Symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction include vomiting, abdominal pain often characterized by aggression, acute infection, and depression due to dehydration. Treatment of a foreign body is determined by its severity. The amount of time a foreign body is present, location of the object, degree of obstruction, previous health status of the animal and the type of material from which the foreign body is made can all determine the severity of the condition. Peritonitis results if either the stomach or intestine has ruptured. Foreign bodies in the stomach can sometimes be removed by endoscopic retrieval or if necessary by gastrotomy. Very often, a simple instrument to remove foreign bodies without operation endoscopy is the Hartmann alligator forceps. The instrument is manufactured from 8 cm to 1 m length. Foreign bodies in the jejunum are removed by enterotomy.

Certain foreign bodies in animals are especially problematic. Bones or objects with sharp edges may cause tearing of the wall of the esophagus, stomach, or small intestine and lead to peritonitis. Pennies swallowed in large numbers may cause zinc poisoning, which in dogs leads to severe gastroenteritis and hemolytic anemia. Linear foreign bodies can especially be dangerous. A linear foreign body is usually a length of string or yarn with a larger object or clump of material at either end. One end is usually lodged in the stomach or proximal small intestine and the other end continues to travel through the intestines. The material becomes tightly stretched and the intestines may "accordion up" on themselves or be lacerated by it. This is especially common in cats who may enjoy playing with a ball of string or yarn. Sometimes the linear foreign body anchors in the mouth by catching under the tongue. Pantyhose is a common linear foreign body in dogs.

title: Foreign body


text:
Bill C-38

Bill C-38 is the name of various legislation introduced into the House of Commons of Canada, including:

 * Farm Debt Mediation Act, introduced in 1997 to the second session of the 35th Parliament
 * Civil Marriage Act, introduced in 2005 to the only session of the 38th Parliament
 * Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, introduced in 2012 to the first session of the 41st Parliament

title: Bill C-38


text:
Eastern Youth

Eastern Youth is a Japanese punk rock trio formed in 1989 in Hokkaidō. Their sound blends many different styles, and is especially complex for a three-piece band. Their lyrics express the helplessness of Japanese youths. Their influences include Fugazi, Jawbreaker, Jets to Brazil, Stiff Little Fingers and Discharge.

Career
Eastern Youth was formed as Scanners in 1989 by childhood friends Hisashi Yoshino and Atsuya Tamori in Sapporo, Hokkaidō. From 1989 to 1993 they were the top Oi!/skinhead act in Japan. They released 3 albums, 1 single, and were on several compilation albums. The band changed their name from EASTERN YOUTH to Eastern youth, and shed the skinhead image of their past. The band moved to Tokyo in 1990. In 1995, they put out their first release on their record label, 坂本商店: (Sakamoto-Shoten) 口笛、夜更けに響 Kuchibue Yofuke-ni-Hibiku ("A Whistle Rings Late At Night"). Within the next 5 years, Eastern Youth became legendary to the Japanese indie rock scene and in 2000 they played in the United States for the first time, with At The Drive-In, largely broadening their popularity. They continued to tour America with Jimmy Eat World in 2001, and Saddle Creek band Cursive in 2006, with whom Eastern Youth split sides on 2002's 8 Teeth to Eat You EP. During the "Bottom of the World"-Tour 2015 Tomokazu Ninomiya announced that he would be leaving the band. He was replaced by Muraoka Yuka.

Members

 * Hisashi Yoshino – vocals, guitar
 * Atsuya Tamori – drums
 * Yuka Muraoka – bass

Singles

 * For Skins and Punks EP (1991)
 * Noboru Asahi Abite (1991)
 * Hadashi de Ikazaru wo Enai (1996)
 * Aosugiru Sora (1997)
 * Kaze no Naka (1999)
 * Amazarashi nara Nureru ga Ii sa (1999)
 * Seijaku ga Moeru (2000)
 * Kakatonaru (2001)
 * Sekai ha Warehibiku Miminari no you da (2002)
 * Kyousei Shiryoku 0.6 (Corrected Eyesight 0.6) (2004)
 * Boiling Point 36 °C (October 24, 2007)
 * Akai-Inoatama Blues (February 6, 2008)
 * Tokeidai no Kane (November 14, 2018)

Albums

 * East End Land (1989)
 * Time Is Running (1990)
 * Eastern Youth (1993)
 * 口笛、夜更けに響く (1995)
 * 孤立無援の花 (1997)
 * 旅路ニ季節ガ燃エ落チル (1998)
 * 雲射抜ケ声 (1999)
 * 感受性応答セヨ (2001)
 * 其処カラ何ガ見エルカ (2003) "What Can You See From Your Place"
 * DON QUIJOTE (2004)
 * 365步のブルース (2006) "365-Step Blues"
 * 地球の裏から風が吹く (2007) "Blowing from the Other Side of the Earth"
 * 歩幅と太陽 (2009) "The Pace With the Sun"
 * 心ノ底ニ灯火トモセ (2011) "Kokoro No Soko Ni Tomoshibi Tomose"
 * 叙景ゼロ番地 (2012) "Jokei Zero Banchi"
 * ボトムオブザワールド (2015) "Bottom Of The World"
 * SONGentoJIYU (2017)
 * 2020 (2020)

DVDs

 * Sono Zanzou to Zankyouon (2001)
 * Archives 1997–2001 (2004)
 * 日比谷野外大音楽堂公演 DVD 2019.9.28 (2020)

authors: The less mind, the more like-minded ones around

title: Eastern Youth


text:
Donggung Palace and Wolji Pond

Donggung Palace and Wolji Pond, formerly known as Anapji, is an artificial pond in Gyeongju National Park, South Korea. It was part of the palace complex of ancient Silla (57 BCE – 935 CE). It was constructed by order of King Munmu in 674 CE. The pond is situated at the northeast edge of the Banwolseong palace site, in central Gyeongju. It is an oval shape; 200m from east to west and 180m from north to south. It contains three small islands.

History
Anapji was originally located near the palace of Silla called Banwolseong. It is written in Samguk Sagi: "During the era of King Munmu, a new pond was made in the palace and flowers and birds flourished in this pond". There is also mention of a royal reception held by King Gyeongsun in 931, when Silla was already crumbling. After the fall of Silla, the pond fell into disrepair for many centuries. The name Anapji appears in the 16th century Joseon era document Augmented Survey of the Geography of Korea with the explanation that King Munmu made the pond with Taoist aesthetics.

Renovation and excavation of relics
As part of the renovation project of historic sites in Gyeongju, Anapji was dredged and rebuilt in 1974. The long-term excavation project from March 1975 to December 1986 released a large number of relics from the pond. Research revealed that the pond had been surrounded by stone walls, and that 5 buildings had been standing on the pond's west to south sides. Waterway systems were also detected. Almost 33,000 pieces of historic relics were excavated from the site. An abundance of unique and extraordinarily designed roof tiles, architectural materials, pottery, gilt bronze figures of Buddha, jewelry, accessories and other everyday items were discovered, offering an insight to Buddhist art and everyday life in Silla. Gyeongju city government tried to work on restoration project once again in 2018 but it was suspended because UNESCO opposed the project.

Tourist destination
Anapji is currently allotted in Inwang-dong, Gyeongju and is part of Gyeongju National Park. Approximately 730 relics are on display at the Anapji Exhibition Hall, the special gallery of the Gyeongju National Museum. The site of Imhaejeon is also a part of the grounds, the most important building on the property and the structure used as the crown prince's palace. While some sites have been restored others have been left in the natural form.

title: Donggung Palace and Wolji Pond


text:
User talk:Sgcom

Hey, cool! I've never seen a picture of Jones. And...I'm glad to see you've signed up for an account. I hope you stay around. Our education sections are sadly lacking. Joyous (talk) 05:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Since you haven't been welcomed yet... Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! JesseW 08:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Positiveinstruction.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Positiveinstruction.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Positivediscipline.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Positivediscipline.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Fredjones.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fredjones.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Toolsforteaching.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Toolsforteaching.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sgcom


text:
Talk:Donggung Palace and Wolji Pond

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Donggung Palace and Wolji Pond in Gyeongju. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507085027/http://eguide.gyeongju.go.kr:80/ to http://eguide.gyeongju.go.kr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donggung Palace and Wolji Pond in Gyeongju. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207134614/http://gyeongju.museum.go.kr/ to http://gyeongju.museum.go.kr/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://eguide.gyeongju.go.kr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Article scope
Is this article about just a pond, or is it also about the Donggung Palace too? toobigtokale (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donggung Palace and Wolji Pond


text:
Byron Price

Byron Price (March 25, 1891 – August 6, 1981) was director of the U.S. Office of Censorship during World War II.

Life
Price was born near Topeka, Indiana, on 25 March 1891. He was a magazine editor at Topeka High School, and worked as a journalist and newspaper deliverer at the Crawfordsville Journal and the college newspaper while attending Wabash College.

He joined United Press in 1912 and the Associated Press (AP) soon after, where he stayed for 29 years except for two years in the United States Army during World War I. Price served as the AP's Washington bureau chief and, in 1937, became executive news editor of the organization. Price became the U.S. Director of Censorship on December 19, 1941. This was a day after the First War Powers Act was established. Heading the Office of Censorship allowed Price to censor international communication, issue censorship rules, and set up two advisory panels to assist him in his duties. For his "creation and administration of the newspaper and radio codes" at the Office of Censorship, Price received a special Pulitzer Prize in 1944. In 1946, President Harry S. Truman presented him with the Medal for Merit for "exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services as Director, Office of Censorship, from December 20, 1941, until August 15, 1945."

After the Office closed in November 1945, Price did not return to the AP. Instead he became a vice-president of the Motion Picture Association of America, then an Assistant Secretary General at the United Nations until retiring in 1954. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Price agreed to resume direction of censorship if war broke out with the Soviet Union. The Byron Price papers are located at the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison, WI.

title: Byron Price


text:
Talk:Mitre Peak (New Zealand)

Mitre Peak - Tararua Range
Should this be mentioned as well being the highest peak in the range — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.32.165 (talk • contribs) 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No. This is the article about the mountain in Fiordland. If you think that the other mountains or hills of this name deserve a page (I believe there are four peaks called "Mitre Peak" in New Zealand), feel free to write those articles. And since your post, somebody else has already given that Tararua Range hill a short article, but note that it's not one of the other three "Mitre Peaks"; its name is simply Mitre.  Schwede 66  22:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

History merge
Regarding the requested history merge, I have to admit that I struggle a bit with the concept. However, Mitre Peak (New Zealand) has just been deleted to make way for a page move from Mitre Peak, New Zealand. Hence, the history that shows with this article is the one that came with the move. What's missing is the previous history of the now deleted article. My understanding is that these things need to be merged. Or am I misunderstanding something?  Schwede 66  03:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There were only 2 revisions that were deleted, and both were redirects rather than relevant article history, so they're not worth restoring. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok - thanks.  Schwede 66  03:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mitre Peak (New Zealand)


text: User talk:70.186.18.206

title: User talk:70.186.18.206


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Nyquist

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 02:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Nyquist
Vanity page. Rhobite 05:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Speedy Delete" I had to write a bio for one of my classes here, and my roomate thought it would be funny to embelish and expand it and post it here. It is a bit funny ;)  Thanks for the good luck wishingMatthewNyquist 09:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Matthew Nyquist
 * Delete Vanity indeed. -- BMIComp  (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "popular site" that keeps this from being a speedy under the new vanity criterion has an Alexa rank of 2,157,585. —Cryptic (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize that vote had passed! We can speedy delete clear vanity articles now? That's a step in the right direction. Rhobite 05:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * They're still fighting about it over at Deletion of vanity articles, but there's no need to feel guilty about speedying the very worst of them anymore, at least. —Cryptic (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete NN Vanity until he's finished "waiting for his break" to come. I wish him good luck. Hamster Sandwich 06:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete since apparently it can't be speedied? I'm not sure I'd consider having a website an assertion of notability, but that's just me.  Friday 06:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete clear vanity. Tobycat 06:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. Good luck in Hollywood. --  Etacar11   00:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.