User talk:Lawe

Claims about the US Constitution
I've noticed that many in the United States claim that its constitution is the oldest. The republic of San Marino has the oldest written constitition, written in 1600. Someone said that the San Marino does not count, because it was not recognised as a state until 1812, however this is not true and the independence of San Marino dates back to at least the 1200's.

Australia Republican Pages
I am interested in cleaning up Australian Republicanism. The current project is to remove the page Proposed President of Australia and writing about specific models which have been seriously considered.

Constitutions
This is not an area in which I can claim any expertise. Adam 23:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Canal pics
I've expanded Canal a little, so there;s room for more pics if you like. As to which to replace, if this is still necess, how about either Venice, or Amsterdam, as these show the same type of canal? But they're rather beautiful pics, so perhaps the Canal du Midi. I'd be loathe to lose the Calder and Hebble Nav unless it were replaced with something similar, showing the industrial buildings and chimneystack contemporary with the canal. Did you have something in mind? JackyR 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

IP edits
Thanks for the heads up regarding this user. I had no idea the user was a previously blocked one, but they were operating one step short of that level at the Australian republic referendum, 1999 talk page. Orderinchaos 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up
Saw you cleanup blocked eds messes - and i noticed some of them arent assessesd for oz project yet - cheers SatuSuro 09:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cripes you are being generous - most simply revert without as much as a time of day to explain why - well done - hope my low importance asesses are not offensive to you or your hard work - cheers SatuSuro 10:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Michaëlle Jean
You appear to have made some reverts lately. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in blocking of accounts. Prince of Canadat 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care who did what, which is why I posted the exact same message on both your pages. I strongly suggest that you both take a step back from the page for 24 hours, and calm down. You have both hit 3RR. Prince of Canadat 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Involved? Not involved?" <-- I am not sure what this means. You're both stepping over the line, I don't care who did what, you both just need to calm down.  That is the extent of my involvement. Prince of Canadat 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI
You may wish to stop by ANI. Prince of Canadat 20:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OR at Australian republicanism
I'm not really sure how much space should be accorded within the article &mdash; it would at least be helpful to the reader to have a brief section covering legal matters that relate to the monarchy in Australia, as laws codifying the monarchy are highly relevant to the potential for establishment of republicanism. Flipping over to the article, I see that such a section has now been set up. As to the second part of what you asked, it would definitely be a good idea to lend your apparent expertise in the subject to building this section. There's certainly much to be said beyond just a discussion of succession law &mdash; succession law, after all, is relevant but somewhat tangential.

As for your disagreement with Bambino about the material, I remain unsure of exactly which points you disagree with. For a start, do you agree or disagree with this contention:


 * The succession law of the United Kingdom's cannot be changed without the consent of the Australian parliament.

I have no strong opinions on the subject, myself. It just struck me that the SoW does seem to support that much, at least.  Mr. IP  « Defender of Open Editing » 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm a Yank and supporter of small-r republicanism myself; I have no bias toward his viewpoint. It's just that right now he's got his statement backed by a source which essentially contains the same information as the statement, which rules it out as original research.  You may want to pursue a claim that succession law is simply irrelevant, but it's just hard to make it out as OR.  How do you feel it should be contextualized?  What if it were included with information on exactly where it came from, as in the form, "According to the preamble to the [and so on]..."?  Mr. IP  « Defender of Open Editing » 20:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The OR is from the idea that wikipedia should be based on secondary sources. --lawe (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth membership
Hey lawe - do you have a cite for the Commonwealth membership? I'm sure we'll be challenged on it at some stage. --Lholden (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Brilliant thanks for that. --Lholden (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion needed for changed
Please stop changing the dablink on commonwealth realm pages. The dablink was decided on a while back. If you have any concerns take them to WP:COMMONWEALTH where a central discussion can take place. Consensus is needed to make such bold changes, since consensus formed the first version and we don't know whether consensus has changed. Also, please do not remove mentions of personal union unless it has been discussed on the talk page. As both the changes you have made affect a large amount of articles I would suggest a central discussion at WP:COMMONWEALTH. Thank you, --Cameron* 17:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see no such thing...would you care to point me to a subsection? --Cameron* 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see consensus there. I think further discussion is needed to be honest. Best, --Cameron* 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Name change
I've just noticed, cool. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of your recent comments
Point taken.

Monarchy of Canada & Monarchy of Australia
Hello Lawe. I don't know how you're gonna trim those articles; Ya may need to create sister-articles. 12:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I owe you an apology for being incredibly rude in the first Personal Union dispute. Careful reflection showed me that I was wrong in my arguments, and incredibly wrong in my attitude towards you. I'm sorry. Prince of Canadat 09:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not remember you being rude, but apology is of course accepted. May I be as generous in spirt when it is my turn. --Lawe (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lawe
Please don't post things like this and this. Sure we all get frustrated at other editors from time to time but posts like that are unkind and unconstructive. Please remember always to try and assume good faith! Best, --Cameron* 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cameron, I know you assume good faith almost to a fault, but G2 has pretty conclusively proven that there is no good faith to assume of him in that debate. Prince of Canadat 15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You flatter me. ;) My point was, there is no need to start potentially 'inflaming' discussions. If someone has a problem with me, I'd like to feel they would come to my talk page to help me address the problem. :) --Cameron* 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but talking with you is productive. Prince of Canadat 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rideau Hall
Hiya Lawe. Ya know, RH would make a nice official residence for the 'President of Canada', eh? PS- I'm always hopeful, ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Input
There is a post on WP:AN that you may or may not wish to comment on. Prince of Canadat 07:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My "buddy"
My "buddy" doesn't seem to have any major problems I can see. The proposal is in the process of being rejected. It won't be long until it is archived now. I believe the right way to proceed may be and RFC. ;) Regards, --Cameron* 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux  ] [ x ] 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal union
Hiya... I would be most grateful if you could check out all the other references being used for 'personal union' at both Monarchy of Canada and Commonwealth realm. Given the number of inaccuracies uncovered so far, it would be surprising if there weren't more. [ roux  ] [ x ] 04:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request
A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The RfC/U discussion continues. Any of this sound familiar? Is this a reasonable addition and does it warrant your signature? --soulscanner (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Whilst I am well aware of the history between Roux and G2, and have expressed my view in the relevant RFCs, it does nobody any good to attempt to fan the flames a bit more. Please leave off with this kind of stuff.'' Mayalld (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Australia & Tuvalu
First the Aussies (in 1999) & now the Tuvaluans, choose to keep the monarchy. What is this world coming to. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of Jamaica
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - BillCJ (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Help!
I've seen your work combatting bias of republicanism on many pages. I was wondering if you could assist me in my work here: Barry O'Farrell and here Talk:Barry O'Farrell. Keep up the good work. Stravin (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)