| Revision as of 16:22, 14 February 2015 editLangus-TxT (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,919 edits →Reverting every one of my edits: sorry but no← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:03, 8 September 2019 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 6 discussion(s) to User talk:Langus-TxT/Archive 2) (botTag: Replaced | ||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |maxarchivesize = 70K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 2 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} | {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} | ||
| <!-- End of Auto archiving setup --> | <!-- End of Auto archiving setup --> | ||
| == Falklands on Heads of State of South America template == | |||
| French Guiana is not a sovereign state but it is included on the template as it is in South America. I think if we exclude the Falklands and SGSSI on account of them not being sovereign states, we should also exclude French Guiana. | |||
| David Cameron should not appear on the template as he is not head of state of anywhere. Officially it’s Queen Elizabeth II and she is represented on the islands by the Governor/Commissioner, who acts as ''de facto'' head of state - this is noted on the template itself. | |||
| If you feel strongly that FI and SGSSI should not be included on the template please feel free to raise it on the ]. --] (]) 08:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :The template is about '''Heads of State''' of South America. From ]: | |||
| :::''"The term head of state is often used differentiating it from the term head of government. For instance, in parliamentary systems like the '''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''' and the Federal Republic of Germany; the '''Monarch''' and the President are recognized as their respective '''heads of state''', while the '''Prime Minister''' and the Chancellor are recognized as the '''heads of government'''."'' | |||
| :Also: | |||
| :::''"Head of state is a term used in constitutional law, international law, political science, and diplomatic protocol when referring to the official who holds the highest ranked position in a ''']''' and has the de-jure powers of state. "'' | |||
| :The key here is the concept of ''"sovereign state"''. Which ''sovereign state'' are we talking about? --] <small>(])</small> 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think a territory needs to be a sovereign state in order to have a Head of State. The ] states that ''"The executive authority of the Falkland Islands is vested in Her Majesty."'' and that ''"Subject to this Constitution, the executive authority of the Falkland Islands shall be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor, either directly or through officers subordinate to him or her."'' So the ] performs the role the head of state would perform in a sovereign state and thus should at least be mentioned on the template. | |||
| ::French Guiana is an overseas department of France (thus shares the French Head of State) and the Falklands are an overseas territory of the UK (thus shares the British Head of State). I understand there are constitutional differences (French Guiana is part of France, but the Falklands are not part of the UK), however neither French Guiana nor the Falklands are sovereign states. As I said, if the Falklands are excluded, I think French Guiana should be excluded as well. ] (]) 11:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, that's the commonly accepted definition of what a Head of State and a Sovereign State are; therefore, I understand that the template was created for those people. | |||
| ::::I'm not against the inclusion of the FI, but, as a part of a sovereign state, the correct person to be included in the template is ], as exemplified in the ] article. Exactly as French Guiana, that lists ] as its Head of State. --] <small>(])</small> 11:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From section ]: ''"The same role in a federal constituent and a dependent territory is fulfilled by the corresponding office equivalent to that of a head of state. For example, in each Canadian province the role is fulfilled by the Lieutenant Governor, whereas in most British Overseas Territories the powers and duties are performed by the Governor. These non-sovereign-state heads, nevertheless, have limited or no role in diplomatic affairs, depending on the status and the norms and practices of the territories concerned."''--] <small>(])</small> 11:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| François Hollande is listed because he is the French Head of State and French Guiana is part of France. David Cameron is not a head of state and (in theory) has no constitutional role in the Falklands. In fact the Falkland Islands Constitution doesn't mention the Prime Minister at all. Cameron is the head of government in the UK, but not in the Falklands. | |||
| I've been looking for precedents when dealing with official representatives of a head of state. I've found that Elizabeth II (not the Governor-General) is listed as Belize's head of state on the template for ]. Obviously, Belize is a sovereign state and Elizabeth II's officially title there is "Queen of Belize", whereas in the Falklands her title is "Queen of the United Kingdom". If FI and SGSSI are to be included on the template, it should be either the Queen or the Governor who are mentioned. Given the precedent and your quote above from the Head of State page, I'm leaning towards the Queen. Also, FI, SGSSI and French Guiana should be separated or highlighted to show they are not sovereign states. ] (]) 12:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're correct, my bad: the Queen ] would be the Head of State in this case. --] <small>(])</small> 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Marambio == | |||
| You are welcome. ] (]) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Keep it up! :) --] <small>(])</small> 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Rosas == | |||
| Hi, Langus. Good to talk with you. I'm sorry, I was talking about the Endnotes, not footnotes. To be more precise, . It was quite common until the late 19th century, both in Spanish as well as in Portuguese, to have variations of names and surnames, even among members of the same family. | |||
| However, in the case of Rosas, revisionist authors tried to fabricate the tale that he changed his surname from Rozas to Rosas when he was a child. That's untrue and part of the revisionist political propaganda. That's explained in Endnote C. | |||
| Regards, --] (]) 22:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, I see. Well, without going intro controversy, I'm not interested in ''how'' he changed his name, or if it was his father or a relative who started the confusion. What it worries me is that we are not properly saying to the readers ''"hey, you may read about JM Rozas somewhere else and that would be the same person: it's an alternative spelling"''. I think this kind of information is vital for a reader researching the topic and should be included right in the lede or at least in the opening paragraph of the body. Would you agree to that? --] <small>(])</small> 13:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think Leon Ortiz's name should be changed to Rosas. There are many authors . I have no idea why we should keep the archaic "Rozas". Either way, perhaps the best should be to create an article about the Rosas family, explaining there the difference in spelling. P.S.: I left Leo Ortiz's wikilink the same as his article's title. --] (]) 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have a lot to say about the subject but I don't want to get into that discussion. What I do seek is for readers to get the upfront clarification that JM Rozas and JM Rosas are the same person. Would you help me with that? --] <small>(])</small> 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Merge discussion== | |||
| Hello Langus, | |||
| Where should we take the next to get it resolved from an uninvolved admin? I would like an uninvolved third party to determine what steps need to be taken next. I asked user Jonathan A Jones, user Wragge, and I also posted a comment to the ANI board for assistance a couple weeks ago but never received a response from either. Thanks in advance for the help! Best, ] ] 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :These kind of decisions are not to be taken by admins: they have to be decided by ]. Right now, there's no clear consensus on which path to take. You could ask for input at ], ] and ]. Also, a ] would attract attention from uninvolved editors. | |||
| :However, it is my personal opinion that you're pushing too hard for this merge; you should just ] and let it go. | |||
| :Regards, --] <small>(])</small> 13:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverting every one of my edits == | |||
| I've just returned after an absence of several months to find it seems you like to follow me around reverting my edits. Is this just something you make a habit of, or is there something in particular about me that you've taken a dislike to? ] (]) 14:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have no particular interest in you or your edits. Haven't you thought about the possibility that I may have had the pages watchlisted before you edited them? --] <small>(])</small> 16:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:03, 8 September 2019
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |