User talk:IranianGuy

Welcome!

Hello IranianGuy, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy this place and decide to stay. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes, like this: (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field, as this will help other users to know what you changed and why you changed it. Below are some (rather boring, but) useful links to help you learn your way around the encyclopedia as well as to help you become a successful editor. I hope you will like editing here, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Good luck, and happy editing! J.delanoygabsanalyse 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Monarchist/Royalist

They are effectively the same thing, but a monarchist simply belives in the monarchy system, a royalist belives a certain person should be running things.

As an example:

Monarchist: I think we should have someone in charge and running things.

Royalist: I think John Smith should be in charge and running things.

A Royalist is effectively just a more specific Monarchist. HalfShadow 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it. But if you look up Merriam-Webster, it simply directs you to the entry on monarchism [1]. American Heritage also agrees [2], as does Oxford [3]. The consensus seems to be that it is fully synonymous with "monarchism," with the latter definition being secondary or a rather uncommon usage. IranianGuy (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada page

Thanks for the bold editing. I think the wording better reflects what's in the sources. I tweaked your contribution a little. I thought that both sides should be presented in a balanced way.

I orignally thought that this was a somewhat esoteric point, put in the early days of a minority government it could become important awfully quickly.

Please leave a few comments on the talk page. I'd like your contribution to stick and documenting your rationale helps build consensus. --soulscanner (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)