Jump to content

User talk:BrentS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evolver (talk | contribs) at 23:30, 19 September 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. 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!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Golden Horseshoe

Hi, BrentS. I noticed that you moved Golden Horseshoe to Golden Horseshoe (Ontario). Was there any particular reason for this? Is there another Golden Horseshoe that I'm not aware of? If so, Golden Horseshoe should be made into a disambiguation page. --timc | Talk 21:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I got your comment. I think that there is sufficient information in the article itself to suggest the location of the Golden Horseshoe without including it in the article title. However, I can't really think of a good reason to move it back. I'm not sure where the "Golden" part of the name came from; growing up, I just thought it was because built-up regions are often coloured a golden colour on maps. --timc | Talk 03:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History of Canada

Hello. The word virtual has multiple senses. In context, it could mean "look-like-independence" or "almost-independence". I think my formulation is more precise. The BNA Act regulated the relations inside the new federation. At the exact moment of its promulgation, the BNA Act didn't affect the way the three former separated colonies were connected to the UK. If the BNA Act had any importance to the British foreign policy, it should be mention at the UK history article. --Vasile 04:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Constitution of 1867 did not change Canada's realtion of political subordination with British government as it was built by the United Empire Loyalists.

  • Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, went on to provide that colonial laws (that included any Canadian law) were void if they were "repugnant" to a imperial act. For example, the appeals in Privy Council (London) were possible because no Canadian law could abolish them. CLV Act was repealed by the Statute of Westminster, 1931.
  • The Governor General of Canada was purely a British government agent since 1890. Starting from 1914, the Governor General's actions need Canadian cabinet advice. The King-Byng Affair triggered the independence.--Vasile 19:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The issue of sovereignity in the first half of XIXth century was in fact that very specific of the Canadian Parliamant sovereignity. Even before 1867, Canada was an advanced democracy, and that meant practically sovereignity. In this way, the Constitution of 1867 established a new democracy, and a frame toward Canadian Parliament complete emancipation. --Vasile 14:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canada article

Brent, I didn't make the change from 1896 to 1996. Someone else did. I also thought it was an incorrect edit, but hadn't got around to doing anything about it. User:JimWae has now gone in and changed it to 1993, which makes more sense than 1996, but misses the point of the original wording. I think that the orginal wording should be clarified so that people don't think that it is a mistake in the future. Instead of "dominated", maybe it should say something like, "The Liberal Party has formed the government of Canada for most of the time since 1896, with the exception of shorter periods in government for the Conservative Party and its predecessors." Regards, Kevintoronto 16:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rochefort

See my reply at WP:RfD. I think you probably got the new name in the wrong syntax, though - see comments there. Noel (talk) 16:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia style is that people generally reply on the User_Talk: page of the person who wrote a message to them (that way, someone doesn't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person whom they are having a "conversation" with), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. Not everyone on Wikipedia uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), I but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Geo-stubs

Hi BrentS - I see you've been changing {{stub}} to {{geo-stub}} on a few articles about Canada, which is good to see - but changing them to {{Canada-geo-stub}} would be even better! Thanks, and keep up the good work! Grutness|hello? 00:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Categories

You have miscategorized a number of articles. The Canadian War Museum, Canada Council, and many others are certainly not federal departments or agencies, they are Crown Corporations. - SimonP 03:15, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

As a former employee of the Canada Council I, and anyone who worked there, would be shocked to see an authoritative source label it a "department or agency". It would be far better and more accurate to have a separate Crown corporations category, as well as for the other types of governmental organizations. - SimonP 01:54, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have raised this issue for comment at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. - SimonP 03:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

History of Canada

Hello! I hope you're well; thanks for your note. Your editions are much needed, nor do I concede their accuracy per se, but there is always room for improvement. As you know, the overview article has been lengthy so I've made (or tried to make) editions to that point ... all the while trying to preserve content and style. Some of the details you've cited regarding the political landscape and geography, for instance, are better placed in the 'History of Canada' section/article; the casual reader can be overwhelmed by all the geographic/political distinctions in the overview and over time. 'Territorial expeditions' seemed concise; perhaps 'exploratory expeditions' or something similar is more prudent; expand in the subarticles. And as you know: you are just as able to make the editions as I am; in any event, thanks for your note. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 05:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recollets

English article should use English form, with original language as alternate. Looks like there was also a atypo. Maybe redirect to Recollects? Peter Grey 30 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Premier of Ontario

I think you've got the wrong guy...I didn't write the part that you're questioning. Bearcat 4 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)

thanks..

thank you for the edits... I am learning not to take on complex topic while watching Law and Order repeats late at night and expect high quality results... heh.


Re: Michael Ruse

The only thing I changed on this article was bio-stub -> academic-bio-stub. Please pay more attention to the edit history. BrainyBroad 04:04, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

re: Michael Ruse also

Put the categories back if you like.  He's British-Canadian, and indeed worked for many years in Canada.  I don't know if he is best described as a "Canadian philosopher" or not.  Quite possibly.  Similar issue with "Canadian academic" now that he holds a position at an American academic institution.  The problem is, he was listed as *both* a Canadian and American philosopher and academic, so take your pick.  One of the set of categories needed to be removed, and evidently you think it should have been the other.  So feel free to change that, I won't have a problem with it.  Evolver 23:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrentS&oldid=23557120"