User talk:PoliSciMaster

Welcome

Hello, PoliSciMaster, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. 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! Ardenn 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCMP

"National" in this case means that it operates throughout the country, while federal policing refers to a legal jurisdiction. It is not correct to say that "national" is just an umbrella term for the 3 levels of policing, since it doesn't speak to legal jurisdiction at all. It would still be a national police force even without provincial/municipal contracts. I won't revert because this is so minor and it's not incorrect to say the RCMP are "national," but I just don't see the point in making it overly specific when their role is very broad. bobanny 23:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

39th Canadian Parliament and the Age of Consent

Thank you for correcting my editing. I saw one thing and read another. Which just makes me wonder about my other edits...

Again, thanks. WeeWillieWiki (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of Speaker's term

I responded to an answer you gave me almost a year ago at Talk:Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons#End of term. Please reply at your earliest convenience. Thanks. -Rrius (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker Becoming PC councilor upon leaving term

The List of current members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada implied otherwise that the Speaker would become a PC councilor upon leaving the office as per this edit, I must have intrepreted that wrongly. However can we not put the statement in question back while adding that it is likely(he will become a councilor) and it is convention(if it in fact is)? Please reply on my talk page. Outback the koala (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker page, Thanks for the correction

Hey thanks for the correction! I'm so embarrassed that I forgot about Sauve, thanks for getting right on it. Outback the koala (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Arms of Canada

PSM - Regardless of how often Canada's coat of arms are splashed all over everything, they are the arms of Canada - as made clear in the royal proclamation granting the arms - not of either the House of Commons or the Senate. Plus, as Moxy noted at House of Commons of Canada, the image is copyrighted. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment on User_talk:Miesianiacal#Royal_Arms in case you are interested.--Cahk (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philip's opinion

Hi there.

I went to some trouble to explain my edit. You just reverted it without explanation. Not good enough. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your explanation was not good enough. There are in fact quite a few people who would argue that Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh are indeed citizens of each country over which she reigns. When you move on to their heirs, the issue changes. As a comparison, let us look to the Order of Australia. When the Prince of Wales was named a Knight of the Order of Australia, his appointment had to be made by special letters patent amending the Constitution of the Order so that he could be a full member, rather than an honorary member, despite not being a citizen. On the other hand, when the Duke of Edinburgh was named a Companion of the Order, he was made a full member, not an honorary member, and no amendments to the Constitution of Order were required. If the Duke of Edinburgh is a citizen of Australia, it stands to reason that he is also a citizen of Canada. Your edit added nothing to the article except for your own editorializing.PoliSciMaster (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to the party. My issue was not that anyone dared to disagree with something I said or did. My issue was that I had absolutely no idea why you reverted me. I now do, but you could have said something in the edit summary that gave us a hint of why you took that action. I shouldn't have had to come here to ask for an explanation. Unexplained reversions have been the start of countless edit wars on WP, and I don't wannna go there, but a less urbane editor than I might well have acted more aggressively than I have done. You can thank your good fortune that you struck me and not someone else on this occasion, but I'm not always gonna be around to show you the way. That's all I'm saying.

On the issue of Prince Philip's citizenship: You seem to take the view that, because he was appointed substantively to the Order of Australia, that ipso facto means he is an Australian citizen (which then leads on to his being a citizen of all the other Commonwealth realms). A reading of the rules of the Order might lead one to that conclusion, but it would be a bit like saying murder has been outlawed since time immemorial, therefore no murders have ever taken place. I wish it were that simple.

Have you read my views on this issue @ Talk:Order of Australia#Prince Philip? My take is that he is not a citizen of Australia and neither is the Queen - otherwise they'd both be required to vote in federal, state and local elections in Australia, all of which are compulsory for citizens. The Commonwealth Electoral Act makes no exceptions for citizens who are above politics. The Queen is an inherent part of the Order of Australia by virtue of being the monarch - not because she's a citizen. Prince Charles has a substantive knighthood in the Order because the rules of the order were specifically amended to permit this - not because he's a citizen; and that rule change did not make him a citizen. Prince Philip is the husband of the one and father of the other, neither of which relationships per se give him any entitlements in the order. If the government of the day, or the governor-general, were of the view that Prince Philip is a citizen for the purposes of the rules of the Order of Australia, where is their proclamation to that effect? Where is their legal advice? Where is the media commentary? Where is the community discussion about the repercussions for other purposes? This is why I say it was "sneaked in under the radar" and there has to be more to the story. It is not as neat as you would like to suppose. So, there's a conflict that remains unresolved, and I'd welcome your input on the Order's talk page. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict. You ask "If the government of the day, or the governor-general, were of the view that Prince Philip is a citizen for the purposes of the rules of the Order of Australia, where is their proclamation to that effect?" It is inherent in his appointment, which was a substantive one, without any changes to the rules. Remember, his appointment was AFTER that of Charles. The issue would have been well known. As to the suggestion that if the Queen or the Duke were in fact citizens, they would both be required to vote, as the Commonwealth Electoral Act makes no exemptions, I am not familiar enough with Australian constitutional law to comment in an informed manner, but I would think it safe to assume that matters such as Royal prerogative would come in to play.PoliSciMaster (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PoliSciMaster. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]