User talk:CanadianCaesar/archive C

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave a new message

Please sign comments (~~~~)

HYPERWIND article

Why did you do it?

You're makin' sport of deleting? Haven't you clearly seen that entry was empty? You may check that artname is surely mine www.hyperwind.net I can prove it e.g. by placing something on the main page - after you request.

I don't doubt you're the person the article described, but in Wikipedia we don't have articles on every living person. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Unless your article makes a claim to notability, it will be deleted. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ОК, but which LOGIC is used when segregating worthy from unworthy? By one's great services? Which are great and which are not? Or by handle from sold CDs? Mr. Sumner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting) is NOTHING to ME, for example, do you believe it? The word "sting" has many meanings while "hyperwind" - only a few.

Waiting for logic, Gennady Panfilov.

It has nothing to do with whether someone is a good person or is good at doing something. It's whether someone is known to a lot of people. The introduction to your article "Although music is likely to be not more than his hobby, some of his works show a profound comprehension of musical spirit & mood...." show that the article is concentrating on something private, not public. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of the guidelines and didn't found any mention of what you say. I might be wrong, but it seems that you simply misuse your powers. Meant no offense.

Which guidelines did you read? Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. A7. How can something be important if it's the private life of one person? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." The rule that's not been followed. And why you prefer to wait for somebody to fill in another info to the article if there's already some? What sentiment are you driven by?

If you read my userpage, my sentiments are that deleting articles is something I don't like to do. It's a last resort- when it couldn't be kept, or merged, or redirected. But anyway, even if the article had "information" I direct you to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not- not an indiscriminate collection of information. Meaning, just because something is true and accurate doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. As for being controversial, I was not the only person to delete your article. Besides the creator, no user has shown up telling me they thought it was either deleted out of process or salvageable. I can see even User:Kappa at one point thought it was inappropriate, and he is the most staunch opponent of deletion sentiments you can possibly find. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I would consider your objections to be a sign of controversy, but you're new and I'm trying to explain things to you. If I can't convince you, I'd take that as controversy. At this point as well, you don't need me to take it to AfD. You can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. http://psytrance.spb.ru/music/hyperwind The site (as you can find) doesn't belong to me neither to my friends, more likely ideologic enemies :) But this people found my worjs worth net-publishing and the link points to the place.

Thus, you can see my artname/project included in St. Petersburg's trance & ambients artists' registry http://psytrance.spb.ru/music (St. P. is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._petersburg) I HATE saying all of this, but situation is weird.

Have anyone at least TRIED to suggest a text for an article "hyperwind"? Rather than to erase another people's work? ;))

P.S. My english is not so good as it's not my native language nor first foreign language learnt (1st is French), therefore it's much harder for me to argue with you but I still try.

Revert

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage...[1]MONGO 11:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HYPERWIND

It's been decidedly a wise deed of you to reinstate that what is verily just. Thank you. Gennady Panfilov.

I don't mind that you recreated it. --Shanel 17:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Could you delete the first entry in the [2] as i have learnt about the account system and would prefer my i.p address not to be visible anymore. If you can't could you at least delete the page and refresh the new one with the same information. Thank you. --34223423 12:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent

Hi hi, you recently moved the page age of consent africa to age of consent in africa. This may make gramatical sence, however, this page is one of 6 subpages to the main age of consent article's restructure and I think a consistent naming method is important.

It was: Age of consent -Age of consent Africa -Age of consent Asia -Age of consent Australia (and pacific regions) -Age of consent Europe -Age of consent North America -Age of consent South America

Having it redirected like you've made it causes it to become complicated. We either need to rename all the pages to your method and get rid of the redirects or put it back how it was.

What's your opinion of how this could be made better? Cheers --Monotonehell 12:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename 'em all. Either to Age of consent in Wherever or Age of consent (Wherever). I don't see much reason to delete the redirects, though. Also the orange boxes in each article ought to be moved to the talk pages as well. Cheers, CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's no point in having the redirects since age of consent is the only page that points at them now, and without the redirects there wont be any in the future. Yes the orange box should be on the talk page, however there's been a constant history when all the separate sections were on the main page for people to add information ad-hoc without any referencing. In fact this restructure has seen about 3 pages of unreferenced material deleted. It was decided to have the request for references VERY VISABLE as even with comment tags asking people to reference their edits in the body of the text ad-hoc, unreferenced edits were occuring (and are still occuring). I think I'll take onboard your half-assed edit and do the other 5 pages, but remove the redirects as they are messy.

Thanks for your contributions! --Monotonehell 12:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Iran

In the talk page Talk:Greater_Iran Diyako has not proposed why this article should be deleted, he even agreed to a rename from the old name Iranian continent to the new Greater Iran, instead of deleting it.

Now he has put it up for deletion without any proper reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Iran, this is part of the Anti-Iranian actions I described to you before. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and sort it out --Kash 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome!

You are quite welcome :D It was indeed an odd attack, but then again aren't all attacks on userpages ;-) --light darkness^(talk) 03:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage, three times no less. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 14:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there...
Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :)

--O bli (Talk)^? 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hey CanadianCaesar/archive C, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Ave Caesar! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed this morning. If there's ever anything I can help you with, just ask; you know where to find me. ×Meegs 05:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a mechanism

My RfA has passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I thought long and hard about what I could give you by way of thanks - what can you get for the aspiring Canadian empire-builder who has everything? So here's something that turns round at a maddening pace. Hope you don't have one already. Flower party■ 18:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Geneva drive makes a wonderful commemorative ornament.

Batman Returns: Burton's Arc

Am I doing this "talk" thing right?

Anyway, I don't exactly have a source for my posting, but I participated on a few message boards over the years and held discussions with fellow fans where we came to this conclusion, one of which was the Batman forums on the SuperHeroHype website, the others are long gone by now. The article is my own summarization of the conclusion of those fan discussions. Though, reposting this article today (I hadn't known it was an authority figure who removed it [Also with reason], I was under the impression that it was removed by some hooligan for some reason), I made sure to note (as I hadn't before) that Tim Burton has never implicitly discussed or confirmed such an arc, it was only fan discussion.

Well, wouldn't it be allowed based on it's notation as fan discussion and nothing more, as long as it was labelled accordingly?

DocLathropBrown 02:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

I was kind of susprised you didn't get to it first, you're that good. Would you like my bot to watch your user page and revert it if anyone starts blanking or adding repetition or stuff like that to it? :) -- Tawker 06:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and from another: you're welcome... and thanks for doing new pages patrol; it can be a thankless job, with vandalism its only reward. Keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. And no thanks, I don't think the vandalism is that bad to get the bots watching it- it's on my watchlist anyway. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robotic Hand

Hello! I read through the article and it appeared to say nothing more than artificial limbs were A Good Thing and that their use would improve the life of amputees and that technological advances would make them even better. The example given was Luke's hand at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. The article didn't really touch on any issues in the development or application of artifical limbs in general or artifical hands in particular, context that I would consider to be essential for any researcher exploring this topic. (aeropagitica) 22:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi CanadianCaesar, thank you for your welcome message. Please be patient, I am still learning. :) M.C. 03:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Face != head neck) evaluates as True

Good Sir, I congratulate you on your smugness. :) However, I would herewith like to point out to you that my statement in Turtles and tortoises in popular culture, "The head and neck of the eponymous character in the 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial bear strong resemblance to those of a tortoise." and the passage in the article E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, "E.T.'s face was modelled after poet Carl Sandburg, Albert Einstein and a pug dog." (emphases mine), do in no way conflict.

I'm willing to have my contribution rejected on the basis of WP:NOR or Wikipedia:Verifiability, but not on the basis of the reason you gave. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Themanofnines

I support your indef block of this user. IMO he was given enough warning for vandalism/nonsense articles, and if he only has one edit that is (questionably) not vandalism, then it looks like your indef block was appropriate. He can always email you or request an unblock anyway.--Shanel 07:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebazar Turz Picture

Hi, I am a member of farsi wikipedia, the picture of rebuzar turz is drew by my friend Mahmoud Zeinali and he decided to share it with others for free, so dont worry there is no copyright for it and we will not charge anybody for watching ir :) --Buttercupgreen 11:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks...

Also wanted to thank you for the welcome and assistance. I made a comment in the "Harold Klemp" talk page about adding the titular "Sri" to the article title... could you check that out? Appreciate the help while I learn... (CelebrityGuy 02:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

BDA

You should have left that footnote. It was very funny :-) NoSeptember ^talk 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just noticed you reverted an er, interesting edit to my user page on the 26th February. That IP seems to be from my uni i.e. someone is going to get a good slapping soon :D ZoFreX 13:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help with Repost

Please note that the situation with this article has been resolved and this query is not longer applicable. Thank you and I appreciate your understanding! Anubis3 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charter

I would certainly like to give it a shot. Being a student, it's getting very busy for me from now until the end of April so the schedule you suggest sounds doable. We'll keep in touch when the time approaches and see what we can do. Cheers. -PullUpYourSocks 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truce

Yes , sorry for ratcheting up the rhetoric... Kurando | ^_^ 09:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, that's understandable. My comments were rude from the outset and shouldn't have been. My apologies. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks for the barnstar! As a matter of courtesy I will run by any changes to Canada articles with you if there is a chance of conflict. At the moment, my interest is in Acts so it is only likely to be on British North America Acts or Canada Acts, and i think they mostly categorised. Likewise if you want to run anything by me, please feel free to do so. Kurando | ^_^ 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Reilly

Good morning,
You changed my db tag to redirect. But his buddy Cameron Leslie has been twice speedied (and recreated again). I think we should have consistency in outcomes - this guy doesn't even deserve a redirect. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 11:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You marked him for speedy deletion after another administrator prodded him. She thus didn't seem to think it was speediable and I was uncertain about it as well. If this club is non notable, why does it still have an article? There was an extreme backlog to the speedy category yesterday and I deleted quite a few articles, and at a time like that I didn't want to make a call on a more uncertain candidate that could have just stayed prodded. I'd need a fuller explanation of why he isn't even worthy of a redirect. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCRF

I will certainly take a look at it. I may not be able to do any in depth fact checking at the moment but at least reading for flow and style shouldn't be a problem. -PullUpYourSocks 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While reading the article I am reminded of an exceptional book that I read some months ago by Kent Roach called "The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue" (Toronto, Irwin Law, 2001). The book is mostly a defence of the Charter in response to criticisms such as "The Charter Revolution". If you haven't read it I suggest you do before submitting the article for Feature status. It provides great coverage of the history and intent of the Charter, and I think it could give you some ideas on what may be missing from the article. It's worth considering at the very least because Roach is one of the big names in canadian law along with Hogg, and so his perspective often carries a lot of weight. and BTW the article is shaping up really well. I will provide more detailed comments in the next day or so. --PullUpYourSocks 16:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, nothing big by any means. Mostly I'm going on my memory of reading books about the Charter and thinking "oh, that's really interesting". Whether they are truely significant points worthy of inclusion is another matter. From memory, I recall reading some interesting material on the criticism of the Charter from the left and Allan Blaikeney's role in particular. There was also more info on South Africa's adoption of some features of the Charter, and I think Isreal's constitution has incorporated parts of it too. My comments are only minor in nature, and does not change anything from what looks like a strong article. --PullUpYourSocks 17:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured?

Do you know what happened? I was writing a message on your talk page asking you whether it should be featured and I received your message right before I finished. :) And yes it can be nominated. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there will be suggestions on the FA nomination page too. Just tell me when you nominate. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well once you nominate, suggestions are given on the candidate page so that will give you time for suggestions. I think it runs for sometime before it is actually featured. So you could nominate today to get some suggestions. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not a vandal!

So, just where do we put the notices of copyright infringement? You got whole paragraphs in that catch wrestling article lifted word for word. Just thought everyone should know.

Uh, it looks like you share your IP with other people. The warnings I gave were for pretty blatant vandalism, not for copyright concerns. Also I didn't write any of that article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Can you get rid of 'desires'; 'improve upon it' is not idiomatic. Tony 01:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , this is Imranal

I will mostly keep an eye on islamic fields of thought and simple terms in Islam.

There you go, now you know my agenda. I am a newbie wiki fan and gotta tell ya, I am addicted.

Imranal 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Charter

Yes it's going fine. I don't think there is anything more we can add. I could copyedit it of course which I have been doing so far. I'm not sure there are many grammar problems so people would probably not be interested enough in it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal man

I would like to know why you deleted my page on the fantastic band the Monosyllabics, I'm not mad or anything but i'd like to know why.

Sorry, it fit the criteria for speedy deletion, Article #7- an article about a group that didn't explain the importance of the group. "They have never played live and they do not have a record contract..." is a sign of something private rather than public. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1

If I understand correctly you are asking if there is a Charter decision where a constitutional right was found to have been violated and could not be justified under section 1 which resulted in the "banning" or prohibition of certain conduct, and where the US Constitution provides no such constitutional right? I couldn't find the part of the discussion specifically on this point so I'm not entirely sure of the context. In any event, I have some suggestions on where there may be such a case. My first thought would be to look at section 15 (maybe something like Eldridge), the equality right is much broader than in the US, also, the right to "security of the person" gives a lot more protection than the US (R. v. Morgentaler being the obvious one). I'm not sure but I remember being told that the freedom of speech in the US did not include commerical speech, yet it's protected in Canada. Lastly, the US doesn't have any minority language rights. Outside of those rights there may be some minor differences in the criminal and procedural rights (eg. sections 8-12), but I'd have to do some research for that stuff to find out for sure. I'm not certain any of that answers your question, but if you can provide more details I can try to be more specific. --PullUpYourSocks 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that section 1 can "ban" something. --PullUpYourSocks 03:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much US constitutional law to say for sure, but my best bet would be the Edwards Books case. The sunday closing law violated freedom of religion but was upheld under section 1, and I'm doubtful it would fly at all in the US. The only other examples I can think of was the mandatory retirement law surviving section 1 in McKinney, and the revocation of pay equity in Newfoundland v. NAPE. Hope that helps. -PullUpYourSocks 04:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef

Yeah I noticed, by Curps bot while doing a April Fools joke with SQUIDWARD!! on my userpage, I was unblocked less than a minute later. Thanks anyways --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userspace link is going to be moved to BJAODN anyways so keep it there. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Mason

Could you please restore this page? My wife user:lfinder put it there to get started on it while she researched Ms. Mason. It was to fill a link on the Homeschooling page. She intends to work on it over the next week to expand it. I am a more experienced users user:naraht, but did not realize that the skeleton was sufficiently information free to rate speedy deletion. Thank you. Naraht 20:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I think my wife wanted contributions from others from the beginning as well, which is why she didn't work on it in her space. Any suggestions on how much needs to be added before it won't get speedied again? Naraht 12:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at it again and see if the Charlotte Mason page is OK. It is up to about 4 pages and is being wikified as I write this. user:lfinder removed the stub when we read what had been added to get it up to about 3 pages. Thank you for putting it back to my personal area. Naraht 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete and GFDL

You commented to Royboy that Merge and Delets were illegal under the GFDL liscence. What exactly did you mean? JoshuaZ 00:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history would be wiped out if you delete the original article; credit must be provided to all authors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting something here. Isn't that why admin can merge the edit histories? JoshuaZ 00:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked him what he meant; if he wants the edit history merged I think that's OK, but he didn't specify that. It's a support vote in the waiting; I probably won't oppose either way. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. JoshuaZ 00:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a this link that helps verify the pyramid article back from 2001: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=6507351

Thanks for the welcome. I did not know that people could edit this encyclopedia until tonight. It looks like a whole other world going on behind the scenes. Very interesting. --Travelingman 04:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South African constitution

Hi, I have not had a look to see what you have done to the article.. I hesitated to proceed with Chapter two when I was considering how to handle Section numbers in the original document and references in the original. My purpose with the exercise was to see how "the constitution" can be linked tp other South Afrivan articles or topics.. Thank you, Gregorydavid 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday

Well why didn't you say! I'd have baked an obscenely large cake :D Flower party■ 00:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I like the cite, and the explanation of the importance of Trudeau's opposition is good too. I don't like the new "probably" with the indigenous languages (seems a bit woolly). The comment about the English and French communities being equal still either doesn't make sense or isn't clear. If I said "Scots and Zambians are equal" it would probably be devoid of real meaning. Obviously there is some real legal meaning behind the equality in section 16.1, but it isn't being made clear in the summary statement. Is it that they have equal rights to something (not sure what - access to government in their own language?), or that neither has a special status in New Brunswick? TheGrappler 00:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would they have been isolated to Quebec? What about New Brunswick? (I never really got the importance of New Brunswick - was there a significant French minority here? And were they previously denied cultural, educational and political rights in terms of access to institutions in their own language?) TheGrappler 01:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved, thank you! Sometimes non-Canadians need stuff explained clearly to us :p Changed my vote to support, well done! TheGrappler 02:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dief

Done, I'll go to the nomination and say so as well. Happy B-day, also.Habsfan|t 01:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page! I see you've been attacked by the same guy too. :) - Tangot a ngo 06:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you erase my duracell picture?

It was my own personall picture that I took. It is not copyright.Please do not erase it again.

Stop please

Please stop revising my talk page with previous edits. If you have something to say, do it on the cleaned up version. Silversnake020 02:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Klemp

Here is a belated reply to your request for help with regards to Harold Klemp. Yes, I am intersted in the subject, but I do not have information about him. so, I cannot help. Andries 12:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Sure, I'll have a look soon. Tony 12:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a lot longer than I thought it was. I noticed a few things that you might want to check:

Since the Bill of Rights was a simple Act of Parliament, the courts also interpreted it narrowly, only on the rare occasion using it to find a contrary law inoperative. - narrowly? I don't know what that means in this context. I'd have thought narrowly meant the same as 'precisely', but that doesn't seem to fit here.
Legal scholars such as Walter Tarnopolsky provided advice. - so?
These provisions, however, were so vague that Trudeau, then out of office, feared they would actually conflict with and undermine the Charter's individual rights and equality rights and their judicial review, and favour the policies of provincial governments, who were given responsibility over linguistic minorities. - could be more neutral and a bit clearer
In 2005, when Nunatsiavut, an Inuit region of Newfoundland and Labrador, achieved self-government, it enacted a constitution which recognized the authority of the Charter. - was this significant?
Conversely, as the US Bill of Rights has no limitations clause or notwithstanding clause, the Supreme Court of the United States must define rights provisions themselves narrowly. - pardon? ...must define their own rights provisions narrowly?
the criticisms section says the charter has received criticism from both the left and the right, but doesn't go on to say which critics are left-wing and which are right-wing.

Hope you had a good birthday. Flower party■ 03:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks good. The article has taught me exactly everything I know about the CCRF, so apologies that I can't offer any less pedantic suggestions. I feel I now know more about Canada's justice system than I do about Britain's, though, if that's of any consolation? Flower party? 04:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I don't think it's too long or anything, that was just a poorly concealed whinge :) Flower party? 04:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard disks are cheap

It might as well stay up, world records are fun :) -O bli (Talk)^? 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]