User talk:Lord Dim 1

Welcome!

Hello, Lord Dim 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Keith Mitchell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Democratic Congress. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Senate (Grenada), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adrian Thomas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T. A. Marryshow

I am not disputing that he was not a monarchist, just that the category is not justified by the article. please amend the article. Roundtheworld (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories people representative of their political point of view, without expressly mentioning said politics in the bulk of the text is standard practice and the case for hundreds of articles. Cate Blanchett and Peter Hollingworth are categorised as Australian republicans, despite it not being included anywhere in the text body, because it is known they have stated their support for a republic. Likewise, Boris Johnson, Peter Bottomley, David Cameron and many others are categorised as British monarchists, despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the text body on the page, because it is a known fact externally that they support the monarchy. Removing clearly sourced categories from pages simply because they are not directly mentioned in the text body is not in line with hundreds of other pages. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of titles and honours of Elizabeth II. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a case of original research, simply a case of an accidentally wrong link. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability of categories

I reverted your re-addition of a category at Johnson Beharry. There is a burden of verifiability even for categories and especially so for biographies of living people. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beharry’s support for the monarchy is very verifiable. During the 2019 royal tour of Grenada he spoke of the importance of the royal family and how thrilled he was to receive them in Grenada, and how important they are to foster unity in the Commonwealth. He has strongly defended the royal family against racism allegations.

There is a well established practice of including categories on pages of living persons outlining their political views, even if those views are not directly mentioned in the article itself. Cate Blanchett and Peter Hollingworth are categorised as Australian republicans, despite it not being included anywhere in the text body, because it is known they have stated their support for a republic. Likewise, Boris Johnson, Peter Bottomley, David Cameron and many others are categorised as British monarchists, despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the text body on the page, because it is a known fact externally that they support the monarchy. This is the case for hundreds of pages, and removing the category from Johnson Beharry’s page would be entirely out of line with the practice on hundreds of other pages. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Order of the Nation (Grenada), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 01:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada and RSN

My reading of the Grenada discussion at RSN had a consensus that www.gov.gd is the official website and weaker consensuses not to use the other websites. Of the four participants, three supported using gov.gd with yourself being the only apparent oppose. Of the question on if the Grenada Monarchist League website was reliable, there were only three participants who said their opinion, with a 2-1 opinion that GML isn't reliable. On the similar question regarding the Web Office website, there were still only three participants who said their opinion, with you saying it was reliable, the proposer saying it was unreliable, and myself stating my concerns. That is why I said "it is currently best to not use the Web Office website."

If you do want to, you could try to have a joint RfC on one of the talk pages and invite related WikiProjects to see if it produces a larger discussion that might resolve the issue one way or the other. (Do mind CANVASS though if you do so.) --Super Goku V (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KwaZulu-Natal premiers and the Zulu monarch

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that the Zulu monarch is not a part of the KwaZulu-Natal government, therefore, they should not be included in the infoboxes of the KZN premiers. Best, Lefcentreright Discuss 19:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Zulu monarch is officially recognised as “Monarch of the Province of Kwazulu-Natal” under Section 17 of the KwaZulu-Natal Traditional Leadership and Governance Act of 2005.[1] As such, the Zulu monarch is formally and legally considered the province’s head of state and should be included in the infoboxes. See further talk:KwaZulu-Natal. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is purely a ceremonial recognition. The national constitution makes no provision for a province to have a monarch and even that act that you're citing, does not mention that the Zulu monarch has a role or function relating to the operation/functioning of the provincial government. The British monarch, on the other hand, appoints the British government. Lefcentreright Discuss 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The monarch's position is indeed entirely ceremonial, but that does not make them any less the head of state of KwaZulu-Natal. The King of Sweden shares a virtually identical role in Sweden as the Zulu King does in KZN. The Swedish King does not appoint the Swedish government and has no even theoretical constitutional powers: he is entirely 100% ceremonial with no role in government. He is still indisputably recognised as Sweden's head of state. Lord Dim 1 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is still incorrect. The Swedish monarch is still mentioned in the Swedish constitution and article 5 of the Swedish constitution says "The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State." On the other hand, the national constitution of South Africa specifically chapter 6 relating to the provinces and chapter 12 relating to traditional leaders, makes no provision for a province to have a head of state or monarch. Section 125(1) explicitly says "The executive authority of a province is vested in the Premier of that province." The Zulu monarch is monarch of the Zulu nation and not the KwaZulu-Natal province. Therefore, the Zulu monarch should be removed from all articles relating to the KZN government. @Bobbyshabangu: can elaborate. Lefcentreright Discuss 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive power is vested in the Premier, just like it in Sweden and Japan is vested in the Prime Minister, not the monarch. This has no effect on their status as head of state. In fact, the Japanese constitution never declares the emperor to be the head of state or even monarch but simply the “symbol of the State and of the unity of the People”, but there is no doubt or argument that the emperor is not head of state. This very much also echoes Section 18 of the KZN Traditional Leadership and Governance Act which declares that the King’s is to foster provincial unity.

Multiple pieces of KwaZulu-Natal legislation explicitly states that the Zulu King is “Monarch of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal”, and the King carries out traditional head of state duties such as opening the legislature and meeting with the Executive Council upon their election. The Zulu King is doubtlessly the ceremonial head of state of the Province both legally and in practice. The Zulu King’s status as monarch of KwaZulu-Natal has been recognised by the High Court of South Africa.[1](section 39) Lord Dim 1 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]