User talk:Cameron/Archive/April08

Talk page info

Guidelines

1. Use the new section tab at the top of the page to make a new section.

2. Be civil to me please. If I have made a mistake, let me know nicely.

3. Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia and will be reverted on sight.

4. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

5. I will reply on your talkpage, unless you state otherwise.

I self-archive this page regularly. Older threads may be found in the archives.

Contents

Archives

2007

• August
• September
• October
• November
• December

2008

• January
• February
• March
  
• April
• May
• June
• July
• August
• September
• October
• November
• December

2009

• January
• February
• March

UTC

The current Wikipedia time is:

16:57, Tuesday, May 14, 2024 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello Cameron. At Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms, why does it say the 'Archive' page doesn't exist & yet it does exist? GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea...--Cameron

Likely just a glich, that'll be straigtened out later. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope so. I really cant see whats wrong with it! Never mind, as long as the info isnt deleted. --Cameron

It's fixed now. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation message

What do you think of the mediation message at User:Cameron/Sandbox?

Add an 's' on require (if needed) & it's ready to be sent out. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland mediation acceptance

As an agreement between editors at Scotland seems ever more unlikely, some users have decided to contact mediation. However, mediation require the acceptance of all involved parties. Would you be willing to accept? Thanks for your compliance...--Cameron

I am willing to participate, yes. I'm not sure where I am meant to declare this, technically, but you have my acceptance. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be there with bells on. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree to mediation. Tomeasy (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Rab-k (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pass. --Jack forbes (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you tell me to comment here? Yea I'll help. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

Barnstar of good humour moved to User:Cameron/Barnstars.

Cool

Hey, I made you a userbox, sorry about the awful pun! = ) ({{User:Cameron/Cromwell}})

That is soo cool! Thank you!--Gazzster (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome...I have a natural fondness for Aussies, even if they do not love their sovereign ruler and Queen ; ) --Cameron

And we still like the old Mum country, though we dont often care to admit it!--Gazzster (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

De jure reigns

Have you chosen to accept elimination of de jure reigns? GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

do not (yet) accept elimination of de jure reigns (see also Charles II's own page). I am busy at Schloss Rheydt...--Cameron

OK, the Wikipedia: WikiProject Royalty is on my watchlist; whenever you want to haggle? let me know. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Look out I'm back! Dont know for how long though I really ought to do some revising (exams coming up soon!)...--Cameron

Exams?? Holy smokers, you've just made me feel old (I'm in my 37th year). GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Older and wiser = ) --Cameron

Thanks

A few articles have been nominated for merging by a mergoholic. Would you can to take part in the discussion again? The articles in question are "Most Excellent Majesty", "Britannic Majesty" and "Most Gracious Majesty". I suggest you comment soon if you wish to as the nominator has a history of merging without consensus. The discussion for all three articles is taking place here. --Cameron

Thanks for the heads up. I'm supporting merger.--Gazzster (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not the foggiest what a "heads up" is. Do you mean to suport merge on all three? --Cameron

Lol Sorry, Aussie slang. Thanks for the warning. Yes, I'd support a merger of all three, or, transfer of material to Style of the British Sovereign, deleting all three. --Gazzster (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Last time you agree to keep Gracious Majesty...I expected your oppose on the other two though...= ) I suppose you are more of a mergist and I'm more of a seperatist! --Cameron

Ah, thank God for opposites. If we all thought the same how uncreative the word would be.--Gazzster (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

I ask that you mind how you speak of other users on Wikipedia and review the official civility policy following your comment about me on another user's talk page, which incidentally showed up on my watchlist. You have a chance also you refactor your comments into something that is more civil and less likely to provoke anger or argument. Thank you. Charles 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this one. I trust that such comments will not occur again. Charles 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mergoholic" is hardly classed as an insult. Wikipedia is made up of mergoholics and seperatists. People that prefer articles to be merged and others that prefer seperate articles respectively. I would hardly consider my comments incivil. --Cameron

I consider your comments to be insulting because, for one, you are passing judgement by calling me "a mergoholic" and saying that I have a history of merging without consensus (either way to sway the opinions of those you may or may not wish to vote for "your side") and you are unapologetic to boot. That you don't consider your comments to uncivil is irrelevant, they are uncivil according to WP:CIVIL. Charles 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A mergoholic is neither positive nor negative. WP:Civility doesn't seem relevant. I haven't insulted you or the likes. I didnt make the comments to get people "on my side", as you put it, I merely sought to inform them as they were indeed involved in the past discussions. In fact fact one of them commented pro-merge the first time round. Do let's disconintue this conversation, I grow weary of it. --Cameron

Cromwell

Hey look at my new userbox! --Cameron

Yes, very cool. He interests me very much. One of the most influential figures of English, possibly world, history I believe.--Gazzster (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't get decapitated; not even deceased editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you are a fan of cromwell: Do you know why there isnt an article on act abolishing the kingship (1649)? I am conteplating creating it. It should be ok per WP:N. --Cameron

As far as I can see, [[1]] is the closest that comes to such an article. Go ahead.--Gazzster (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The UK Parliament can depose the Queen and/or alter the succession; all without her consent. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

By what authority? --Cameron

By Parliamentary authority (i.e the people's authority). The authority that removed Charles I & James II; the authority that delayed Charles II's succession & barred James (the Old pretender) and his sons Charles and Henry, from the throne. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course as a republican you may believe so. In fact (de facto) they can indeed, but de jure it would be illegal. I would not recognise it for one. Neither would her millions of loyal subjects. --Cameron

If if were 'proven' beyound a doubt, that Edward IV was illegitimate (not the 3rd Duke of York's son), then what? PS- Let's return to the WikiProject (we leaving Gazzster hanging). GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Side note: Wanna hear a strange one? It's easier for the UK to abolish its monarchy, then it is for Canada to abolish its monarchy. Honestly, G2bambino can confirm that. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, we shall agree to disagree on de jure reigns & put the discussion to rest. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think it would be easier to abolish the monarchy in UK than Canada??--Cameron

Canada needs an abolishment majority in each of its provinces & territories. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the constitution it takes not just a majority, but the unanimous approval of all ten provincial parliaments plus the full federal parliament to make any change that affects the Crown. But, then again, the constitution also stipulates that Royal Assent must be granted to any new or altered law. So, as abolishing the Crown or changing the line of succession without the approval of the sovereign is already acting unconstitutionally, why bother to adhere to the full parliamentary approval clause? --G2bambino (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

James I of England

I am curious, what did you find inappropriate about the additions, which I spent a great deal of time contributing, to the article on James I of England? Coinman62 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have merely made some edits to your edit...if you get what I mean! Thanks for the contribution! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And in future...remember it's honour. = )

Okay. No big deal. To clarify, your edits took place before I had completed the contribution. In the article history, your edits showed up as though you had "undone" my revisions. So initially, I thought you had completely deleted the contribution. I made a few more changes because, when you moved the text, the formatting and links did not transfer. Coinman62 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks coinman, I look forward to working with you in future! --Cameron

Re: Userbox

Hello there! Thanks for the contact. All's well with me thank you. I'm struggling to dedicate much time to the Scotland talk page at the moment owing to both Wiki and non-Wiki committments! However, I'm watching the debate and contributing where I feel I can make a comment of worth (although the talk page has mushroomed out of control really!).

My "Commonwealth" knowledge is limited really, but I have roots throughout Britain (of course), but also Canada. This, combined with with my cultural upbringing and the great users you have means I joined up as someone willing to learn rather than contribute what I know. I'd be more than willing to do the boring stuff like peer and good article reviews.

If I can pass on anything from my experience with WP:GM, organisation and welcoming new members is the key to a healthy and successful "Project-ship"! --Jza84 |  Talk  22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1923-2008

RIP Moses, Taylor, Ben-hur, Michelangelo etc. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Help!

{{helpme}}

I made a sidebar for WP:CWR here only a massive strip of blue appears underneath the sidebar! I would like the project page to continue where the sidebar stops but for some reason it doesnt! Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up. See what you think. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

:Wow thats what I meant, only now the picture isnt part of the main project page? Do you know why that is? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA comments

Regarding this oppose, your own criteria don't justify that position so far as I can see. But given the answer to Q1 - what is worrying about it? - how would experience of AIV help? It isn't related to moving pages or to semi-protecting them or to editing protected pages. Your opposition, as I understand it, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what administrators do. Same problem at this one really. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Art LaPella may be informative on the subject of specialist admins. I'm sure there are others, including at least one like DG's where editing protected templates was the reason, but Art's sticks in my mind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturally I will review the situation if you are not satisfied with my oppose. However I retain the right to make my own decision. I have asked two questions and will decide whether to stick with my original choice or make adjustments thereafter. The "worrying" part of Q1 was "I don't actually think I'll be doing too much to start with" hence my worries about whether the nominee actually needs the tools. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Regards --Cameron

I think you should read my aimless meanderings in several ways. Commentary perhaps, historical context maybe, curiosity as to the worryingness, but not really as an objection. As P. G. Wodehouse sagely observed, it is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine. No grievance here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hi Malinaccier! On this page you state you are currently full up but may be willing to take on extras. I have come to you (to be very cheeky = ) ) and ask whether you would be willing to take me on. I have been wanting to take part in admin coaching for a while now. However I am rather fussy: I would prefer to be coached by somebody I see around a lot (and thus am familiar with, even if we have never actually contacted each other) and somebody who uses your delightful four phase system (which I have reviewed and fallen in love with!). I have also checked your check list and believe to be able to answer most of the requirements affirmatively. If you are not able to take me on I will fully understand (most coaches do not take on four students at a time let a lone five!). However I would ask you to recommend another (free) coach, who (if possible) also uses the four phase system. Thanks in advance --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you enable email on your account (in your preferences) so that I may send a confidential email to you? Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You've got mail. Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is enabled now. Thanks I shall look forward to it...= ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PS:So sorry, I only just saw all the above requests for coaching. I wouldnt have asked had I seen them prior to my post. What must you think of my manners = )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Joins the queue* (I think they are called lines in USA!?!)...In other words: I choose Option one if the offer still stands, thanks! I have great respect for the other admin you named and see them around a lot but I am willing to wait a while. Thanks for the offer of co-nomming but it looks like you will be nominator number one (depending on whether I pass!). Thanks again, --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. See you in a bit! Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it looks like User:Jj137 is coaching User:Nothing444, so you're first in line! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow brilliant, I will watch your student's progress eagerly! --Cameron

1936 succession

You may be interested in this very interesting discussion here! See you there...--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's an interesting topic. I'm guessing that the reason for some doubting the then Duke of York's abilities; was based on his stuttering. Preceptions of stuttering were different & erroneous in those days; a stutterer was seen as being 'mentally challenged'. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not critising George VI; just pointing out the misconceptions of those times. Trust me, if I had to make a choice between David & Bertie? I'd take the latter, everytime. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He was a lovely person...and made a great monarch too (I dont expect you too agree with me, dont worry!). --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's usually the 'norm' for a Monarch & his/her heir-apparent to have a difficult relationship (guess it would be uncomfortable having around you, somebody who reminds you of your mortality). But, in George V & Edward VIII's case? I don't blame 'Grandpa England' one bit. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Even George said "I pray nothing comes between Albert and Elizabeth and the throne"...or something like that! --Cameron

The anon!

We've both just submitted 3rr reports for the same guy! --Jza84 |  Talk  15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy on the scotland page who made a fourth revert after having a warning (from you) after the third?

Yup. Any objection at me removing your report (mine has the times included)? You could pass comment under mine as an alternative. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No go ahead I was going to suggest that very thing. I wont bother to comment, I dont think it is needed. You may have to write something like remove duplicate report in the summary though. Regards --Cameron

Monarchy

After having vandalised my talk page:

I still think its useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.127.100 (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears the Nepalese agree with you, anon. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I now and I'm happy about it.

He only vandalised me as I added warning templates to his page for his vandalism! --Cameron

PS:That remains to be seen : )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean Nepal? GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes...as far as I've heard nothing final has been decided...--Cameron

For the immediate future, they're still a monarchy. It was only Parliamentary elections yesterday (April 10). PS- Imagine having the job of collecting the ballots from the mountain areas? GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

After user recieved welcome message: Hello! Thanks for your message! Yeah i've a question, i've already read the infos in french (because i'^m swiss ;-) ) and i'd like to know why i can't put a new website as a link? It's a serious website and helps a lot! Thanks for your help, have a nice day Kapoutch (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Care in the use of talkpages

I've answered your note on my own talkpage, but think it is wise to convey the same message here, also: It is perfectly alright for you to disagree with another editor's edits, but please do so on the talkpage of the article and in a way that assumes good faith. Asking another editor to "stop removing credible cited information from the page" amounts to an accusation of vandalism, which is an accusation you should not make incautiously. In the case at hand I have not removed any such information from the page, in my opinion. I did remove some material which was not rightly cited, and gave my reasons quite particularly by edit-summary. You may disagree about the adequacy of citation, and that's fine; we can talk about that on the article's talkpage. My point here is that in such a circumstance you should deal with the matter at the article itself and with the assumption of the other editor's good faith. A message on the other editor's talkpage is generally not best way to go. Pasting a message there which suggests not only wrongness but wrong-doing is really not kosher.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed

I'll have a peek at it later. Looks cool. I suppose part of the reason I'm not a monarchist is that Queen Victoria banished the Doctor! lol (also the Royal Family are werewolves!) Cheers.--Gazzster (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to think. What do we say: 'Get in line!' or 'Queque up!' Definitely 'line'! But come to think of it, that's fairly newly. I remember saying as a child, ***** years ago, 'queque'. Btw, never heard of Cathereine Tate I'm afraid. --Gazzster (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I read something in the Act of Settlement about a werewolf being debarred from the succession?--Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Gary is a very sixties name.--Gazzster (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You know my opinions but I do think the monarchy is part of England and England would not be England without it. As you say, it does need reform though. What do you think of the idea of making it elective? The people get to choose who from the RF they want to be king or Queen next? (I'm being serious). A of C Defender of the Faith? With the state of the C of E as it is now, he couldn't defend a bag of chips from a four year old child. Disestablish the Church I say! I mean, what an embarassment it would be for Charles and Will to defend that.--Gazzster (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Do go on. You have a pragmatic rather than sentimental view to the monarchy?--Gazzster (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree, Blair or Brown as president would be a most breakfast-churning sight. As would be President Rudd. Excellent PM, in my opinion (look at how he told off the Chinese in their own country).But there are alternatives to electing our heads of government as presidents. In Australia it's a very different situation. The monarchy has never been an everyday part of Australia's life. We have been, in effect, a republic since the beginning. We've come of age, and need a Head of State to reflect that. --Gazzster (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You dislike Brown? I have always seens his as a rather good if somewhat diminutive politician. Anyway what alternative was there? Cameron? *shudders*. What kind of head of state would you have in mind? From a pragmatic POV: GG's are very cost effective, very! --Cameron (t|p|c) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My choice would be to keep our GG with the same powers and responsibilities he already has. And I don't think it's necessary to change the title even. The only difference would be that he wouldnt be appointed by Her Maj. He'd be elected by a college (I dont fancy a popular election- you could have Kylie Minogue or Edna Everage that way!)--Gazzster (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow... Thanks

Wow that was mighty kind of you to give me a Working Man's Barnstar. I know not what I did to deserve this but I graciously thank you for the very kind gesture. It reminds me of a quote from Napoleon Give me enough medals, and I'll win any war. Huh my 1^st Barnstar in over 3 years of contributions... I guess I'm finally doing something right :-) Thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A Kaiser?

Didn't you say you weren't a monarchist? How about getting the Romanoffs back while were at it?--Gazzster (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Now how can you say you're not a monarchist but want to bring back these awful authoritarian dynasties?--Gazzster (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But a monarch is (usually) hereditary. So if you support the monarch you support the dynasty. I suppose you mean you don't endorse everyone's life. --Gazzster (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and a royal head lopped off at regular intervals.--Gazzster (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Need of edits for consensus

Need of edits for consensus

About your latest revert at Canadian passport (diff): It is important that you realise that edits need consensus. When someone makes an edit and it gets reverted, it needs to get consensus before being restored -- at least that his how things are supposed to work. Please see WP:BRD.
Although all edit-warring is undesirable, there is some justification for reverting a contested edit that has been re-made without first gaining consensus, while there is no justification for restoring a contested edit that still lacks consensus. In other words, the status quo ante is supposed to stand until and unless a new consensus is reached. Ideally you should self-revert. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, Cameron, Lonewolf would be right if his common tactic wasn't to simply revert the edit and then never discuss it, leaving the page indefinitely without the information he's personally deemed inadmissible. His "reasons" are left in edit summaries, and so the only way to engage him is in the same forum, which necessitates a reinstatement of what he removed, or the placement of a new version that attempts to take his concerns into account; unfortunately, the latter is generally just reverted by him again. However, please don't feel deterred by his posturing; WP:BRD, though it is something to keep in mind, isn't even a guideline, and strictly adhering to it only seems to enable Lonewolf in getting his way. --G2bambino (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not getting personal

Since I'm posting here, I'll add this: Please refrain from making snippy-sounding remarks such as, "Just a tip: Perhaps somebody should be doing more reading and less accusing." I infer that it was aimed at myself, but even it it was aimed at no one in particular you should not have written it. Please stick to the editorial issues in all discussions on article talk-pages. Don't negatively comment on other editors. See WP:NPA (Incidentally, if the remark was aimed at me then it was not even right in either of its assumptions: I'm quite familiar with the term in question and well aware of the extent of its use and that of its overseas cousins, and I have not made any accusations in the matter concerned.) -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

GSTQ in Scotland

Hello Cameron. Now I'm really confused; it's being argued at Scotland, that GSTQ doesn't cover Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deacon & the other fellow, doesn't want GSTQ, in that article. Which, I find suprising. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad Cameron. Myself, Jza84, UKPhoenix79 etc, have all been labeled Unionist PoV pushers. I was even labeled a troll. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In my frustrations over the Scottish map, I asked SFC (at his personal page) 'is Scotland independent?'; apparently he felt I was suggesting he was a Scottish nationalist or something & declared I was merely trolling his page. As a result he asked me to stay away. I chose to stay away. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep; it's always best to agree to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps it's best to remove GSTQ from England. In my country, O Canada isn't listed in the Canadian provinces & territories articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Prede there is copyright violation by lord Lord Sesshomaru and prede. They insist to keep scans about a copyrghted encyclopedia in this page here [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg and here URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif[/IMG][/URL] 195.23.133.162 (talk)the-one195.23.133.162 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you know...? That GSTK/Q was written in 1745 when the folks in the south of England were getting quite animated with Charlie knocking on the door of London at the head of an army of big hairy highlanders. It contained the very POV verse (which has been stricken from the present day NPOV version):

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.

Considering the number of Scots, including highlanders, that fought against Charlie, it was surely a very ungracious thing to write about Scots, don't you think? Anyway, some Scots have very, very, very long memories. ;0) . Rgds, -Bill Reid | Talk 16:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing to remember the Lowlanders at the time hated and feared the Highlanders to the point that at Culloden it was essentially the Highlander Scots verses the Lowlander Scots (a generalization I know) with the Lowlanders being victorious. I have always found that rather ironic considering todays view of a mass Scottish rebellion over who was the real king of Britain, it was more fractions back then then most would accept. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User_talk:Fa;ljksd, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Nothing major just a reminder if you forgot.Happy editing Staffwaterboy ^Talk♂ 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool

Though I wouldn't mind betting that Rose returns for a one-off episode with the Doctor. --Gazzster (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well,well. The return of Sarah Jane Smith did it for me though. Tom Baker was the Doctor.--Gazzster (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes lol but he wasn't in the seventies and eighties. He played the role the longest and made it his own. He was a template for later doctors. The vague, anarchic, free character? The rakish look? That was Tom.--Gazzster (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

New Messages

Hello, Cameron. You have new messages at Dustihowe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

X2

Thank you for the kind words. I do understand why the RFA failed now, and am going to wait a few months before I dare attempt another. I was looking in your userboxes and didn't find an age. How old are you? Dusti^{talk to me} 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Would you oblige my tedious questions?

Sorry, but I was sick this weekend and couldn't respond until now:

• For now, look at this page and try to meet all of the guidelines. If you haven't, get some experience in New Page Patrol.
• Depends. I'd say about one month.
• My old admin coachee User:TravisTX helps out on occasion.
• No edit count required. I believe you are fine.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was my inclusion deleted from the Elizabeth I talk pages?

And what do you mean about vandalism?I was merely wondering why a RUMOURED child wasn't mentioned in the article.Most of her bios discuss this.That's not vandalism.I didn't include it in the article.jeanne (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted.I shall now put my query back in Elizabeth I's talk pages.It's an interesting theory.Nice to think Anne Boleyn might have had descendants!!13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

I only meant that had Elizabeth given birth to a child who in turn had issue,by extension Anne Boleyn might possibly have descendants today.I always thought it a pity that the line of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn ended when Elizabeth died childless.jeanne (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have always believed she left the throne to James to atone for the guilt she felt at ordering the execution of Mary Stuart.It couldn't have been easy to sign that warrant-after what had happened to her own mother!Henry said in his will he didn't want his Scottish relativesjeanne (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) to inherit his throne.He seemed to have had a pathological hatred of the Scots.

You're most welcome.By the way,are you a Scotsman? If so,I must admit that Edinburgh is the most atmospheric city after Venice-Italy,not California(although that place has an atmosphere of it's own.)jeanne (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah,now I get it,you're from Northern Ireland!jeanne (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm three-quarters Irish.My dad was an Irish Catholic and my mum was a mixture of Irish Protestant,English,French and German.But I'm American-having been born in California.You can read all about me on my user page.Are you from England?jeanne (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Page

I've removed that page from my watchlist. There's too much meaningless discussions going on there, for my taste. Just thought I'd let ya know. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Page moving Vandal

Any ideas as to who the vandal was, changing articles? He/she's got at least 2 registered accounts. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellant; his/her sense of humour was boring, to say the least. GoodDay (talk)

Thank goodness he/she is under lock & key. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

Philip had a roaming eye & as for being the Queen's subject? I think I'll pass. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offers though. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Duke of Edinburgh, is a tough old chap, to say the least. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ood

Just a note: all of the source material I've used in the production section refer to the Beast as the Devil. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for helping to revert vandalism. However, please check the article history to see if the user has previously vandalised the article. Undo'ing the last edit is sometimes not enough and can hide previous vandalism. See Here and Here for examples. Thanks again, but just be careful out there :) Stephenb (Talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

England, systematically being removed from Wikipedia?

Hello Cameron. I've noticed your posting at Tharky's page & was intrigued. Would you clarify for me? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

[2] Wow, thanks for the unexpected gift! Glad to help out where I can. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A request

G'day! When u have a mo, could you tell me how to archive my talk page? I've found the instructions, but I don't understand them. Cheers!--Gazzster (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did it! Thank you so much!--Gazzster (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta again!--Gazzster (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks. I look forward to looking at it. I have just watched The Runaway Bride on DVD. Catherine Tate is wonderful.--Gazzster (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who Season Four

Oh, lol. Yeah, I'm in the US, and Ive been catching the episodes on Sci Fi Channel. Unfortunately, we're 3 weeks behind the UK, so I've only seen the Christmas special Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who), and Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). I've found the other episodes online, but my roommate begged me not to watch them without her. Judging by the first two episodes though, I really liked them. Although you can really tell the Adipose episode was one of Russell T. Davies'. I tend to prefer Steven Moffat's episodes over any other.

Have you read any of the BBC books? I found some at a local bookstore, and I've been really tempted to read a few. Alas alack, here in America, Doctor Who hasn't taken off as much as it has in the UK, but I'm spreading the gospel to as many friends as possible. :P Zidel333 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Send the link anyway; I'm leaving university in 2 weeks and will be losing my cable privileges e.g. I won't be able to catch The Doctor on TV after that.

Moving on, you ask some hard questions. Right now, our apartment is having a massive argument over who's the best companion, and the truth is I don't have one at the moment. I like Rose because she really helped the Doctor get out of his emotional funk following The Last Great Time War, and their love is rather quite moving. That being said, Martha is overall a better companion in the sense that she is 1) more intelligent 2) helps the Doctor a great deal more (e.g. works at various jobs to support him (Family of Blood, Blink) 3) saves the Doctor more times than Rose ever did. As for Donna, I've only seen her in 3 episodes so the jury is still out on her. If you consider that the Companion's essential duty for the Doctor is to keep him company (that is, to make sure he isn't so lonely), an emotional support for him, and keep him from going overboard (e.g. The Runaway Bride when the Doctor kills Racnoss children), than Rose is technically the supreme Companion for the Relaunched series.

As for Rose in Partners in Crime, I work a bit on the Tardis Files on Wikia, and I remembered reading about how there was clues that the parallel universe (Pete's World) was starting to break down, so I wasn't entirely surprised to see her. It was really cool though. I know that some fans feel that the Doctor has moved on from Rose, and that bringing her back is just fan service. I kind of agree, but I just love her character. She's definitely one of the most important companions ever, just judging by how much she wanted to continue traveling with the Doctor (all other companions either didn't want to, or expressed a desire to stop traveling; only Rose said she wanted to travel with him "forever").

I did like Helen R.'s scripts though. Personally I think Russell T. Davies has too much control over the new series; he edits almost all the scripts to make sure they are in keeping with HIS vision of Doctor Who. Don't get me wrong, I love Doctor Who, but I'm a fan of both the Old and New series. The New series has its flaws, just as the old series does. If you're interested, watch this video from Youtube, a fan of the old series makes a critique of the new series. While its incredibly biased, he does make some interesting points about the weaknesses of the new series.

TENnant, totally Tennant. :D Zidel333 (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the length of my post -- I just kept writing. 0.o Zidel333 (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for the links, I've bookmarked for later. :D No, we don't get the Catherine Tate show unless its shown on BBC America. I do watch the random skit on Youtube though. I first heard about Tate when I saw her Lauren Cooper/Doctor Who skit for Comic Relief (hilarious!). I didn't like Donna particularly much in Runaway Bride, although she did get much better by the end of the episode, and she has considerably improved in the episodes I've seen thus far in Season Four. And I do agree with you about the RTD -- its important to have positive GLBT characters on prime time, but its rather heavy handed. (Or any other form of diversity on Doctor Who really). The fact that Rose is returning but can't realistically stay probably means she's going to die. I know for a fact that she's in the season final (which is rumored to be a 2 or even 3 parter) is rather ominous, made doubly so when its rumored that Daleks are coming back for the end of Season 4. Will Rose be killed by the Daleks? It makes for interesting speculation don't you agree? As for the older episodes, I completely agree; they are far darker than a lot of New Series fans realize. We're just so use to modern (and dare I say it, American) television and films that the New Series appeals to what we're use to, and makes many Doctor Who fans discredit the Old Series without watching them. Sure they could be lengthy, and a tad boring during the conversations, but the plots, acting, villains, action, and back stories are simply amazing.

I'll try to find that link about the parallel worlds breaking down for you, I can't seem to find it at the moment. And your spelling is fine because I read a lot of Brit Lit. And British film and TV for that matter in case you hadn't noticed. ;) I'm sure my American English spellings distract you when you read them. LoL. There are 300.3 million of us, making something like 66% of all native English speakers using specifically American English. Puts American English in a little more perspective don't you think? It's just not the form preferred globally. :P Speaking of American English, me and roommates tend to find the American accents really funny on Doctor Who. They're either terrible (like Tallulah's in Daleks in Manhattan) or they're too perfect and geographically neutral to be real. They only Americans who speak like this come from a very specific area of the Midwest or are news casters. It just stands out to us I guess.

For your general amusement, I have linked a Doctor Who webcomic that I absolute love, and a really good Fanfiction story where The Doctor and Rose actually do have a baby because you mentioned you wanted to see it happen. The fanfiction is rated teen, and does contain adult situations. *cough cough* Can't say I didn't warn you. But I do hope you enjoy them both. :) Zidel333 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)