Anglius

I have edited a fair quantity of articles in this "encyclopaedia," in addition to having written a few of them (please read the "user-page").

NPOV

Hello Anglius an welcome to Wikipedia. I see from your edit history that you are frequently editing biographical articles, changing references to a 'partner' to read 'mistress' instead. People from all over the world read and edit Wikipedia — most of them will have beliefs and morals that are different from your own. As such an important maxim of Wikipedia is that articles should be written from a Netural Point of View. I suggest you familiarise yourself with concept of NPOV and the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, otherwise you will find yourself in revert battles all over the place. -- Solipsist 07:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

How do you do, sir? I thank you for your advice, but appropriate words must be used. Anglius

So does that mean that you understand the necessity for NPOV editing, or will you instead continue to change 'partner' to 'mistress'? -- Solipsist 19:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand, sir, but I am of a stubborn nature. "Partner," with that meaning, does sound ridiculous (as if they were a business-firm). Anglius

Oh dear, I feel a WP:RFC coming on. -- Solipsist 21:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Honourary Degrees

I know that this is irrevelant, but do you possess knowledge, "Solipstist," of where I could find a list of titular doctorates that were awarded by Cambridge (beginning in at least the 18th century)? Anglius

Sorry, can't help you there directly. I've attended a few honorary degree ceremonies, but I doubt there is a complete list of University of Cambridge Honorary Doctorates available on-line. I would imagine that The Regent House would maintain the records. -- Solipsist 21:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I thank you, "Solipstist." Anglius

BCE

Hi, in Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Proposal to ammend policy you wrote "Before Common Era" and "Common Era," which were invented only recently by atheists. Are you sure? I am of the opinion that these terms were invented by Jehovah’s Witnesses. --ClemMcGann 09:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you do, Mr. McGann? I do not think that it was "Jehovah's Witnesses" who invented that system, but it is somewhat possible. Anglius

Well, they were early users of CE. CE is really a confusing term for dates, particularly in Europe, where it is stamped on almost all products, to signify that it conforms to various EU regulations --ClemMcGann 22:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is interesting, sir. Anglius

have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate/Votes --ClemMcGann 08:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thank you, Mr. McGann. Anglius

Category:Romanticism

While I appreciate as reader and editor a number of your edits I wonder why you removed Beethoven from Category:Romanticism? It's not a supercategory of Category:Romantic composers for instance (though I thought it was and had a discussion with its initiator, User:Stirling Newberry, as to his intentions when he first created it; around January 6 2005, to be found in User talk:Stirling Newberry 02 and User talk:Schissel.) Thanks! Schissel : bowl listen 04:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome, Mr. Schissel, and I thank you for your appreciation. I apologise, but Herr van Beethoven was already 'in' the category of "Romantic composers," and I had 'added' other gentlemen to "Romanticism." Anglius

... . ??? What?? --- (and I would have missed this if I weren't watching this page - are you in the habit of responding on your own page and not e.g. on mine, which would have produced the proper warning signal and which is why it's done that way?) It's two a.m. and I should probably respond later, but the reason Beethoven was both in - should be in again - Category:Romanticism and also Category:Romantic composers (or if dropped from one, from the latter! not the former) is, as discussed in those talk excerpts I pointed out to you and which you've read, because the categories are defined differently, overlapping- not disjunct- but: with neither a super- nor sub-category of the other.

One reason not to remove blank lines is for legibility and comprehensibility. I can't read this without some formatting; if you can, feel free as it's your talk page. The best reasons to remove a category are if they don't apply (Romanticism does, Beethoven both inspired the movement and was influenced by it) or if a more specific category is already there (Category:Romantic composers doesn't apply here - it's not the collection of composers who would appear under Category:Romanticism, to be logical-strict about it, it's about what are called Romantic composers by the caprice of language but that is not, as Mr. Newberry was right to point out, the same thing. Which is why I'm replacing the category links. Schissel : bowl listen 06:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice, Mr. Schissel, and I apologise for any inconvenience. However, one must attempt to "save space." I agree, nonetheless, that Ludwig van Beethoven was influential in establishing the Romantic school of music. Other Romantic composers, Herr Schumann for instance, were not, and, therefore, do not belong in both categories. I would like inquire, sir, as whether Ludwig van Beethoven and Johannes Brahms could be considered to have been Viennese composers. --Anglius 17:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigs on talk page

Hi Anglius,

Just a tip for signing comments on talk pages. If you add the characters   -- ~~~~   to the end of your comment, they will automagically expand into your user name and timestamp when you preview or save the page. -- Solipsist 08:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you do, "Solipsist." I thank you for your suggestion. --Anglius 17:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Good day, sir. I see that you have been engaged in the task of sorting articles into categories, and thought it worth informing you of a technical matter relevant to the category system. When an article is added to a category by means of a tag such as "[[Category:Organists]]", it appears on the category page—in this case Category:Organists—sorted alphabetically according to the first letter of its title. For biographical articles, this causes categories to list their contents by first name, instead of by surname, which would usually be preferred, and is probably expected by the reader in most cases. It is, however, possible to specify a 'sort key' for the category, by using a tag such as "[[Category:Organists|Marchand, Louis]]". This causes the article to be sorted according to the surname of its subject. Indeed, it is possible to specify any 'sort key' one wishes, so that "[[Category:Organists|Hello]]" would sort the article on the category page as if it were titled "Hello". Such usage is necessary in certain circumstances, but for the greater part of biographical articles, convention dictates that the category tag's 'sort key' should take the form "Surname, First Middle etc." I offer my apologies if this explanation is unclear. Further information may be found at Wikipedia:Categorization and Help:Category, if you should have need to consult the 'official' documentation. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you do, "Tribolite?" I thank you for your information, but there is no need for you to apologise. --Anglius 00:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blank lines

Please do not simply make edits to remove blank lines. One example is this. This slows down Wikipedia because we then have to store two revisions: one without the blank line, and one with. In general, large groups of edits [1] put more load on the server. Press the "Show preview" button between each change instead. r3m0t ^talk 13:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

And please remember to use edit summaries on all of your edits. Kelly Martin 13:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for your suggestions, Mrs. Martin and "R3m0t," and I apologise if I have been wasteful. --Anglius 17:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I am not married. I prefer the title "Ms.", if you feel that etiquette requires you to address me by my last name. Kelly Martin 00:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise, madam, for I was uncertain of your martrimonial status. However, since I am now aware of it, I must call you "Miss," not "Ms." --Anglius 01:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be quite rude of you, I must say. One should call people what they wish to be called. Kelly Martin 03:47, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Madam, I must disagree, for it would be only proper. Please do not attempt to begin an argument. --Anglius 03:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I must disagree with you, Anglius, because we're living in the twenty-first century, not the eighteenth. The times have changed, women are given respect, and what is "proper" in your eyes is not what is proper in your target's ear. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

One must remember conventional etiquette, Mr. Schenck. --Anglius 21:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why, precisely? And what separates the etiquette of your area of society from our "conventional etiquette" speed-developed on the Internet? r3m0t ^talk 22:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I assume that greater or lesser tradition does, whether one's own or society's, sir. --Anglius 02:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's RfA

Hello again, Anglius. I would quite understand if you were to ignore this message on the grounds that your "gynephobia" is no business of mine; however, since you have voted to oppose a candidate for adminship for this very reason, I thought it worth asking a question of you. First, let me say that I noticed your name amongst the contributors to various articles I have been looking at recently, and was initially pleased to see that you were an editor here. Your interests and opinions, as stated on your user page, contrast greatly with some of those held by most of Wikipedia's contributors, who tend to be young, liberal, secular, Western, male and somewhat technically-inclined (I include myself). Actually we are a fairly homogeneous group, and I was glad that a gentleman such as yourself had chosen to join us. Your manner of addressing people as "sir" on talk pages marks you out immediately as an interesting contributor. Having seen all this and thought it promising, it concerned me greatly to see that you had voted to oppose a request for adminship for what were, as far as I could see, purely prejudicial reasons. I understand that you "detest political correctness" and may not accept it as obvious that men and women could be equally competent at the tasks an administrator here is asked to perform (though I tend to think of the concept of political correctness as having more to do with terminology and the euphemism treadmill), but it puzzles me that you would actively oppose a female candidate for reasons that seem to be unrelated to the record she has established as a contributor. I have been a little long-winded, but here is my question:

What is it, in your view, that makes a woman an unsuitable candidate to be an administrator?

I do not wish to be critical of your opinions—although I may not share them—I am simply genuinely curious as to why an apparently educated and intelligent person would hold such an opinion. I would be pleased if you could offer some insight, but will leave you in peace if you choose not to. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Salutations, sir. I appreciate your courtesy and recognition. I must admit that I dislike 'computers' but may be required to work with them. They are very unconventional machines, and it can be distressing for one to realise how wantonly untraditional and perverse the world is and how it is seemily in deteoration. Gynocracy is one of the irritant aspects of our inauspiciously corrupt societies. --Anglius 20:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you're refusing Kelly Martin a position as an admin because you're afraid that it will lead a world ruled and governed solely by women? ----

It is the principal of it, sir. --Anglius 21:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explain to me why women in power equates a bad thing? Last time I checked, they were statistically of higher intellegence than men. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I quite disagree, "Linuxbeak," but I would rather not argue presently. --Anglius 22:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is because you are a troll, "Anglius".

I am certainly not, Mr. Schenck. --Anglius 21:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For your information, that wasn't me. I am not so cowardly as to post a comment under an IP and not sign it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:57, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for my error, "Linuxbeak." --Anglius 02:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And please call me "Linuxbeak", not "Mr. Schenck". It weirds me out when people online don't call me by my nickname. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:15, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Very well, lad. I suppose that that is a somewhat reasonable request. --Anglius 02:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop Trolling

You are a troll. Your combination of misogyny, homophobia, and bigoted bible-thumping has irked me enough that I must tell you this: Stop fagging up Wikipedia. You've done nothing but disrupt this community and exploit our tolerance of nutjobs such as yourself. Most of the people I've spoken to on IRC are are at least annoyed and at most want you dead. Your edits range from chauvinistic comments to changing dates without citing sources. You have contributed nothing to this project while diverting the resources of other members to clean up your shit. Fuck off. AngryParsley 23:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Mr. Greer, I am not a "troll," and I would appreciate if you would not speak to me in such vulgar language. I usually write references when I alter dates, at least whenever they needed. For example, my references for the article "Abraham" are its 'history.' --Anglius 00:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't be as blunt and straight-forward as AngryParsley, he does have a point. Your edit pattern seems quite odd and you've made changes which suggest the pushing of a POV (significant people > significant men, for example). Also, edits with summaries such as "was probably born after" seem to look like they've come off unsourced, un-backed up knowledge (guess work on your behalf, basically). I'm sure you're aware of WP:NPOV, and you may want to look at it. Hedley 00:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thank you, sir. I did not change "Significant Persons" to "Significant Men" whenever any ladies were mentioned. I wrote "probably," since, in spite research, there is still some uncertainty, even though that particular date is aparently the most likely. --Anglius 01:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What was the purpose of changing it? It acheives nothing. -- Joolz 02:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Persons" sounds somewhat absurd, sir, and I was already writing other things in those articles. --Anglius 02:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that persons sounds absurd, you could always try "people" though, which is what you actually replaced in some places. I would also apreciate it if you did not address me as "sir". Thanks, Joolz 02:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome, "Joolz," and I thank you for your suggestion. I may not have noticed whenever it is written as "Significant People." Would it be appropriate for I to address you as "Madam?" --Anglius 02:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would only be appropriate to address me (and doubtless many others would agree) as my chosen handle on wikipedia, which is Joolz (without the quotation marks) as gender is of no consequence. -- Joolz 12:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa whoa! Everyone just Stop! This is not the way to address concerns with this user. I don't care what his particular quirks are, but let's attempt to be civil. Now... Anglius, before I begin, let me make it clear that I'm being objective; I carry no grudges or ill-wishes. I would like to know what your purpose on Wikipedia is. Perhaps if people can see things the way you see them, they will be able to understand (not necessarily "agree"). I will confess that your edits have seemed a bit off-key at times, but I'm sure that there is a reason for it. I'd like to know what that reason happens to be. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:28, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I thank you, "Linuxbeak," for your consideration. Is there anything in particular for which you would like to explain its reason? --Anglius 17:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anglius, I wonder if I can offer some assistance here, and I hope you will forgive the length of this message. It seems to me that several misunderstandings and difficulties have arisen. Part of the problem is that you appear to hold some highly unconventional views, such as considering women unfit for adminship. While this is somewhat offensive to most of us, it need not preclude you from contributing to and editing Wikipedia. I would like to think that the more diverse our contributors, the better the encyclopædia can become, so if you are a legitimate contributor acting in good faith I would very much like you to stay with us if that is what you wish to do. It seems, however, that I may be in the minority in considering you a legitimate contributor. If you do turn out to be a troll, I will look a fool for suggesting otherwise, but it's a risk I'm prepared to take. If you are a troll, you are the most interesting I have encountered yet, because the more I look into your contributions the more evidence there appears to be that you are not one.

The other part of the problem is that many of us appear not to know quite what to make of you. A good example of an apparent misunderstanding of your intentions here concerns your use of inverted commas with people's usernames. I appreciate that to you it may seem odd to address everyone by their pseudonyms, but this is almost universal practice here, and your insistence on inverted commas—while it may seem a minor matter—can suggest a certain contempt, or a failure to take those with whom you are communicating seriously. Those who edit under a real name are in a minority here, and the practice of adopting a pseudonym for Wikipedia extends even to distinguished professors of philosophy and other experts in their fields. A particularly egalitarian spirit prevails here, in which contributors are judged on their merits and not on who they are or what qualifications they might hold in the 'outside world'. As I'm quite sure you will have noticed, this is a very unusual encyclopædia; indeed, the manner of its creation is unprecedented. While articles themselves are generally written in a fairly 'professional' style, communications between users on talk pages are usually much more informal. As such, your formal manner is potentially confusing to many.

I would not presume to dictate to you how you should compose your messages; indeed, I am quite willing to communicate with you on your own terms, and being addressed as "sir" does not offend me in the slightest. However, others appear not to share this view. If you would like me to go into further detail about why you appear to many to be a troll I will happily do so. You may also find that the article on internet trolls will shed some light on the matter, though much of it may seem a little esoteric to one who professes a dislike of computers, and is in any case not really applicable to these particular circumstances. Suffice it to say that given the open nature of this project, we are constantly faced with a minority who wish to disrupt and destroy what we have created. Some attempt simple vandalism, but this is easily corrected, while others are more insidious and make claims to be editing in good faith, while doing much to waste the time and try the patience of those who seek to maintain what we like to think of as a harmonious community, devoted to the task of writing an encyclopædia.

If you intend to contribute material to Wikipedia in any area, provided this is done in accordance with our various policies on such matters as neutrality and verifiability, I am quite sure your work will be valued and appreciated by everyone. At the moment, it appears the three things you have become most widely known for are your opposition to an otherwise unanimous RfA on some very odd grounds, your formal manner of addressing people (which seems to be causing more of a problem than it should be), and your inexplicable removal of line spacing above headings, which I should point out makes the article's appearance no different to the reader in most cases, but does make its editable text somewhat illegible for other editors. I hope I have gone some way to explaining why you are receiving angry messages or accusations of trolling. If you require any further clarification or assistance I would be pleased to help you. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sir, I am grateful for your civility and explanation. I remove those lines so as to preserve area, and I only do that whenever I am writing something else in that article. I was not attempting to make those articles illegible. --Anglius 21:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Anglius", sir, I find your behavior interesting for someone I believe to hail from Michigan.

How interesting, sir. --Anglius 21:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of Christianity is acceptance, correct? Please consider considering the opinions of those around you, so that you can better communicate your own message without hostility. humblefool® 21:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice, sir. --Anglius 03:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

King Edward II

Did you even research this figure before removing his sexuality (homo)? All biographies mention is has definitive, there is an enormous amount of literary evidence from the time. His wife even called herself Hera in diary entries. I would hope you are not just going around Wikipedia removing references to homosexuality among historical leaders because as your user page states "you detest immorality". Cheers. 67.41.236.211 5 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

I thank you, sir. I removed it because there is no evidence for his supposed behaviour that is completely unambiguous. It is possible that Lord Cornwall was merely a very intimate friend to him. --Anglius 5 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Among the royal family there is plenty of support in the journals. That is why the biographers mention it. Some relatives even discussed other ancient Kings who loved other men. His wife compared her feelings to that of Hera;s jealousy of Zeus and Ganymede. Again, did you research it, or not? 67.41.236.211 5 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Yes, sir, I suppose that I did. It is possible that she could have meant that it was an extremely close friendship (perhaps platonic) that she envied. He was obviously fonder of him than of her. --Anglius 5 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

Juan Carlos

Please do not add in unsourced POV gossip in links to acticles. It will be deleted as is standard with such links. FearÉIREANN 20:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not violating the 'neutral' policy and shall be annoyed if you do so. In addition, Mr. Dirl, I would prefer if you would not write Irish propagandra("FearÉIREANN") upon my 'user-page.'

I hope you will not think me impertinent or pedantic, sir, but I do feel compelled to point out in the defence of Mr. Dirl that Fear Éireann means simply "Man of Ireland" in the language of that nation, and thus, I think it a little unfair to regard the phrase with which Mr. Dirl signs his name to be "Irish propaganda." I do not wish to be discourteous to you, sir, merely I seek to make clear the intentions of Mr. Dirl to those who may come upon this exchange and think him a propagandist. A. E. Thornton, 10.06p.m., 24th December 2005.

I appreciate your courteous explanation, which was not in the least impertinent, Mr. Thornton. I apologise for having misunderstood. --Anglius 01:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote

Hi, I've seen you've voted on Bogdangiusca's RfA. There was a mistake, the user that added his RfA had no ideea what he was doing and literaly copied the RfA above the RfA of the first user. So instead of adding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bogdangiusca he copied the text of that RfA to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/80-MAN RfA. It is Ok now, I tried to fix it and if you please retake your vote. Thx --Mihai -^talk 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

How do yo do, sir? I thank you for informing me. --Anglius

Salutations

As someone who has come across many of your interesting comments and questions on the various 'talk pages' of this rather intriguing 'encyclopaedia,' I wish to take this opportunity to greet you, sir, and to wish you and your family a very happy Christmas. It does appear that we share many interests in common, and that we frequently peruse the same articles. It is somewhat comforting to discover, in this often vulgar age, that a fellow such as yourself is still to be found. A. E. Thornton, 10.06p.m., 24th December 2005.

I thank you, Mr. Thornton. Happy Christmas to you. --Anglius 01:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mormon vs. Anglican?

You have a Mormon picture, but profess to be an Anglican? I'm confused. Ronabop

Another "user" placed the photograph upon my 'page,' sir, but it was reverted. I restored it, since it had been intended as a compliment to, apparently, my religiosity and morality. Out of curiosity, do you think that it would improving the look of this "talkpage" if I placed the image of "Odin the Wanderer" upon it?--Anglius 20:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA

Hello Anglius,

The reason why I closed your RFA early was because there was, frankly, no possible way that you would have recieved an 80% consensus. You had 34 oppose votes to zero support votes. Assuming you received no additional oppose votes, you would require an absolute minimum of 136 support votes to reach an 80% support rate. There was no reasonable chance of you reaching that, and as such I exercised my bureaucratic privileges and closed the RFA early. If you want editors' critique your actions and your edits on Wikipedia, you may want to consider WP:RFC for that instead of WP:RFA. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you do, young man? You are probably correct, but there was still a slight possibility. Nonetheless, I appreciate your advice.==Anglius 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me give you some good advice on how to go about doing much better on Wikipedia. I think you are far too proud and outspoken to fit in on Wikipedia. I am giving you this advice for your own benefit - it's your choice whether or not you take it. If you want to be more liked, you need to try to work on your articles in facts, not just searching for facts on Wikipedia which contravene your own moral standards or opinion. I also suggest that you refrain from speaking in such a formal tone - it does come across as highly patronising. This includes your addressing of people by "Sir" and "Madam", and your use of "inverted commas" around people's nicknames. I understand that the language you use to communicate on Wikipedia is used in good faith, but your tone of voice is not evident on Wikipedia, and your use of this language does come across as patronising. Furthermore, I would suggest that you refrain from discrimination on any grounds, as it is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community. Your opposition of Kelly Martin's RFA based on her sex was one of the main reasons why your RFA was opposed. The other primary reason was your overly formal tone that you use. In other words, the main reason why you are not appreciated on Wikipedia is because you are too outspoken with your opinion. Please, just relax and try to remember that this is an objective encyclopedia, NOT a censored one. Also remember that a large part of a project such as this is colloboration, and discrimination and apparent condescension do not assist in colloboration. Please bear my comments in mind, or you will not fit in very well on Wikipedia, and you will run into a significant amount of trouble in the future. Thanks, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, Wedna648, and you are welcome. I was not attempting to be sound patronising, and I had written an apology of some sort (albeit not specifically concerning that matter) to her before I nominated myself.--Anglius 19:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

Mr. Wales, would you please extend the duration of a nomination(Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anglius) by a few days without 'deleting' it(I do not really possess a sufficient quantity of time presently to reply to their accusations and comments.)--Anglius 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a few days late in answering you, but it seems that Linuxbeak is assisting you reasonably well. Have you ever read Confederacy of Dunces? It's a rather amusing book which I feel you might enjoy tremendously.--Jimbo Wales 09:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you anyway, Mr. Wales. No, I have not, but it sounds quite interesting. I appreciate that you mentioned it.--Anglius 15:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Singular "they"

I see you eschew use of they in the singular. It also makes me queasy, but I note that Shakespeare used it. Too Old 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I do believe that it is improper English. However, my dear sir, please do not worry, for I shall attempt to overlook usage of it. Not to insult him, but Mr. Shakespeare did not always use ideal grammar.--Anglius 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading several of your comments, where you address people as Mr, Sir, or my dear sir; and reading your user page, including Joseph Smith and your Userbox, I have the distinct impression that you are putting people on with your pose. If I ran into the ukulele-playing Tiny Tim at a business conference I would feel very much the same. But perhaps you are too young to remember Tiny Tim? Too Old 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I only attempting to be polite and am not being unscrupulous (Please forgive me if I did not understand your idiom, for I do not use them regularly). I have been advised not to be address others 'here' as such, but I do not desire to be perceived as being discourteous. I was not very familiar with him (One reason is that I have never really been interested in that sort of music.)--Anglius 04:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I use Mr. Smith's portrait upon my "user-page" because 86.133.120.199 had previously placed it there as an intended compliment to me.--Anglius 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment

As a fellow Wikipedian environmentalist I would like to welcome you to help with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Alan Liefting (talk). 09:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, Mr. Liefting.--Anglius 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question

As a response to your question, which asks me if "I want to become a 'king'," I would just like to say one thing. I do not have a desire to overthrow the government or anything like that, nor do I loathe Constitutional principles. I just happen to admire some (former; current) monarchies and the philosophies they possessed. I fully support democratic government. I hope you don't get the wrong impression of my character. Thanks for your question anyway. Эйрон Кинни 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, lad. I appreciate your reply. I was merely curious.--Anglius 23:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, like the below, I also admire your userboxes. Эйрон Кинни 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, Master Kinney.--Anglius 03:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

As a fellow Anglican whose kin have lived on the other side of the water for nearly four hundred years, I just wanted to say that I like just about every one of your Userboxes. I just wanted to let you know that there is another like-minded individual out somewhere in the ether.  - C. dentata

How do you do, sir? I appreciate your considerate compliment and for informing me that we possess similiar ideas.--Anglius 00:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-UN Userbox

The code is not copyrighted (so I couldn't stop you even if I wanted to) and I would be proud to see it on your userpage. As a matter of fact, I just took the liberty of adding it to your userbox list myself. Please have a look. Please also note: Userboxes that are templates are under attack right now so all my userboxes come from actual programming code. This means that when they delete a template, the code (and therefore the userbox) on our userpages is not affected.  :-) Lawyer2b 00:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, sir.--Anglius 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Begob

Begob, but dat's a foine blast of d'english langwidge ye have on ya. Forgive me, Sor, but howd'ye do it, bein' a heedun bledy hAnglo 'n all? We taut yiz's all tick, loik.--shtove 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you do, my dear Shtove? I apologise, but I must admit that I do not always understand Hibernian English very well. I appreciate your compliment, though.--Anglius 00:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir, what do you mean by claiming that Irishmen taught Englishmen how to speak their own language?--Anglius 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

During an anti-humour spring clean, I ditched your foul user-page last week - and so I have only just read this query. In response - Item: Bolleex instead of the pompous Bollocks. Item: How's she cuttin'? instead of the insufferable How do you do? Item: Holy Mary mother of God! instead of the outrageous Oh dear. I do admit a flaw in my argument - the English never copped on, never learned their lesson - but it remains a truth universally recognised, that the English surrendered all authority over their own language when they got jiggy with it during the "Victorian" era, and swamped this beautiful thing in standardised spelling, diction, pronunciation and style. The champions of the language over the past century have been Irishmen in hedgerows and cow-pat burning Newfoundlanders. Besides, joinder of these issues is moot: modern English may be taking over the world, but when the aliens arrive they will be speaking in binary code, the language that American space-boffins have been teaching them by radio-wave since the first broadcast of sci-fi programs in the "so-called" 1950s.--shtove 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation, sir, but please do not call my 'user-page' foul. Though I am not an advocate of slang, I dislike that dialects appear to be vanishing (I hope that that did not sound irrelevant.) I would tend to think that Hibernians would not use a phrase like that (Holy Mary...), considering that almost all of them are Catholics.--Anglius 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing my user page

I understand that you might have found the words on my user page offensive, but I was attempting to test some recently installed anti-vandalism software. --AaronS 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, Mr. "S.", but it is preferable that you use less obscene language.--Anglius 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My dear sir, I would think that there would many people who are, sir-reverence, illegitimately descended from Edward IV. In addition, I read that one-quarter of the people in Europe are descended from Charlemagne (that is probably an exaggeration.) I think that one of the reasons that there are not that many legitimate descendants of English Kings after 1460 and Scottish monarchs after approximately 1530 is that they began to restrict the marriages of their children more (E.g. One should remember how angry Henry VIII became when he learned that his sister had married the Duke of Suffolk.) I apologise that I do not possess much time to discuss this at the present. I intend to write more regarding this subject at another time.--Anglius 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you have sensed the same thing, in regards to the nature of royal descent. IP Address 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, sir.--Anglius 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anglius; when you work up the nerve to compose what has been suggested, don't be shy with your intelligence. It's a rare gem to be on par with people of your caliber. IP Address 00:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and compliment.--Anglius 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Alice

I've added the following to Alice's talk page:

The evidence thus provided to demonstrate Alice's alleged occult practices is self-referencing. That is, the website cited [2] was adapted from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. Self-referencing sources don't actually count as sources.

I'm not opposed to adding the occultist category per se. I'm just opposed to adding it without any supporting evidence. Rklawton 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Lawton, and I appreciate you did that. I did not know if there I can discover any relevant references.--Anglius 19:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Justice Gray and Justice Holmes

I think you've identified a legitimate ambiguity as to the date on which Justice Gray left the Court and Justice Holmes arrived. The Federal Judicial Center site indeed reports Holmes receiving a recess appointment on August 8, 1902 although Gray, whom he succeeded, did not die until September 15. I believe I have an explanation of what actually happened, but want to verify it in one or more of my reference books at the office before correcting the article(s). Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, sir.--Anglius 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cigarette holder

Please feel free, it sounds like you know the history very well. And Merry Christmas! Chris 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, sir. Happy Christmas.--Anglius 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Earliest living US senator

True, Robert Byrd is younger than Harry Byrd... and if the succession box said he was the oldest living senator (as Clifford Hansen's page says) then it would've been incorrect. However, it says, most Senior living senator, Robert Byrd took the oath on January 3, 1959, more than 6 years before Harry Byrd therefore he has senirotiy to him. In fact Claiborne Pell, James B. Pearson , Ted Kennedy, Daniel Brewster, George McGovern, Daniel Inouye, Birch Bayh, Fred R. Harris, and Walter Mondale are all still alive and have higher original seniority to Harry Byrd. He's 11th on the list. As for age, he is the 2nd oldest living U.S. Senator after Hanson. All of this information is and has been available at Earliest living US senator which is the link in the middle the succession box that you could've clicked on.--Dr who1975 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, sir. I thank you for explaining.--Anglius 19:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

cool--Dr who1975 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)