User talk:Roux/Archives/2008/AprilAugust

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

Welcome!

Hello, Roux/Archives/2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Thought I might as well be the first to welcome you, seeing as we are already in contact at another page. Feel free to contact me for any problems etc... Regards = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Descendants of Queen Victoria

I removed them as a result of this CfD. Wizardman 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Righto, thanks!PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

EIIR's Royal Collection

I think it is fine as it is at the moment. But you would need a source to revert me again = )--Cameron (T|C) 11:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Issue titles

My rationale is that they're looking for the person's name, not tile. With all the titles in, it tends to crowd the infobox, too. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

German Titles of House of Windsor

Thank you for your answer:) Do you also know what those titles were?Inge (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Republicanism & Monarchy

I find editing & discussing the monarchy related articles, is a good test of my NPOV approach to Wikipedia (I'm even a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms). PS- Monarchist editors G2bambino & Cameron have also shown surprise over my participation on these articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't quite understand how one could spend such an amount of time editing articles about a subject one loathes. But I admire GoodDay all the same = ). His NPOV work is amazing! And I always remember not to refer to him as a colonial = )...--Cameron (T|C) 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hahahah. You can't refer to me as a colonial either.. I have dual citizenship! PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Both citizenships make you subjects of Elizabeth II = ). Looks like you can't get out of your alleigance either way = ). --Cameron (T|C) 13:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but I'm a staunch Monarchist, so I'm happy to be her subject twice over. Frankly, I'd be happier if she were able to be a stronger monarch along the lines of the Princes of Liechtenstein. I think she'd do well with more power, and so would Charles (though of course he's probably not going to be on the throne for very long, poor chap). PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite true; the longer Elizabeth reigns? the shorter Charles will reign (and William). GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Based on her mother, Elizabeth will probably be around another 15 years or so. At which point Charles is in his late 70's. Part of me hopes that he will find some way to simply not acceded to the throne (as opposed to abdication), so that Wills can come to the throne at a reasonable age and have a good long reign--that length has been one of E's great strengths. But then, you're a republican.. ;) PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Aww, no King Charles? That would never do! --Cameron (T|C) 13:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think 'Charles' is a bit of a problematic name ;) And yes, it's his right to accede to the throne, of course, but it might be better for the country for him to find a way to bow out. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He could use George VII in honour of his grandfather and greatgrandfather = ). He could chose any name he likes for that matter. But it is usually a good idea to use one of one's given names. --Cameron (T|C) 17:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the (unsubstantiated) rumour. Philip would be the other obvious choice, nice homage to his dad etc. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What a lovely idea! Philip I!! I hadn't actually thought of that one!It's a wonderful idea. Everyone loves Prince Philip, what with his not-so-politically-correct comments!--Cameron (T|C) 08:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite like Philip. He really does think about the future, and leaving a legacy for others to build on. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breaths, Charlie & Phil aren't that close (atleast that's what I've heard). GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it seems clear there's a certain amount of respect--I think it's obvious that Charles got a lot of his environmental ideas from Philip. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have said they are very close actually. Welcome aboard the Wikiproject by the way Your Highness = ). --Cameron (T|C) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for protection

Based on your edit that followed the request, I'm assuming you meant to request Beatrix of the Netherlands be protected. The request you left asked for protection on your userpage. --Onorem♠Dil 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I can't fulfill the request myself, but I changed it for you. --Onorem♠Dil 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the expansion of Wikiproject:Commonwealth realms

There is a discussion going on here about a possible expansion of Wikiproject Commonwealth realms to incorporate all the British Empire topics! Please take the time to comment = ). --Cameron (T|C) 18:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Order of Canada

If I can give my honest opinion, the OC that the Queen wears is displayed in the infobox at a higher resolution. Sure, it might not be of the same rank, but does show the bow element. Plus, looking from a copyright point of view, we can easily say "The Queen is the sovereign of the Order" without having to display an image to that effect that is under fair use (and on shaky ground). I honestly believe we should remove the image of the Queen from the article. The focus of the article should be on the Order, not who happens to be leading it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Commonwealth realms

Welcome to the WikiProject, from a fellow member. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

HRH The Princess Royal

Hello Prince. Thanks for the pointer on linking. It was an honest mistake on my part. I appreciate your feedback and will be making the amendment right away. Best, ForCarers

Not a problem. Your references, however, would be much more useful if they linked to the documents in question. You will also need to provide NPOV references to all the informtation that looks like it was copied from the organization's website. And.. it's usually best to sign your posts (on talk pages) by typing ~~~~, which gives you this: PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful of the three-revert rule

Hi there. I know you are trying to uphold the style guidelines at Prince William of Wales, and I believe you are in the right (I need to check some stuff first, but it appears you are), but regardless, be careful of WP:3RR. You could find yourself hit with a short block for edit-warring even if you are right. So be careful :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right.. I'm waiting on the semiprotect ruling before reverting again. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) On further investiation, I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as I initially thought... I commented on the Talk page. Hopefully we can get this sorted out!  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comma in Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

I see you don't accept either of my sources, yet you don't provide a single source yourself. What sources would you consider reliable in this context? Timeineurope (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the convention, it's incumbent upon whoever is making the change to provide solid citations for the change. Debrett's, Burke's, and Gotha would be excellent sources to start with--royal.gov is very unreliable; it has even referred to Diana as Princess Diana if memory serves. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the convention. It's all about which version is better supported by sources. If you don't provide a source that trumps The Times Style and Usage Guide (which is a reliable source whether or not it's right about the spelling of Bowes Lyon), the comma will have to go. Timeineurope (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how you can consider a source unequivocally reliable when it has already been proven wrong; moreover, the Times Style Guide is about textual and visual homogeneity, not necessarily fact. I deal with branding and style guides in my work, and trust me, they are not about factual presentation. As for convention, I really am quite certain that if a change is being made, it's incumbent upon the person making the change to prove that it is correct, or more correct than the current version. So.. please provide a citation that isn't tainted. Thank you. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Burke's appears to take the comma, btw. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're dead wrong about convention. Wikipedia is all about what can be sourced. The Times Style and Usage Guide is a reliable source per WP:RS; whether you see it as 'tainted' is of no significance whatsoever. Since a reliable source had been provided for the spelling without a comma and no source at all had been provided for the spelling with a comma, the article had to use the spelling without a comma.

So Burke's "appears to take the comma"? Find out if it actually does and provide a link.

Timeineurope (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugggggh. Yes, and you must provide a good source if you are going to make a change, one that is more reliable than what is there, which is the convention I was referring to. I notice that you completely ignored my other points. As for Burke's: 1 and 2. So uh.. yeah. We'll be using the comma, as the specific guide to royalty and peerage should supersede a stylistic manual that is less concerned with fact. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See anti-comma stance from Debrett's and query from me regarding the validity of your Burke's examples at Talk:Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon#Comma. Opera hat (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See my response. Also, I'm not really sure how your point about their comma usage is meaningful; in regular text it's a grammar issue, whereas we are talking about the issue of a royal's style. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, strictly speaking even in regular text there shouldn't be a comma. Royals' styles overrule ordinary grammatical conventions; The Queen is "The Queen" not "the Queen" even in the middle of a sentence. Opera hat (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr.. that's exactly what I said. You were complaining about their comma usage in a grammar context; I pointed out that the issue of a royal's style isn't about grammar (otherwise, let's be realistic, EIIR's full style would be a little easier to read). Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed the gist: you mean when I was sneering at the author's bad English. Yes, that wasn't really relevant. But I think I did show that those articles can't be quoted as if they were written by an expert on royal styles and titles, as you seemed to be suggesting. Burke's Peerage itself, which is the authority, does not "appear to take the comma", though articles written by non-expert outsiders and published by Burke's Peerage and Gentry may. Opera hat (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well.. I would tend to assume that just as anything published by the Times goes through their Style Guide, anything published by Burke's would adhere to their standards as well. *shrug* Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My input has been requested

...by whom??? = ) --Cameron* 10:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

by User:Jaysweet Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 12:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi! We generally don't permanently block IPs, as the users behind them often change as the addresses are recycled, so we only block them for short periods of time when they're actively vandalizing. In this case, my final warning was over a month ago, so it doesn't really apply anymore (though it may be appropriate to start at a non-first level warning), and the IP only vandalized once today, for which he was appropriately warned. If it continues, or you see something like this in the future, revert the vandalism, give the user the appropriate warning template, starting at number one (or two, in this case, since the IP has a previous history of vandalism), and counting up to 4. Once you get there, if the IP vandalizes again, you can report it at WP:AIV for a block. Thanks! --Rory096 04:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Life

It's a fact, many groups that oppose abortion are described as pro-life. go check the latest edition and see the difference in wording be as least POV as possible.24.37.126.33 (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's better. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. It's generally considered good form to register a username; editing from anonymous IPs isn't quite as good. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

May I urge you, in the friendliest possible way, to cool down a bit? Believe me, I know what it's like to get upset about such issues and to take offence at other people's actions and comments. However, if you take a good look at Septentrionalis's recent comments in a spirit of reconciliation, I think you will see that he is not the monster you seem to think at the moment. In fact, he is being quite restrained (for him), precisely because he recognises in you many of the traits he has himself: attention to detail, wanting to get things right, finding it hard to accept other views. I'm not trying to blame you for anything, but allowing yourself to get sucked into such a vitriolic argument is in danger of harming your good reputation. Please, please, take it from an old hand - try to ease off the bad language and insults. Deb (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am no longer participating in the discussion. He is a bully, and I just can't be bothered to continue indulging his trollish behaviour. So as usual, the bully wins. Thanks, FWIW. I do take offence, however, to your saying that I find it hard to accept other views. I don't. I find it hard to accept morons, especially malicious ones, which he clearly is. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was, to accept views that you think are downright wrong rather than just different. I can't explain it any better than that, but I'll own up to the same "fault". Deb (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If he had provided a single viewpoint, I would have given it the review it deserved. He was, however, more interested in being a bully and keeping me out of his little sandbox. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

There's a pretty good reason why your formatting edit on Order of Canada has been reverted twice: you formatted the article to fit your screen. Since just about everybody looks at Wikipedia with windows of different widths, your formatting might mess up the look on someone else's screen by adding unneeded white space. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you'd been paying attention, you'd see that's already been explained. But hey, thanks for... nothing? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Prince

Thanks Prince = ). I actually only had to do one oral, but it was fun and it went really well! So I'm back for good now until 2 years time (the next exams!). Are you also still at school/college/uni? Best, --Cameron* 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people are still studying at that age. I feel like I'm going to be at school till I'm 60 at this rate! I think we ought to start wikipedia profiles with pictures of ourselves. That way I wouldn't get so confused about peoples ages. = ) --Cameron* 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing coronets

Coronet one

Coronet two

Which is which, I am actually getting really confused now! Best, --Cameron* 10:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just thought you (as an contributer to some of the coronet of wales articles) would be a good person to ask. I added the images to make asking you easier. --Cameron* 20:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Making a "modern" crown was never going to be a good idea though, was it? Back then it may have looked cool but now it's a bit of a laugh! Perhaps William will opt to use George's one. = )

Barnstar

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		I don't really think you need an explanation as to why you are receiving this. I can't believe you haven't been awarded it already! Regards, Cameron* 12:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Reptile Queen

Thanks for dealing with the reptile issue at EII. I would have joined, but every comment I formulated in my head violated policy in one way or another. -Rrius (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

New Messages!

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at EricV89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Eight edits between you, an IP and User:Labcoat, just to have the article arrive in its original state. Take a few moments to reread Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Edit war. Either leave the article alone or continue to discuss it at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#REMOVING controversial remarks. Continuing the edit war may lead to a block. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates

I used {{uw-vand2}} - part of the user warning series of templates which you can find here. _Gb^T/c 10:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mark Chagall and Scrubbed Talk Page

The reason I'm saying I didn't vandalise the page is because I actually didn't. Clearly someone has been using my account for vandalism purposes, although of course I can understand why you thought it was me. However, since when was it any of your damn business what I do with the discussion on my talk page? Not that I have to justify myself to you, but the reason I removed it all was because I'd been receiving hate mail.

--6afraidof7 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

6afraidof7

Sorry about the message, that was actually intended for somebody else, I just got the talk pages mixed up. When I said hate mail I wasn't actually referring to the warning messages, I was referring to personal assaults from another user. Quite why that hasn't showed up on your database or whatever I don't know. Frankly, I'm finding it hard to understand much of what goes on in this website. I know for a fact that I didn't vandalise Mark Chagall's page, because I did abandon my computer for a few minutes midway through the edit and I have a pretty good idea just who tampered with it while I was gone. But, I shan't bore you with my own petty problems. Just rest assured that no more vandalism will be perpetrated via this user account, and I hope we can swiftly sweep aside any animosity between us. By the way, I removed the warning messages because I didn't like the idea of people visiting my talk page and thinking of me as a vandal. I apologise if it was against the rules.

Yours,

--6afraidof7 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I realise it doesn't look good, and if I was you I'd be suspicious of me too. But please believe that most of the edits made from this account ARE constructive, and from now on I'll be more vigilant about who does what on this computer.

--6afraidof7 (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello PrinceOfCanada, is there something I can help you with? Gavin Scott (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. I am not wishing to enter into a dispute with you again and so this will be the last time I send you a comment that is not something directly Wikipedia related. WP:CIVIL is a policy(guideline to others) which I think we should both consider having a good read of, in light of previous discussion. WP:AGF Is another policy which, perhaps we can both brush up on and this WP:EQ is one article I will be taking a good long look at. I hope you have a nice editing experience on Wikipedia- if you ever require any assistance on an article I will do my best to help you. (Oh, and remember, assuming good faith means that, when you think another user is being deceitful...you assume/pretend they aren't.) So long, I hope to speak to you again soon in better circumstances. Gavin Scott (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See, I did intend that to be my last comment but since you asked the question I will answer it. I won? No I haven't won anything, a person I have never met from the other side of the world doesn't like me...is that a victory? In my opinion its actually quite a defeat. Am I happy? No, because this was never a contest I really did want this dispute to end- I still do, you don't believe me. Perhaps you don't like how that talk page is archived, well I apologise but its there to stay, i've seen disputes like ours come back to haunt other users- so I will try to keep mine on record. You see it as provocation? Well, think about the missile sites in Eastern Europe. To the USA, its protection to the Russians, its provocation. I have won nothing, no I am not happy- this is not my idea of fun, I made the mistake of being too flippant on a talk page and that riled you up I apologised before and I apologise again for that error. Now, if you need to reply feel free, unless you request a response from me there will be none because as far as I am concerned this is it. We are not going to agree it seems. All I can do, is wish you well and hope you continue to have a productive time on Wikipedia and in your general life. Its sad I've made you think that I'm deciteful or manipulative or whatever but thats my fault, I will try to redeem myself by any future edits I make, so, until you wish for me to speak to you again- have an excellant day. Gavin Scott (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Styles are not used in leads"

Re: Prince Phil's article. Surely then, "Prince" doesn't belong there? I'd say The Prince is a title if Prince is... What say you sir? DBD 11:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hello, Prince! Could you please give your opinion of my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Present queens consort and their predecessors? Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

infocube

I've replied at Talk:Buckingham Palace‎. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-encyclopaedic comment

Ooh, since we're associates: Would you like to come round for dinner tomorrow? :) --Cameron* 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends whether you visit me on the continent or in the UK. The legal drinking age varies. :) --Cameron* 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PS:Have you considered helping out at the refence desk? In particular the humanities desk would be well suited to you. I answer questions there too (from time to time). Regards, --Cameron* 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vatican City

You mean like Manchester City? In the article thereon, one sees both, but I'm not too bothered. Rothorpe (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)