User talk:IP Address
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| vn | This user page has been vandalized. |
Contents |
[edit] Mustaine
BTW, if you revert again, you would have broken WP:3RR and may be blocked for 24 hours. Please find a reliable source that explicitly says he is Welsh. Mad Jack 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:List_of_Welsh_Americans#Talk:Dave_Mustaine.23User:Jack_O.27Lantern
(I notice how you gloat, with hypocrisy and libel)
Mustaine says his family motto is that of Mostyn. Mostyn is Welsh. That is like Bill O'Reilly saying his family badge is (whatever it is of the O'Reilly clan of Cavan), without explicitly stating he is Irish. Look up Clan O'Reilly; it turns out they come from Ulster. In identical fashion; look up Mostyn. Oh, golly gee whiz! Mostyn is a family name from North Wales; Flintshire to be exact. What do you know! That's exactly how people learn! You should not obstruct the Wikipedia community with your false charges and libel. IP Address 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not relevant where the name Mustaine comes from. If you have a source that Dave Mutaine is a Welsh-American, please provide it here and I will add it to the articles myself. But you can't go around deducing "what" he is from sources that don't actually say he is Welsh. Mad Jack 23:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the family crest Mustaine claims is his, states his family comes from Wales. Why do you have a problem with that source, when there are so numerous identifications of people in this manner or similar? Do you want a family Bible, or are you an atheist and have a problem with that cite as well? What's wrong with Dave's ownership of his family crest, which researchers (unaffiliated with me) have identified as originating in Wales? You don't trust that website? It's rather unbiased. You don't trust Dave's statements made in the interview, or the website posting his interview? You just have a personal problem with me. If I had that website cited in the first place, you would not be acting like this now. Even ElKevbo felt that way, until I made a comment about him. So, it is personal for you now. I realize it wasn't before. Man, chill out. There's no original research done here, just an interested editor who likes to put out good faith edits and not be insulted by those who choose which sources to accept on a whim such as disliking the messenger. Go ahead and kill the messenger; you've already managed to shut me up by crafting the situation as if you did nothing wrong. You never took the time to look at the data for what it was, just shifted your gaze onto me. Now, you tell me "tough". I'm not buying your bullshit and you haven't listend to ElKevbo's suggestions either. IP Address 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, what is needed is a source that says Dave Mutaine is a Welsh-American or Welsh. It doesn't matter what his last name is or where it comes from. That's the original research bit. You can not go around deducing that someone is Irish-American because their last name is O'Reilly, or that they are Jewish because their last name is Cohen. You need a source specifically on the topic in question - i.e. Dave Mustaine - that says exactly what you want to say in the article. Not anything close or sort of similar, but the exact thing. It's 100% or nothing on Wikipedia. No deductions of our own. We are just drones passing the information along. Mad Jack 00:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You have to cool down. Listen to ElKevbo. All that needs doing is a rephrase of the tidbit of what we know on his background, like this version: "Dave Mustaine has claimed the Mostyn family crest as his own, which he includes in his song "Shadow of Deth" and discusses in an interview with a Greek reporter. Ancestry.com, the University of Oxford and House of Names identify Mostyn as a Welsh family. Dave Mustaine says he was raised a Jehovah's Witness and that his mother was of the Jewish religion, but that he is a born-again Christian as an adult." This is a common way of editing on the Wikipedia, without 'jumping to conclusions of original research', which is left for the reader to determine. Why is it so important to not say what one sees right in front of himself, as you try to force me to do? I would have to leave the edit just like what is written above, instead of directly state or categorize that Dave is Welsh-American. By the way, I have traditionally been apathetic and even hostile about Welsh people (especially Welsh nationalists and Arthurian mystical supremacists)--but the revelation of Mustaine's heritage has softened my perception of Welshmen. Mustaine just happens to be my favourite metal artist, who I respect for his views. I respect his view that he is Welsh; you do not. You are being a stick in the mud and it is unjustified. When I thought Mustaine was French, that was unsourced. Now, I actually have a few sources that delineate his Mostyn background in Wales--even Domesday Book info about Mostyn and that part of Wales I never heard of, except through a statement that Dave Mustaine himself said. Dave Mustaine opened a metaphorical can of worms, or at least a pot of gold as I see it. IP Address 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I see where you have used mocking language in edit summaries apart from dealing with myself: just one example; I may be forced to find more of this BS if you continue to attack my good faith edits So, you indeed have a history of being pushy with those who contradict your preferences? IP Address 00:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Here, you have stated that your perception of ethnic heritage is true and called other perceptions false: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Ethnicity_inclusions. You do not understand the concept of WP:NPOV, which I have told you and yet you never addressed the issue--all you want to do is control other people's edits to fit your self-centred POV. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point! (WP:POINT) Assume good faith! (WP:AGF) Ignore all rules! (WP:IAR) IP Address 00:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Here, you have chosen sides...even though there are conflicting sources, as discussed on the talk page: [1] IP Address 00:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have no POV or perceptions except those reported by reputable sources. If you have a source that says Mustaine is a Welsh-American, you may call him that! Regardless of what I think about Mustaine (which is nothing, because I don't know or care who he is or what his ethnicity is). If you don't, you simply may not. Wikipedia isn't a debate society. We are messengers who report the message from reputable sources exactly as sent. We do not twist the message to say what we would like to be true. "Ancestry.com, the University of Oxford and House of Names identify Mostyn as a Welsh family" is completely OR. This has never been stated directly relating to Dave Mustaine. That's your problem here. You can not connect 1 and 2 to form 3. That is explicitly forbidden by NOR. The Ancestry.com bit would be relevant to an article on the last name "Mostyn", but you can not join it to an article about Dave Mustaine himself (unless of course a reputable source has done specifically that). If you have a source that his father was a Jehovah's Witness and his mother was Jewish, which it seems you do, you may certainly put that in his article. You may not call Mustaine himself, however, a Jehovah's Witness or a Jew unless you have a source that calls Mustaine himself, not either of his parents, as exactly that (I think the Jewish mother article called him "Jewish" in the title, so I guess that is fine). So far, not a single reputable source has even said Mustaine has any Welsh ancestry, much less is a Welsh-American (or if the source has, you haven't presented it). Wikipedia, of course, is not going to be the first to do simply because an editor wishes it was true. Yes, we all know Mostayn is a Welsh last name and O'Reilly is an Irish last name, etc. etc. but neither you nor anyone else is allowed to list people with those last names as Welsh or Irish-Americans until you have a source that does so. It's as simple as that. You either have got a source that says exactly what you want to say in the article, or you don't. AGF has nothing to do with uncited edits (not to mention that AGF goes out the window after profanity has been used by the editor), ignore all rules is not and should not be a policy, and I am not making any point except that you have to follow Wikipedia policy which, alas, is not a point. As for Hilary Duff - what's your point? We have reliable sources that say her middle name is Erhard, including her birth certificate. We have no reliable sources that say otherwise. It's incredibly simple. Mad Jack 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So, you would have a problem saying: "Dave Mustaine claims the Mostyn family crest as his own, as described in the Greek interview he gave (etc.)"? The word Mostyn would be Wikilinked, then I could write the background of Mostyn on the Mostyn article. We could avoid this unpleasant "misidentification" nonsense that you are seemingly enjoying as some standard you have created to throw about on Wikipedia? Even User:Jimbo Wales approves of WP:IAR; how come you don't? Why do you consistently apply rules to others and yet not follow rules accepted by those other people? It seems you prefer becoming partisan on a regular basis, as evidenced in your edit history. You hate debate and love fighting. You shoot first and ask questions later. Actually, you don't want to bother with the questions at all. This is a collaborative project, not a personal quest of a single editor named "Mad Jack". This ain't your pipedream, where you can make your own rules and not follow other rules. You yourself aren't above the standards and conventions of the Wikipedia COMMUNITY, where TALK PAGES are for DISCUSSION on edits! Goddamn, you are dense on purpose! See WP:DICK IP Address 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ignore all rules is not a policy. Even if it were, it says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them." Just because someone wishes to list Dave Mustaine as a Welsh-American even when no sources say so, it certainly does not mean that Wikipedia will become a worse place even if that is not allowed to be done (especially considering it breaks every actual policy we have here). I suppose you could say "Dave Mustaine claims the Mostyn family crest as his own" (pointless saying "in a Greek interview", just cite it with a number) in his article, but the fact that it is a Welsh last name was in no way mentioned in the article and shouldn't be in the Wiki article either. Yes, of course you can link to the Mostyn page from the Mostyn mention. What does "Why do you consistently apply rules to others and yet not follow rules accepted by those other people" mean? That is simply false and you probably know it, too. Please refrain from personal attacks. Just because someone chooses to strictly follow Wiki policy, which so far has made this a better place, doesn't mean you must mock them. Anyway, the point is, yes, that line would be fine in Mustaine's article, but of course not that A. he is a Welsh-American or of Welsh descent and B. same for his inclusion in these lists, pending a source that says either. Mad Jack 01:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You have created straw man libel of my actions. That is a personal attack, intended to get your own way and deny the good faith contributions of others. You revert a lot of other edits by other editors and make mocking statements in edit summaries, with no discussions...just one-sided monologues. You need to learn how to cooperate in a community setting; it cannot be your way all the time. Your way is NOT the Wikipedia way. I have cited your edit history as evidence to your dispensing of the rules and diplomacy. You hardly ever get along with anybody, but you don't use my vulgar vocabulary. Hey, it is what it is. A spade is a spade. Seeing the forest for the trees and reading between the lines is part of the Trifecta policy. Perhaps you have no idea how useful and common it is here, but it lends a vitality you smother in your quest to always be right and always have the last word. Hey, you're a hypocrite saying I do the mocking. I provided a source showing you just where you mocked others. Grow up and stop playing these testosterone games! Just because somebody has chosen to follow standard Wikipedia advice (Trifecta is an Admin fave), shouldn't mean you fight their good faith edits. I am willing to have the restricted presentation of his interview, but you know goddamned well what that means. It means everybody will draw the Occam's razor, providing for unknown bastardy and cuckhold fathers. Usually, men bear the surnames from their father. Mustaine believes his lineage is genuine, given his interest in his family crest. We are not going to ask for a fucking blood test to confirm this, for him or anybody else featured on the Wikipedia! Get used to it. IP Address 01:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, pardon me for 'messying up "your" list'[2]. It will see additions and subtractions just like the next article. See WP:OWN. IP Address 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mustayne has not mentioned anything about being Welsh. Wiki's policies allow me to revert anything that is unsourced to a source that says exactly what the editors want to say in the article. If anyone adds a name to the Welsh-Americans list with a source that says that person is Welsh-American, I can not do anything to revert it, regardless of my opinion on whether that person is Welsh-American or not. That's the difference between OWN and following Wiki policy. Mad Jack 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not my opinion that Mustaine is Welsh; that is just what a collection of sources say. My opinion of Mustaine is that he is a great composer and performer; this statement I am making now is not a collection of cited info. What I just said about his character is irrelevant; what I provided about his heritage was well within the safety zone of NPOV or OR. You're mixing them up and I noticed your dispute on the matter of Carmen Electra's Cherokee heritage[3]. Your preference for cut and dried, or cookie-cutter versions of sources' statements don't flesh well in an organic, living Wikipedia. Jimbo would be furious with what you're doing. You are trying to make Wikipedia be Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is explicitly not what Wikipedia is. Even EB doesn't get so narrow-descriptive of its entries. You are seriously tunnel-visioned and ask any Wikipedian what Jimbo Wales feels about that. You cannot arbitrarily enforce this ideal of yours; it has *zero* tradition or practice outside of yourself and those pages which are fought over, like Arab/Israeli Mid-East conflicts and Kerry/Bush, or Liberal/Conservative articles. Its application in an article about somebody's paternal heritage is unfounded and ahistoric. You are misapplying Wikipedia's standards, because of misinterpretation on what they mean. Hanlon's razor indeed; you really are not malicious in ulterior motive. You merely don't see what's right in front of you, nor use common sense and DISCRETION. The Spirit of the Law is just as important as the Letter of the Law. All mature adults know this. That prosecutors and lawyers exploit loopholes, is beyond the average joe or jane. Please, don't be dense. Wikipedia's policies allow me to use my head and all Wikipedia Administrators understand WP:TRI. You are abusing the policies you claim to uphold, especially by making mocking comments over edit summaries to various peoples. You are like a brick wall and so many have difficulty reaching your inner self. You project an apathetic attitude, as if you don't really care about the subjects in question. You just care about being right.[4] IP Address 01:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- "that is just what a collection of sources say" - wonderful. Present one of these sources that actually says Dave Mustaine is Welsh and I will immediately put it in the aritcle and cite it. Enough already. I have had quite enough of this conversation, which has quickly degenerated to revolving around what I do here on Wikipedia, which is strictly enforce policy, and which so far has had sterling results, bar the displeasure of Wikipedia editors who don't get to express whichever slight POV they want to. When you come back from the block, please make edits that follow the key policies, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. There are enough editors on Wikipedia who are perfectly happy with these policies and willing to aid me in enforcing them. Mad Jack 02:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You are tired of answering to the charges other people than yourself have to lay against you?! I beg your pardon, but Wikipedia is a two-way street where you are just as accountable as the next guy. You are upset that so many are in dispute with your rogue vigilante dream world of perfectionism (at this very moment, in a variety of articles), where the simple editor (you) pretends he is administrator and has final say on everything as an enforcer (lmao). You are not. Get a grip and learn to deal with people, not act all geeky and nerdy. Just using Wikipedia is dorky enough; we do not need people like you messing up the Wikipedia experience with hum-bug stuff. Your self-promotion is so out of the water. Egotism is not a quality trademark of Wikipedians, although we enjoy showcasing what we pride in our namespace. You are not the typical Wikipedian. You stand apart, like a sore thumb. I agree with ElKevbo's presentation of the policies, not yours. Yours is totally self-righteous. IP Address 02:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Block
 |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
I don't give a fucking shit. You didn't even do a background check. IP Address 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
(copied from Talk:Genealogy; my comments interspersed in bold)
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?
They probably have at least SOME descendants who are penniless nobodies. Probably quite a few, actually. Henry VII reigned over five centuries ago, after all. His descendants likely number in at least the tens or hundreds of thousands by this point.
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?
Not very common, given that the first Protestant monarch (Henry VIII) left almost no descendants, and the Stuarts arguably weren't Protestant at all.
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)?
It's at least partly because of the time scale involved. Edward III reigned more than three centuries before George I. In that span of time, a single ancestral couple are going to have almost exponentially more descendants. And as far as non-royal/noble descent from the Hanoverians, I can think of at least one: David Cameron, leader of the Tories, is a descendant of William IV.
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?
If by 'Tudor descent' you mean 'descent from Henry VII or VIII', then it's no more likely among the Welsh than anyone else. And I've seen estimates that as much as 80% of the population of Britain may be descended from Edward III (which means they're also descended from Llewellyn the Great). And as to the background of Germans who settled in the American colonies, most of them were from the Rhineland Palatinate.
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?
One does not conduct genealogical research by thinking of someone one would like to be descended from and then by establishing a link with that person; the only way to do it is to trace your pedigree back step by step, based on records of births and marriages, property deeds, wills, and so on. If you can trace back to seventeenth century English colonists in New England, Virginia, or Maryland, there's a good chance that you can trace your ancestry further back. It's more difficult for other groups, because registers of births, deaths and marriages were kept in England starting in the 1500's, but not on the Continent until a century or two later; also, the upheavals on the Continent of the various wars of the period frequently mean gaps in what records ARE available.
And there's a more recent connection to the Hanoverians than Welf; George I (and by extension the later Hanoverians) descend from James I of England and Henry VII; thus from Edward III. (And the present-day royals have quite a few ancestors who were commoners, too; as an example, the Queen is my fourteenth cousin by common descent from an Edmund Hewett who was born in 1475.)
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"...
They were generally referred to as 'Franks' by the Saracens. Indeed, the term 'Frank' (and its cognate 'Ferengi') continued to be synonymous with 'European' throughout the Middle East, Ottoman Empire, and Northern India/Afghanistan/etc. for centuries.
Descendents of the House of Stewart
What kind of a title would I have if I'm a direct descendent of this royalty?
None at all, unless you were the senior direct male-line descendant of a British peer who was a descendant of a Stuart king, or the eldest son of one, or perhaps member of a family of Continental nobility (in which all members are frequently entitled to some title). Spider Jerusalem 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Royal Descendants
Stuart blood only made its way into America through the Calverts of Maryland, right? When and how did Tudor blood on its own make its way here, or is it all through the Stuarts?
Right...the mother of Benedict Calvert, 4th Lord Baltimore (whose descendants include Mary Custis who m. Robert E. Lee) was a bastard daughter of Charles II. I'm not aware of any colonial-era immigrants to the colonies who were descended from the Tudors and left descendants themselves.
What about the Suffolks? It is true that all British alive today have Plantagenet and Stewart blood, but what about Tudor and Stuart?
Plantagenet (or Angevin) almost certainly; Stewart I wouldn't be so sure of (and 'Stuart' is just a different spelling of 'Stewart').
Only the upper class minority has Hanoverian and Windsorian blood, right?
I wouldn't say 'only' (in the case of the Hanoverians, anyway; the House of Windsor has only existed as such since 1917; before that it was the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha...Victoria was the last Hanoverian). Considering that George IV, William IV, and Edward VII were notorious rakes who had many mistresses and may have left unrecorded bastards, there's certainly some chance of Hanoverian descent among commoners.
Furthermore, don't people with feudal origins specific in their family to fiefdoms have likelier chances of genetic relations with the lords of those lands? This is counting on before absentee landlordism and rent practices, right?
I'm not entirely certain what you mean here; 'genetic relation' isn't quite the term you want, I should think (all humans are genetically related).
I know that the Palatine Germans came in numbers, but what was their relation to the rest of our Anglo-world?
They were mostly peasants leaving behind the devastation of the European wars of the era; given that birth and marriage records only begin at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth centuries in most of the Germanic states, their origins are in most cases obscure. Some, at least, were the descendants of French Huguenots who fled across the Rhine after Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685, but, again, their origins are obscure.
Could you tell me anything about the Breton contribution to the Battle of Hastings and the Breton landowners in England after 1066? I'm looking for info about their lordships and honours.
This is something else that's fairly difficult to determine; the names of only 20 of William the Bastard's companions are known. These were:
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Comte de Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Comte d'Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Comte de Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte de Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur de Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur de Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur de Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur de Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de l'Aigle, seigneur de l'Aigle.
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Comte de Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur d'Auffay.
There are Bretons who appear as tenants holding land from the king in the Domesday Book, so their contribution to William's victory can be inferred from this, but not specifically substantiated. Spider Jerusalem 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant that the difference between being descended from a Stewart is just a Scottish monarch, whereas being a scion of the Stuarts makes one descended from a British monarch. When I am considering all Britons descended from them, I am going all the way back to Robert II of Scotland and counting all their bastards since then and before King James I/VI. Or if one combines the two branches, then one gets many non-royal nobles and share a Lennox ancestor with the British Stuarts. Presidential candidate Howard Dean of Vermont has Ludovic Stuart as an ancestor but Dean's recent ancestral families are not as illustrious as some of my own, which leads me to consider that I might have a closer relationship to the monarchy than he.
Not necessarily; prominence in the New World doesn't necessarily signify prominence in the Old World. Several of my own ancestral families were either themselves prominent or allied by marriage with prominent families (for instance, I'm related to, though not descended from, about a half-dozen different governors of Virginia and Maryland, a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and more distantly to several members of the British peerage and even to the current royals), but my most recent connection to royalty is through the Plantagenets.
When I was talking about close familial relations with feudal lords, I meant in a way that one was tied to the lordship and his house. Or if not that, is it true that we usually bear the political stripes of our old feudal lords? Do we not pass them down to our children as our parents have done to us, urbanites descended from mediaeval burghers and country folk from the gentry etc?
Not at all; that's a totally ridiculous assumption.
I was thinking that depending on where one was born at a particular time period, one would fight on the Lancastrian or Yorkist side, or fight on the Royal or Parliament side, or if one was a tenant of the Stuarts they might support them over the Hanoverians etc.
Another baseless assumption; there were other things that had more to do with the various political factions than mere birthplace. You have to understand that, in the instance of the Wars of the Roses, various barons, earls, dukes, and so on supported one side or the other; with their support came the support of their men-at-arms, since those men-at-arms owed fealty to their feudal lords before the king. And most of the support of the Stuarts came from Scotland (eg the Jacobite Rebellion), which makes sense as the Stuarts were Scots.
I have noble ancestors involved in the Virginia Company, other parallel descendents were Viceroys of India and one UK PM at least (misc government offices held) and another became baronets in Ulster under Charles the First--these are rather contemporary.
Nothing very strange in that; if you can trace your ancestry to someone who lived in Britain between 1500-1600 or so, and that person has other traceable lines of descent, you'll find yourself related to a lot of people. One of my immigrant ancestors left a son behind in England, who later became physician to Charles II: his granddaughter married a viscount, and his great-great-granddaughter married a marquess and was mistress to George IV; another ancestral family produced several Lords Mayor of London, and descendants include several earls, dukes, etc., along with the Queen Mother, Winston Churchill and Princess Diana. Go back far enough, and everyone is related--and in the case of Europeans the odds are that you don't have to go back THAT far; it's estimated as highly probable that everyone of European ancestry is a descendant of Charlemagne.Spider Jerusalem 17:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your etiquette
You insinuated User:Advil was a racial supremacist on this edit. Wikipedia:Etiquette policy specifically requests users not call other users racists. There are better ways to argue against other users than resorting to labeling them as racists.--Dark Tichondrias 11:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Caucasian race link
In this edit: [5], you removed a citation to a site that you claimed was a "neo-nazi site", and yet in reviewing that site, I can find no evidence of this. The site seems to have a very well sourced, neutral view of race, which often contradicts the views of most neo-nazis. Did you review the site yourself, or were you basing this claim on some external reference? -Harmil 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
