User talk:Danbarnesdavies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Danbarnesdavies
Wikipedia Metawiki Commons Wikiquote Wiktionary
Archives
Archive 01 Archive 02 Archive 03 Archive 04 Archive 05
Archive 06 Archive 07 Archive 08 Archive 09 Active
DBD is somewhat busy in real life, and may not always respond swiftly to queries.

However, here's some rules:
  • Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page.
  • Please use headlines when starting new talk topics.
  • Please feel free to speak your mind.

But, first and foremost - please

  • Be civil
  • Be polite
  • Be reasonable

Contents

[edit] Sub-articles for Line of succession to the British Throne

Special:PrefixIndex/Line of succession to the British Throne has two articles you wrote that are now obsolete. Someone else tried to speedy-delete both of them but since they weren't the author the requests were declined. See also User talk:Davidwr#Special:PrefixIndex/Line of succession to the British Throne. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbadges

I don't quite understand the reason for these, nobody is using them.--Otterathome (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually only just noticed them and I think they look pretty cool actually :). Might look at using one or two of them. ~~ [Jam][talk] 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they're a concept I've never really publicised... It just struck me that userboxes are sometimes overlarge, cumbersome and long-winded... Take 'em or leave 'em, it's fine by me! † DBD 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to include one, and design two others - they are now being modelled on my user page :). I like the concept of them though, and agree that most userboxes are just too big! ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: WikiProject Commonwealth realms

Welcome aboard, Danbarnesdavies. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Senior Management Team

An article that you have been involved in editing, Senior Management Team, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senior Management Team. Thank you. Ratarsed (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon at British royal articles

Hello Dan. What's the story on Editors Wikimidlands & 77.101.107.38? Are they, the same person? GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, its time for him/her to be reigned in. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Birthday

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Danbarnesdavies, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!
Happy Birthday from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Danbarnesdavies a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

Idontknow610TM 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leet

Seriously? :-D

Happy birthday, by the way. Waltham, The Duke of 07:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, that was there for about a year and a half! Lol † DBD 12:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And this was your birthday gift. Glad you have enjoyed it. :-)
Since I'm here... I hadn't realised that we had made a decision on titles in my talk page; you had proposed an inter-project discussion. Given the general lack of participation, I prefer to avoid them, to be honest, but we should be clear about such things, eh? Waltham, The Duke of 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox British Royalty

Can you please update the documentation for this template to explain its purpose. If it is for *British* royalty, like the project of the same name, it should not be being used on Alfred the Great or Edmund Ironside, right? Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Many happy returns!

Alfred the Great was British? I'm sure that would have come as a surprise, and probably a not a very pleasant one, had he been told so. There has been a British monarchy since 1707 or 1603 if you believe the Royal family's version of events. Nothing to do with the Alfred the Great. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

It went on for twelve days and was closed. I initiated a discussion instead of making changes outright, it is up to you to start a new discussion. You disagreed with the outcome, so what? You are guilty of a violation of consensus and you will not trap me in the 3RR. I will revert it tomorrow and expect discussion to continue rather than to have the convention abused and trampled on just because it doesn't suit your preferences. Charles 23:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply on my page. To be brief, I think twelve days in more than long enough. You did voice your opinion well before that time. Thank you also for your apologies, however, at this time, there has been too much negativity and hostility directed to me that I have trouble finding comfort in kind words, which is not to say that I don't believe them (I do). It's just that there are others who are bent on painting me as a radical anti-monarchists who goes on merge and deletion sprees. You do one thing, they complain. You do the other, they complain more. I'm very close to being done with this place. Not for them (never!) but for me. Why stay in the sandbox if the kids throw sand in your eyes? Charles 06:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Dude, I didn't see any consensus there. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not "dude" and I don't answer to people who refer to me with feigned familiarity. Charles 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. I'm sorry if that offended you. Allow me to rephrase: Charles, I don't see any consensus there. I see five comments, then an abrupt closure to the commenting period once you got the answer you wanted, and a total disregard for what everyone else--pretty much all of whom oppose the change--has to say. I know I'm new around here, but I don't think that's really the best good-faith way to go about really achieving consensus on the issue. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi Dan. With the bunfight about naming conventions, I think the best route would be to get a nice neutral cool head in to mediate the issue. Navigating the labyrinthine articles about how to do so is doing my head in. Would you be able to help? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the "heads up", I will add my two cents worth! Чарльз - жопа (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ignore my bit about mediation. Cooler heads seem to be prevailing, and hashing the issue out. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Behave

Yes I think things got out of hand, like I said in "Charles the red" at WP:NC a lot of people were unhappy, but I accept I took things to far and got to wound up. - dwc lr (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M-W

Edward may use M-W, but he is not strictly speaking entitled to it--he is entitled to W, per the letters patent. This is why I expanded the explanation. He should use W, he doesn't, he has used M-W and Wessex. Oh, but look.. I can't revert because of 3RR. Hooray! Another win for opinion over fact at WP. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been done to death — that reference has been agreed a while ago. Basically the facts are that:
  1. HRHs do not have a surname
  2. Non-HRH descendants of HM have the surname MW
  3. HRH descendants of HM have often used the surname MW (for instance both Anne and Charles on their respective second marriage banns)

Happy? † DBD 21:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you have said has contradicted what I have said. I am well aware that an HRH doesn't have a surname per se, though one is often used in legal contexts (drivers licences, etc). HM's LP decreed that her descendants shall use Windsor. That means that Windsor is his surname when one must be used. That he uses M-W is beside the point, which is what I attempted to address in my second edit. I mean really... Cher has her real name on her driver's licence; that is her name. What she chooses to go by is something else, as I indicated! PrinceOfCanada (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, in 1960, HM's declared that her descendants were to continue as the House and Family of Windsor. Her later decree gave the M-W surname to non-HRHs. Thus there is nothing whatsoever said of HRH's surnames. That's why they improvise and utilise M-W, Windsor or a territorial designations etc. Thus the corrent comment is correct. † DBD 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I owe you an apology. I was apparently in a hideous mood. I'm sorry. PrinceOfCanada (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That's quite fine. † DBD 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)