This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Well there we go then! Remember not to add new entries, but to make a new archive, add it there with the {{talkprotected}} template on both header and footer. Then just add it to /Archives. Have a nice day. αѕєηιηє ^t/ _c 16:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Camaeron. Seeing as you've created that article, perhaps you'd be interested in the discussion taking place about its existance. GoodDay ( talk) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: By the way, I'm a republican. However, I find having an interest in & editing on subjects I oppose? helps make me pratice NPOV on Wikipedia. I've managed it so well (sorta patting myself on the back), that G2bambino once suspected I was a 'closet monarchist'. GoodDay ( talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you for getting rid of the entire controversial remarks section. People worked long and hard on those comments, including citing responsible sources, and for you to unilaterally remove them all is MOST UNWIKIPEDIALIKE. Insensitive and controversial remarks about such a public figure are most assuredly important in a wiki article, as this is an encyclopedia and NOT the Royal Family's PR site. You should have started a discussion rather than simply taking it upon yourself to remove an entire and large and important section of the article. In the future, please attempt some compromise or discussion rather than deeming yourself the arbiter of what is appropriate or not. Thank you for your adherence to this in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 ( talk) 21:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm flattered, honestly. But, I'll have to deliver a Shermanistic statement on such a nomination - Why? I don't feel I've the qualifications or patients for such a responsibility (you haven't seen me on the Ice Hockey talk-pages. I can be quite hot-headed at times, there). I've seen the questions asked of Administrator-nominees qualifications (I didn't understand most of their questions); I'm certain I'd flunk them. Again, I'm flattered; but I must decline. GoodDay ( talk) 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm completely against having 'diacritics' on English Wikipedia; further proof of my unsuitablility. GoodDay ( talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Grsz's you know who comment, is meant for a group of pro-diacritics editors at the Ice Hockey articles; he ain't hinting at you. I'll support you for Administrator, but I won't support me. GoodDay ( talk) 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm flattered. But, I must (again) decline nomination; there's simply too much responsibility involved in being an Administrator. PS- I'm taking my 3-year old niece outside to play in the snow for awhile. I shall return within about an hour. PPS- you've got my support for Admin'. GoodDay ( talk) 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You've still got my support. GoodDay ( talk) 18:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't be persuaded to accept nomination. I'm not fit for Administratorship. GoodDay ( talk) 19:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Many don't think so, aswell. GoodDay ( talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Canadian Majesty, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{ db-author}} to the top of Canadian Majesty. — BradV 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Camaeron! I've noticed you around the 'pedia quite a few times now, and it is clear that you are a dedicated and enthusiastic editor, but after reading your last RFA, I'd urge you not to go back to RFA in 3 days. As an unwritten rule, a second RFA goes back after 3 months, see my first one in October and my second (successful) attempt in January. This is because people will be able to see clear definitions of progression and it will better reflect what you may have (but not necessarily seen to have, i.e. few edits but a bit of knowledge). If you have any other queries you can always contact me on my talk page or join IRC ( help?) where you can ask others about what to do. Regards, Rudget . 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It was declared "no consensus". Anything below 75% is generally closed as that, the percentages can be seen at the RFA report. Rudget . 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

:) Rudget . 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm flattered. But again, I must decline nomination. GoodDay ( talk) 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you can nominate me for Administrator, without my consent. Atleast, I've never heard of such a movement on Wikipedia. Interesting though (RFA rules), I can neither vote for (understandibly) 'or' against (interestingly) myself; if I had accepted nomination. GoodDay ( talk) 18:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you are pretty interested in the RFA process. Would you mind poking around my contribs and such a bit and seeing what you think I would need to work on in order to become an admin? Thanks a lot. Grsz 11 06:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus regarding British post-nominals was achieved long ago, and is set forth in WP:NCNT. It has been discussed specifically in relation to Bill Gates here, here, here, here, here, and here. I have nothing to add. WillOakland ( talk) 08:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Camaeron! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

-- Zeitgespenst ( talk) 15:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. - J Greb ( talk) 22:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster _talk 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Toddst1 Hi XXXYYY, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously. Cheers! Toddst1 ( talk) 15:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Camaeron! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, G2bambino asked me those question, about a year ago. A) I prefer editing & posting topics that I oppose, because it's a strong test of my ability to control my political PoVs. B) I've never met the Queen personally, so I neither like her or dislike. But, I oppose 'monarchy' in general. For example: EII2 station in life, was secured by executions & military slaughters via orders of her monarchial ancesters. Bascially, her thrones have the blood of innocent lives splattered on it. Yes, I know there's been executions etc, in Republics aswell (France's reign of terror, comes to mind). But, I just don't like the idea that the 'people' don't get to choose their Head of State. GoodDay ( talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, alot. Thanks Camaeron. GoodDay ( talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you have inadventently cast 2 votes one in the neutral section and 1 in support.Can you strike out one of them. [1] More clear here [2] Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks it is now solved. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment about admin: an admin would not try to move someone from a talk page, would they? But I don't want to labour the point. We have here a mnisunderstanding, I think. Cheers.-- Gazzster ( talk) 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I apologise for misunderstanding you. The problem with writing: we can't express intentions and emotions very well.-- Gazzster ( talk) 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I just heard on TV there won't be a lieutant governor can you justify that reversion? Thanx -- Nicholas Weiner ( talk) 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship. It passed 92/2/2, and so I'll a bit of luck to live up to the expectation of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated List of Australian monarchs, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian monarchs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.