User talk:DBD/Archive 18

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2005 – July 2006)
Archive 2 (August 2006)
Archive 3 (September – October 2006)
Archive 4 (November 2006 – Jan 2007)
Archive 5 (February – April 2007)
Archive 6 (May 2007)
Archive 7 (June – July 2007)
Archive 8 (August – December 2007)
Archive 9 (January – March 2008)
Archive 10 (April – June 2008)
Archive 11 (July – September 2008)
Archive 12 (October – November 2008)
Archive 13 (Dec 2008 – May 2009)
Archive 14 (June 2009 – May 2010)
Archive 15 (June 2010 – January 2011)
Archive 16 (February – July 2011)
Archive 17 (August – November 2011)
Archive 18 (Dec 2011 – January 2012)
Archive 19 (February – March 2012)
Archive 20 (April – July 2012)
Archive 21 (August – October 2012)
Archive 22 (Nov 2012 – March 2013)
Archive 23 (April – July 2013)
Archive 24 (August – November 2013)
Archive 25 (Dec 2013 – April 2014)
Archive 26 (May – October 2014)
Archive 27 (Nov 2014 – May 2015)
Archive 28 (June – October 2015)
Archive 29 (Nov 2015 – April 2016)
Archive 30 (May – November 2016)
Archive 31 (Dec 2016 – July 2017)
Archive 32 (August – October 2017)
Archive 33 (Nov 2017 – July 2018)
Archive 34 (August 2018 – May 2019)
Archive 35 (June – November 2019)
Archive 36 (Dec 2019 – June 2020)
Archive 37 (Sep 2020 – Aug 2021)
Archive 38 (Sep 2021 – June 2022)

December 2011 – January 2012

Re: Edward, Prince of Wales

I'm really sorry, I had no idea. I changed everything back. Please contact me if there are any more issues. Yours truly, --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In List of Episcopal bishops, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page John Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bishops of Bath

Template:Bishops of Bath has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bishops of Wells

Template:Bishops of Wells has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland flag

You may not be aware that the Ulster Banner is no longer the official flag for Northern Ireland. That flag is seen as a symbol of Ulster loyalism, and to use that next to Cardinal Brady's name in the List of living cardinals page is offensive to the Catholic communities either side of the border. Instead the Union Flag is used to represent Northern Ireland - see List of flags used in Northern Ireland. So although the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Armagh covers only part of the United Kingdom (i.e. Northern Ireland) the Union flag is used. It is the same with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York where the Flag of the United States is used not the Flag of New York. Scrivener-uki (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely aware of that. A few years ago, I kept up with a "heated debate" about the Ulster banner. The solution is not to use the UK flag template. Thankfully, the NI flag template has a union parameter – what say we suck it and see? D B D 11:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the union parameter used, and probably exceptable with others. We'll have to see. Scrivener-uki (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptee

I just noticed your offer, now. I agree to your being my mentor. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay

I noticed you offered to mentor GoodDay. Do you want to do this together? I'm not so bothered if you want to do it alone, however. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latest mentorship candidate

Can you please both have a word with him re: this. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. D B D 15:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Daicaregos (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Diocese of Brisbane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

hi what was the matter to my edits on James, Viscount Severn? Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo there, Chip (I guess). Sorry, the edit summary should've read something like there is no need for repetition. We know his full name from the opening paragraph and we know that he has no (or does not use, depending on who you ask) HRH from the lengthy paragraph in Titles and styles discussing exactly that issue. D B D 14:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips and Knight/Dame hoods

Hi that's fine they have no royal title, however are member of the House of Windsor.

I thought that with knight hoods one will keep ones title as with The Rt Hon The Lord Sugar, Baron Sugar still has his Kt (knight bachelor) after his name. Also Dame Kelly Homes DBE MBE still has the MBE after her name. Is the article wrong or are there some exceptions. Confused :) ta --Chip123456 (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have no royal title and they are also not members of the House of Windsor. The two are connected but not causally – they are not-royal because their mother (not their father) is royal and they are not-Windsors because their mother (not their father) was a Windsor.

"The Rt Hon The Lord Sugar Kt" bears both styles Lord and Kt because they are unrelated. Dame Kelly Holmes DBE MBE(Mil) is exceptional – she holds an MBE (Military Division) for military service and her Damehood (civil division) for service to sports. Because they are in separate divisions of the same order, she can have, keep and wear both. In most cases, like The Earl of Selborne GBE, an individual who receives a higher grade (of the same division of the same order) will cease to have, keep or wear the lower grade – in fact, in order to receive the higher grade, the recipient must first return the actual insignia of the lower grade. D B D 21:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. --Thanks Chip123456. (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please look at the discussion of the British Royal Family template. Regards --Ta, Chip 123456 (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National emblem

Myself & Daicaregos are continuing to disagree at that article. I'll need your eyes there, to monitor my conduct. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AG's brought the UK constituent countries into the discussion. I'll have to stay away from it ('til mid-January). GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although you did go back five times after posting this comment to add a little more to the discussion, didn't you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing to stay away from the UK&I stuff. I've only been interested in the Quebec discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Jamesinderbyshire is pointing out that you are saying one thing ("I'll have to stay away from it") and doing another. Carson101 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am staying away from it (E/S/W/NI). GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay's mentor

Being a mentor for GoodDay I wonder if you think this comment was appropriate. Especially on a discussion that GoodDay started. Part of GoodDay's problem was his tendency to accuse editors of pushing a nationalist POV and yet lo and behold, you come along and set him a bad example by doing just that. If you have become his mentor for the express purpose of defending his POV and backing his unfounded claims then I would suggest that you are not fit to mentor him. One more thing. I also noticed you edit warring when you did not have agreement on the talk page. [1]. Well done, you have now given GoodDay a green light to go back to his old ways. Carson101 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is everyone supposed to just pretend that the rampant nationalist and unionist POV-pushing isn't happening just because people have trouble with the way GD deals with it? Also, what you called edit warring wasn't really edit warring at all. DBD made a change with an explanation. Another editor reverted with a non-explanation explanation: "Undid revision 468164807 by DBD (talk)There is no agreement for that change", but without actually noting any reason for disagreement. DBD restored it, noting the lack of substantive disagreement. BRD, which is an essay, not a policy, is helpful when there is a substantive disagreement. That was not the case here. Attempting to ferret out whether there is an actual disagreement, versus mere reflexive defense of the article, while restoring an edit is not edit warring. -Rrius (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going away for a few days. Carson, your concerns have been ~~noted~~ read. Rrius, cheers for the defence – sometimes I just can't be bothered myself, so it was genuinely lovely to see someone else had done it! D B D 07:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Harry Goodhew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archbishop of Sydney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected visitor

I had an unexpected visit by an IP, at my talkpage. But, I think I handled it correctly. What's your opinon? GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Winterhawks

Howdy ~~Steven~~ DBD. Would you give me some advice on how to handle my current dispute with Djsasso? GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why of course, Mary D B D 17:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you back off for a little while. It may take me a while to figure out how to deal with this – for what is a guideline when it is merely ignored? D B D 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBD, why hello there Steven! Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's so frustrating. I fear that Djsasso might be deliberately carrying on this way, in hopes of getting me topic-banned or worst. You're right though, there's no way to reason with him (when he's in his current mood) & it's best I stand back. Let others at WP:HOCKEY have a say. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: I'm being harrassed by Djsasso, on my talkpage. How should I handle this situation? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I am being harrassed by you on your talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's stalking me. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I am defending myself from your constant harassment and attempts to bully me. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (It's located here) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Episcopal bishops (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jeff Lee

List of bishops in the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Delhi, New York

List of bishops of Chester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diocese of Southwark

Mark Santer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diocese of Birmingham

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, bot. Thot. D B D 10:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From/Until dates

Why are you suddenly putting full dates in the From/Until boxes in the lists of bishops? There are so different types of dates: appointed, elected, translated, succeeded, retired, death date, etc. The List of Archbishops of Canterbury is a mess with different types of dates. In fact I've given up that list as a bad job. It much easier on the eye with the basic year on its own, with the full dates in the notes box, that's what the notes box is for. But, without any consensus, you have taken yourself to add full dates. Scrivener-uki (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wary of starting dates – I think I've been only adding full starting dates when they're been translated from somewhere rather than elected, consecrated or whatever. Ending dates are much more clear-cut, in that one either dies or retires effective from a specific date... D B D 18:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The From/Until columns look much clearer with just the year dates. As I said above, it is much easier on the eye. A mixture of full dates and year dates together in the From/Until columns looks clumsy. Other websites have the basic From/Until year dates, e.g. History files: Archbishops of Canterbury, British History Online: Bishops of London, or Diocese of Galway: History of the Diocese. Ideally it would be great with consistant full dates, but it is not possible. With some bishops there isn't even an actual year, just a general time period, e.g. between 852 to 856. How about going back to the basic years for the From/Until columns? Scrivener-uki (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. No worries. D B D 20:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new Gnome

I've found my Wiki calling. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: MY agreed 'self-imposed' tem-ban from the British & Irish political articles, has expired. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Archbishops of Canterbury

Might be of interest... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Camden, New York

Episcopal Diocese of Dallas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Welsh language

I've made an edit & a comment at that article, with the knowledge that an editor is already there, to whom he & I have had difficulties in the the past. I'll need ya to keep an eye on my conduct, as this is an area that can be tricky. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do the safer thing & drop out of that article, as apparently I've ran into 'the wall' again. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision D B D 15:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]