User talk:Cameron/Archive/January09

World Monarchies image
Check the discussion here, you'll probably want to comment:, its affecting many Wikimedia pages. If you know anyone else on Wikipedia who also know well about this subject such as you, please show them the discussion too. We need more people's opinions. --Knowzilla 08:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth
Was there really pages of discussion on this? The whole concept of personal union is mediaeval, extending to the 18th C its a nonsense in the current age. -- Snowded  TALK  18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see the agreed form of words was "The Commonwealth realms are sovereign states, united only in the voluntary and symmetric sharing of the institution of the monarchy, the succession, and the Queen herself. Terms such as 'personal union,' a 'form of personal union,' and 'shared monarchy,' amongst others, have all been advanced as descriptions since the beginning of the Commonwealth itself, though there has been no agreement on which term is most accurate." and that discussion was on Commonwealth realm not on Elizabeth II -- Snowded   TALK  18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Monarchies in Europe
Cameron, I noted your recent edit at Talk:Monarchies in Europe. When I said "some tweaked variation of it," by "it" I meant my proposed paragraph, not an edit of the paragraph that exists in the article now. Did you mean to remove the republicansim sentence from my proposal? --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs question
Hi there - sorry for butting in, but I'm curious about your vote at the poll on FlaggedRevs. The poll is to implement the extension only to conduct some limited trials that would have to each obtain a separate consensus. That is, the result of this poll would not directly lead to any pages being flagged. In your oppose, you say you'd "support a trial for BLPs" (I may not be quoting accurately) - if so, why are you opposing the technical means of allowing the trial to take place? I would have commented on the page, but there's a low signal-to-noise ratio there at the moment, so my sincerest apologies if my bringing this up here offends you. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Contribs
You have somewhere between 100 and 250 deleted contributions. I could probably send you the list, but each individual edit would be a lot more work. While in sending you your own contributions, I probably don't need quite as careful about "needfully deleted" revisions, it'd make my life a bit easier if understood better what you're looking for. You want the contents of each deleted edit? Just a list? Or on a topic?

Cheers, Wily D 03:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Long time no speak
Seems like we're both under the same coach now (although I'm being helped along by Lankiveil too). How's it all going? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm enjoying it, still a while until I run for adminship but I'm certainly gaining a lot at the moment. It's good to have coaches who specialise in protection, AfD and CSD as that's where I'd like to work :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorgenfri
Sorgenfri in Danish means without sorrow. I speak Danish. Sorg means sorrow, and fri means free meaning in this case fri from it. It is a rather cheerful name. Cheers

Warrington (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

''Are you saying I ought to change it from "free of sorrow" to "without sorrow"? I originally thought sorgen meant "worries" the plural sorge. Rather like the French Sans souci... ;)''

Yes, I meant something like thatchanging it. Sorg can be both sorrow [see Wiktionary] and even  worries, depending how you are using it in a sentence. I belive you are on the right track, the name is probably inspired by ;) Sans souci... Very nice article, by the way

Warrington (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And they lived happyeverafter... or like, NO worries, mate... Sure, I can check it, probably tomorrow, I am a bit exhausted because of to much Greel mythology and art. You are fast in creating Danish castles. ;)

Warrington (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely articles, well written. You may want to add Rosenborg Castle, in present has a collection of the Danish Royal Jewellries,  (borg means castle in Danish) and Kronborg, if you want. The Danish Royal Family also owns a train of their own, very nice old fashioned one, which they use sometimes. Prince Henrik has properties that produces wine, in Ffrance, and Prince Joachim, the younger son of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark also uses the castles domain for extensive agriculture. God job, well done!!

Warrington (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is Prins Henrik’s wine see here http://www.cellartracker.com/wine.asp?iWine=80158

You are really fast with Danish castles!

Warrington (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for the barnstar! You do great work on "your" articles, please keep it up and drop me a note when you have other GANs to be reviewed. Dana boomer (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "only active reviewer", but I do seem to be one of just a few. Sometimes other editors review one here and there, but it's not a very active area, unfortunately. I enjoy reviewing history articles the most, although I sometimes review in other areas just to help the backlog. As for getting Monarchies in the Americas to FA - yes, they are stricter there. My suggestion would be to get a Peer Review done on the article, and ask any of your friends on WP who have not been involved in the article up to this point to take a look and see if there are any problems that become obvious to fresh eyes. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Re: Hey Julian
I'd be happy to take a look; hopefully I'll be able to get to it tonight. If you don't mind, I might do a bit of copyediting, as well. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read through most of the article, and although I don't have time right now to copyedit it, I think it's very well-written and would fair quite well at FAC. The content is comprehensive as far as I can tell, and the images look good. A peer review might yield some useful comments, however. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Monarchies in the Americas
Hey Cameron, I saw you edit this page and was wondering if you could answer a question I had. Why do we have different articles for Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines when they are all essentially the exact same article? Thanks,  Grsz  11  04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. It's just always something I wondered about. Thanks,  Grsz  11  13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Swedish longevity
Hiya Camer. Wowsers, talk about robust health. The Bernadotte monarchs (since Oscar II) certainly have longevity on their side. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PR
I provided a peer review for Peer review/Monarchies in the Americas/archive1. Best wishes in your future editing! --Eustress (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)