User talk:Miesianiacal/October 2009-March 2010

MIA
Wowsers Mies. What ever happend to Gazzster, Soulscanner & Cameron? It seems they've re-discovered life outside of Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean they've gone to the dark side? Poor them. Seems ol' Roux is having a spat of trouble right now, too; he's quit Wikipedia again come back  quit  come back qui.. Ugh, the drama's making me dizzy... --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, would be best to choose 'semi-retirement', when un-decided. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just say, as someone with brief involvement of all of the above at one time or another that I too had noticed they didn't seem to be around any more...Gavin (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But we haven't heard from you for some time, either, Gavin! ;) (Good to again, though.) Gazz's edit history shows he was on Wikipedia less than a month ago; Soulscanner has a history of disappearing for long stretches and then coming back for another blitz; but Cameron, he's just vanished. He's doing a stint in the Peace Corps, maybe? BTW, Gavin, I loved this little gem. Some things never change, eh? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Cameron has created a new account and decided to go "undercover", who knows. As for the gem...yes that one never learns. Gavin (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly, in editing Ancestry of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom today, I stumbled through the wonderful net of Wikilinks across "that one"'s contribution to User talk:DougsTech; "you don't seem to much appreciate it when people contradict your...interesting version of events, but oh well, one has to hope that at some point you'll realise that your victim ploy is full of so much hot air and nobody's buying it." How creepily self-prophetic! -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Monarchy of Canada.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.

File:LeBlanc-Clinton.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:LeBlanc-Clinton.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Order of Merit: The Prince of Wales
Salutations! I had switched the Flag of H.R.H. The Prince of Wales to his own banner, in which you switched it back. Your reasoning for the reversal is that The Prince of Wales is not his jurisdiction, in which you are obviously right. I however, still believe that his charge should still go there instead of H.M.'s Personal Flag for some very important reasons.

1. H.M.'s is reserved for Her Majesty's personal use only. Seeing as it should only represent Her Majesty, it should not be used for anyone else.

2. The Prince of Wales' Flag is used in area's of his mother's Realm. For instance, In Canada, Where we are both from. If The Prince of Wales was to visit the Parliament, his banner would have precedence over the Canadian Flag. Same thing for the United Kingdom. His standard (or at least one of his standards) is used when he is about. only to be subverted by the standard or standards of the Queen when Her Majesty is present.

This goes for H.R.H. the Prince of Edinburgh as well. His standard is used when he is not in the presence of Her Majesty, although rare. Therefore his standard, and not H.M.'s Flag, should be used.

So This is why I believed that switching the banner was appropriate. I look forward on your thoughts on the matter. Best Regards. Yours-Truly: Jonathan Ng  吳家明 (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right in that the banner is the personal symbol of the Queen, not any jurisdiction, per say. But that was exactly the concept I was trying to express: the Queen is a super-national figure - not belonging, per say, to any one country - and so is her family, as well as the Order of Merit itself. So, while there may be issues with using the Queen's personal flag, I don't believe employing the Prince of Wales' and Duke of Edinburgh's personal standards is correct either. Perhaps no flag is the logical answer. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is also what I am trying to convey, that their personal standards are super-national, and that they span all of the Commonwealth, as is H.M.'s Personal Flag. Just as the Queen is super-national, The Royal Family is also super-national. Therefore I believe that employing their standard is relevant and the prudent course of action in this case. We should not use H.M.'s Flag just because they are from The Royal Family. As the Royal Standard represents the Monarchy and not Elizabeth as a person, H.M.'s Flag represents Her Majesty as an individual. I can perhaps see a compromise in which we could use the Royal Standard in this situation. While The Royal Standard may be not representative for the rest of the Commonwealth, I can see it that they are part of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom, and therefore of the Commonwealth. However, employing no flags at all, while might be simpler, would not solve the problem and would be, in my opinion, a back step. I await to hear from you. Yours Truly: Jonathan Ng 吳家明 (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not be perfect, but how about the Commonwealth flag? -Rrius (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That had crossed my mind; but the Commonwealth is a different beast all-together. I still don't feel that the personal standards of Charles and Philip are appropriate; they've nothing to do with the Queen or her jurisdiction, and further problems arise with the question of which of the Prince of Wales' standards to use? None seem apt for use outside of the UK. The Personal Flag of Queen Elizabeth II is employed by her "to symbolise her as an individual and not associated with her role as sovereign of any particular Commonwealth realm." Hence, I thought it was most appropriate. However, if others disagree, I'll accept no flag as well. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, How would you feel just putting the British Flag? While that notion would go against what I said earlier on them being super-national figures, it would regulate the problem of using H.M.'s Personal Flag. Also, they are super-national, yet essentially de-facto British. Best Regards, Jonathan Ng 吳家明 03:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng556 (talk • contribs)
 * No. Most certainly not. It would be incorrect and a breach of WP:NPOV. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can-royal-stub
Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Grutness...wha?  22:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox order
At Template talk:Infobox order, I've put up a suggestion on a new version of the template to address (largely unanswered) criticism. Suggestions would be nice on improving the new code (at that page, notwithstanding that I am an IP). Thanks, 118.90.35.155 (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've left a reply on that talk.
 * I apologize for sounding confrontational, but given you can see the context in which the edits were made, please do not characterize some of my edits as vandalism.
 * That said, I hope we can talk our way out of the other disagreements :D 118.90.106.6 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanking of information without explanation is generally construed as vandalism. I came across your deletion before I noted your changes to the infobox. In future, you should leave an edit summary so that your intent is more clear to other editors. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Debate on the monarchy in Canada - Polls
Dear Miseianiacal,

I would like to point out a few problems with the characterization of Angus Reid Strategies, and particularly myself, on the Wikipedia entry.

The Wikipedia entry reads:

Angus Reid composed the question as it did despite an earlier request from the Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada to the Director of Global Studies for Angus Reid Strategies, asking that future surveys not use wording freighted with British bias.

First of all, we did not "compose" the question in 2008. We asked the same question that was asked in 2007. This is a standard practice to review how opinions shift.

Second, we get requests from people wanting to change the wording of surveys all the time. Not all of them have to be followed, particularly when they come from organizations with a set agenda. "Keep you in the loop" does not mean "I'll ask the question the way you want it to be asked."

Third, the Chairman of the Monarchist League chose to reproduce the contents of a private e-mail in a newsletter, without the expressed written consent of any employee at Angus Reid Strategies, contravening the legal disclaimer that is included in all e-mail communications from Angus Reid Strategies. That is a fact. Following his decision to do this, I decided not to have any contact with him again.

I trust you will find a way to address these issues in the Wikipedia entry, for the sake of providing an unbiased account.

Sincerely,

Mario Canseco

mario.canseco@angus-reid.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.20.241 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Mario, just a heads up one of the best parts of Wikipedia is that everyone can edit it, if you disagree with something fix it. In my experience the best way to not get something done on wikipedia is to tell someone else to do it...   RP459 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Mario, you are free to edit what you like, so long as it's substantiated by reliable sources. That said, I see no evidence to support your above claims. It may not be of much importance, though, as I was considering removing the intricate detail from what's becoming a long, dense, and unwieldly section, anyway; if anyone agrees with that as an option, please feel free to start trimming!
 * (As an aside: from the looks of the situation as you tell it, you may have offended Finch first by dismissing his rational request to have biased wording removed from a poll question. Two wrongs, of course, don't make a right, but, I wouldn't take what he did so seriously without first looking at my own actions. Just my two cents.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Miesianiacal,

Thank you for your response. I felt it necessary to provide context to what this entry said about me and the company. A discussion on whether a polling firm should heed to the wishes of a particular person or group has little to do with the debate over the monarchy in Canada. It becomes even less relevant if only one side is allowed to have a say.

Mario —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.20.241 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No troubles. And, while I agree that too much detail on the back and forth between the League and Angus Reid is unnecessary, I do feel the skewed nature of the questions is relevant; the feelings of monarchists and republicans alike on such matters is covered.
 * PS- Get in contact again with Bob Finch; don't hold a grudge! ;) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Template: Paradox Royal Family
Holy smokers. It seems we need 16 seperate (though identical) templates. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If ya wanna create 15 Templates of the other Royal Families) & the other 15 Royal Families articles? I'm content. There's room for such articles on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't see how we can have templates for unverified concepts. We got sources for two, and I doubt we'll get any more; I've looked for info on "Australian Royal Family" and "Jamaican Royal Family" and come up with zilch. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The creation of a Template: Canadian Royal Family & an article Canadian Royal Family is a start. That way, ya can delete the Canadian entry at Template: British Royal Family. I've no problem with such creations, they're certainly not original research. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, well, that was tried some time ago and went down like a lead brick tied to a tank being driven by a 500lb man with a pet elephant. I don't see why one template can't serve "all", anyway; I'm okay with sharing! ;) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon, many see the Commonwealth as being the British Commonwealth. Until you re-educated me, I didn't know Canada had its own royal family. Anyways, until others are re-educated, I've no prob with the Canadian linkage at the current Template. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Re-educate". I like it; it has a certain Clockwork Orange ring to it! Anyway, we'll see what happens. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang in there; the opposers will come around. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Canadian National Vimy Memorial
I undid you edit regarding Edward VIII acting as King of Canada at the unveiling of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial. Your statement may be correct, I don't know in what capacity he was acting, but it does need to be cited. If I get the chance tonight, I will see about finding a citation to back up the statement and then reinsert it. If you have a source alreayd you can always do so youreslf but I just wanted to let you know that I'll also try and find one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI. I found a source and reinsered the info. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! Er, that was fast... I thought I recalled where I could find one, but you've speedily beaten me to it. You were, of course, right; a source is an improvement. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the edit was in good faith, the least I could do was try and help out. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross (Canada)
"Ultimately the plan to award the Victoria Cross in this fashion was quietly dropped, leaving the Canadian Unknown Soldier distinct from both his American and British counterparts, who were awarded the British Victoria Cross and the American Medal of Honor, respectively.[22]" From reading this passage, this is talking about awarding the top decoration to their own Unknown Soldier, not the presentation of the Canadian VC to the American Unknown. This is what I tried to point out, but the edit summary can only do so much. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded to at Talk:Victoria Cross (Canada). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Royalty Website
Howdy Mies. Jumpers, what a mess at that website. They've got it mentioned, the 20th anniversary of Japanese Emperor Akihito's coronation, being 'Nov 12, 2009'. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which website? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Royalty News. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Never heard of it. Are you sure you're a republican, GoodDay? You look at Royalty News and I don't!? :P -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm republican, I like finding 'errors' in such websites. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada
Just a quick note to thank you for the very fine job that you are doing on this article, and indeed in the area of Canadian medals more generally. Orders, decorations, and medals of Canada certainly now seems to set the standard for all other medals-by-country pages!

 X damr  talk 11:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's nice to know it's appreciated! -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks again, Buzz. I shall add it to my trophy case! -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlie & Cam's 11-day visit
$2.57 million. That's how much it cost Canadian taxpayers. We (the Canadian republicans) are not amused. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Imagine what it would cost taxpayers for the president's kids to travel 'round the country. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At least it would be our 'living in Ottawa' Head of State. Buckingham Palace is too far away for me to through tamatoes. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just throw tomatoes at Rideau Hall; I think there's an organic garden on the grounds where some are grown. The Governor General can send the mashed up fruit to the Queen via FedEx. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, wait... Isn't Government House in Fredericton closer? --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, your sovereign wears army boots. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * She used to. Now she wears wellies. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's true, she did; giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Would a president's kids be any more expensive than a GG's if Canada maintained a parliamentary system? -Rrius (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is kind of moot; the children of the Governor General don't have any role associated with the viceregal office (unless one stands in as consort if the GG is single). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was reacting to your comment about a president's kids versus the Queen's. -Rrius (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

QE II schools in BC
I'm not familiar enough with those schools to know which Queen Elizabeth they were named for; HM Liz or HM The Queen Mother; currently you've got them listed in both places.Skookum1 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada – United States relations
In response to discussion at Talk:Canada – United States relations, it has been proposed that the lead image at Canada – United States relations be changed from one featuring Canada's Governor General to one featuring Canada's Prime Minister. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Talk:Canada – United States relations. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Small refs
What's with the wrapping of refs with ? Has this been discussed anywhere? MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a formatting thing to keep line spacing consistent; without the wrapping, the ref tags push lines of text apart. It's been discussed a few times, but these always dissipate without resolution. If you truly object to it, I'll remove the formatting from the article; I won't push the matter. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't object (I agree that we need proper uniform line-spacing, but it should not be thru tiny ref numbers), it is the fact that this is only being done through a tiny proportion of articles. I am an editor with 2 years experience, and having read a billion articles, I arrived here and thought, WTF?, I had never seen such reffing ever on WP. This issue needs to be discussed centrally, it is just odd, and obviously detrimental, to have just a tiny few articles using small numbers to get around this flaw. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, there should be some universal policy on the matter. However, as I said, discussions on the subject that I've seen take place over my 5 years of editing have never come to any resolution. It seems to me now that the issue is just too wide-ranging to for some common answer to ever be reached. Perhaps I've just become jaded, though. If you've any promise, I'm willing to go along. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought WP:VP was the obvious place. This is after all something that affects the entire readership. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, it was raised there; some time ago now, though. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Rwanda joins 'British' Commonwealth
See the link at List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations article. Don't it make ya wanna scream? GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand; which link? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Reference #25, next to Rwanda's entry date. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. No surprise, really; it's an American reference, and, for some bizarre reason, Americans are hideously out of date with their terminology. They sill use "Queen of England", for god's sake, and the last one of those died three centuries ago! -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's maddening. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help that the English help perpetuate the problem (which isn't universal, by the way). Really, since Americans never think about the Commonwealth, "British Commonwealth" is a helpful reminder for most of them (us, whatever). What's sad is that the author uses the inaccurate name twice, but never gets around to using the correct name. -Rrius (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll never forget the Larry King Live moment, between Paul McCartney & Danny Williams, when Larry King called Newfoundland and Labrador, New Finland. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough that the "Queen of England" and "British Commonwealth" thing isn't unique to Americans; but it does seem that they're guilty of it more often. Perhaps that's just because we Canadians get inundated with more American media than British. Still, you'd think journalists anywhere could do a little fact-checking first; I mean, Wikipedia's readily available! As for King; maybe he'd been drinking a little and slurred his "Newfoundland" into "Newfinland"...? Don't the Newfies pronounce it as "Noofndland" anyway? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't blaming Canadians; I was say that Americans (and not all of us do it) who refer to the "Queen of England" should be forgiven because some English folk do it. The latter should certainly know better, but for whatever reason they still do it wrong. Frankly, most Americans probably go their whole lives without saying "British Commonwealth" or "Commonwealth of Nations", so I'm not sure how much there is to that. -Rrius (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Government House, New Westminster
This is only a section on the New Westminster for now; it should be its own article eventually (lots of nice pics in BC Archives); I created a redirect - Government House (New Westminster) - with categories for Government Houses and official residences - which can be at some point converted into a full article; I used New Westminster for the disambiguation because "British Columbia" was taken and "Colony of British Columbia" still not clear enough, as that's the same name as applicable to post-merger BC.Skookum1 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Government
Hi, trying to repair some history on this article so give me a minute. Andrew Yong (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops; sorry. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom's infobox
I need clarification. What's wrong with '16 Commonwealth realms'? GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The number is redundant; there are only 16 Commonwealth realms for her to be queen of. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Howabout 'Queen of the 16 Commonwealth realms'? GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the same deal. I've responded at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom anyway. If people really want "16 Commonwealth realms", I'll acquiesce, but I don't particularly think it's the best composition. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fbifriday (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Victoria considering moving to Australia
Hi. I noticed you readded to Commonwealth realm the claim about Queen Victoria considering moving to Australia, after I had removed it on the basis that it had no reference. I have removed it again. If your readdition was deliberate, please do not readd it without a credible source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think that was just my own sloppyness. Without proper sourcing, such a claim should indeed not be in the article. Again, my apologies. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Windsor badge
Thanks!

I made it precisely because I saw your comments, hope you like it. Sodacan (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian National Vimy Memorial
I have reverted you insertion of the 1936 Vimy dedication ceremony. the image you inserted is great image (I know, I'm the one who uploaded it) but there is only room for one image in that section. We could discuss changing the ceremony image, to one or the other, on the article talk page but please do not to so unilaterally as the article is currently a feature article candidate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Small refs again
Having been reminded of the issue at the Diamond jubilee article, I've kicked off that VPP discussion. See here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here we go again! ;) I've commented there; thanks. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay
I thought your response to GoodDay's argument on the Elizabeth II move was brilliant, well done. It's a sad state when so many think 'that's your opinion' is ever a valid response during a discussion, and even more so when used on what is meant to be a debate on a proposed move. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Howdy Mies, my "..that's your opinon.." wasn't meant in a mean-spirited way. My apologies. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happenstance: thank you for the compliment. GD and I go way back here on Wikipedia, and it's I who hopes that no offence was caused to him. Though, I don't know, GD, you seem a little cranky today! :D -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be assured, that's not me. It's likely my stalker, who's been hounding me since last October (his IP range is 166.205.xxx.xxx). The only socks I've got, are in my bedroom dresser. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know it's not you. I can't even imagine you uttering the word "cunt". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Undid your edit
Hey, I just wanted to explain why I undid your edit on the Alex Burrows article. If you click here, you can see that there was some sort of ugly error message that I traced back to your last edit. I couldn't quickly figure out what part of your edit had generated the error, so I figured the best thing for the moment was just to undo that edit so we didn't have a big red error on a live article.

Regards Jozsefs (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems I didn't close the reference properly; my apologies for the sloppiness. It seems someone has reworked the section in the meantime, anyway. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Please stop changing it back. Lets see what everyone else thinks and if they like it then change it back. Leave it for now. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not how it works. Please read WP:BRD to familiarise yourself with the process. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Canada and Governor General of Canada
Hey. onace again thanks for making the words on the infobox better for the PM's infobox. I would also like to ask if you can make a new section on the Prime Minister of Canada page about former PM's. Because a while ago the page on the PM was much longer and had much more info but then someone cut a lot of it and i remember one of the paragraphs that was cut was about former PM's. I just think the whole page on the PM is too short compared to other major world leaders. I think we should have some more info about the Prime Minister. And also I would like to also ask you if you can do someting about the letters on the bottom of the Governor General's infobox. I know they are awards and degrees but can we get rid of them. They are already listed at the beggining of the paragraph so it would still be there if you did get rid of it. It's just that it looks really ugly on the infobox. I don't know if you have to have it there but if you can get rid of it, move it or change so it looks better please do.

Thanks. 174.7.14.105 (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at an older version of the article, the only thing I see regarding former Prime Minsiters that has been lost was the small list of living former PMs. I don't think its disappearance was of much consequence; it was merely a list of trivia that could be expressed better elsewhere, such as List of Prime Ministers of Canada.
 * Looking at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of Australia, and Prime Minister of New Zealand, I don't note much difference to the article on Canadian PMs besides a history section. No doubt, one could be added to Prime Minister of Canada.
 * It is consistent to list post-nominal letters in infoboxes, thus a case would have to be made as to why that at Governor General of Canada should be different. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried that, but the word since kept coming out as Since, which is incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I've used the MoS version. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But, why is the capitalised "Since" incorrect? It's embedded in the template that way, and I can fix it, I just don't know why it's wrong. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was using the President of the United States infobox, as an example. Though I note, Prime Minister of United Kingdom & Prime Minister of Australia don't use incumbency date at all. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Don't mind the present infobox at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; it was changed last night to what it is now by the same anon used who caused the mess at Prime Minister of Canada. I see from the previous version that the "since" is indeed not capitalised. I don't really know why, but I'll change the template anyway. Thanks for your help, GD. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. PS - Do you have any asperins for me? I'm currently into the ealier US state Governors bios numbering & corresponding List of Governors articles aren't matching the Template lists. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
You're tougher then me, hehehehe. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That anon has been doing this kind of stuff all over the place for months now; just have a look through his edit history. In case you're interested, I filed a 3RR/edit war report yesterday and am adding more to it now given his return today. Feel free to chime in over there. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not a blantant vandalist, but he does have trouble with collaborating. I'm troubled that he doesn't respond to postst at his IP page. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is bigger then a 3RR report, his stated refusal to respond to posts at his IP talkpage & combative 'edit summaries' are a problem. A report at the Administrator's Board is likely forthcoming. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You know it's really interesting how you guys think that you can force me out. I'm not doing anything bad. I state my opinion and I keep with it. I can't get blocked for that. I didn't get blocked when I did the Canada US relations edit war and I won't this time either. Try compremising. Ever heard of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to force you out. I'm just perplexed by your snubbing us (other editors) at you talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Forcing you out isn't the goal; restoring some stability is. An anon who can't differentiate between "stating opinion" and "commanding all to obey" is going to undermine stability. You've literally made it evident that you've no interest in policy and guideline established to foster collegial working; your admission that you don't pay attention to messages and warnings on your talk page is damning evidence against you. Because you got away with something once doesn't mean you'll do so forever. As Rrius said at Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, keep it up and you'll be blocked. You should consider a swift attitude adjustment before that happens; it would be the best choice for all of us. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm saying compremise, you're saying I want it to be like this. It's not my fault you don't knwo what compremise means.174.7.14.105 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits undo other people's work.
 * Your edits add duplicate information.
 * You make tests in article space rather than the sandbox.
 * You bully other people to accept your version over those that had community consensus.
 * You bully other people to accept your version over their objections.
 * You edit war.
 * You break 3RR limits.
 * You ignore messages and warnings.
 * You ignore the opinions of editors on the grounds that they should wait for the opinions of editors.
 * You don't read policies and guidelines.
 * You make claims that aren't true.
 * You assume you are beyond reproach. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment 174.7.14.105, you don't strike me as the compromising type, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Canada (again)
I'll be gone for about an hour, got an errand to run. In the meantime (I suppose), it'll give others a chance to discuss the issue further. With just the 2 of us going back & forth, stalemate is inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta daaaa, I'm back. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey man, just wanted to say Good job and thanks for the edits you made to the PM of Canada page. I was a little unsure of the correct format to use, so I just put it in there rather bluntly.. Your edit was both useful and clean! Muchly appreciated! Dphilp75 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries; we all need to learn the ropes. I sure did! -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Parliament Hill
Can you explain why you removed several new and I believe better pictures of the statues on Parliament Hill. Most of the previous pictures were low resolution. All of the new pictures were fitted into the same boxes as the previous ones. DGERobertson (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The images you inserted were all of different heights to one another and the portrait images in the adjacent column, making the table rows inconsistent. I only had a quick glance at them, but I'm not sure what made them better. However, if you could make them all the same height and width - the same as the portraits - I wouldn't object to their replacing the ones there now. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what can be done about the heights but I don't think that slight differences in the table heights affects the quality of the table. Of course you can't see differences in the thumbnail versions but the full images are of much higher resolution in most cases. DGERobertson (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From a graphic standpoint, having the images all different, random sizes looks less professional. But I do see what you mean about the higher resolutions. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dger, the work you're doing at Parliament Hill is commendable, but it is still undoing the work I earlier did to ensure all the images - both portraits and of statues - were all essentially the same size; all the statue image files that are named "S-[name]-sm" are ones I sized and uploaded specifically for that purpose. If you're going to replace them, could you please make them the same dimensions; i.e. 350x500 px? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted quite a number of my revisions again. Thanks for keeping a good watch on this page but many of your reversions do not follow the WP:MOS. For captions, have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mos#Captions. It is not usual to use periods in captions. For the differences between an en-dash and an em-dash see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS#Dashes. I believe the changes I made follow the MOS and normal publishing protocols. I also don't agree with your insistence that the images be exactly 350x500 pixels. I put better images into the table, including one for Borden that had been requested, that do have a 3.5x5 format although the images were much higher resolution than your cropped images. It is WP practice to use the highest resolution images. The 65px command ensures that they fit the table so that all rows look the same size. Please restore my changes unless you can justify not doing them. DGERobertson (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made the appropriate corrections; thanks for pointing to the clarifying information I'd not seen before (though it disheartens me to think of all the articles where I've put periods at the end of nominal group image captions or used the wrong dash). As for the table images, the 65px size lock only fixes the width, not the height, and if the pictures themselves aren't all cut to a 3.5x5 format, the table rows will be uneven. I note now, though, with some embarrassment, that I totally botched up the images in the table, replacing the wrong ones in an attempt to actually keep yours in. I've fixed that too, I think... -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking after this. Don't get too upset with these grammatical infractions. I had some proofreaders take apart my manscripts, that's how I learned about these somewhat obscure rules. I have noted many such infractions across Wikipedia. It will take years to get them all corrected and it doesn't affect the more important content in the articles. Keep up your good work. By the way I plan to get a better picture of the Lafontaine/Baldwin statue when it warms up in Ottawa. DGERobertson (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
I'd just like to remind you that your account is still subject to editing restrictions off your last block, as details here. So just be careful with your edits, especially the edit warring and your reversions to monarchy related articles. Canterbury Tail  talk  18:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you're mistaken. There are no restrictions on my account other than those applied to every one else. Much has transpired since 2008; notably, the expiry of the six month limit on editing constraints as set out at AN/I. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a separate set of restrictions to the ones imposed by another admin. However I'll take it as passed as they came later. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the set put down at AN/I overruled that from a single admin. However, what I find more concerning are the hints that past slander against me is resurfacing. Whatever the legalese of multi-layered editing restrictions, I'd appreciate it if the insinuations of nefarious ambitions on my part could be stopped right now; they're unfair and rather counterproductive. If you've concern about some specific action on my part, don't hesitate to raise it; please, just don't make negative assumptions about why I did it. WP:AGF, and all that, right? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaborate
Merely ad the since Confederate at the top. The numeral should be easy to find. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I put a compromise edit in for the Massey article. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all you didn't contact me & merely reverted. Yes, that's alright under BOLD, but not overly curtious. Also, your last 'edit summary' could be construde as an accusation of vandalism/disruption. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well thanks for the effort, but that's not satisfactory. If the sentence "as the [#] Governor General since Confederation" is removed from its present location, the remainder will read only as: "[Name]'s investiture took place on [date]," which is unnecessarily blunt. Before considering something different, I'd like to ask why you feel it's so important to have the subject's place in the order of Governors General mentioned where you want it, rather than where it's always been? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move the whole sentence to the top. Why the numbering? I've been on a numbering kick these last few weeks & today is the first 'opposition' I've met. I'm certain we don't want to fight over this 'so' either we work together or give each other headaches. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I've no issue with the numbering; the numbers have been in the Massey to Jean articles for longer than a year (hence, you duplicated that information with your first additions). My question was about location of the number: why where you want it as opposed to where it's always been? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I want it up on top, for the same reason Governor General of Canada is mentioned at top. You can have the wording stuff (investitue, confederation etc), let me have the location. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in a generous mood (Note: I didn't charge ya with ownership), made a 'new' edit a Massey. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT isn't an admissable reason. What you're proposing makes for an inferior composition, and so far there's no reason why. Do your latest edits to all the articles mean you've realised there's no advantage to moving the number? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you frequent these article more then me, I'm leaving the location as is (for the Massey to Jean articles), but with my tweaks applied. Excuse my previous grumping, as I was upset ya didn't contact me first with your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually a revert and the summary "I disagree" is an indication of concern; who came to who first doesn't really matter, I don't think, so long as dialogue was opened somehow. I'm never really against change; I only object to changes that have no particular reason. Hence, I asked what was motivating you. However, if you're fine with the way things are now, I am too. I'm in the midst of a slow overhaul of all the Canadian GG articles, and hope to eventually get those prior to Massey in line with those from Massey on. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer to have the numbering at top, where readers will see it quicker. But, since you're content with my 'latest' edits, 'tis good. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you notice I worked out a way to have their place in the order of governors general mentioned both where you want it and within a composition I'm happy with? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks great. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of 'state'
why don't you replace instead of deleting?


 * Mainly because when I see the word being used in a vague or particular manner I don't see the point in having a link. When I saw a reference to the "Canadian state" I think it should really link to Wikipedia's article on the state, "Canada" (if anywhere), rather than a general article about the history of the state. Similarly, and to me at least the use of the term state in the phrase "state and constitutional affairs" seems rather vague, and I'm not sure what a link to state (polity) would serve. Anyway that's why. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Monarchial naming conventions
I'm taking a break from that discussion, as I'm just repeating myself. Figured I let others have a go. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review
A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You are a significant contributor to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to talk about the difficulties of including Constitutional role in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom on the talkpage? And, given that I have indicated a concern regarding reverts in the editing of this article, would you be willing to enter into a discussion of your concerns with an edit rather than revert it? I am neutral in this, and will listen to all concerns impartially.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was doing just that while you composed the above. I do believe one revert is within the accepted bounds of WP:BRD; any more would, I agree, compromise stability. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, current page move request
You're gonna faint, when ya see who changed his stance. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha. GD, you always shake things up. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If that article get moved to Elizabeth II, the next similiar articles to look at, will be the Scandanavians. For example: Charles XV of Sweden, who was also Charles IV of Norway. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Olympics precedence
I re-placed the Four Host First Nations Heads of State to the top of the list. According to FN protocol, they are heads of state of unsurrendered territories and the G-G is only considered a guest on their turf (as the G-G's office might also corroborate); in much the same way that QEII yields precedence to the head of the House of Wessex at any events held in Wessex (because the older royal house, as I understand it). The "heads of state" designation re the FN chiefs should not be taken lightly, it's not just a formality (to them). Also, I really don't think it's appropriate for a provincial first minister to be listed ahead of foreign heads of state and foreign nobility; he's just a petty local official by cmoparison (Campbell that is); Darrell Dexter and other Premiers were AFAIK also in attendance, though apparently unseated in the VIP box.Skookum1 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Governor General opened the games. As IOC protocol calls for the head of state, or a representative thereof, to open the games, Jean was clearly the chief dignitary in attendance. Also, according to Canadian precedence, foreign heads of state, ministers, etc., follow resident ones. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken this up at Talk:2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision of Parliament Hill edit
Hi Miesianiacal, I noticed you reverted my edit to the Parliament Hill page regarding the Centennial Flame not being "eternal". You said that it is indeed eternal, but the Centennial Flame's article says it isn't. Do you think you can clear this up for me. I'm a bit confused. Thanks!

142.150.49.246 (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted myself; it seems you were right. Sorry. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Help
I have started a request for comments over at Talk:List of University of Toronto people because that lovely anonymous user you encountered with Upper Canada College refuses to give in-line citations. Thanks. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons links
Hi - just a note to remind you that, per WP:SIS, links to Commons categories go in the "External links" section, should it exist, or the final section of the page, otherwise. I've fixed this on List of lieutenant governors of New Brunswick and List of lieutenant governors of Prince Edward Island. Cheers. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer on that - I hadn't realisaed there was a "policy" on the matter and was was doing what seemed logical to me... I'll put them in External links in future... I'm afraid I've already created hundreds of Commons links under See also :( As a separate issue - some of these governors got to spend time all over the world - great work if you could get it ! Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Talk:Debate_on_the_monarchy_in_Canada
Have a look. You've contributed to that article quite a lot, far more than I have, and probably know more about the subject than I do. And it would seem you've dealt with this fellow before. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  13:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)