User talk:Miesianiacal/April-September 2010

Monarchy of Canada

I've looked into your background on Wikipedia and I must say that you have quite a rap-sheet for edit-warring -- yet there you are on Monarchy of Canada, at it yet again, against multiple users (I mean the name-account ones), and hypocritically issuing "warnings" against it, which quite frankly come across as hostile, under the circumstances, especially in conjunction with your hyperbolic accusations. I think you need to relax and recognize the right of other editors to edit. If you are half a vehement as you come across, you are going to ruin your health. You seem to be getting terribly upset over some fairly minor changes in wording, relating to some fairly straightforward history. It should not be seen as problematic for other editors to try out different wording, and this sort of minor tweaking should not need lengthy discussion on the talk-page. I strongly suggest that you cease and desist from so persistently putting things back as you, personally, want them.

Please, for your own sake as well as for the good of Wikipedia, consider your history of conflicts with other editors -- the escalating blocks you've had, the reams and reams of arguing and its tendency to turn personally nasty, the continual involvement of administrators in one way or another. If you look at it honestly, trying to be objective, you should see that you, and your behaviour and attitude, are the common denominator. This stuff is not helping the project, and I don't see how it can be doing you any good, either.

Sincerely,

205.250.72.215 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, before commenting further, have a read of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Your remarks are personal and unnecessary.

Secondly, you are an anonymous user making edits to matter that is clearly already contentious, doing so in a manner counter to guidelines such as WP:BRD and WP:CONS, and generally refusing to participate in discussions on the talk page. As you employ multiple IPs, it becomes extremely difficult to notify you of your policy and guideline breaches, though you seem to ignore them anyway, given that you've just reverted again at the article in question, giving an edit summary that shows a gross misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. All together, you are engaging in behaviour that only serves to inflame.

I suggest you review the rules of this project and make more of an effort to abide by them. Either way, as you've obviously noted from my own example, you'll either learn or leave. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I see from your aggressive response that I have made no impression at all on you. I'm sorry that I've upset you further. Do try to calm down; these are only some niggling differences, in an activity that is far from a matter of life and death. Maybe you should take a Wiki-break. That might give you a chance get a proper perspective.

Cordially,

205.250.72.215 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And I see from your dismissal of criticism of your editing habits as "aggressive response", you continue to beleive you're immune to Wkipedia policy and guidelines. I sincerely hope you're going to rectify that very soon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No such dismissal; no such belief. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of your criticisms of me, your response was aggressive -- a lashing back against the suggestion that your attitude and actions are problematic, rather than any evident consideration of that suggestion. Ironically, this response of yours is typical of your troublesome mode of interaction of with other editors, about which you need to think. -- 205.250.72.215 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You believe it was aggressive; perhaps you're simply too sensitive. Show no respect (by ignoring policies and guidelines, avoiding contact through switching anonymous IPs, and then audaciously levelling personal criticisms on others) and you'll probably get little in return. Nice to see the lines of communication opening up, though, if only a little. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Queen does not represent Canada outside of Canada

From Rideau Hall When Her Majesty travels abroad in the world she doesn't travel as the "Queen of Canada" she travels as the Queen of Great Britain. And that is why it is necessary, by the way, for the Governor General to travel abroad representing Canada, because the Queen cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.67.72 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an actual source for that? Because, I have quite a few that say the opposite. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there have been several examples of HM acting as Queen of Canada outside of Canada. The 60th anniversary ceremonies of the landings at Juno Beach is one example. During the recent Vimy Ridge memorials, she also released statements referring to "We as proud Canadians...". I'm sure it shouldn't be tough to find those references..

Thus, stating that HM doesn't travel as Queen of Canada is untrue. It is simply more the case that when Canadian interests are represented outside of Canada, the GG does it. Should the Canadian Government request that HM were to go somewhere or do something on behalf of Canada, (Such as the ceremony for the landings at Juno) she is then acting as Queen of Canada.

When HM travels, she represents whichever of her Governments requested she take the trip, if it be the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ETC, which then shows which Crown she is "wearing" Dphilp75 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

With all the past & current bickering over Liz's article title, let's hope Charlie chooses the regnal name George VII. Can you imagine the spats if he chooses Charles III? GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!! You know, that very same thought occurred to me as well! Dphilp75 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can lobby Clarence House now to urge him to adopt something truly unique: Chartreuse XII, maybe? Gowron the Devourer? For the sake of Wikipedia, of course. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Day

It is known as the May Long Weekend in BC and no one here calls is May two-four so perhaps this is a regional bias, but at least there is some verification of the former and none for the other terms. Feel free to take this up on the talk page, but as it is, it's the second-best reference to a term on the page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to disbelieve you, but Wikipedia works on verifiability, not word of mouth, so your assertion needs a reliable source. As I said, About.com doesn't meet WP:V, in my opinion, but I'm not going to make any more of an issue out of it than it already is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"small" tags for refs?

Why are you using <small> tags around <ref> tags? These tags are already small as it is; there is no need to make them even smaller. Gary King (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They're otherwise not small enough to prevent lines of text being pushed apart, making for inconsistent line spacing and thus more difficult reading. The issue's been raised a number of times in different locations and nothing ever comes of it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point me to these discussions? I have never heard about this issue before. This should not be happening, as the reference text is, as is written right in the code, supposed to be the exact same height as the line with the text itself, so it should therefore not cause any extra spacing above the line. I found the discussion, currently reading. Gary King (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Phew... well, there've been many over the years; it's been raised at Village Pump and talk pages, both for aticles and personal. Two slightly more recent ones I can find are at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Square brackets and Wikipedia talk:Citation templates/Archive 5#Inline tag size. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've read those discussions (as well as this one, which is probably the most insightful). I assume you have not yet tried the JS or CSS changes provided yet to see if those help the problem? It looks like you are looking for a solution that works for ALL Internet Explorer users, which is understandable. As a web developer, I can also understand that it is difficult to create a solution that works for all major browsers, including IE. However, what version of Internet Explorer are you using? Have you tried the latest version, Internet Explorer 8, which was released in March 2009, to see if that solves the problem? Although IE has historically been known to have lots of problems formatting webpages, it has improved over time, and the latest version should solve the problem. Have a look at the following screenshots (NOT created by me) of the same article but in different browsers for comparison, and tell me what you think:

• Firefox 3.6
• Internet Explorer 7
• Internet Explorer 8

I can certainly see that the line spacing is uneven in the IE7 screenshot, but to me, it looks like the line spacing is equal in both the FF3.6 and IE8 screenshots. What do you think? The reason that I, and probably others, prefer NOT to use <small> tags is because they make the reference links smaller, so they're harder to read and click, and because they clutter up the already-hard-to-read wikicode even further, especially for newbies. Ultimately, ideally, all browsers should render the same page the exact same way. IE has perhaps the most quirks, and so it's promising to see that the latest version is getting more in line with the other browsers. If that's the case, then this problem should essentially be considered "solved", as more and more people upgrade to the latest version of their browsers. Gary King (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I note the differences in the screen shots you link to; what I see is what's shown in the one capturing IE7; likely because I'm using IE7 on the two computers I generally access. However, I don't know how to make the JS or CSS changes, and, moreover, I still wonder why the problem can't be dealt with in a way that affects all users, without individual fixes. As I noted at another discussion on this matter, other language versions of Wikipedia seem to have successfully avoided the issue, even for IE7 users. Why can't English WP? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely you can't really expect for all of Wikipedia to reach a consensus together to change the way it formats references across more than three million articles? Is there any reason why you have not upgraded to Internet Explorer 8? Again, the reason the problem exists in IE7 is because of the way IE7 renders webpages, not because of the code that the English Wikipedia uses. Now that IE has rectified the problem in IE8, there is less of an argument in favor of changing the referencing style used here. Gary King (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There must be countless people out there still using IE7 or older; I wonder why they (and I) should be asked to put up with inline ref tags causing inconsistent line spacing in articles merely because it's difficult or impossible - for whatever reason - to immediately upgrade their web browser. The question becomes even more germane when it's evident that the fault doesn't lie in IE7, but in the way the code is written; as I said, though I use the same browser, the same problem doesn't arise on other language Wikipedias. They did it there so I still don't understand why it can't be done here. And I doubt - or at least sincerely hope! - the input of every single editor would be needed before any change could be made. I'd have thought there'd be a segment that oversees such things. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And one further point, unless you can show me where this is the correct way to format a <ref> tag, I will remove the formatting on the article in question. I leave you to delete this comment as well as it is on your talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your pointless threats aside, you'll have to show where it's incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Threat, no. Promise, yes. You've got a lot of refs to fix with <small> if you think that's correct. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A promise to ignore built consensus and impose a contested preference without a new consensus is certainly bordering on a threat to revert war. I sincerely hope none of that is your intent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus as you suggest. There was simply blissful ignorance. I also checked a few articles in foreign language Wikipedia articles and your suggestion that using <sup> around <ref> tags is not the case for the articles I looked at in the German-language and French-language articles at which I looked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're on about regarding other language Wikipdeias, but, yes, there is consensus, per silence: "If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus..." You're of course free to seek a new consensus, but per WP:BRD, should do so on the talk page, not by constantly reverting to your preferred new version. If you're so sure of your position, it should be no trouble to get other editors to agree with your case. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

But there has not been silence. I tried to challenge this, but you simply wore me out. At this point, project wide, refs are created without the small tags everywhere but in the corner of the project where Mies edits. That just doesn't make sense. While people with your browser configuration may well have the same problem you do, you seem to be, literally, the only one unable to tolerate it. Making the link more difficult to use to suit one person's aesthetic preference is beyond strange. I would take this to a wider forum, but I really don't know where that would be. -Rrius (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There has indeed been silence on Victoria Day,

and almost every other article I edit, and I'm not the only one who uses the code (I picked it up from someone else); though, admittedly, it's rare; but, I chalk that up to the fact that most editors don't care about the graphic quality of articles. I don't know what you mean about wearing you out; where you brought this up was at Parliament of Canada, and I there acquiesced to your insistance that there be no <small> code around refs, as it still stands today.

You can see above that the matter has been raised before at other forums, but talk always fizzles out; I wish something could be done, but nobody ever seems to care too much, one way or the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And why do you think that is? Could it be that it only garners scrutiny for a few months at this time every year? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it fizzles out? As a software tester, I have learned that changes are weighed against their benefit. It doesn't seem to annoy a sufficient number of users. That is why no changes are made: they are not deemed valuable.

However the additional formatting seems to annoy a sufficient number of editors. This is why it should not be applied. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (with User talk:Rrius). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor page comments

Regarding this edit, I appreciate that you had something to add to the conversation but a user is entitled to remove talk from their page if they wish. By removing it it is assumed they have read it. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. However, what you said was salient and I wanted to add my voice to the chorus. That's all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Aware

I know you're aware of the editing, and as you know I need to warn you. You know how the game is played. It's always best to warn people as sometimes it is easy to get carried away. It wasn't intended as any insult, I was just warning both parties in this little edit conflict, you know the process. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. And my edit summary wasn't meant to come across as snippy as it would probably have been read. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The other party has now been blocked for edit warring anyway after my warning. Canterbury Tail talk 16:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rwanda

I don't know about you, but I've never felt any responsibility nor need to seek forgiveness over the Rwanda civil-war. MJ's apology on behalf of all Canadians, truly annoyed me. It's bad enough she wishes to spend as much taxpayers money as possible (her future foreign trips) before her term expires. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you know better than that, really. Trips are at the Cabinet's recommendation and paid for out of budgets approved by parliament. Her speeches are similarly vetted by a minister. And, in regards to this case in particular, I don't know where anyone's getting the idea Jean made an apology. The full text of her speech isn't up on her website yet, but from any clip I've heard or anything I've read I get only an acknowledgement of the atrocity and an admission that had Canada done more the calamity could have been lessened - not prevented, just lessened. You know the House of Commons passed a motion saying pretty much the same thing, right? So did Bill Clinton about the US (and I know you love American presidents!). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

MJ should've said ..on behalf of the Government of Canada. She shouldn't be dumping 'guilt & wrongdoing' on the people. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the speech is up now. She never apologises on behalf of or dumps guilt on the people of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The blokes on CBC news/CTV news sure know how to get a feller upset. Now, if she'll just cancel her future foreign trips. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I know about the stupid media. I can't imagine sacrificing my dignity to make such boldly inaccurate, ignorant statements all in the name of creating a money making scandal out of nothing. I swear I lose IQ points after every 10 minutes of giving my attention to the press - American and Canadian. Of what there is in Canada, I particularly loathe Global... "Will the dirt in your keyboard KILL YOU? Tune in at 11!" grrr... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you even get Global News in PEI? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain, I don't recall it on the channels. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lucky you! lol --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe, I'm signing out for a few hours. Has anybody prepared smelling salts for Tharky? He's gonna go into shock when he checks out the Elizabeth II article. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

hello!

I see your reverting the template..I cant realy find any discussion on why we would black out the links..this is not at all normal as we should be tring to help people navigate this topics, not hide them. The only thing i can find is this old thing here, but i dont see you why its black... I think we should revisit this decision to hide the links, i have been talking to few people about it that is why i changed them all!! I will bring this up over at the Wikiproject...Moxy (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can see there were different variations, some with red text, some blue, and some black. The composition that was decided on just happened to have the black lettering. By all means, raise the matter again if you wish; any decisions on alterations have such a wide ranging effect, I would think that getting a project consensus first would only be natural. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the Commonwealth

This is a non-free (copyrighted) image and cannot be used on articles for which a fair-use rationale does not exist and cannot be justified. This is Wikipedia policy: WP:Non-free content criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

smref template

  Hello, Miesianiacal. You have new messages at hgrosser's talk page.
  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{MTalkback}} or {{MTb}} template.

Template:smref is fixed now You should now be able to use it multiple times on a page without the name=parameter and have them appear as separate references. Hgrosser (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I should add another parameter to the template so that you could specify a size in percent instead of just<small>...</small>?

Template:smref is fixed now. Just remember that if you use it with a name but no text, like {{smref|name=xxx}}, it actually generates <ref name=xxx></ref> rather than <ref name=xxx/>, so it should not be the first occurrence of that name. This is the code I used to test it at Special:ExpandTemplates:

{{smref|wkqueygwgh}}

{{smref|efuygjyewgyuefwg}}

{{smref|kwugefwejyg|name=xxx}}

{{smref|wugdyefgwudg|name=xxx}}

{{smref|name=xxx}}

<references/>

Hgrosser (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor

Hi there,
I see that you are a major contributor to Lieutenant Governor of Alberta. As a person not in politics the lead sentence of this article is very confusing, and doesn't make sense (of, as she). I don't what to change it because I see it is the same as the other provinces. Thoughts? 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Toronto-Dominion Centre

Hello. Typically, a reference to an Ontario Heritage Trust site means that the Trust owns/manages it. Sometimes it is even used for sites where the Trust doesn't own or manage the site, but holds a conservation easement over the property. You are absolutely right the Trust installs plaques throughout the province (and beyond, IIRC) and has installed one here, but while the plaques are important (and probably the most well-known aspect of the Trust's activities given how many of them there are), they confer no legal status (they're commemorative signage) and sites with plaques are not commonly thought of as Trust properties. Moreover, the installation of a plaque is very different from a heritage designation - the plaques are essential an education program. While the Trust typically provides the Ministry of Culture advice on provincial designations under the Act, it doesn't designate properties, nor does the installation of a commemorative plaque (pomp and ceremony notwithstanding) in any way designate a property or provide it with any heritage protection. In this case, parts of the T-D Centre were designated by the City in 2003 (not 2005 as referenced in the lead, or 2006 at the bottom of the article), and other parts were later included in the Union Station Heritage Conservation District (which parts escape me at the moment), but as far as know there is no provincial designation (which isn't unusual, even for significant properties, where there is already a municipal designation)(although, again, provincial designations aren't directly related to the Trust's plaque program). I just think it's odd that the reference to the complex being designated links back to an organization that installed a plaque, rather than to the article which outlines the process and legal ramifications of a heritage designation. I hope that helps, and am happy to discuss. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise the matter was so complex; I honestly thought a plaque was an indication that the property had been designated as a heritage site by the OHT. I've made a change to the article that, I think, removes any erroneous claims, mentioning only the installation of a CHT plaque, rather than that the site was made a heritage property. The plaque does seem to have been erected in 2005. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. But even with the rewrite, it is extremely odd that the article lead is focused on a commemorative plaque rather than the more signficant heritage designation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True. That can be removed, I guess. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding.

You needn't remove it. While I'm not sure that I would have thought the installation of a plaque merited inclusion in the lead, you did, and I don't dispute that. Perhaps the sentence should read: "Part of the complex, described by Philip Johnson as "the largest Mies in the world," was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act in 2003 and received an Ontario Heritage Trust plaque in 2005." --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I will assume that you are okay with that language. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Day x2

Just to clarify, the reference for May Two-Four indicates that it is a phrase, but does not indicate its meaning. The dictionary is not available to me. Similarly for May Long. You are also not taking care and deleting edits that have been made to improve the article, which is why I tagged you for vandalism. I only did it after your second time. I now see that you did it a third time. Please take care when you revert changes that you're not deleting additional material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You may believe you are improving the quality of the article with some of your edits, but I can assure you I see the exact opposite; you are repeatedly undoing formatting that keeps line spacing consistent, clearly unaware of the effects of your edits since you won't discuss them after being reverted, choosing instead to immediately revert the revert, and you have just done yet again. Your accusations of vandalism towards me are thus wholly unfounded and presumptuous, demonstrating an assumption that somehow it's any disagreement with your edits (and subsequent uninformed and uncaring reverts) that is deliberately destructive.

You also evidently didn't pay attention to the guideline I directed you to, clearly outlining that references are not required in article leads, unless for some particularly contentious material, which the colloquial name for a holiday certainly seems not to be.

You should have discussed your other issues at the article talk page before being so disruptive. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You may believe you are improving the quality of the article with some of your edits, but I can assure you I see the exact opposite; you are repeatedly restoring formatting that is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. If you want to "fix" the ref tags, do it in the code, not in the pages themselves as this is not correct on English Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As for discussing, I have discussed it and it has been ignored. I am not being disruptive, I am editing for clarity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not the format police. The formatting has been there for almost a year, meaning it's gained consensus through silence on that article and you must seek a new consensus to change it.

You only just started a discussion at the talk page, after reverting to your limit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I am not the formating police. I'm just an editor. The fact that it's been there for almost a year does not mean it's gained consensus, it means no one has bothered to remove it. It means no one has noticed it or cared to change it. In fact, I have made edits to the page over the past year and never noticed it until today when I recognized that no other of the 500 odd pages I've edited have this formatting so I removed it. As I've said, feel free to get the <ref> code changed to reflect your desire to not change the leading when the tag is used, but don't add formatting to individual tags.

As for discussing, I brought it up on your talk page and on the article's as well and no one bothered to follow-up. Since this is a seasonal article, it's no wonder that changes happen in periodic intervals. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, incorrect in your assumptions about consensus; see my response to your comments above.

You only raised the matter of my undoing your erroneous edits after vigorously reverting numerous times on the article; something you have a habit of doing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True on one occasion accidentally, in the midst of another edit war. After I saw that you were upset today, I made the changes one-at-a-time on two separate occasions. The first one, you reverted (or just undid) all of my changes, not only those with which you disagreed. As we have seen the formatting change is contentious with other editors. The reference that is not WP:V continued to be restored. The reference added to the lede was selectively removed as you left others. The citation request in the lede was also removed for some unknown and unreferenced wikipedia policy. It seems to me as though you have no foot on which to stand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was within my rights per WP:BRD to revert you; you were not, however, to revert the revert. It was at that point you should have discussed your changes at talk, or at least made subsequent edits that demonstrated you had paid some attention to my explanations in my edit summaries, but you clearly ignored those and insisted your version was "right" anyway.

Yes, it seems there was another ref in the lead that need not be there; I missed it. That's not an excuse, however, for your actions. I've explained already about seven times why a citation request maintenance tag is misplaced in the lead; it seems the leg you're standing on is little more than wilful ignorance. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ledes require citations just like the rest of the article, particularly over contentious issues or questionable terms. It seems the leg you're standing on is little more than wilful ignorance. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, based on your earlier thesis, I would argue that you didn't miss it, you have given consensus to it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Since inline citations are used in leads only for contentious content, leads do not require citations just like the rest of the article. As I've said about five times now, the colloquial name for a holiday hardly seems contentious.

I will also reiterate that I missed the other ref in the lead. I don't give consensus, the community does; your suggestion of the opposite may reveal a misunderstanding of consensus on your part. I could be bold and remove that citation. You could then revert that deletion and justify the move by pointing to consensus by silence. I would then, if I insisted that the cite should not be in the lead, try to garner on the talk page a new consensus to remove that ref. That's the essence of WP:BRD. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that no WP:V citations can be found, I'd say is contentious.

The fact that you missed the ref is exactly the point that I and other have made regarding the <small> tags around the references. You cannot have it both ways. I would argue that it is not consensus but an oversight. As a software tester, I see this problem all the time. When you're not looking for something, it is quite often overlooked. It is similar to misdirection that is used by illusionists to great effect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would appear you didn't give enough attention to what I wrote. Please re-read it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

I will continue to "canvas" input from the other editors after you approve the format of the comment you want me to leave. That comment is on my talk page. So far, the only person on your side is mildly on your side. Not on side for the formatting but on your opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You can seek input from other editors all you want; it's encouraged in disputes, actually. Seeking input specifically and only from those editors you know will support your position is called vote stacking and using non-neutral words about your opponent in your appeals is called campaigning. Vote stacking and campaigning both fall under WP:CANVASS, and you did both.

I will take a look at your note forthwith. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments on my talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for fixing all my mistakes in the temples and for putting up with me!! Did not mean to make work for you!! Moxy (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Well, thank you! And I haven't even finished yet... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ref tag proposal

I can't tell if you accepted my proposal to try to resolve the small ref issue. -Rrius (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I said any help would be appreciated; so, yes, your help is welcome. I'm just not yet sure what is the best course to take. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That answers half my proposal. What I was suggesting was that I will help you push for a wider solution and will add the code to your custom.css file, and in exchange you will drop your objection to removing the small tags. I need you to be explicit because I am not willing to edit what I consider to be your files until you give me permission. -Rrius (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting an answer. It is absurd that the small tags are there when your problem can be fixed. If this is not resolved soon, I will move forward with proposals to get rid of the small tags. I would rather do so with your agreement, but I am more than tired of dealing with hard-to-click links in this one corner of Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's odd that I was thinking about the ref tag issue not two minutes before you posted the above. But, I've no idea what you're on about when you say you're going to "move forward" with proposals to get rid of the small tags; it seemed pretty clear to me that it was already decided by a majority that they were causing more harm than good and should go. I must've removed them from about two dozen articles since then. I don't know what "corner" is leading you to gripe, but remove the <small> format wherever and whenever you wish. Or, tell me where it still is and I'll take it out; I can do it in about 15 seconds using Word. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

It's not really consistent when the MM/DD/YYYY form is used in an article that primarily uses DD/MM/YYYY Pyro721 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it certainly isn't. My mistake; I thought I was changing it back to dd/mm/yyyy! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, all of the Canadian dates are inconsistent; both my passport and driver's licence have YYYY-MM-DD, and the Vancouver Sun uses MM/DD/YYYY. Pyro721 (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD are used primarily for international documents such as passports and DLs. The Vancouver Sun uses the Short US format. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Counting and WP:3RR

My first edit was just that: an edit. You had the first revert. Therefore, I was not a three reverts as you suggested. We are both at three reverts and I have no hypocrisy in my editing: you who claim that the long date format should remain as it is yet changed the long date format without discussion a year ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, your first edit was a revert, to 15:26, 24 May 2010. You're therefore now, again, in breach of 3RR. I suggest you self-revert your last edit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not a revert. It was an edit. I edited the page and did not undo any other singe edit. Hence not a revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I just provided the irrefutable evidence that it was a revert; reverting to an edit other than your own still counts as a revert. I urge you to take my advice on this; I know from experience and I'm sure you don't want to find out I'm right the hard way. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As experienced editors, you should already quite well know that WP:3RR is not a revert quota but an upper limit for reverting. After the first revert, you should have only continued discussion at talk:Victoria Day and not performed any further reverts. Please, no more reverts. —EncMstr (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all irrefutable. The previous edit simply changed the dates in the prose not the references. The second did both, and all dates in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You changed back the dates that had been earlier changed by CIS; that was your revert. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit does not equal revert. Sorry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert equals revert. Whether you want to admit it or not, you reverted four times in 24hrs on Victoria Day and five times in 24hrs at Thousand Foot Krutch. Why you're still going on about this is anyone's guess, though; you got away with it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether you want to admit it or not, my change was not a revert, it was an edit. I changed things. I did not undo an edit which is what a revert is. Feel free to report my actions as you did on the Victoria Day page and let an admin tell you you're wrong instead. I have no fear of repercussions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's far too late to report it now. But, if you're not more careful in future, you'll get burned for it. As I said, you'll find out I was right one way or another. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

General Motors

I don't care enough to join the edit war, but just want to point out that you are now at 3 reverts in the past 6 hours. If you revert again in the next 18, you'll be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Onorem♠Dil 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, where? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't realize you were in the middle of multiple edit wars. I'm talking about the General Motors article. --Onorem♠Dil 21:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I was merely trying to suss out if you had mistakenly thought this section of my talk was about me violating 3RR at Victoria Day (it isn't) or if you were indeed talking about what's now going on at General Motors.

I wonder, though, while you're here, if you can explain to me what's to be done when an editor clearly violates guidelines by repeatedly deleting maintenance tags? Is restoring them akin to reverting vandalism - immune from WP:3RR - or does it still fall within the bounds? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect that the admins at AN3 would consider the tag removal to be vandalism. It seems to be part of the content dispute. The editor would only clearly be violating guidelines if the tags were clearly necessary...which doesn't necessarily appear to be the feel I get from the talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, repeatedly removing maintenance tags does seem to be a block-worthy offence. Who decides whether they're "clearly necessary" or not? Is it not their purpose to point out a dispute, which will invariably mean someone thinks they're necessary? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that the reviewing admin would consider your edits exempt to 3RR. That's not for me to decide. Yes, template deletion can be a blockable offense in certain circumstances. These removals didn't appear to be vandalism to me. One person thinking something is necessary doesn't make it so. --Onorem♠Dil 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

True. But the opposite therefore stands true as well: one person thinking something is unnecessary does not make it so. In thinking about it, though, I'm now wondering if perhaps Talk:General Motors isn't the place to resolve the problem I see. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:G-20 Toronto summit logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:G-20 Toronto summit logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good form

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For reverting your own change when consensus was found against it, please accept this as a small token of my appreciation. –xenotalk 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You still need to keep your promise to change the date format on the Canada Day article as requested. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to remind me of exactly where I made that promise. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that, given the amount of time that's passed since I changed the date format at Canada Day, input should be sought on whether or not to change it back; as at Victoria Day, if the majority agrees to restore the former format, then I'll do it myself. That said, you're free to change the date format to the original; I won't revert you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey man, just wanted to say thank you for helping with cleaning up the ref link I made on the Monarchy of Canada page...! Dphilp75 (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Michaelle Jean

On Michaelle Jean's page you reverted an edit I made to remove sentences incorrectly stating that Jean is not Canada's Commander-in-Chief. As confirmed by this link http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=45, Jean is Commander-in-Chief, I have thus undone your revision of my edit, do not re-add the incorrect information again, thank you. 99.241.90.42 (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The governor general is titled as commander-in-chief per the 1947 Letters Patent issued by King George VI. The reference you keep deleting - a constitutional document, no less, which trumps a website - as well as a number of other sources, affirm that the monarch of Canada is the actual commander-in-chief. This is all outlined at Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces, if you wish to familiarise yourself with the subject. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It does? Please add that to the discussion on the talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please give people a little more time to respond than what you presently do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Government

Hi. You currently appear to be involved in an edit war at Her Majesty's Government. Rather than constantly reverting the other editor I would ask you to please discuss the issue and try to reach a consensus. If you are unable to reach agreement between yourselves you may wish to attempt some form of formal or informal dispute resolution. As you appear to be a long term editor I assume you are already aware that continued edit warring without discussion may result in a ban. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did engage the editor at talk. He did not listen to two editor's concerns and ceased responding. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Then the best way to handle the situation would be to back off from reverting and gain a stronger consensus for your actions (2 to 1 is not a clear consensus). Once you have a strong consensus other editors can assist in reverting the editor if they continue to avoid discussion and then slap the other editor with a warning about edit warring. By choosing to operate alone you both appear to be as bad as each other and ended up with the same warning. Road Wizard (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alt

I don't see where WP:ALT says not describe images anymore; could you help? -Rrius (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have the same request - that's a major change at Canada. Can you explain or provide a link to the relevant discussion? Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my action was based on this edit by User:DrKiernan, the summary for which I took at its word, given the user is an established and reliable editor, in my experience. Now that you've prompted me to investigate further, it actually seems there's been some confusion cause by WP:ALT's wording leaving room for multiple interpretations.

I've restored the rest of the alternate descriptions I deleted and shall leave the matter at that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Governors general

Please stop inserting errors into articles. LeBlanc was appointed Speaker while Chretien was PM, not Mulroney and Alexander was appointed to the British Privy Council during the Queen's reign, not that of her father. 199.212.27.245 (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise for the errors, but do try and be a little more congenial next time, though; I wasn't intentionally trying to spread misinformation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you do it again? 199.212.27.245 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar

So tell me what do you think?? I would love to use this image, but i guess we cant..Pls edit this at will or just tell me to F-OFF lol :) Moxy (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears quite nice. But, what do you plan to do with it? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing {{History of Canada}}, {{CanWars20thC}} and {{Indigenous Peoples of Canada}} for The Canadian Crown and Aboriginal peoples - The Canadian Crown and the Canadian Forces etc.. and replace them with this new one!Moxy (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I got distracted from this, and that I had to remove the sidebar from the articles where you placed it, but, despite the fact that I think the template looks nice, I did intend to tell you that I still have problems with it. 1) It duplicates Template:Canadian monarchy at the bottom of each page; 2) This one shouldn't replace other related navboxes (Template:Culture of Canada sidebar, Template:History of Canada, Template:Indigenous Peoples of Canada, & etc.), which make these articles more visible to a wider range of readers; 3) sidebars are generally quite disruptive to images and other graphics on a page, so, while one is sometimes workable, any more becomes problematic; and 4) the contents of this template are a little ill-defined (the postage stamps, for instance, seem a very minor part of the monarchy and hence I moved links related to that subject to the sub-template Canadian royal symbols). Perhaps I'm still not awake enough yet, but I can't right now think of a reason for or a way to work in this template... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

O well -->Template:Monarchy of Canada sidebar you will see its not the same as the one here...I dont realy care - but your ownership of articles keeps coming up... i have gotten a few email asking y the new template we made was removed. I was simple informing you of our intent- not asking your permission to do so. Y? is this being done you asked since there are already footer templates? Because when people download PDF version of pages footer temples are omitted. For example see History of Canada in PDF You will note that the hard coding will allow our readers to link back to Wikipedia to see those pages just like normal text will allow people to do. Plus Just for "aesthetic reasons" i think they look nice and completes an articles looks., but i guess the Monarchy will be the only one without one.. We will leave the Monarchy out of our updates for Book:Canada i just dont like this conflicts your always in. Moxy (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I am within my rights to revert you; you are aware, correct? If there's a large clamouring for this sidebar to be used, I don't see it. And, if navboxes at the base of articles don't show up in pdf versions, why do we have horizontal navboxes at the foot of pages at all?

I never said this sidebar navbox has zero promise. I just see it as providing little benefit at this point in time and in its present form. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

GSTQ

Perhaps you need to research what is a "public event". Legions, and military events are hardly "public events". Just because the public can (sometimes) attend them, does not make them public events. They are military and government events put on for serving members and (sometimes) the public. Regular public events do not play GSTQ in Canada. And just because by law they are "allowed" to (as in the Calgary Board of Education ref) doesn't mean they do. Your writings have extremely pov statements. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You haven't edited here long, so perhaps you're not familiar with WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

Regardless, isn't the public's attendance at an event what makes it a public event? If I do my research, as you suggest:

Main Entry: 1pub·lic

6 a : accessible to or shared by all members of the community [1]

Seems evident that a Remembrance Day, Victoria Day, or Canada Day ceremony put on in a park or other public place is a public event. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider any of the links you provided public. Every one of them is military or policing related. With the exception of the CBE which does not play it but states a law that it "may" be played. A public event should be "public", not military affiliated. Plus most of the veterans fought before O'Canada was even created, thus GSTQ was the unofficial anthem. Perhaps stating that it is sometimes played with O'Canada at military affiliated events would clarify it. Or leave it out completely as I would prefer. It is up to you. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Link 1 - Alberta Police and Peace Officers’ Memorial Day Ceremony - Govenment ceremony
• Link 2 - Held on February 15, 1965 (before O'Canada was Canada's legal anthem)
• Link 3 - The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command
• Link 4 - Newfoundland & Labrador Police and Peace Officers' Memorial Parade
• Link 5 - WW2 Memorial by members of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment
• Link 6 - Royal Canadian Naval Association Burlington Branch monument unveiling
• Link 7 - Annual Veterans' Service in honour of Veterans and peacekeepers
• Link 8 - South Vancouver Veteran's Council Remembrance Day March
• Link 9 - Calgary Board of Education - "God Save the Queen" may be played and sung to close a program
• Link 10- Canadian Navy & The Black Cultural Society for Nova Scotia.

Sorry to interrupt since this is a user space and not an article, but I have two quick comments:

1. If an event is open to the public, it is a public event even if one must pay to attend. This is as opposed to a private event where only invited guests may participate. Therefore a Remembrance Day parade is a public event unless only by invitation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
2. O Canada was written in 1880, and has been the national anthem since 1939. I don't think any living veterans fought in Canada's wars before it was the anthem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, but ...

1. O'Canada wasn't the official anthem until 1980.
2. Please feel free to back up you claim that "If an event is open to the public, it is a public event even if one must pay to attend". Seems like quite a bold pov statement. Also not all Legion, Veterans, and Police gatherings referenced are open to the public.
3. Saying that is sometimes played at public events with O Canada is misleading. It is never played at public events unless it has military or other "armed forces" affiliation.

The statement was misleading, period. It needs to be restated to offer no suggestions that regular public events in Canada play it, or leave it out completely. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of WP:OR to me. I'm going to take this to the article's talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then as a non-militarist, I'll have to avoid sporting events, Canada Day events, and I'll have to renounce my attendance in the streets of Vancouver after Canada's Gold Medal Ice Hockey win. My congregation sings it on the Sunday closest to Canada Day (very public event). So your statement of "never" is either dismissed as hyperbole or an outright deception. As for backing-up public event, check any legal register in Canada. Not even wedding ceremonies are considered private events otherwise when the officiating minister or judge asks "does anyone here know of a reason..." and the only person has been barred, the marriage can be challenged. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot. Born in 1964. Started playing piano at age four. Played "O Canada" and "God Save the Queen" on the piano at a school assembly before 1972. Remember singing it at every school assembly after that until I graduated high school in 1982. I never attended a military school. Public events since parents were invited (and attended). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

When was the last time it was played at a sporting event ? The 1966 Winnipeg amateur bowling championship ? UrbanNerd (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, Walter, but we need sources. I have a number, but UrbanNerd inists a Remembrance Day ceremony held on the lawn of a provincial legislature isn't a public event. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sports? Every NHL game where a Canadian team is present. Every CFL game. Every Toronto Raptors, Toronto Blue Jays, and Toronto FC game. Every USSF D2 game where Vancouver or Montreal are present, and the six games of the Canadian Championship series between Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. So I don't know the last time but I suspect that it would have been this past weekend. I'm sure I could find some footage of them. This is assuming you're talking about "O Canada" and not "God Save the Queen". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Um no. I think there may be a misunderstanding. I am in full agreement that o Canada is played at many, many, many public events. I am refering to GSTQ. UrbanNerd (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you Miesianiacal. But stating that GSTQ is sometimes played at public events is plain misleading. Military events seem to be the only one's to play it within the last 40 years. What if it went: "it is sometimes played along with O Canada at military events". Or something to that affect.

You say it's misleading. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Debate on the monarchy in Canada

There's some trouble over at that article. Some IP is trying push across biased views and statements on the article. Maybe you'd like to have a look, since you know a lot about the subject? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The situation seems to have calmed down now. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 11:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR Report

Hello, Miesianiacal! I see you weren't informed of the report filed here. I watch the page and have decided to get involved here - I detest sockpuppetry. Any "mortal enemies" out there that come to mind who this could be? The IP's sure know a lot about you: any similarities in "style" ring any bells? I'd like to help, because I think you were being baited into violating the 3RR. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to that. The anon has made an error in mistaking italics code in what he claims is a 4th revert with quotation marks. I expressed just a few moments ago that I suspect at least one of these IPs to be an individual from Angus Reid; it (and numerous other similar IP numbers) has always focused on Angus Reid polls on that article and it is located in Vancouver, where Angus Reid is headquartered. But a check just now of the other IP shows that it too is located in Vancouver! It could be either meat or sock puppetry. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The 65.92.XXX.XX's WHOIS says Toronto[2][3], but the geolocate says Montreal[4][5]. As a "Yank", I don't know much about Bell Canada - are they a major cell provider up there? This guy is clearly related, along with many others. Looks like a full-fledged "sock attack" for sure - I think you may want to request semi-protection for this article for now until more research can be done... Doc9871 (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see; "Angus Reid's headquarters are in Vancouver, Canada, and the company has offices in Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, and Regina." This could be huge... Doc9871 (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... If I use another service and look up all the IPs who've been editing that page recently, the results are as follows:

• 74.198.8.70 CA CANADA ONTARIO TORONTO ROGERS WIRELESS INC
• 205.250.67.46 CA CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA CHILLIWACK TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC
• 65.92.156.77 CA CANADA QUEBEC MONTREAL BELL CANADA
• 65.92.158.90 CA CANADA QUEBEC MONTREAL BELL CANADA
• 65.94.17.209 CA CANADA QUEBEC MONTREAL SYMPATICO HSE
• 65.92.158.84 CA CANADA QUEBEC MONTREAL BELL CANADA
• 65.94.85.143 CA CANADA QUEBEC MONTREAL SYMPATICO HSE
• 65.92.214.76 CA CANADA QUEBEC MONTREAL BELL CANADA
• 65.92.159.130 CA CANADA QUEBEC MONTREAL BELL CANADA
• 64.180.176.33 CA CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA ABBOTSFORD TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC
• 209.17.159.3 CA CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER VISION CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS

The final IP is definitely Mariocanse (talk · contribs), who is Mario Canseco, a VP of Angus Reid ([6]), and the 65.92 numbers are clearly the same individual. The 205.250.67 IP with whom you've been dealing is the same person as 205.250.66.41 (talk · contribs) (Telus, Abbotsford) and 205.250.72.1 (talk · contribs) (Telus, Abbotsford), with whom I had a run-in at Crown corporations of Canada. But, even then, I don't think the trail ends there; at that article, 205.250 already seemed knowledgable of Wikipedia operations. At times, 205.250's edits and those of known sockpuppeteer Po' buster (talk · contribs) closely overlapped, but the latter was known to be in southern Ontario, while it seems pretty certain the former is in BC. We'll just have to keep our eyes on this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into this as well - seems like a possibly major COI problem - excellent research! Socking with roaming IP's is a nightmare, as there's no way all the IP's can be blocked: of course that's why it's done. BTW, my response here was meant to seek thread resolution - not picking sides. It's still open, BTW... Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indenting properly

In regard to your interference with my comment at Talk:Debate on the monarchy in Canada, and your referring me to WP:INDENT, please note the second point thereof:

2. If two replies are made to one specific comment, they should be at the same level of indentation with the later reply at the bottom:

Thus my comment was, in fact, properly indented, and you changed it to be wrongly indented. I've put it back. This is not hugely important, but please be more careful. That's twice today that you've tampered with the proper indenting which I intended for a comment of mine. -- 205.250.67.46 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're a single-purpose account sock, 205.250.67.46. Care to "fess up"? You know way, way too much to be a user that just started editing yesterday, and your sole focus is clear. What are your other accounts, please? Doc9871 (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig Mies van der Rohe

Please take a look at my edit here. It is arguably relevant; but it may be too much of a stretch? Will you share your opinion? --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

David Johnston

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on whether David Johnston should point directly to the GG Designate? 67.69.104.66 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

David Johnston is currently a disambiguation page while David Lloyd Johnston is the GG-designate's article. I think the anon is suggesting that David Johnston redirect to David Lloyd Johnston and that a new article, probably David Johnston (disambiguation) be created and then a disambiguation link be added to the top of David Lloyd Johnston. I think the policy is that it would have to be proven that David Lloyd Johnston is the primary topic when someone types in "David Johnston". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

GG date formats

Looking at the date format around 500 edits in on Michaëlle Jean and it was not British format. They were ISO short dates and the one long date was in American format. Would you mind restoring them to that format?

The dates in David Lloyd Johnston are currently in American format and I expect that they will stay that way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't change the date format unless there's a consensus to change them on all the articles on governors general of Canada. I've been working for some time to get a consistency throughout them, including how the dates are shown. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency? You have changed them to your preferred format as can be seen here? I don't want to go through this again. Please don't make the formats British. Would you like me to go through all the GG articles to find out what the date format was before you tried to "unify" them all? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consistency. Do whatever you please with your time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Consistency does not mean my way or the highway. This appears to be what you have done. I have already seen that you have changed one article from its format. I will take some time over the next few days. Until then, please don't start an edit war on David Lloyd Johnston. Also, please realize that you have shown bad faith in this date format thing in the past. I wish you would show good faith in this matter and if you know you've changed GG articles to British date format, please go back and change them back and save me the trouble of showing you the proof. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Showing good faith does not mean bowing to your arrogant demands, especially after receiving a sanctimonious lecture from you about what a bad, bad person I am. You're clearly not showing any interest in the amount of work I put into getting all the biographies of the governors general into a consistent state, choosing instead to be gripped by this pathological need of yours to control date formats. If you want to have them all changed, go to the community and seek it's approval. I'll answer to it, not you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you of the discussion in the Victoria Day article? You fought tooth and nail to insist that the date format had reached consensus because no one had changed it in the year since you changed it to your date preference. Then it was discovered that for several years the article was in the American date format. You didn't bother to tell us that you made the change. That's not giving arrogant demands, it was discussing. The same was discovered in the Canada Day article. You came off looking badly in both cases. So this is not an arrogant demand. I am not saying you're a bad person, I'm saying that you don't operate in good faith. I have no need to control date formats: that seems to be your domain considering your history. I am simply pointing out that it makes no sense for you to operate this way. Seeing as how little you respect consensus, I doubt that discussing this will matter. I'm sorry that you're turning this into a battle. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what you think I came off as or what you've convinced yourself of regarding my motivations. I only care about improving this encyclopaedia. In that vein, I started a discussion at Talk:David Lloyd Johnston. If you do decide to participate in it, I suggest you dispense with your smarmy personal attacks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please be reasonable. I am simply pointing-out what you have done and how you have tried to hide your actions behind seemingly reasonable arguments. I am requesting transparency and not your personal preferences. Feel free to continue to obfuscate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet, it seems you can't point out what I've done without wrapping it up in your own judgement, couching your slander within what you claim to be the innocent presentation of past events. The past events aren't even pertinent to the present matters; their only purpose is to serve as a vehicle for your attacks on me, which are themselves part of a larger project by you to have your preferred date format imposed wherever you can get it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Judgment? Slander? Where? All I have done is stated that you 1) made these changes which was against the guidelines of Wikipedia and then 2) said that the changes have gained consensus, and finally 3) didn't point-out that you had changed the original consensus. If you're concerned about me saying it's your personal preference, I'm sorry: that's what it appears to be. My preference, as you incorrectly stated on the David Lloyd Johnston talk page, is not the American date format. My preference is to use what is commonly used in Canada. I published my preferences in an earlier debate though. I'm really not trying to do any name-calling. If you feel slighted, I will gladly retract the actual statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your own words are right there for you to read: accusations of bad faith, obfuscation, coming off badly, disrespecting consensus. These are not facts, these are your personal opinions and interpretations. I hope that one day you'll learn to tell the difference. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But are they incorrect? You edited in bad faith when you stated outright that the "consensus" of the British date format should be kept. Then someone discovered that you had changed it without asking from what had been the consensus since the article was created. Is that behaving with good faith? That's also obfuscation. These are facts. If I bring the other editors from that discussion into this one, I think you'd have to admit on whose side they would come down. There is nothing for me to learn from you pointing-out that I used these words to describe your actions. The lessons are yours to learn. Please be upstanding and admit to which articles you changed from the American date format, and when, and save me the time of uncovering it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As you've just again presented your opinions as though they were fact, you're clearly unwilling to listen to what I'm saying. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But they are facts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think you would do well to stop changing date formats en-masse Miesianiacal, and you shouldn't expect people to have to create a new consensus on each new talk page when you try to change to the British format. –xeno^talk 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's unclear what you're referring to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As outlined here [7]. –xeno^talk 18:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that seems to outline in relation to your comment is that over the course of a few months I changed the date format of 12 governors general's bio articles to conform with the 15 others in the series, all as a part of a wider project for general consistency across all 27 pages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You've made many changes in the past changing to your preferred DD MM YY format, and often used edit summaries that made no mention of the change whatsoever. Those are examples (and one doesn't have to look very hard to find more [8]). As I said, you would do well to cease this practice. –xeno^talk 18:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All you seem to be saying here is that you believe date formatting should be excluded from any project to make a series of articles consistent in style and appearance, which is what every example you raised was part of (inclusing the de Chastelain page, which I suspected would soon be a GG bio). That's nothing to do with preference. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Consistency" among date formats is a goal I support, but one that was roundly rejected here, with the apparent consensus to be "leave it alone". I think you would do well to cease changing date formats unless WP:CANADA comes to a new consensus on the matter (especially when the changes for consistency happen to align with your personal preference). Please do accept my thanks for your diligent efforts on these articles, though. –xeno^talk 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seemed to be going fine only until one particular person with very odd views on dates got involved. Regerdless, maybe in their deliberations, those at WP:CANSTYLE should consider the fact that a good number of Canada related articles sit within overlapping Canadian and British boundaries; could potentially lead to conflict if Canadian articles can only use one style while British only use another. Thank you for your compliments, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Parliament Buildings of Upper Canada

This is not the Ontario Legislative Building. Current occupants of the land are being moved so that the original foundations can be excavated. I have move the article back from your redirect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And what have you done to Ontario Legislative Building as a result of your revert? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough comment. When it is hidden under a redirect (and currently physically underground) there is nowhere for any User to update recent activities. Although I am aware of the site, I came upon the article purely by accident. I am sure, that given some time, we can find more recent referenced updates. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem now is that the history section of Ontario Legislative Building duplicates everything that's in Parliament Buildings of Upper Canada. I went to some effort to integrate that information from the latter into the former, so it doesn't seem to me that the solution lies in simply deleting the pre-1893 history at Ontario Legislative Building. It's not urgent, but it will need to be addressed at some point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, a fair comment. I have reverted my reversion until I have current information, then I will look to you for assistance. I think you are right, that it is probably better the way it was, until they start work on the site. I have created a temporary page User:Secondarywaltz/Parliament, which you are welcome to edit. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk)

GG dates - different angle

Hi M, I was reading over the RFC on date formats for G's-G at CWNB. I mildly support DMY format (technically dD Month YYYY as opposed to numeric-only DMY formats) but use and read either format equally easily. I noticed the distinction of pre- and post-1952, and decided to take a look at how we actually know we really had a randomly chosen Governor-General, Viscount Monck. For me, the definitive proof is in the London Gazette, which has the official record on page 4303. [9] That announcement of record is dated "October 28, 1961" under the masthead date "October 29, 1961". And yet if you read the Gazette, the non-heading dates are in dDth of Month, YYYY and to make it worse, on that same page is the War Office using "29th October, 1861" and the Board of Trade using "October 29th, 1861" in headings. This even brings STRONGNAT into doubt for the UK!

Just wanted to get your thoughts on this. It's a bit of a conundrum for me. Franamax (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a conundrum for me. It's actually quite wonderful news. Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you've already seen the explanation of why there's presently a "split" between Vincent Massey and Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis in the series of bios on Canada's governors general.

I never thought to look at The London Gazette; but, now that you've brought it to my attention, I don't know what to say other than it might be valuable evidence in any future debate over what date format to use in those articles that are bios of British Governors General of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What use is it? All three formats are used? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry if i was not clear..i was just saying i think its funny that you as the main editor of the article has to fight about dates with some guy that has never edited the page before. Moxy (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Well, it's not that I've been the main editor of that page for a while but that the anon is ignoring guidelines by making edits that specifically relate to an ongoing RfC, making parts of the RfC outline now incorrect. However, this anon is a person who's intermittently stalked me around Wikipedia trying to piss me off ever since consensus went my way instead of his at Crown corporations of Canada. Poor fellow. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Arms

[Continued from User talk:PoliSciMaster#Royal Arms of Canada]

The Royal Arms of Canada have been used as the logo of both the House of Commons and the Senate for years. Write your MP or Senator, and your reply is going to come on letterhead with the Royal Arms. It is plastered pretty much every publication of both chambers. As for it being copyrighted, it is trademarked against commercial use by businesses -- I don't think it's use in a Wiki entry qualifies.PoliSciMaster (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet, the fact remains: they are not the arms of either house of parliament or parliament itself. Misuse of the arms does not make them anything other than what they are: the arms of Canada and its monarch.

Also, unless copyright has expired on an image, or all rights to that image have been released, its use in Wikipedia is governed by fair use, which I don't believe would apply to the inclusion of the Arms of Canada on a page about the Senate, House of Commons, or parliament. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not exclusively the Arms of the two Houses of Parliament -- they are properly used by federal entities, and both Houses have been using them as their corporate logo for years. There is no misuse involved.

As to the copyright issue, the Trade-marks Act prevents their use by a business as a trade-mark for commercial purposes. That is not the case here.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the arms used on government publications of all kinds; I know what you're talking about. But, if you're going to put the arms into the articles on the House of Commons and the Senate as those bodies' official arms (or corporate logo), I think you're going to have to provide a source that shows they've been designated as such (and that info should be added to the body of the articles as well as to Arms of Canada). I mean, Jack Layton sends me flyers with the arms on them, but that alone doesn't affirm that the arms are those of the MP for Toronto-Danforth! Ditto for any media from a government department.

Fair use does indeed apply to images of the arms; a prevention against use by businesses as a trade-mark simply isn't enough. See WP:NFC for more detal on that. However, if it can be established that the arms are indeed the official symbol of each legislative chamber, then I think the fair use would apply. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know that both the Senate and House have been authorized to use the Arms, however, demonstrating that would likely require original research. However, I may have a compromise. The Arms of Canada entry (which I can't help but note uses the copyrighted Arms) makes reference to both Houses' use of the Arms, and a move by former Speakers of the House to get a distinct symbol, a move that was also taken by the Senate. In 2008, they were each authorized to use a badge consisting of the shield of the Arms, superimposed over each chamber's respective mace. The badge for the Senate can be found here and that for the House can be found here. While I have seen only limited use of either of these images, and the use of the Royal Arms continues unabated, perhaps since we have sources for those two symbols they should be used in the respective entries for the two chambers.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent research; I've never seen those badges before and I think they, along with the history and meaning behind them, would be worthwhile additions to those articles. Much better than the same royal arms that are used by almost every MP, the prime minister, the privy council office, each government department, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency... And I believe a sound argument could be made for fair use. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I inadvertently 'waged' in between the dispute by adding the 3 CoAs to the respective articles. For clarification, all ministers, MPs and Senators are authorized to use the Canada Coat of Arms as a matter of policy under the Federal Identity Program[10]. The use of CoA in Parliament publication is also mandated by FIP. If you have tuned to CPAC, the use of the badges granted in 2008 are quite evident but of course until such time FIP is amended, you will not likely see the 2008 badges in public publications. --Cahk (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, and was about to, as soon as I was done inserting the textual information about them, thank you for uploading those images and putting them into the articles. As for the FIP, I earlier today noted somewhere provincial legislation laying out the use of that province's coat of arms; it also said ministers, the speaker, and legislators could use them, but it didn't say the arms could represent the legislature itself. I haven't seen the federal version of such a law, but I assume it says the same thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no federal version of such a law. The FIP establishes the Coat of Arms as the "identifying symbol of the Parliament of Canada..." While both Houses have indeed been granted a badge by the Heraldic authority, its use is by their choice, and there is nothing to stop them from continuing to use the Coat of Arms.PoliSciMaster (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only find one website that says that: a sub-page of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (which claims it was last modified in 1990). Yet, at the same time, it has a section that mentions what "the Coat of Arms must be used to identify" (S.5.3) and one listing "Institutions identified by the Coat of Arms" (Appendix B, S.2) and neither includes parliament. A Google search brings up no other mention of the arms being used properly by parliament.

I suppose it could be mentioned on Parliament of Canada that, per the FIP, Members of Parliament and Senators can use the royal arms and they are sometimes used on parliamentary publications. But, I still think we need something more concrete to affirm that the arms are those of parliament. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In the FIP, under Appendix C, section 3.1, the Coat of Arms is defined as "the identifying symbol of the Parliament of Canada..." As to why the Parliament of Canada, or either of its constituent houses, are not listed under s.5.2 or s.5.3 of the policy is, as an institution independent of government, TBS cannot dictate to either house how they operate. Therefore both houses are exempt from the Federal Identity Program (see Appendix B.4).PoliSciMaster (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still contradictory: the arms are the symbol of parliament but parliament is not included in the two lists of organizations that can use the arms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing contradictory about it at all. The executive is also able to use the Arms. The policy establishes how government agencies are to use the Arms. As the two houses of parliament are not under the control of the government, they are exempted from the policy. It's their symbol to use, but the government can't tell them how they use it.PoliSciMaster (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So, the only evidence, so far, of the royal arms being a symbol of parliament is a section of a policy that doesn't apply to the parliament? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, we have a policy that defines the Arms as the symbol of Parliament and its courts, and establishes a program outlining acceptable use and limitations on its use by various departments, and exempts Parliament and the courts from the requirements and limitations of that program. Add to that 140 years of continuous use, and yes, we seem to have some evidence that it is a symbol of parliament. As for evidence that it is not a symbol of parliament, we have a vaccuum.PoliSciMaster (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While they are no definitive answer (yet) on the Parliament issue. PoliSciMaster raised the issue about courts as well - this one I have an answer for. Courts derive their power from the Crown so depending on which level of courts you are looking at; for example, provincial courts will use the provincial arms (i.e. Queen in Right of Alberta) whereas superior courts will use the federal arms (i.e. Queen in right of Canada) depending on the legislation that created the court. Another illustration of this are review boards under the Criminal Code, which they use the federal arms because they derive their power from Parliament and thus, the Queen in right of Canada. The exception to this rule is BC where the UK coat of arms is used in all levels of court.--Cahk (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

[11] This article from the Canadian Parliamentary Review seem to shred some light to this debate. It clearly indicated if the Houses so choose to desire and request for the arms, the arms would be the official symbols.--Cahk (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indentation

You wrote:

This has been brought to your attention before, but seeing as you continually shift IP addresses, it may need to be repeatedly pointed out: Per WP:TALKPAGE: "The first comment in a section will have no colons before it. When you reply to a statement, you should use one more colon than the number that appear in the statement you're replying to. For example, if you're replying to a statement that has 2 colons before it, your response should have 3 colons before it." You did not do that and specifically undid it when it was fixed for you, which, per WP:TPO, I am within bounds to do ("Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read... Examples include fixing indentation levels...") --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My comment was not intended as an answer to yours, addressing you, in particular, but as a general comment on the issue you raised, addressing everyone. It was deliberately not indented, as an indication of that intent. So you did not fix anything. Rather, you officiously tampered with something where you oughtn't have. So I put it back. Cheers.
64.180.165.4 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: And actually no, this has not "been brought to [my] attention before". Cheers, again. 64.180.165.4 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"I replied without replying." That's an interesting way to backpeddal. And yes, it has been brought to your attention before; please heed it this time. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Chief Sculptor

You wrote to say you had moved the list of the Chief Sculptors of Canada and asked for a cite."House of Commons Procedure and Practice Second Edition, 2009". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://www2.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/document.aspx?" ignored (help) I am fine with the move since the Parliament buildings are their main ‘canvas`. I note FYI that the Federal Stone Carvers are the guardians of sculpted antiquities in Canada's public buildings, e.g. Parliament buildings, Royal Military College of Canada, Mint, etc. etc. I note that Federal Sculptors do work in other media although best known for their stonework. e.g. Eleanor Milne (1962-93) designed stained glass windows and Maurice Joanisse (1993-2006) designed the memorial to the unknown soldier. Victoriaedwards (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this, and thanks. However, the link you provided turns up broken. I'm presently going through the website trying to find where the cheif sculptors are mentioned, but in the process have found much other valuable information. So, thanks again! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Parliament Hill

Hi. Thanks for the advice - will keep it in mind for future uploads/posts. Didn't mean to be a pain with the edits/reverts -but as you prob saw on my talk page I'm pretty much a noobie to this, so I was just copying other templates from other pages to upload pic. Cheers, David. User talk:Hellodavey1902 —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC).

No worries at all! We all learn as we go along. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Vimy Ridge

The passing of the last First World War soldier, having never even participated in the battle, has absolutely no relation to the battle. The section constitutes a review of the influence of the battle on Canada. The queen making mention of the battle doesn't constitute any contributing data on the influence on the battle on Canada. --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet, the anniversary of the battle was specifically chosen as the date on which to mark the passing of the last veteran. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That would then be relevant to memorial article not the battle. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

By "memorial" do you mean the Canadian National Vimy Memorial? If so, I would say that the marking of the death of the last WWI veteran was more related to the date of the battle than the physical memorial built to remind of it. I tried to find somewhere appropriate in the Military history of Canada during World War I article, but nowhere seemed apt. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right that all the detail and the quote isn't necessary at Battle of Vimy Ridge, after all. But, surely it would be relevant, and there's a place in the article, to insert a sentence along the lines of: "The anniversary of the battle was chosen to mark the passing in 2010 of Canada's last surviving veteran of the first world war." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The last surviving veteran of the battle died in 2003, so no it does not belong in the battle article. Given the memorial represents the entire war I would agree that it would be more relevant in the memorial article or the Canadian history of World War 1 article, although I personally think it's more appropriate as a summary rather than a quote. The last veteran has absolutely no relevance to the battle or any influence on its interpretation, as such it's inclusion is not appropriate. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference

Could you help develop and expand the new Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference article (for the series of meetings held between the 1937 Imperial Conference and the 1971 beginning of the CHOGM series? Thanks. Boxcar Sammy (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adrienne Clarkson

Thought I'd notify you of this:

I've recently been in correspondence with Clarkson's office, where one assistant to Clarkson wishes to make improvements to the article. I've pointed him to some of out core policies regarding biographies of living people, but it might be worth keeping an eye on the article while these changes are being made (probably next week). I've also requested a new photo, which they have agreed to upload under a free license (hopefully). Connormah 21:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I do have the article on my watchlist, but thanks for the heads up.

On a slightly related note, as I explained in my edit summary, your addition of "born" into the sentence "née Adrienne Louise Poy, February 10, 1939" was unnecessary as "née" means "born". At another article some time ago this issue arose when someone refused to believe the definition of "née" and "née" was changed to "born" simply to end the dispute. But I don't think it's necessary to make that change; do you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that - please undo it. Connormah 03:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No problems. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

British VS American Spelling

Hello. It looks like you are a very experienced user so I just have a question I would like to ask you. Do you use British or American English when writing about other countries, specifically Nepal? Nations United (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. It looks like you're too busy, so I asked someone else. Nations United (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been distracted by other things.

I believe the general rule is that the spelling used in an article relates to the variant of English used in the country to which the article's subject is most closely related. But, I'm not entirely sure what to do when the related country doesn't use English as an official language. I imagine it's either use American English as a default, or use whichever variant is used when English is used in that country. I can't seem to find a policy or guideline that helps. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll just use American English, although I much prefer to use Canadian, but if that's the default, I can't do much about it. Thanks for your help. Nations United (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarchy Page

Hey man! Hope all is well! I wonder if you wouldn't mind popping your two cents in at the Constitutional Monarchy talk page? I've brought up that the list on that page in its current incarnation isn't appropriate, and I'm just wondering what you think... Thanks! Dphilp75 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. You and I seem to be on the same page about the list. At least now if no one else chimes in, I won't feel like I am making an arbitrary and un-discussed change to an important topic! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You really should pay more attention

before making claims of my having no respect for others and wanting my way. If you had done some research on the previous poster on my talk page, instead of just reading what he posted and making assumptions right from that, you would find that A: he is the one being unreasonable, and B: he has no respect for the rules or procedure. He has been replacing several roundels on the Military Aircraft insignia page with his inferior PNG roundels, and while now doing it with SVGs(after being told that they are prefered), he still isn't following procedure. All of his edits he didn't give reasons, only saying "colours corrections". ONly after I reverted his edits back to the correct SVG roundels we have on Commons, did he demand that I myself give sources. AND, even after I did give sources, he still removed our correct roundels for his wrong ones. I on the other hand, have been very reasonable, even keeping his roundels alongside the correct ones. On the other hand, you also are being quite unreasonable. You could have just asked me to not change the image sizes, and given me a reason, but no. You just reverted my edits saying "keeping consistancy", and after I made them all consistant with my size, you come and claim I'm disruptive to your work. Pay attention and do research before you accuse people of bad faith, and also try asking them things first, rather then waiting until they disagree to accuse them. Fry1989 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen: You're the one that made the poor first impression at Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I don't particularly care about the details of your other disputes; it's the pushy and abbrasive manner with which you deal with disputes that concerns me. In this case of the LG's crests, we saw you make an attempt at achieving some kind of consistency, yet it was at the same time another push of your version over that which had stood for a long time. (And now you're here admonishing me for things I never said.) It's a bit hard to assume AGF when the evidence starts to stack up. That can change for the better, though, and I sincerely hope it will. I will certianly try and be more clear with my edit summaries in future. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I will quote exactly what you said on my page. "you're reverting to get your preference" and "so please have some respect for that", which does infer(atleast to me) that I just do things for the hell of it, and without respect for procedure. I'm not putting words in your mouth. Whether you care about my other dispute or not, you should do some reserach into it before just agreeing with a single post by the user on my wall, because it makes you look foolish when you agree with the one who is actually not respecting procedure in the first place. I don't care what you think of my methods, but when you attack my character, that I do not like. I try and get along with people, and you will find many evidences of that, and I can be a friend with you as well, but it requires that people ask me to do(or to not do) things, rather then getting mad at me after I make changes because I disagree. Fry1989 (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I said. Those words, however, speak about precisely what you were doing and communicate a request to have some respect for my effort, not an accusation of having no respect for others. And you have indeed shown little regard for procedure; your revert warring at Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and uncivil demeanour on the associated talk page is my first evidence of that. Regardless, I hope we can now put this behind us. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

Hi There I hate to bother you on annoying situation with an editor we seem to have in common with Fry1989 I wondered if you might have any suggestion as to the most expeditious way of getting either this guy warned or blocked. He has managed to ruin hours of work that I have done, in one arbitrary key stroke. And I see with you and others he seems to be doing the same RegardsVega61 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what's going on between you two, but dispute resolution is the proper path to take. I see you've already engaged at Talk:Military aircraft insignia. If that has stalled, a third opinion is the first thing to seek; and, if that fails to resolve the matter, it's on to RFCs and perhaps a trip to WP:ANI. The more people that are involved, the more witnesses there'll be to things like "As per sources on Discussion page, I am correct" (and all that's at the discussion page is no actual sources, just "I have two sources(and can give many, many more), you have one. I trump you") won't win him any favour. Though, as I said above, I hope he can change his approach.

That said, from my skim across the article history, I could say that sources are wanting from both of you. They're valuable tools in ending most disputes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Tryde

See my comments on his section 10. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Provincial Arms

Firs of all, the LG is an office and therefore should use capitals. Also, the Queen is Queen of each province as well, therefore each arms are Her arms in Right of each Province. For these reasons I am reverting your change. Fry1989 (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the specific position is not called "Lieutenant Governor". The position is properly called "Lieutenant Governor of [Province]". Either use the official title with caps or don't use caps with the general reference. Secondly, when I checked Armiger, I thought it said such was a person who grants arms. As it is actually someone entitled to use a coat of arms, it seems you're correct. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I will correct it to the proper title of each province as you have suggested. Sorry about that. Anyhow, thanks for checking my work, I know I make mistakes same as anyone else, no anger or anything meant. Fry1989 (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

oh, I see you already did. I'll just make them links to respective articles. Fry1989 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. I also thought that simply "lieutenant governor" might leave unfamiliar readers wondering "lieutenant governor of what?" Thanks for offering to fix it yourself, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Liz isn't Queen of province, she's Queen in province. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

  Hello, Miesianiacal. You have new messages at Fry1989's talk page.
  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{MTalkback}} or {{MTb}} template.

Don't bite

This kind of comment is unnecessary and does not win you fans - there are better ways to get across your message.Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? While fixing refs does at times feel like tedious and seemingly endless drudgery, that edit summary reads as pretty tame. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It reads a bit as scolding to someone with no involvement in the article who was just trying to add a fact (the archivist at the Elgin County archives suggested that I add it). Admittedly, I ought not to have been lazy and ought to have used the template. And I do well understand that we all have our technical pet peeves and we get frustrated with other editors who go the easy route (I have to work hard to temper my comments, for example, when faced with some of the crap people use in the image descriptions in the Commons). Given your surprise, it appears that the comment was not intended to be critical, so I will work harder not to take offence as easily. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I often wonder how much Wiki-conflict begins because of how inadequate typing is at properly conveying inflection! (And is the emoticon really the best we can come up with to deal with the problem?)

I'll try and keep as neutral as possible. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I won't be diving 'too' deeply into the title discussions there. PS: It's too bad the articles on Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII & George VI, won't be moved (anytime soon). GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Arms

Why is the coat of Arms of the UK removed? they are labeled as "in Right of the United Kingdom", surely as her most recognisable symbol it should remain in the article. Sodacan (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The arms were accurately labelled, yes; but to whom, exactly, are they the Queen's most recognisable symbol? Certainly not to Canadians, they're not, and I imagine the case is the same in most other countries for which she's queen. We can put all her coats of arms there, but there are a lot, and there's already a page for them all, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but I think this is too strict. But I guess it is a useless to argue Sodacan (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We're required to follow WP:NPOV. There may be other reasons to include her UK arms, but deeming them "her most recognisable symbol" seems clearly like a pov. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for fixing my poorly linked and worded edit on the Prime Minister of Canada page. I am a bit tired - :)....Moxy (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you! I'm oddly awake for 1 in the morning. And on a school night, too! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Upper Canada College houses

The article Upper Canada College houses has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I do not see any indication of notability that this should have a separate article from the college, and it would be a highly unlikely redirect to the college article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)