User talk:Miesianiacal/December 2008

Parliamentary Dispute

Sorry about the initial misunderstanding. When we alternated edits, we wiped out each others' work. It looks like now there is no major conflict so far. GoldDragon (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC) By the way, welcome to wikipedia, this beats using an IP address. GoldDragon (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, though it does seem to happen relatively frequently, and I'm never sure if it's an accident or not, and thus hesitate to revert it again. Should we notify each other directly and ask what the intention was, should it occur again? --Miesianiacal (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad you're back. Check out my talk for a taste of what "Roux" has been up to. -Rrius (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that he does no such thing. This long running and futile dispute has had the effect of ensuring that two good editors spend more time engaged in battles or blocked than they do editing. What is needed here is a determination from both to disengage. What is most certainly not needed is anybody trying to stir things up. Mayalld (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for informing me. I'm so glad your back! :) Love the new design btw! :) You may wish to cast your eye over Monarchies in the Americas, to see if you need to make any corrects. It's more your field of expertise than mine! ;) Best regards, --Cameron* 17:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I gave up hope (you'd return). Welcome back, Miesianiacal (jeepers, that's a toughy to spell). GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I'm not sure being back is a good thing, as I had much more spare time when I was on my "break"; now the dishes are going to pile up again! ;) --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back. I'll echo the voices suggesting you forget about roux, it's to everyone's advantage. You're a valuable editor but have not historically had the touch for good dispute resolution, please consider seeking advice on the subject as you need it. WilyD 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Liberals are confusing me

Assuming Dion's resigantion as Party Leader, takes effect today (December 10) & Ignatieff is chosen interim Leader. Doesn't this situation contradict Dion's resignation letter? Afterall, Ignatieff won't be Dion's successor (as Party Leader) until May 2009 & Dion said he'd stay 'until' his successor was chosen. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out now. Dion's resignation takes effect today (December 10) & Ignatieff is be chosen interim leader. The Leadership convention will be held in May 2009, where interim leader Ignatieff will be chosen the 12th Liberal Party leader. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What a mess. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers, in January/Februay 2009, we might have a party interim leader appointed the 23rd Prime Minister of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh; that's no big deal. There's absolutely nothing to say that a PM must be a party leader, whether interim or not. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

True. Anyways, my guess is Michelle Jean will dissolve Parliament (in January 2009), rather then appoint a Liberal-NDP coalition minority government or a Liberal minority government (that's assuming the Conservative minority government gets defeated). GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Sorry about the capitalization revert in "2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute". I was reverting another edit that pre-dated the capitalization edit and I got confused as to which way it should go. Cheers, CBHA (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry; I noticed who it was that originally undid the captialisation, and how they did it. It's really a very minor issue within a bigger matter. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino

I neither know him nor have ever had any conversation with him, would you however please tell him he's missed? We're a dying sort, and we need all the strength one can exert. Thanks, Igor Windsor (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just started a conversation with him; G2bambino is my old user name (see my user page, "About me")! :D But thanks both for the kudos and the notice that what I wrote at User:G2bambino is misleading, even if it wasn't actually your intention! I'll fix it now... --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may wish to consider doing that, otherwise people will think you have really left for good. As for the κὓδος, I have been paying attention over the last couple of years as to what is going on with the pages involving the royal family and the monarchy in general, and have noticed it was you who usually cleanes up in articles. Including sometimes after me. Thanks for all your effort, and I'm glad you're still around. --Igor Windsor (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no trouble. And thanks again for your compliments. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You may wanna consider, getting the G2bambino account deleted. Or have it made into a redirect to your UserPage. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of Denmark

I thought you might have...especially when I realised you had left the "main article link" out on purpose! Are you thinking what I'm thinking? My Danish monarchy knowledge is rubbish, but I'm sure we could manage a stub!? I'm up for it if you are? ;) --Cameron* 14:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, thank you very much Miesianiacal! I was actually deciding which award would be most suitable for your recent help on Monarchy in the Americas. I'll wait a while now or we'll look suspicious! ;) Thanks so much! Best, --Cameron* 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: In light of your recent major expansions, perhaps we ought to list it at FA instead of GA? I'm not sure as I'm quite new to the GA/FA process. Sofar I only have 1 GA.

PPS: Back later, off to watch the Royal Command Performance!! ;) --Cameron* 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Chicago's Federal Plaza

Are you familiar with Federal Plaza in Chicago? The Dirksen Federal Building and Kluczynski Federal Building look similar to the big buildings in the TD Centre. As a matter of fact, the one-story building at Federal Plaza looks like the one in the picture at Toronto-Dominion Centre. -Rrius (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I do know of it. I visited the centre when I was in Chicago some years ago. There's definitely similarities between it and the T-D Centre; but, then, all of Mies van der Rohe's buildings look pretty much the same. ;) --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

True. The arrangement, especially with the little building in the middle, really struck me. -Rrius (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Countries Lists articles

Hmm, I see whatca mean. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales can not be exceptions. Only independants should be listed. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against listing constituent countries, or even the anthems of nations without a geo-political base (i.e. Acadians), but their placement in any list should reflect the heirarchical reality of the constitutional situation: sovereign state first, sub-national entities second. Given the clear logic of this approach, I tend to side with Snowded with his opinions about political campaigns. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My show the United Kingdom only stand, won't change. But, I haven't been messing with those articles, so my view is just an opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

'Evolution' in the Commonwealth

Hi Miesianiacal,

A bizarre (and likely naive question): You edited a couple of pages adding a phrase along the lines of 'an evolution in the Commonwealth' with regard to succession. What is meant by this?

Thanks!

Iamanglin (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I don't recall where I put that. Could you point to an example? Just for context. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

For example, the Duke of York. See comparison. Iamanglin (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh... Okay, now I see. I believe my intent was to explain that since birth of the Queen's children some countries under the Queen's reign became republics, while others came under her reign as independent kingdoms, without, of course, going into too much detail. Do you think what I put was too vague? --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)