User talk:Miesianiacal/October 2015-March 2016

Olive Branch

We're beginning to let ourselves get overly frustrated with each other, again. Let's cool down & allow the others to chime in some more. OK? GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not okay. Because, unless something changes, no matter how long a break we take, the same scenario is going to eventually play itself out over and over again.

Nobody is disallowing others to chime in more. But, what does it matter if they do or don't? If they don't back your totalitarian demand 100%, they're POV pushers and only wanting to make a point; they're disruptive, in other words. You're being obstinate and laying the blame for the ensuing fight at the feet of others again. I'm sorry if that's not an olive branch, but, I'd rather see solutions in action than symbolic gestures. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Post-RfC

The content had all the appearance of deliberately snide and disorderly, which is far from friendly, as others can see for themselves. Qexigator (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Disorderly" makes no sense. "Snide" is your subjective opinion, so far seemingly founded on nothing except maybe some bad faith.

Disruption is one of the most major no-nos on Wikipedia. What GoodDay was doing—repeatedly making the same remark over and over and over and over—is something he got himself in trouble for a while ago. Reviving the practice at Talk:Elizabeth II was already in breach of WP:TEND; doing it again—twice—immediately after an RfC had settled on something other than what he ideally wanted definitely seemed like stirring the pot: WP:TEND, WP:DRAMA, WP:CCC. And he didn't seem likely to stop. But, I'm not an admin. So I asked the one that closed the RfC—since he's the most directly connected—to clarify. I don't want to report GoodDay to AN/I or anything. I, like I'm sure most everyone does, want disputes (if they're going to come up) resolved as quickly as possible, which requires, at least in part, as little disruption as possible. GoodDay not digging his own grave again would be an added bonus.

Your edit I took to be less indicative of disruption. However, WP:CCC does say "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive" and you weren't just proposing, you were making. Again, I asked for clarification. I don't know in what way anyone could take that as a personal attack.

Nothing I said was untrue. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reading that as a well-intentioned apologia (as distinct from apology) I have to say that nonetheless I stand by my comments, not to be disagreeable, but because the way in which you chose to express yourself was in my opinion "ill-judged" which is something of a commonly used understatement, in the language I am used to anyway. For my part, I have been aiming to tread fairly softly in discussion and go ahead with edits on the basis of acceptability, as I think the record shows. Qexigator (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to have your help please

Good afternoon. In 2012, I had added the following photographs File:CanadianProvincialOrders1.jpg File:CanadianProvincialOrders2.jpg, File:Insignias of the Order of Merit of Police Forces.jpg and File:Chancellor Chain Order of Canada.jpg that I had taken at the "It's an Honour" exhibition in Ottawa about the Canadian Honours System. However, today I have received the following message by User:Sfan00 IMG:

Possibly unfree File:Chancellor Chain Order of Canada.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chancellor Chain Order of Canada.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not the first time that User:Sfan00 IMG is stating to delete images that I had place on Wikipedia (he had an issue with a photograph of aide de camp insignias that I had also added). Each picture has been taken by me, and all that I am willing to do is share them with the public. Are you willing to help review the situation please.

Cheers Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems his issue isn't with the images you made, but, rather, with the insignia being pictured in them; the entries at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 October 28 state: "The design of the order medals is not necessarily the uploaders to re-license." I'm afraid I don't know if the copyright status of an object or artwork in a picture is a problem in terms of free use on Wikipedia. If it is, the matter of licencing on Wikipedia is getting to the point of absurd. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, it occurs to me that, since a photo that captures in it the insignia of an order cannot be deemed to be free for use on Wikipedia, it can be uploaded and used under the fair use policy, which states that a non-free image can be used if no free one is available. Apparently no free image of an order's insignia can ever be produced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This is an answer that makes sense to me. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Good. And, FWIW, it does appear you've been unfairly targeted. There are a number of other images of insignia of Canadian orders and of Canadian decorations and medals that haven't been deemed to be not free. Unless the image stasi have yet to target them... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A request

Would you please stop stalking my edits. This has been going on for weeks, now. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To back up that bad faith accusation, you will have to prove I have an "aim of creating irritation" or exacting "revenge for a perceived slight". In fact, I am "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", 90% of which are on my watchlist; because of the latter, I see you are tendentiously attempting to make a point, violating WP:NPOV in the process. In fact, it appears as though you're the one trying to cause irritation (you know the edits you're making to long-standing wordings on multiple articles are contentious; ie. you're baiting) with the wider goal of exacting some kind of revenge for the perceived slight of not getting your obsession for "United Kingdom and 15 other countries" satisfied at Elizabeth II. This is the same behaviour you used to exhibit at articles relating to the British Isles.

Please stop moving from article to article deliberately stirring up drama. I appreciate that sometimes you can accept a compromise (occasionally it's even you who comes up with the one that sticks). But, the fact you can be compromising only begs the question: if you're going to alter the wording, why not just try for something similar to other successful compromises in the first place, rather than go straight for the "UK and 15 blah blah" you know is going to get a negative response? In the absence of any other answer, it seems you're just looking to stir up a controversy (and then complain about it). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

(And also please don't misconstrue that as some kind of veiled threat.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, it's usually only you who protests via revert or alterations & let's be honest here, you're obsessed with avoiding "UK+15". It's been over 10 years now, you can't deny that you're keen on downplaying the UK's unique place among the Commonwealth realms. If you want to go out into the real world & campaign for recognition of "16 are equal" over "UK and 15", with the hopes of changing the world's view? then by all means, do so. But don't push for it on Wikipedia. I'm trying to reflect the real world's view of Elizabeth II & that view is she's foremost "Queen of the United Kingdom". I didn't make the world see her that way, but that's how she's seen. You're obstructing my ability to reflect that. PS: I'm grateful, that we both can lock horns now & then, but we don't go overboard (i.e ANI). We're in agreement, that trying to get an editor removed, isn't the adult way to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You have evaded the point. You have been on a mission to shove into many articles the words "United Kingdom and 15 other" or something very similar:

• House of Windsor
• House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
• Charles, Prince of Wales
• Queen regnant
• Current reigning monarchs by length of reign
• Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II
• Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II
• Prince of Wales [1]
• Church of England
• Queen's Official Birthday [2]
• Head of the Commonwealth
• The Crown
• British Empire
• King-Byng Affair
• Personality and image of Queen Elizabeth II

That's all in the space of less than a month. It is the definition of tendentiousness. It all started after the events at Elizabeth II, where consensus did not favour "United Kingdom and 15 other"; so, it appears as though you're trying to make a point. I know you know the words "United Kingdom and 15 other" are contentious and I know you're capable of creating other wordings; so, it appears as though you're baiting and trying to cause drama by way of battles. (After all, once disruption has been caused, you use it as justification for then complaining about other editors "behind their backs" and cabals, making bad faith accusations, playing the victim, and more drama.) As I said: This is the same behaviour you used to exhibit at articles relating to the British Isles and diacritics. (Being addicted to drama, battleground mentality, playing victim, avoiding culpability, making bad faith accusations about POV pushing and SPAs, back-handed comments, pointy edits, being on a crusade to "fix" Wikipedia: these were all criticisms that came up in the amendment request that resulted in your one year ban.)

So, please do not drop at my feet false accusations of stalking, as though, once again, you're a victim. Your gnoming is fine, but, when you veer away from that, you become a problem editor (knowing you can't go back to British Isles or diacritics, your focus is now on the Commonwealth realms). As Skyring said to you: "There are eyes on all of us. The transparency of Wikipedia helps keep us all working in harmony." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You're the only one who's following me around & reverting my changes, which creates the impression that your reverts are pointy. But, I do thank you for toning down your edit summaries. As for the content dispute itself (i.e. show or don't show "UK+15" or just "UK), we're not going to agree. I'll make edits that I see fit, for our readers & you'll do whatever you see fit for our readers. We'll leave it at that. Anyways, no hard feelings. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not barred from British & Irish articles. That topic-ban expired quite a while ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of "following around":

• Me: 23:17, 30 September 2015

You: 03:00, 4 October 2015

• Me: 17:16, 24 October 2015

You: 17:29, 24 October 2015

• Me: 18:43, 2 November 2015

You: 19:05, 2 November 2015

And those are only the ones that are glaringly obvious.

Many pages you've edited are on my watchlist. I know what you're up to. Others may not. Yet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Order of Canada - Advisory Council

Check the source for the Advisory Council http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14947 you've reverted back to the 2014 list (mostly) and not the current 2015 list which I had updated. Lasso615 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You removed legitimate and appropriate templates for absolutely no reason. However, I believe the list is correct now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

History of Harry

Hi Miesianiacal. I see that you prefer "art history" to "history of art" (although you gave no edit summary to explain why), or even "History of Art". But that's what it seems to be called at the Eton College website, although it's listed there as a "pre-U" rather than as an "A-level". I wonder if it was the same in 1998? I think it probably was. But I can see no direct support for the A-level subjects in the article, certainly not in that dreadful people.com source. Ideally I think they should be given as "Geography, Art and History of Art". Eton offers "Art" as a real A-level. Any further ideas? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not so much that I prefer "art history" to "history of art" (though, they both appear to mean the same thing, only one uses less words), it's that "art history and art" is better writing than "history of art and art" (what is "art and art"?). Looking at the whole sentence now, I see there's actually a comma missing that would help; it should be "after passing the entrance exams, was admitted to Eton College, where he studied geography, art history, and art at A-Level", or, if it were to use "history of art", "after passing the entrance exams, was admitted to Eton College, where he studied geography, history of art, and art at A-Level." But, it still reads clunkily. I suppose it would be better to flip art and art history: "after passing the entrance exams, was admitted to Eton College, where he studied geography, art, and history of art at A-Level." I couldn't be fussed either way so long as there's no "history of art and art". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too, and you're right it looks (slightly) better in that order. But any views about upper case for proper nouns? or the fact that History of Art probably wasn't a real A-level at Eton? or the fact that none of them is supported by a reliable source? Do you think it's worth a note at the Talk Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Re capital letters: I'd say it's best to just keep all lower case if we aren't sure what's correct. Art history (or history of art) typically isn't a proper noun and even if there were an Eton course titled "History of Art", "history of art" still describes the subject that would be studied.

As for A Levels: I have no idea. But, if you think a citation is needed, there's a tag for that. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Course titles, even university ones, are typically uncapitalised at wiki, which I find quite irritating, But I'll not bother with that I guess. But a tag might be useful. I'm really surpised that the people.com source is tolerated. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC) But I now see that DrKay has tidied things up nicely.

Serial comma for Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development

I reckon this page should be moved back to Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development because the official sources do not use the serial comma for the official name for this government post. What do you think? http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/mgm/dtail.asp?lang=eng&mstyid=26&mbtpid=1#Note27 --BurritoBazooka (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Without the Oxford comma, it could be assumed there's a portfolio called "Science and Economic Development", when, in fact, "Science" and "Economic Development" are two separate things. (That kind of issue is covered at MOS:SERIAL.) While I see the .gc.ca site does not use the Oxford comma, I don't think a website is really the definitive guide for proper punctuation, nor are we bound to mimic it. We should stick to internal policies and guidelines, I believe. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, and ultimately don't mind (because I think serial commas are much more practical). I don't understand the reasoning about where this information comes from, though. Websites serve only as services which host and publish information from a particular entity (kind of like a book), and the entity in this case is the Privy Council of Canada. There's also the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada and Industry Canada. These websites give the name of the office, as used officially. More sound would be to say "I don't think a government is really a definitive guide[...]" --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem entirely fair to give me one website as an example and then show me two more and critique my prededing response. Regardless, while I see there's some consistency, it's not because there's "a government" writing the content of the pages and we're still not bound here to mimic what others do. I'll hold that using the Oxford comma is the better way to go. But, I won't put up a huge fuss if more editors want it removed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The first one I gave was used as a source in the article, and I assumed that this was the practice around all of the government's other websites (since they have their own private style guides and conventions). The others, I found later. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

HRH Duke of Edinburgh and related articles

I think that Philip is only informally (and incorrectly) called "Prince Philip"; although I am prepared to accept having myself corrected, upon seeing some official (and preferably British; not Canadian, from Rideau Hall; et al.) sources. - Urquhartnite (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The bold edit was yours, but, it was reverted. Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to begin discussion. I suggest you seek consensus for your edit(s) at the article talk page(s), as it will attract the attention of the community better than any discussion at this personal talk page will. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 6#The use of "The Prince Philip" in article opening and Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh/Archive 1#The Prince. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Think...

We should make articles called British crown of Canada and French crown of Canada that have more details then the current list article. PS.... READ ME -- Moxy (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

M.starnberg's edit warring

A user by the name of M.starnberg has been making numerous useless edits to a large number of pages, such as Winston Churchill, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and many more. Although other users (including you, if I recall correctly) have pointed out to him that he is edit warring (see his talk page), he has not stopped and continues to make edits that serve no apparent point (continously downscaling postnominals in infoboxes, changing Peers' infoboxes to Officeholder version while those peers have never held any interesting offices, etc.). I am currently in the process of reverting his edits, but since he has done a hundred of them or so today, it is starting to become a rather tedious job. Do you know how to stop him from making all these disruptive edits? JorisEnter (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I can only think to bring the matter up at WP:AN/I or possibly at WP:AN/EW (I don't see that s/he's technically broken 3RR anywhere, but, it does seem like he's edit warring here, here, here, and here. (I'm sure there are others.) The auto-reverts (with no edit summary) won't be to his/her favour, either). There's certainly a lot of warnings on his/her talk page; you're not the only one s/he has pissed off. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, from the look of that talk page, I think a quick note at AN/I will draw an administrator's attention and probably result in a swift block. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

An indef block wasn't built in a day. Two days, maybe. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah. You have higher ambitions than I. Only a 48 hour block was what I was envisioning; a mere hamlet. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 48 hours seems a very likely outcome, unless things change. Martinevans123 (talk)

Well

That was a surprising thing to find on a Saturday morning! Currently repeating to myself, 'It's just an online encyclopaedia, I should really just relax." DBD 10:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems there's been a flurry of activity all over. To which part in particular are you referring? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Royal Households. DBD 09:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mm. Yes, I see now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Canada's royal succession

Let's see. You've reverted to male-preference at Monarchy of Canada & yet reverted to full agnatic at Perth Agreement. You've completely confused me on this topic via your reverts. Perhaps somebody else can decipher it, because I don't have a clue where you're coming from. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That is false. What you say about my actions, I mean. I do believe you when you say you're confused. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

29th Ministry

Re this edit: It really is the 29th Canadian Ministry (not the 28th), as our current Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau not Stephen Harper. My edit, that you just reverted, is correct. Trust me, I did not misread or vandalize, I'm not new here.

Click the 28th link above and read what it says. I promise my edit is correct. TheAlexOfEvil (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The part you edited refers to past events. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

BOLD

From MOS:BOLD:

• The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article, and often its synonyms, in the lead section. ...
• Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:
  • To follow the "principle of least astonishment" after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section

You've just given every reason why the text in the article body should not be bolded. The title is already bolded in the lede; the words you're bolding don't seem to be a synonym for the title and, if they are, shouldn't be first brought up in the history section; and the history section isn't the destination of any redirect. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn

I am sorry, but I have reverted your edits at Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn. Please see the article talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Please note I am not the filing party but rather a volunteer at the DRN. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New France / Colony of Canada

Hey Mies. In response to your edit comment, Crown of Maples states "Organized as a royal province of France, New France was administered by a governor — the personal representative of the king, who directed operations on behalf of the French Crown. Over the years, these governors, among them Samuel de Champlain, Frontenac and Vaudreuil, became closely identified with the early development of Canada". ie, New France was a province of France, whose governors became identified with Canada.

It doesn't say that monarchy in Canada began in New France in the wider sense (which includes Louisiana). It just so happens that the governor of the district of Quebec, within the colony of Canada, within the province of New France, was also the Governor General of New France. As a result, discussions in this domain often used "New France" to be synonymous with French Canada. Often the distinction between the three levels of government, and corresponding territorial divisions, is lost. Further complications are that we are a product of our own experiences, so what is today (territorially) Canada colours our perceptions of the status of Acadia for example, which is often though of as "French Canada" even though it is more properly "French North America" as it didn't come into Canadian possession until 1867 (although did become a separate British colony before then).

Consequently, when we speak about Canada under French rule, we mean the districts of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, and Quebec making up the colony of Canada, and not things like Louisiana, or even Acadia. Canada was then ceded to the British and formed Lower Canada ("Lower Canada consisted of part of the former colony of Canada of New France"). All of which I know you know, I'm just explaining my point and what I mean in edit summaries as "precision" and "clarity". Cheers. trackratte (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say directly that monarchy in Canada began in New France, but, it difficult to interpret the remarks about the establishment of governors representing the King as meaning anything else. So, replacing "New France" with "colony of Canada" (justified by all the reasoning above) seems a little OR-ish. But, leaving it is also certainly not misleading. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. JQTriple7 ^talk 08:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had not forgotten. I was merely out of town with a very unsatisfactory mobile data plan. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Section 38 BNA 1867

Mies, want to make sure there isn't other reliable "smoking gun" sources I am not aware of in relation to the Queen not being able to summon parliament.

1. Section 38 does not say that the Queen is barred from summoning parliament, it says that the governor general will do so in the Queen's name. Saying that the governor general has powers that the Queen does not contradicts the constitutional basis of executive authority in Canada, in that the GG is the sovereign's representative and has no independent authority beyond this mandate, ie the GG does not possess any powers or authorities beyond those of the Crown.
2. The word "shall" used within the section generally means "'has a duty to' and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor", which is to say the section imposes the duty to ensure that the House is summoned from "time to time" by the GG. In the context of the times it was written, it makes sense as it would be impossible for any one person to be able to summon all of the provincial houses, the federal house, as well as various houses all throughout the world. So this duty was automatically bestowed upon the GG, but there is nothing barring the Crown from carrying out this duty itself.
3. "Parliament meets only at the “Royal summons” of the Queen, represented by the Governor General" (Government of Canada)
4. "authorize the governor general of Canada to exercise powers and responsibilities belonging to the Sovereign" (GG)
5. "He or she fulfils most of the duties of Her Majesty including, among others, the granting of Royal Assent, the summoning and dissolution of Parliament, and the use of reserve powers." (Crown of Maples page 36).
6. "The Queen has various reserve powers, or personal prerogatives, including prorogation, dissolution and summoning of parliament, and dismissing and appointing a prime minister." (Canadian Parliamentary Review)
7. "The Crown can summon Parliament to meet at any time" The Canadian Parliamentary Companion page 77)
8. "ELIZABETH THE SECOND,...WE DO HEREBY, by and with the advice of Our Prime Minister of Canada, pursuant to section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1867, summon and call together the House of Commons.." (Proclamation Summoning the House of Commons to Meet on November 16, 2015)

So, from everything I've seen, the Crown has only ever delegated its responsibilities, powers, and authorities, never transferred them (inline with Letters Patent 1947). The Queen summons the House of Commons through proclamation, where the proclamation is promulgated by the GG on the sovereign's behalf (wording of proclamation is issued from the Queen, not GG). The reserve powers to summon parliament, according to reliable and official sources, reside with the Queen. The GG, as the Queen's representative, issues the summons in the Queen's name and on her behalf, inline with section 38.

There is nothing suggesting that section 38 is to be read in isolation from section 9 (all executive authority vested in the Queen), or section 10 ("Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General...carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen"). Which is to say all further sections within the Act are to be read in line with sections 9 and 10. Lastly, section 38 no where suggests that the Crown's powers are not exercisable by the Crown. And I mean "Crown" in line with section 35 of the Interpretations act ("(1) In every enactment, “Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” ...means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her or His other Realms"), where Crown does not include the GG and where the GG is only included in the meaning of the "Crown" in terms of being the Crown's representative (and via the Letters Patent came to exercise these powers automatically on the Crown's behalf). trackratte (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Miesianiacal!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Miesianiacal, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

WLM King and the UK Privy Council

The honorific "Right Honourable" was not granted by the Canadian Privy Council until 1968 (having had that rank added to it in 1967). Prior to that, any Canadian with the honorific had it by virtue of being members of the UK Privy Council. In 1967, the Pearson government ended the practice of appointing Canadians to the British Privy Council (Pearson was actually the last Canadian appointee) and the Governor General of Canada was granted the authority to give certain appointees to the Canadian Privy Council that honorific. See The_Right_Honourable#Canada. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WLM King was appointed to the UK Privy Council in 1922. See List_of_Privy_Counsellors_(1910–36)#1922 or the source, the front page of the London Gazette for 20 June 1922 which states "This day the Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, C.M.G. (Prime Minister of Canada) was, by His Majesty's command, appointed a Member of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council." 192.235.252.195 (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source was all that was needed to affirm that. Regardless, where is the source to support the contention that Mackenzie King is wearing the court dress of the UK privy council while he's in Ottawa? The image is from 1939, after the Statute of Westminster and Mackenzie King was an active promoter of Canada's new (then) status as an independent kingdom. Additionally, the caption states Mackenzie King is wearing the privy councilors' uniform, yet the adjacent text says ministers wore the privy councilor's uniform. Makenzie King was not a British minister. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, until 1967, Right Honourable was not an honorific style available to members of the Canadian Privy Council. Mackenzie King was accorded it by virtue of having been appointed to the UK Privy Council in 1922 and did not renounce that appointment and certainly did not cease using the style "Right Honorable". I'm also unaware of any order in council or letters patent establishing a court dress for Canadian privy councillors that was separate from British court dress, generally. If I am mistaken, please show me the document. Thirdly, the court uniforms worn in the photograph are consistent with the descriptions given in the article so there is no reason to think they are not what they are described as being. Fourthy, the source, for the accompanying text is Dress and insignia worn at His Majesty's court, issued with the authority of the Lord Chamberlain published in 1937 and it makes specific reference to "Officers of the governments of His Majesty's Oversea dominions, except India" (see page 50) and Dominions, Colonies, and States having responsible government including "Cabinet Ministers of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa" who may wear the third class civil uniform "unless those covered by the preceding regulation" (eg those dominion cabinet ministers who are members of the UK Privy Council and are Right Honourable such as Mackenzie King who is clearly not wearing the third class civil uniform but the uniform worn by UK Privy Counsellors such as himself), hence the court dress used in Canada, even after the Statute of Westminster, was British court dress according to rules set out by the lord chamberlain's office in London and not independently set by the dominions. Finally you say "Makenzie King was not a British minister", no but he was a member of the UK Privy Council which is why he was wearing the UK Privy Counsellors uniform. Nowhere does the text say that only British ministers wore the uniform, only that they were permitted to wear it (I presume this is because not all British ministers are in the cabinet and thus not all of them were Privy Counsellors, thus the statement you refer to is an inclusive statement, not an exclusive one). 192.235.252.195 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That's very interesting and all. However, it doesn't square how a person who wasn't one of the King's British ministers was wearing a British minister's uniform (you have it backwards: not all privy councilors are ministers), nor does it explain how or why Mackenzie King would have been wearing a UK minister's uniform in Canada (where His Majesty's court was not located; not his British one, anyway). The conclusion that he is wearing such a thing in that photo all seems rather like original research. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

He was wearing a UK Privy Counsellors uniform as stated in the article because as you say, not all UK Privy Counsellors are British ministers (and I'm not wrong, while not all privy counsellors are ministers it is also true that not all British ministers are Privy Counsellors as not all British ministers are in the cabinet. You're assuming British practise and Canadian practice are the same when they aren't. All Canadian ministers are in the Canadian cabinet but in the UK not all UK ministers are in the UK cabinet.) You somehow misread the article as saying only British ministers wore the uniform when it does not say that, it only says British ministers were granted the right to wear it in 1937, that doesn't mean no one else could wear it.192.235.252.195 (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a question for you: Why did WLM King use the honorific Right Honourable in Canada until the end of his life when it was an honorific of the British Privy Council, and did not become a Canadian Privy Council honorific until 1967? 192.235.252.195 (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that I read it yet again, the text adjacent to the image is not clearly written. It claims privy councilors were given their own court dress after the First World War. Yet, farther down it says ministers were allowed to wear the privy council uniform starting in 1937. Ministers are privy councilors, and were even before the First World War. Now, according to the wording, either privy councilors who were ministers were not allowed to wear the the privy council uniform created after the First World War, or "after the First World War" means in 1937, which is misleading. Or, something has been omitted and it should say ministers who weren't privy councilors were allowed to wear the privy council uniform after 1937.

Using an image of a Canadian minister in Canada wearing the uniform of a UK privy councilor for the article 'Court uniform and dress in [emphasis mine] the United Kingdom' doesn't help clarify matters. Surely there's a better illustration. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

source material I quoted speaks of court dress in 1937 being across the Empire rather than confined to the UK. Perhaps it should be renamed as the current title is misleading? In any case, it was sounding like you had assumed Canada had its own independent court dress but there's no evidence it did and no evidence that anyone was thinking in 1939 that there was a Canadian court that was separate from the British or Imperial court. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I made no such claim. The onus was on you and Opera hat to a) prove Mackenzie King was a UK privy councilor and b) explain how an image of a Canadian minister in Canada was illustrative of court dress in the United Kingdom. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Both have been done. BTW you haven't answered my question about WLMK and his use of the then British honorific right honourable.192.235.252.195 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest reading the source material linked to above may clarify what if any distinction there is between UK privy Counsellors after WWI and ministers in 1937.192.235.252.195 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the article that needs clarification. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, not all British ministers are in the cabinet and thus not all British ministers are Privy Counsellors. See Third National Ministry for a 1930s example - the list of ministers in particular and the fact that those in cabinet are bolded and those not in cabinet aren't.192.235.252.195 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Say it all you want. But, saying so here does nothing to clarify the wording in that section of the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See page 35. "Members of His Majesty's Privy Council are entitled to wear the Civil Uniform of the 1st Class (see page 37), or may have the option of wearing any uniform to which they are entitled. Cabinet ministers, being Privy Counsellors, wear the Civil Uniform, 1st Class, and as such continue to do so after relinquishing Office." The provision about cabinet ministers is not a new rule, if anything, it's just an elaboration. 199.212.66.168 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you've already started clarifying the section. I hope that continues. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

House of Wettin

Happy New Year! Thank you very much for your Dec. 14 edit here to the House of Windsor article, where you corrected some major changes to the infobox made by user 95.252.185.251. I just noticed that this IP user had made similar edits here to the infobox at House of Wettin. Since you have a great knowledge of all things Wikipedia, I am hoping that you might be willing to review that edit at the House of Wettin page and make whatever changes you feel are appropriate. If you would possibly consider looking at this at some point when you have time, that would be very much appreciated. Many thanks for your help! -- Blairall (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Olive Branch 2016

@Miesianiacal: last time we liaised it took many unnecessary further contretemps to reach a solution & I see your efforts with the Order of Saint John (chartered 1888) are still ongoing. Please advise what you are trying to achieve here with Lord Bessborough's article: it seems contrary to Wiki's MOS. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. But, I do see you still haven't grasped basic Wikipedia guidelines like WP:BRD, WP:RS, and WP:CONSENSUS, as well as basic grammar. The onus is upon you—the person attempting to change long-standing material—to gain consensus for your edits; the policy is not for you to push your edits into articles and then make everyone else justify why it should be put back the way it was.

You've been through this enough times and served enough blocks to be well aware of how things work. If you think there's still problems with the article, please do not revert again and instead start a discussion clearly stating what you think is wrong. You can seek dispute resolution if need be. If you're reported again for edit warring, you'll receive an even longer block than the last one. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: it is unfortunate that you adopt this tone, because before I saw your comments above (to which you didn't alert me), I was going to suggest that I should make a few mild but correct amendments to see what you think. I have no desire to engage in hostility & the point which is most glaringly incorrect (although there are others) is that PC should not be used as a post-nom where Rt Hon is displayed as an honorific prefix. Whilst it is great that Wiki phrases things well not only in the vernacular but also modernising some archaic terminology, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE that it rips up all previously known conventions and creates its own by consensus (as you call it). Since my endeavours merely aspire to providing decent and hopefully for the very most part correct (always happy to learn) info, I can't yet see why a discussion page is necessary; this seems to me a way of avoiding facts & trying to make what should be matters-of-fact into a popularity contest. Please allow me to amend once more Lord Bessborough's Infobox to the correct style without fear of retribution. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You made many more edits than just the removal of "PC". You have made similar edits on many other articles before and have been told by many editors what's wrong with them and how to do things correctly. Yet, there you are still making the same mistakes; demonstrating the "in-educability" for which you were blocked back in August. I think, therefore, there is reason to be impatient with you.

You will have to provide a reliable source to support your claim about the use of "PC". Once done, you must then make sure Wikipedia's guidelines for post-nominals reflects this. Until then, the status quo remains, per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Neve-selbert 22:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Stop editing your statement at the top of the dispute. Reply to me at the bottom of the section. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, what? I have no clue what you're talking about. I made one edit at DRN and it was neither at the top of the dispute nor a reply to you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar flag galleries

Hi there. I want to direct you to this edit where a user undid my edit to the Flag of the United States removing the "Similar flags" gallery. He claims to have seen "Similar flags" headings in other flag pages and says it's been there for years on the U.S. page... Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

All OR...sources for the claims? Flag of Lebanon some how related? are we saying same red used? again OR is the problem.--Moxy (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's there on other articles is irrelevant: WP:OTHERSTUFF. There should be either a flag project-wide consensus to have this kind of gallery or it should be by consensus on each page, and @Mintyguy: obviously has no consensus (though, this edit summary indicates he doesn't know how consensus and editing work on Wikipedia).

OR is indeed another matter; who's saying these flags are similar? What's the criteria for inclusion and who set them? (These are all questions I'd ask about a "similar flags" gallery on any page.) Then there's the issue of maintenance: if seven flags are similar to Canada's, each article on those flags will have to have a gallery showing the seven other flags, including Canada's. As this spreads across flag articles, I'll become unwieldy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Puzzling edit and summary

Please excuse me for troubling you, but I wonder if you could explain the reasoning behind this recent edit of yours?

1) Is there a reason for having the image of the policeman stand in isolated splendour with no wrap-around text (in stark contrast to the other images on that page)?

2) Is there a reason to put back the "right" parameter into the image syntax when that is the assumed default, has been for many years and there seems to be no prospect of a change?

No big deal, I'm just genuinely perplexed... BushelCandle (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Where you placed the image of Bill Blair, it squished the paragraph of text. Where it was--and where I returned it to--it does not do that and fits neatly between the left margin and table showing the badges of the order.

No, the "right" code isn't necessary, but also does no harm. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick explanation.

The view of a page (and whether text is squished or not) depends entirely on a huge variety of factors (including the browser you're using - it shouldn't, but it sometimes does, the magnification that you have set for text, etc, and hugely according to your display size and also whether your window is maximized or not).

Web pages are completely unlike the printed page where you can exactly position page elements for every reader...

With your set-up, things may well "fits neatly between the left margin and table showing the badges of the order" but that will by no means be the case for most others!

I do agree that specifically having a "right" parameter does no harm at present. However, if in the unlikely event we were to change our default image position from right to left, it does mean that a human would then need to exercise a subjective choice as to image placement in a very large number of articles if many editors were to take the same attitude.

Now, I do see that you have also changed my image positioning of the house Ponsonby bought in 1924 (that was based on changing to the default right hand position and an apposite chronology of events - ie, I placed the image immediately to the right of a paragraph discussing events occurring in the 1920s as opposed to the previous decade) here as well. What was the reasoning behind your immediate change of my edit there, please BushelCandle (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If the image code is placed above the paragraph, the image itself is going to push the left edge of the text to the right, on every computer, everywhere.

The changing of the default position of images is completely hypothetical. However, if it were to happen, having the "right" code would, in fact, mean right-aligned images would stay put, whereas images with no placement code would automatically shift to the left, meaning people would have to go through and correct each one of them.

I don't know why you insist on having the image in the Ponsonby article right-aligned. It was close enough to the paragraph outlining events in the 1920s where it was. Where you've put it has also left a big, unbroken block of text for the first half of the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

British PMs in some but not all pre-1931 Canadian GGs

As there's no signle talkpage to discuss this, I've brought it here. FWIW, the British Prime Ministers aren't listed in all the 1867-1931 range Governors General of Canada infoboxes & thus my reasons for deletions. I'm not here to argue, so please don't revert my post. Exactly why are British PMs being listed in those infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I said in the edit summary: familiarise yourself with the nature of the office pre-1931. The information is available at Governor General of Canada#History.

If the British PMs are missing from the bios of Canadian GGs prior to 1931, they should be added to the infoboxes on those articles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, for the explanation. Now, by all means, you may revert my post. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Response

Please see comments on my talk page and Talk:Jeanne_Sauvé#Speakership_succession_box_in_main_sidebar. Alexander's Hood (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest dispute

I am required to put this notice on your talk page: This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Travelmite (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

List of current state leaders by assumption of office

Recommend you tweak option E in the question section, so that it best reflects what you're supporting :) GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Time Person of the Year

Hi. Consensus is that opening a new discussion related to an existing RfC on this talk page is disruptive. I've closed it with the following comment: Contribute to the related discussion or wait for it to close before opening another RfC please. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, could you please point to where that consensus was established? You see, @Giraffedata: made a remark at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Possible conflicting Rfcs that said something altogether different.

The discussion was not related to an "existing" RfC. Firstly, the "existing" RfC was closed in all but name; the will of the majority was implemented more than two weeks ago and no one participated in the RfC since. Secondly, the "existing" RfC focused on one person in the list. The RfC I started focused on the list as a whole. You've been bamboozled. (And I don't appreciate the snarky recommendation to "contribute" to the (un)related discussion when it's blatantly evident I contributed greatly.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't see the comment by Giraffedata at that time, but there were several comments on the article's talk page saying that the second RfC was confusing / inappropriate / disruptive/etc. and should be procedurally closed. Why don't you wait for the dust to settle and then if there is still something to be resolved, then start a new discussion? (You can actually have a discussion without opening a RfC, you know.) Finally there was no intention to be snarky at all; I am not familiar with the article or the issues involved, so have no idea if you participated or not in the previous discussion. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and that only further cements my opinion there was bamboozling involved; the majority of other contributors at that talk page are quite hostile and some time ago made things personal, rather than focusing on the article content. That continued into the RfC I started; they're calling it inappropriate/disruptive/etc. because they've continued to hold bad faith opinions about my motives, even though it's perfectly clear what my intention is/was. I even spelled it out at least twice; to no effect, apparently.

But, yes, I will leave that article and those editors until their wants are met--until the closed-in-all-but-name RfC is officially closed after the expiry of 30 days. Then the matter relating to the maintenance tag in the article can be addressed. I think an RfC will be necessary to bring in participants other than the hostile ones I mentioned above. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Arms of Canada

Mies, I saw this. Is this something you wish to reopen? I would encourage it for Monarchy of Canada specifically, as the argument can be made it is the most current and common symbol used to represent the actual subject at hand (photos of Elizabeth II are insufficient, as she is not the article's subject).

The previous decision to restrict the image to Arms of Canada alone was flawed as it ignored Canadian law (any image so nearly resembling the copyrighted image as to be readily confused with it is still subject to copyright, as that is the whole point of copyright, and second "Marks and designs similar to the official symbols are pursued as a copyright or trade-mark infringement" from the Government of Canada, I would have to dig for the actual Act), so if the user-image is actually "close enough" in terms of accuracy, then it is actually then a copyright violation inline with Canadian law.

The fact is that in this case it is the actual image that matters, not the blazon. In the exact same way that a Canadian Flag with a bizarre maple leaf in the centre simply cannot be used to represent the Canada in the Canada article, regardless if it is correct in terms of blazonry, that is to completely miss the point, it still would not be the image (official Canadian flag) used to represent the topic. Subsequently, the Arms are the subject of the Arms of Canada article, and is the most commonly used symbol to represent the topic at the Monarchy of Canada article. All other articles not allowed to use the 1994 revision should use the 1957 revision of the Arms, as they are still an official symbol of Canada and most closely resemble the 1994 version, in addition to the fact that it is only these two images which are used to represent the Canadian state/Crown. trackratte (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

File:EIIR-GGs.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EIIR-GGs.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada

I suggest you self-revert your latest edit.

You have removed an image 7 times against four or more editors. Further, four or more editors were in favour of the image, with you being the sole dissenter. A violation of 3RR in spirit, especially as your third revert was only several hours after the "24-hour mark":

• 11:16, 5 March 2016
• 12:06, 5 March 2016
• 18:38, 6 March 2016
• 22:54, 9 March 2016
• 17:00, 13 March 2016
• 12:23, 16 March 2016
• 14:14, 16 March 2016

Today you have inserted text into the article which you knew was controversial, without any reference, knowingly against the four references presented in the Talk, and without discussing at all in the Talk. A clear violation of 3RR in inserting the same controversial text 3 times in roughly 30 minutes, in contradiction to the sources: (now 4 times in 24 hours)

• 21:14, 16 March 2016
• 21:30, 16 March 2016
• 21:46, 16 March 2016
• 09:13, 17 March 2016

I made one revert regarding the Arms in total which was to restore the entire Arms box that you had removed that has been there since 2007, and wasn't an issue of the image, but an issue of removing the entire Arms formatting from the info box. The only other revert I made regarding the Arms I made was over 5 days ago when I restored your edit when you put in a copyrighted image where I had mistakenly thought you had put in the official free-use one, which I then self-reverted to remove the copyrighted image not allowed in that article (which is not considered a revert as per WP:NOT3RR rules #1 and #5) for the official free-use one. I made two reverts regarding your inputting of unsourced statements (as per the step by step Guidance outlined at WP:DDE) that contradict provided reliable sources. So, in accordance with the prescribed steps provided by Wikipedia at WP:DDE I did the following: Step 1: "Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms", and step 2: "If editor restores, or unreverts: If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again", after which I haven't made any revisions since, even though policy states to move to Step 3 and revert again: "If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator". Instead of reverting a third time and requesting an admin as prescribed in policy, I came to discuss the issue with you here as I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and your contributions here not to attempt to resolve it here with you first.

3RR is more than three reverts within a 24 hour period.

I don't believe you should be lecturing on inserting "controversial" material into the article, given you've repeatedly inserted the 1957 arms when there was no consensus to do so. If you include the anon (who is obviously one person who has no interest in the article, only exacting some kind of revenge with impunity by anonymously undoing whatever I do), there are four who favour the 1957 arms. Including an anon, there are three who don't. Even if we dispense with the anons because they've contributed nothing to the discussion or the dispute other than reverting, three to two is not a consensus. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, something which I have not done, and you are now at 4RR within 24 hours. As an aside, who are the three? Myself, GoodDay, Moxy and one or more anons are in favour of the official rendition, user Qex simply chose to leave the official rendition in place and add the date that the Arms were approved, showing either neutrality or tacit support at the time of editing and hasn't replied on the Talk since, and I see no one else except yourself objecting to the use of this official symbol at this time. You are the only one to continually revert several others (three to five other editors) in inserting an image never approved nor adopted by Canada, moreover inserting this image on seven different occasions. And your repeated justification for doing so was some supposed consensus against using the official 1957 Arms, but as far as I'm aware, this consensus against this official image has never existed, and despite repeated requests, you have failed to show where such a consensus exists. In the absence of any consensus against the official symbol, a consensus was established where four or more editors were in agreement, and the sole dissenter, you, had had your sole point addressed through credible sources, by definition consensus, a situation which has yet to change (four or more in agreement, and you edit warring against). And by the way, the sole occassion I reverted your removal of the Arms was after you had removed them seven times (against several editors that were not myself), and after consensus was achieved (and remains unchanged at time of writing as no further users have yet become involved). trackratte (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It must be a stretched argument indeed behind any conclusion I'm at 4RR. On the other hand, it's clear you broke the limit yesterday.

Qexigator leaving the 1957 arms there does not necessarily count as an endorsement. More certain is this statement of his.

You seem to not understand the difference between consensus and simple majority. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly did not "break the limit" yesterday. I reverted you only once regarding the Arms in total since the 5th of March, and only after your refusal to stop after your 7 reverts of the image, and your refusal to acknowledge consensus. When you then inserted unsourced text in contradiction to reliable sources, I followed steps 1 and 2 of WP:DDE, and stopped short of the 3rd revert prescribed in the policy, even though the Wikipedia Guideline states that a third revert should have been my next step. Following prescribed policy steps to deal with disruptive editing, and stopping short of what is prescribed due to the principles of WP:AGF to discuss it with you here first is not edit warring. However, you have inserted the same unsourced material four times in 24 hours as you can see above. Just because you use slightly different words to convey the same meaning four times does not mean you have circumscribed the rules. Secondly, WP:CON: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Four editors in favour, one against (you), and where your legitimate concerns were incorporated and reliable sources were shown to prove that your concern that the symbol in question was no longer a current Official Symbol of Canada is in fact false, and numerous other sources were shown at the Talk demonstrating that the Arms in question were used after 1994, and continue to be used as an official symbol of Canada (and continue to symbolise the authority of the monarchy[3][4]) today. Therefore, the only concerns brought forward by the only objector were incorporated and addressed through reliable sources, and absent any other objections, consensus was, by definition, achieved. trackratte (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I can tell after reading only the first few lines that you're either not reading what I write or are refusing to accept it. You broke 3RR yesterday. Your sources don't state there are two coats of arms for Canada. And majority does not equal consensus. I won't repeat myself again. The RfC will hopefully find a resolution to this. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC isn't about the infobox, nor about the unsourced text you keep inserting. And whether or not the Monarchy of Canada has one or two Arms, or 14 Arms, is irrelevant to the infobox image as well. None of which is relevant to the current discussion. I'll leave this at just a few lines as they're the only ones you bother to read anyways. Which would explain your continued refusal to show this previous consensus against the use of the official 1957 Arms you keep referring to. trackratte (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There's really no need for me to engage in an argument with you about this, but the RfC is absolutely about the infobox. If there isn't two coats of arms for Canada--contrary to what you're arguing--and the one is the one based on the 1994 blazon, the 1994 arms go in the infobox. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 13:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose there's really no need for anyone to debate anything here at all, but I suppose that's the point of it being voluntary.

The current infobox question is just about how many sets of arms or blazons the Queen of Canada has, and makes no mention of any problem or proposals regarding the infobox. The result of that RfC could be that Canada has one, two, or more sets of arms, or theoretically none, but that doesn't decide what image should be used in the infobox (an image of the Queen herself? Just a Crown? A creative user generated image? An official state symbol?). Unless your intent is to have two back to back RfCs?

You're making this needlessly complicate. The field is for a coat of arms. If the consensus is there's two coats of arms (for which there's still no reliable source), then we'll decide what to do with the infobox. If there's one coat of arms, we know what to do with the infobox. If that one is the 1994 coat of arms, we know what to do with the infobox based on the last consensus reached regarding the use of the user-created rendition (use it with a note below clarifying its "unofficialness". If you want the user-created rendition gone, you'll have to start another discussion about that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is not asking "what image should we use in the infobox", nor "should we use this specific creative depiction of the 1994 Arms". You and I are both in agreement regarding the current RfC about how many Arms there are. Second, there was no consensus that I'm aware of for the creative depiction, I believe it was left off with 2 users for it (you and Qex), and 2 users against it (myself and Moxy). I proposed inserting the "unofficial rendition" text to make it not purposefully misleading, and left the discussion at 2 vs 2. And as you say, 4 or 6 vs 1 isn't consensus, so 2 v 2 certainly isn't either.

I also don't understand your fixation on the use of that specific creative image. If the latest official portrait suddenly become barred from use I wouldn't replace it with a user-made creative drawing. Instead I would simply take the previous official portrait allowed under free-use, especially if Canada maintained both as current official portraits and were still using a few. Just because it's an older image doesn't mean it can't be used at all. In this case the previous official rendering isn't misleading readers as it is, as a specific rendering, a current official symbol of state, and simply putting "Arms of Canada as revised 1957" below it would be completely factual and inform readers. As the role of the Arms in the infobox is to symbolically represent the topic of Monarchy of Canada, I simply do not see any negative to using a symbol which was actually approved and adopted by the monarchy in question for that very purpose. Yes, the older official rendering is slightly different from the most recent official one (essentially just the annulus), but the user-made creative rendering is even more different from the most recent official one.

So, I really am trying to understand your perspective here, but both the older official and user-creative renderings are different from the 1994 official renderings so that can't be a reason, both wouldn't mislead readers as we now have the text box below, however one was made by a professional and expert herald and is high quality (as you've said) while the other is not. One is, or at least has been if you refuse to believe the Government of Canada official symbols sheet, used to represent the article while the other has not. There is also the question of suitability in terms of causing offence, just like this creative rendition would be offensive if used at Canada instead of the official rendering, or if this creative rendition was used at United States of America instead of the official one, taking such liberty with a state's national symbols is highly problematic, and doesn't really reflect the high level of quality and professionalism that an Encyclopedia should represent. And I know you're going to bring up that "but the creative rendering is inline with the blazon", and I agree with you, but as we can see with those creative American and Canadian flag renderings, they are inline with the blazons too, that doesn't make them any more suitable to replace the actual renderings that entire nations use to identify with and represent them.

It is kindof like purposefully spelling someone's name wrong, or purposefully mispronouncing it. Just because there are multiple "right" ways of rendering a name, doesn't mean you can take the liberty of continually and purposefully rendering it in a different way or mispronouncing it. "Um, my name's Steven" --> "Alright Stephon". Kindof funny analogy perhaps, but the point is it's a slap in the face in the same way as telling Canadians that this is their flag.

Obviously the most recent official version would be ideal there. And we can both attempt to make that possible. But in the meantime, I'm seeing a great many disadvantages in using the creative user-made rendering, and no advantages oncesoever. trackratte (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)