I have nominated Order of Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are receiving this notice because you have been identified as one of the top three editors of the article based on edit count. Brad (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Mies. I believe Neelix readings of those RMs, isn't entirley accurate - particularly concerning George V. Anyways, I moved towards rejecting of country - because of the article James I of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've long taken the view that GoodDay's disruptive comments are best ignored. I hope we can agree on that. :) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to take a look at User:Ghmyrtle/succession? I'm minded to move it to main space, in the next few hours, as 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. Not a punchy title, but it's hard to see a shorter alternative. It's very much cobbled together from the existing articles (which will obviously need to be reshaped once it goes up) - once it is up, we can discuss the text, structure, even the title if necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
umm, i didn explain my edits and removal, conversely you didnt explain either reversal, which per BRD means discus and discussion doesnt happen with an initiation of dialogue or reasons. Anhyway, i put it on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be gone for about an hour, besides - other will likely wanna way in. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. First off, I'm not gonna edit war with you across 28 articles. Secondly, you didn't have a consensus to change those to Governor generalship & Thirdly, just because you've a strong interest in Canadian monarchy related articles, doesn't mean you're the boss of them. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you left a couple messages on my talk page indicating that I wasn't using the correct reference template and pointing me to a site with a large number of templates. For references, I generally use < ref > < /ref >. It is a pretty typical style, that I see often in Wikipedia. Which one do you prefer? Victoriaedwards (talk)
His latest comments are worrying me. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Governorship general" is not common usage. I'll happily change Governor-Generals to Governors-General, but this does not extend to making up odd constructions such as Governordom-general or Governorship-general. They jar the reader's eye. Far better to find a different construction that provides the same information without making people wince. Saying that the same awkward phrase has been used elsewhere and we should therefore be consistent in our awkwardness cuts no ice. Are you really going to edit war over such nonsense? I'm going to hunt down all the other instances of this horrible bit of faux-English and stomp them to death, and if you want to make a fuss over it, be my guest. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Looking at the issue of conformity, I note that the Stephen Harper article does not use the phrase "Prime Ministership" as a section heading to describe his time as Canadian Prime Minister. It is simply "Prime Minister". The sub-article describing his PM career is titled Premiership of Stephen Harper, a change from the more awkward Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I reverted your undoing of my copyedit there. Let me explain why. There are various house styles out there regarding capitalisation, and in some of them words like "king" and "queen" are capitalised. Here on Wikipedia however there's a really simple rule. We capitalise in three instances; proper nouns (like Aberdeen, Keith Richards or Admiral Jellicoe), the first word in a sentence, and (occasionally) where it would lead to ambiguity. See WP:MOSCAP if you are interested in finding out more about this house style. Best wishes, --John (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I answered to the talk page. Just notifying you if you haven't put it at your wachlist. I hope that this dispute will be the start of a good friendship.--178.128.169.158 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it. Why didn't the Liberals consider this, when they were the majority government? grrrr. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merci Yeah, image are low quality, but see original Romanian file, it too unperfect. and size problem? that it becuasue Schreyer image are head + torso, but other images are just head + shouders. if you think it better extract just head, try it, but image it SOOO low quality, and just head make image more unuseable.
if you want play with size-setup, find at page List of Governors General of Canada line [-[-File:Edward Schreyer.jpg|65px-]-] and modife number 65 --Teplice, Ústecko (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been redoing the Military history of Canada article (See the review going on for more info). Was wondering if you would to look over the new section I made from your articles. At the review they made me trim it alto and I was wondering if the main points are still being talked about? Your the expert in this subject so can you look it over make sure its right and info is the relevant stuff we should be talking about whrn refering to this subject. See Military history of Canada#Canadian Crown and the Forces. Moxy (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Miesianiacal.
Regarding your recent reverts of my and another editor's changes, have you read the WP:PUNC regarding serial commas?
They should be included, or omitted, in such a way that they do not introduce ambiguity.
In the article, this sentence in particular is problematic: "Prince Harry will tour Belize, Jamaica, and The Bahamas and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, will visit other Caribbean countries."
The first serial comma makes the "connection" between The Bahamas and Prince Harry's tour looser, while it instead, lacking a comma there, awkwardly and incorrectly binds The Bahamas closer to Prince Edward. If one didn't know better, one might think that the Bahamas would tour the Caribbean countries, along with Prince Edward and his wife.
Don't you agree?
HandsomeFella (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Book:Governors General of CanadaMoxy (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain of their numbering. Do they start again after Confederation of not? If so, Francis is numbered 31st & if not, then 61st. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your changes because it is notable because it is the official ecyclopedia of the new zealand government. And is part of the New Zealand governments celebrations Brian | (Talk) 01:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to note that until the Statute, the dominions were legally colonies of the UK. It was only with the Statute that they acquired the status of independent countries. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your comment on my talk page, and I also created a discussion, as you requested me to do. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ARE YOU UP FOR IT? Talk:Prime Minister of Canada 174.7.90.110 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was once a rule against left-aligned images under three-order sub-headings (=== Heading ===), not second-order ones. I forget why there was such a rule, but it was removed from the Manual of Style [1][2] after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 10#Left-aligned images under subsection headers and image squeezing and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 109#Question. DrKiernan (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that this has happened again for the countless time. Is there anyway to resolve this? Dont want to revert this guy ever 6 months or so for the next 10 years.Moxy (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for editing my formatting mistakes. I was wondering your reasoning for the 2007 RMC St-Jean event having a connection with the article. The 're-opening' was a bit of media directed misnomer, as it was not closed before this. RMC SJ is still not a degree granting institution. In 2007 in went from a CEGEP to a CEGEP/college, and not to a university as it was previously. Since it was simply an administrative change, and did nothing in reference to the 'royal' designation or the school's existence, I was confused as to why it was included in the article. Horrendously insignificant I know, but I mention it since I was loosely involved with it. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Trackratte (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miesianiacal, while I agree with the removal of the note from the table, it might be worthy of inclusion in the article, possibly with the possible problems section. Thanks --UnQuébécois (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the links you have in there now, is that they point to the article about current "country" not the article about the country at the time it was part of the commonwealth realms. "During the dominion phase, the British monarch remained head of state... " - "A Commonwealth realm is a sovereign state within the Commonwealth of Nations that has Elizabeth II as its monarch and head of state." - The term Dominion was used officially until 1952, and was replaced by realm (both having just about the same meaning). (btw WP:BRD should have applied here?)--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a long time since I have edited. Thanks for the heads up on the citations. I will endeaver to maintain consistency in citations. I won't be as active as I once was, but I will make some edits based on books I am reading at a particular time, and Omar Bradley made a lot of comments about Harold Alexander. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was never governor, he was lieutenant governor while Carleton (Dorchester) was governor. The disambiguation can't be simply "lieutenant governor" because there was a Henry Hope who was lieutenant governor of the Isle of Man (there is no indication that this was the same person). There is a newly created article, so changing the disambiguation to "(governor)" breaks the link. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is your area of expertize, I though you should know about the new Parliament Interpretive Centre article. This is about the Parliament Buildings of Upper Canada at Front Street and Parliament Street. I think the article should probably be about the building, not the "interpretive centre". Just an FYI. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Miesianiacal: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Lord Roem, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and know that personal knowledge means nothing without something to back it up, but I just want to reassure you that when referring to Elizabeth II, she is to be be written The Queen (The, not the). It is because we are referring to THE Queen, not just any Queen. You will find that many media articles and even some government websites in Canada make the mistake.
To prove my case:
Polinerd101 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]