User talk:Miesianiacal/October 2012-March 2013

Clemson University Project

Hello. I am working on the article for Castle Kilbride to complete a college project. I have seen that you have done a great deal of editing to a page similar to mine. Can you look in my sandbox and leave some tips for me? Tqhtherock17 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look at that. It's very thorough, but I do think it needs some copyediting; nothing major. It's already at a level better than most article on Wikipedia! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post-nominals

I'm testing Template:Post-nominals however it defaults to the Canadian template even when

the template is called/referenced using '''John Smith''' {{Post-nominals|country=NZL|QFSM|QPM|QFSMds|QPMds}}
there is a document named Template:Post-nominals/NZL
the data file includes the lines

The expected outcome is John Smith QFSM QPM QFSM QPM

The observed outcome is John Smith QFSM QPM

QPMds and QFSMds are unique to the NZL template are missing, my conclusion is that the Canadian template is referenced even though country=NZL is the second parameter. Could you tell me what I'm missing when trying to reference a different template?

A cheeseburger for you!

Thank you for the way you absorbed details of the 9th Duke of Devonshire's military career and positions into the general text of the article, so soon after I provided the information in section paragraph form. Cloptonson (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am trying to keep my weight down. But, thank you, regardless! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Version of the Diamond Jubilee Medal

Good evening Mr. or Mrs Miesianiacal. I could admit that the link that I had provided towards Dr. Christopher McCreery's book Commemorative Medals of the Queen's Reign in Canada does not provide the information that I provided on the page of the Diamond Jubilee Medal. However, on page 124 and 125 of the book, we can read the following information:

The Criteria for bestowal of the Diamond Jubilee Medal of the Caribbean Realms will be set individually by each of the eight Caribbean islands, and medals will be presented by the governor general in each country. The number of medals awarded will likely be small given that the combined population of the participating countries is just over 3.8 million people.

A rhodium-plated 32mm medal with a claw-footed syspender, the obverse of the Diamond Jubilee Medal of the Caribbean Realms bears the same effigy of the Queen used for the United Kingdom issue and is circumscribed by the text THE DIAMOND JUBILEE QUEEN ELIZABETH II. The reverse bears the Royal Cypher in the centre, with the text CARIBBEAN REALMS and the dates 1952-2012. The ribbon is the same as the for the Canadian and United Kingdom medals, with the exception that the 2 mm central stripe is black.

I have also taken pictures of the image of the medal provided in Dr. McCreery's book, which I will post on the Talk page of the medal. If needed, I would be willing to scan the information, however seeing Dr. McCreery's work on the issue of Honours, I would believe that the information is credible.

Therefore, would it be possible to re-post the information that I have provided? (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also just posted the information on the talk page, with the image. I hope that this helps. (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your similar post at the article's talk page. However, I'll say here: Nothing you inserted into the article was removed. It just requires a citation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

States headed by Elizabeth II

Please add India also. It was Headed by Elizabeth II till 1950 from 1947.

No, it was not. India became a republic in 1947. Elizabeth II was not its president. Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are from India, and as an Indian do not know about India herself. India was independent under the Indian Independence Act 1947, wherein the provisions were included that the Indian Act of 1935 under which the congress won would be the provisional constitution, which had the articles that the Queen or the King shall be the head. India became a republic in 1950. See this page infobox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

And History section on this page which states:

"Although India obtained its independence on 15 August 1947, it did not yet have a permanent constitution; instead its laws were based on the modified colonial Government of India Act 1935, and the country was a Dominion, with George VI as head of state and Earl Mountbatten as Governor General."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Day_(India)

I just corrected the date on which I said India became a republic, but it did not save; some edit conflict between your response and my correction edit, I guess.

Anyway, yes, you're right: India became independent in 1947. It then became a republic in 1950. However, Elizabeth became queen in 1952.

(Also, please sign your posts.) Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, got it. Thanks- Wajahat

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monarchy of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced?

Are you sure the personal union has actually been replaced? Does the political union of the English and Scottish parliaments mean that the union of crowns is no longer valid and thus replaced? If Scotland votes for independence the political union will be over however the personal union of crowns won't be. So are you sure it has actually been replaced? I'm adding a citation required tag until the matter is resolved. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Collection

If you restore that, I think it would sit better as a separate sentence rather than mixed in with the Royal Collection as the two are administered, and owned, completely separately. DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you just do that instead of your usual automatic reverting? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as indicated in the edit summary, I don't have any sources. Perhaps you could try to assume good faith instead of your usual automatic hatred and distrust? DrKiernan (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, there exists, as you well know, a template for a small, in-line tag that requests sources for unsourced material. In relation to your other reverts of my work today on that same article (particularly the flags), there are solutions to the seemingly legitimate problems you see with wording other than reverting. Ditto for prior reverts you've made to my edits. So, perhaps you could assume good faith instead of your ususal hatred and distrust? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Day

I'm not sure the edition of "within the British Empire" is needed in the lead of the Canada Day article, especially how there is a commemoration section directly below it. Also I'm not sure why you referenced Pork Buster in your edit summary. Lastly, just a suggestion, but I can always tell what articles you've edited by the excessive british/monarchy overtones. Might want to tone back on pushing personal views on wikipedia. Just a suggestion. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already commented at the article talk page and did so again in the new discussion you subsequently started.

Also, thanks for the tip. I'll tone back on pushing personal views right after I start. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House of Windsor

If you really believe that Peter and Zara Phillips and also Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella are members of the House of Windsor then you should add the names of the children of Princess Margaret, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and also Princess Mary. Now, what do you think? Keivan.f^Talk 19:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should bring it up at the article's talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now we can discuss about it on the talk page. Keivan.f^Talk 16:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Just thought I'd say, hello. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't CBC news get their facts straight? They're going on about how if William & Catherin have a daughter, she'll be the future Queen, regardless of a younger brother. At the moment, the succession is still male preference. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GoodDay. Yes, the media often gets the facts wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are going off the statement that the legislation will have retroactive effect to, I believe, the date of the announcement at last year's Commenwealth meeting. So while it is possible she will have a girl, then a boy, then Elizabeth, Charles and William will die, all before the legislation is enacted, it's not terribly realistic. She'd basically have to have fraternal twins with a girl born first, then a boy. Even then it is more likely some countries will have amended while others will not have, leaving her queen of some realms and him king of others. -Rrius (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Miesianiacal. You have new messages at Sinesurfer's talk page.
Message added 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sinesurfer (Talk) 07:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your technical move request

Hello Miesianiacal. I saw your technical move request about the Perth Agreement. Your request is OK per guidelines, and an admin could action it if they want, but I couldn't bring myself to restore such a horrible title. Would you consider opening up a formal move request on the article talk page, and removing your technical move request? You could ask for Perth Agreement to be changed to whatever you want. I am sure that an admin would carry out whatever the consensus was. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Head of State & Australian head of state dispute

It's not a nice thing to say, but Skyring/Pete has to be the most annoying, stubborn, one-tract minded editor, I've ever come across. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: According to Skyring's addition at the former article, Canada's HoS is in dispute aswell. Why wasn't I informed of this? GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's a tendentious, stubborn, and sometimes taunting editor. But, he's right there is a bit of a debate ("dispute" is going to far) over who's head of state in Canada: Monarchy of Canada#Head of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that 'no one' has responded to my question at the 'dispute' page. Whitlam did ask Kerr if he sought advice from the Palace. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Massey

As currently written the third paragraph indicates that Massey had been governor general prior to being sworn into the privy council. This is clearly incorrect so I tried to correct it but you reverted it. Can you please explain why? 76.70.44.16 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that explicitly; only if one reads it without paying attention to dates. I put things back as they were because it's common throughout all bio articles on Canadian governors general to talk about the Privy Council and styles in the third paragraph of the intro. I'll try and make some adjustment to the third paragraph of the lead of Massey's article so there's no confusion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Spence

I've reverted your edit given the talk page discussions and sources. I hope you'll join the discussions. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a dispute but no consensus. Your revert is therefore just a reinforcement of your personal preference, not the reinstatement of any agreed-to composition. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the discussion. Best not personalize the situation. As I brought up WP:NPOV, I do hope you'll address it if you want to gain any consensus for your change. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's irrelevant to the matter. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Governor-General of Australia

Based on your report at WP:ANEW, I've blocked User:Skyring for 24 hours. However, your conduct has not been ideal, either. Consider this a warning that if you continue reverting (you clearly reverted 3x, and arguably reverted 4x) on the article, you risk being blocked. I suggest you stay away from the article for a while and confine yourself to the talk page. Bbb23 (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did revert three times, yes. I went back and looked thoroughly and can't find where the suspected fourth is. But, warning taken. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably not counting this as a revert, but it is. Sometimes editors think that the first change, unless it's clearly an undo, doesn't count, but I usually restrict that to additions of material or very innocuous changes. Here, even though you labeled it a copy edit, it was a bit more substantive than that, although I can understand how you would think it's a copy edit (certainly the previous content was awkward). Note, too, that your change became part of the edit war that ensued. In any event, one of the reasons I warned you rather than blocked you because I figured you didn't think your last revert was a fourth revert. At the same time, remember that you can be blocked for edit-warring even if you don't breach WP:3RR. It's generally not a good idea to even push it to three reverts. Thanks for your response and your acknowledgment of the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN

Regarding this edit, per WP:NOTBROKEN there's usually no need to use a pipeline to bypass a redirect, all that usually accomplishes is adding unnecessary invisible text to the page code. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanNerd

I noticed an odd edit at here that removed some nice informative info that was sourced. edit summaries like this to one of our most prolific and educated editors demonstrates his lack of respect for anyone here. But what I am concerned about is that hes editing all the demographics sections of our cities and provinces - I agree with this talk but am concern we have an editor changing things who has a misguided (or uneducated) interpretation of ethnic demographics and what is offensive. I am going to take the time to look at all that he has removed and was wondering if you could also take a look - since your also familiar with hes odd behavior and edit reasons.Moxy (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, I can't comment on the matter of demographics; I know absolutely nothing about them and so can't say whether UrbanNerd's right or wrong or what. But, yes, I am familiar with him. As such, I can tell you that edit summary you point to is downright civil for UrbanNerd; here's a sample of some of his other, more, er... "colourful" ones. There are many, stretching back to his time editing as User:Po' buster. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This gem can be added to the list. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all this - I reverted this post because I see (after I made the post) that he seems to have a problem with your edits (reverted edit after edit just today) and did not want to cause more problems between you to. I dont run into him often but ever time I do he appears to be on the wrong side of logic - I wounder why people with bad reputations even stick around (I personally would be embarrassed at all the mistakes and my reputation and leave). As for demographics I think he thinks non-visible minority mean white European (when in fact it covers more the just whites... including Aboriginals etc.. As I said will bring it up at our project in a few days - we have much to look over - there is also concern hes blanking text because he does not understand the data or thinks its offensive - cant tell by edit summaries as they seem to be lies (made up excuses) most of the time.Moxy (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean about his demographics edits. Some comments he made at WP:CANTALK shed a bit of light on his motives, which seem to be personal in nature (he finds the charts denigrate his race?). He is, of course, entitled to his opinion; but, bullying and insulting others who disagree with it is obviously not acceptable on Wikipedia. That behaviour was part of the reason he was indef blocked back in February 2010; and again in April 2010 (though, it was mostly for sockpuppetry). My involvement in the second and third sockpuppetry cases against him is one of the reasons why, I think, he has a personal vendetta against me. You needn't worry about causing problems between he and I; problems happen from time to time between he and I, regardless. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If hes a sock why is he even here at all - lets face it his personal attributions clearly are not conducive to this environment. Has a sock investigation ever come up on this new user name?Moxy (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He actually has toned his nastiness down since 2010. And he does mostly (as far as I can tell) make useful edits. I assume he simply hasn't had a run in with the right editor, yet; one who knows his past and has been inspired by his editwarring and personal attacks to open another checkuser on him. I have considered it many times, and have looked and found a raft of evidence that could be used. But, I feel that, since I've already been involved in two sock reports against him (starting one myself) and I have had some very obviously contemptuous interactions with him, it would be inappropriate for me to start another; it would appear as though I'm the one being vindictive. He and I don't cross paths all that much, anyway. But, I do see him haranguing others, though; so, I figure his time will come. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your aversion to making a report (very involved with him I guess) - Over the next few days will look into this further. Moxy (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the intrusion. If UN is a sock of an indef-blocked editor? then he should be shown the door. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me just be absolutely clear here: I'm very close to certain UrbanNerd is Po' Buster/PhilthyBear; the evidence speaks very strongly. However, a checkuser is required before anyone can say so for certain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to interrupt ladies. But as three of the most bias editors I have ever encountered on wikipedia, I find this little "chat" about me very comical. While I agree I sometimes come off harsh, you are in no place to comment about my editing as your extreme bias editing and attitude of article ownership is astounding. I can only laugh at you questioning my knowledge of geograhy or demographics as i can assure you my education in the fields far exceeds any cumulative education you may or may not have. When you accuse me of blanking due to not understanding the subject like here I can only feel sorry for you. You clearly don't grasp the subject at hand. I blanked a list of 13 "household incomes because it was unreferenced and out of place for the article. Also aboriginals are counted apart from "whites" so again, I feel sorry for your lack of comprehension on this near self explanatory subject. Instead of gossiping like schoolgirls you can just ask me on my talk page. Also, I'm not sure what your obsession with this Philthy Bear is but I urge you to open a sock investigation to ease your mind. If you guys can seem to grasp why I may be a bit standoffish with you at times, maybe it's time you look in the mirror and look at the way you edit and treat others. This gossip page is a good start. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's innocent and we all must take responsibility for our own actions. I thus hope that, for your own sake, your actions in future will more frequently fall in line with policy and guidelines. You're going to do yourself in here with pointy edits like this, personal attacks like this, and incivility like this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All we can do is hope that he will mature over time or with age. Find it odd he does not realizes there is a problem when so many editors have raise concerns about odd behavior, lies and interpretation of what is offensive. Having basic communication skills is required here to engage people properly. We are having a meetup and one of the topics we are going to talk about is how to deal with editors lacking basic interaction skills. Moxy (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had a great time a the wiki type meetup - as mentioned above the topic of competence was bought up. There is a plan to submit a proposal that editors of the nature may be (after incivility blocks - the case here) that mentorship may be a requirement for returning to editing. Lets see how the proposal goes then move forward after that if the behavior does not improve.Moxy (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Succession to the Canadian throne

Wowsers, ya must be a littel disappointed. The Canadian government (with the Monarchist League's support) is going to virtually allow the British government to change the Canadian royal succession. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't gone through the Senate, yet. There's already dissent against the bill among senators. The bill may be found to be ineffectual. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removable of my picture of the Caribbean realms DJM

I would like to understand why the picture that I have added for the Caribbean DJM has been removed. I have purchased it principally so that I can take a free picture of the medal so that it can be added on the Wikipedia page. I am sadden that the picture was removed and I would like to see it added again because I believe that it is as important as the Canadian and British DJM. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the pictures of the Caribbean DJM you added was removed, not the picture of it. It was good of you to take and upload those, but there is only a limited amount of space on the page.

If the image at left here could be rearranged in photoshop or some other program so as to appear like File:DiamJubilee.jpg and File:UKdiamondjubileemedal.jpg, I could reduce those two on the page and squeeze the Caribbean one in next to them. But, as that image at left currently is, I don't see an appropriate space for it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help for the issue of Copyright material

I am writing to you because I have noticed that there seems to be an issue of my pictures of the DJM. The following text was found on my pictures: {{di-dw no license}}

I really do not understand what the issue is. I own the pictures and I own the physical medals. I have noticed with the Canada 125 medal, such a problem has not occurred, therefore, why is it okay for one person's picture, and not someone else?

I thank you for your help. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notices; you may want to do the same if it was added to other images of yours of the medals. It's silly to call your pictures "derivative works"; there are many pictures of medals and insignia on Wikipedia (just look through articles on other Canadian honours and decorations). Further, by the logic of the person who tagged your pictures, any photo of a person that captures them wearing a medal becomes a derivative work (or standing in a building, or sitting in a car, etc., etc.). If they add it back, start a discussion somewhere (though, I don't yet know where the right place would be). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How was my information irrelevant?

I would like to know why you found my update on David Johnston's page irrelevant. It is absolutely relevant. The UW Dubai campus was a source of controversy and part of David Johnston's academic career. MlleMinet (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not relevant to that article because the decision was made by the university administration, not David Johnston. It belongs at the article University of Waterloo, if anywhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Yeah, we had our tussle over at Royal standards of Canada, but I would actually like to request your assistance with the same article, as well as the ones for Australia, New Zealand and the UK. I have been able to acquire photos ([1] & [2]) of special versions of these four royal standards/banners of arms that were specially made and used for the Queen's coronation in 1953. I'm finally getting around getting them provided, with the help of a friend on Commons, and could use your help in integrating the images and the info about them into the respective articles. Would you be willing to assist? Fry1989 ^eh? 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can insert the illustrations when they're done. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we're nearly finished. I'm glad you noticed they are of shorter ratio and strict banners of arms without the blue disc and monogram present on the current standards for Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]