Talk:Joint address (Canada)

Why geo tag

1) I don't have a source for this, per se BUT, unless I am much mistaken, other commonwealth countries have bicameral parliaments and thereby would probably have simmilar procedure. 2) Another example: The US senate and the US house have joint sesssions, usually involving the State of the Union address, but sometimes for grave or other emergency situations, e.g. a declaration of war or other disaster. 3) What about countries that have a French-style government? 4) Even dictatorships usually have 2 "rubber-stamp" houses in thier govt.

If any of these cases are correct, please fix it. (I lack knowledge.)... If I am completely incorrect, let me know on my talk page. Cheers V. Joe 08:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for #2, isn't the more usual US term "joint session"? Bearcat 09:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Needs examples of people who have made such an adress. Kevlar67 09:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Joint address"

Since there are no other articles about other joint addresses, this page could be moved to Joint address... I moved it but someone seems to have moved it back without stating a reason. Any objections can be raised here, perhaps I'm just missing something! ;) --Cameron * 11:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Any reader can see the list is a) in reverse chronological order and b) begins at 1941. It is therefore redundant to say in the article the list is in reverse chronological order and begins at 1941. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a) It assists readers to understand how the list was compiled; and b) There were joint addresses prior to 1941. Just that those aren't (yet) included under this list. Please stop your meaningless behaviour. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readers don't need to know how the list was compiled.

It doesn't matter if there were addresses prior to 1941; it remains factual that readers don't need to be told when the list starts. They can see so for themselves. If it's known when the first address was given or you have a source affirming there were addresses prior to 1941, that information can be added to the article.

Passive aggressive ownership is only going to exasperate your problems. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly what you've been doing across several articles. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abiding by guidelines and policy is not the same as passive aggressive ownership (along with an implied self-granted immunity from guidelines and policy). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miesianiacal: 58.153.97.134 is an obvious sock of the banned user:Instantnood, who's known to have used the 58.153.97.x network. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. -Zanhe (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... It's going to be problematic if he/she keeps edit warring using different ips. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanhe: What do you mean? 58.153.97.134 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop feigning ignorance, your old trick fools nobody. @Miesianiacal: Instantnood has been editing warring and POV pushing using dynamic IPs (usually from netvigator.com) for seven years since he was banned. Some people just can't find better things to do with their time. -Zanhe (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. 58.153.97.134 (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]