User talk:Miesianiacal/April-September 2009

prince philip article.

  Hello, Miesianiacal. You have new messages at Gtyt67's talk page.
  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{MTalkback}} or {{MTb}} template.

The Queen.

First, I should apologize for using an edit summary such as "seriously". It wasn't intended to be snide, as it wasn't directed to anybody, but it's the sort of thing that can be misconstrued, so I ought to have been more careful. Sorry about that.

As for the Government of Canada vs. The Crown in Right of Canada, I don't want to edit war. I also think we should figure out a standard approach, because this issue is broader than simply the infoboxes for the articles on the Parliament Buildings. I raised the issue at WP:CANTALK, and wanted to alert you to that discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't know if you noticed that I started a discussion at Talk:Centre Block, but wherever suits you is okay with me. I agree that it probably is a wider ranging issue than just these three articles, and I've actually never been convinced that my method is the most perfect, just the best that's so far available. It would be nice to work out something better. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I never even noticed the discussion at Centre Block -- I don't have it watchlisted, so I didn't see that you'd edited the talk page. It doesn't matter -- we'll figure something out. I'm a big fan of figuring out a path forward, even if I disagree with it, and implementing it consistently. --70.49.59.116 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That was me, BTW. Forgot to log in. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Hi, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Succession for the correct format of succession boxes concerning peers and baronets. In short said we don't use full dates for the time a title was held, but only the years. Furthermore if a peer is a predecessor or successor in another then a peerage box, the style is "The 1st Viscount Short" and not "James Short, Viscount Short". The latter style is used only with courtesy titles. Best wishes

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 04:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re portals

Considering that portals and the likes are not links to external sources one cannot really understand why they should be there but anyhoo plase see Wikipedia:Layout#"See also" section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah-hah! Okay, well, that solves the mystery of where to put the portals. I'm not particularly in favour of either of the two possibilities, I merely wanted to maintain consistency. I shall know where to place them from now on, though. Thanks. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin S. MacLeod

Hi. I really like the changes you made to the Kevin S. MacLeod article. They are a great improvement. It is so nice when people make things better. It is definitely the wiki way. Thanks. --Mr.Badlands (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I completely forgot to respond to this; a recent poster has just reminded me of it. I offer both my apologies for the delay and my thanks for the compliment. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy

Hello, this is User:Free The Kingdom of Tibet, and I noticed you are interested in the monarchy page. I updated the world map that states where each monarchy is and what kind of monarchy it is. I did this because I noticed there were several mistakes and misleading information:

First: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irland is not 'in union with a constitutional monarchy' it is a constitutional monarch realm of its own, therefore it should be in green instead of light green. Second: Although the status in Bhutan has changed the King is still dominant politically, so Bhutan should be labled orange instead of green. The way it is now it gives you the idea that he has just as much power as the monarches have throughout Europe today, which I dare say isn't that much power. Third: The Kingdom of Tibet, (which includes three provinces: Tsang, Amdo and Kham), although forced under administration by the Chinese still have HH The Dali Lama as their leader even though he is forbidden to enter the country and anyone possessing his picture in Tibet is subject to being arrested. People in Tibet still consider him there leader and hope that he can return to power some day in the future. So, the area of Greater Tibet a.k.a. The Kingdom of Tibet should be coloured in magenta.

(I hope I was not too wordy!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free the kingdom of tibet (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FTKOT - I note that you're a new editor at Wikipedia; first off, welcome. Secondly, please don't forget to sign your posts with the four tildes (or use the button with the squiggly line at the top of your edit window). And thirdly, as you've raised most of these points at Talk:Monarchy, I'll address them there. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ted McWhinney

No, putting it only in the McWhinney article would have the effect of burying it. McWhinney is an acknowledged constitutional authority and his theory received enough press so his views do belong in the article on the debate on the monarchy at the very least. There is no direct relevance to the CCR group since there is no reference to his being a member in any source so it can be removed from there if you like. Dodge rambler (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the material and the summary of "republicanism" from the Citizens for a Canadian Republic article as it's not directly germane. Dodge rambler (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say mention of it wasn't worthy anywhere other than McWhinney's biography page; I meant that the detail of the theory be outlined on his page and other articles would link back to it from a more summarized sentence or two. This saves on needless repetition and fits within the confines of WP:UNDUE. As for the page Debate on the monarchy in Canada, I think you mistook my moving the paragraph for having deleted it. I'll see if I can dedicate some more involved time to this when I'm finished with another task that's taking up most of my focus at the moment. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all McW is a prominent constitutional scholar - not a layperson - so his views have weight. Second the paragraph is deep in the article, not in the lead - so undue weight doesn't apply. Third his view was notable enough to cause a law dean to reply. Fourth that exchange of views as part of a debate is best suited in an article on the debate over the monarchy - they are more relevant to the debate then to the details of either man's personal bio.Dodge rambler (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, his views have some weight, but this particular one has garnered little response; most reaction has come from the participants in the monarchist-republican debate, which is itself relatively minor in the scope of things. That said, it is indeed relevant to an article on that debate (I actually thought it was already mentioned in there). I'm just not 100% convinced that the details of his theory belong in said article, but, on the other hand, am not yet completely against it either. As I said, I'll have to sit on it a bit longer before I can suss something out. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tweedsmuir

About a month ago you reverted my edit to Lord Tweedsmuir's titles. Please note that the correction I made was justified. Only the title of the page should be given as John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir. That is done for specification. His correct style between his elevation to the peerage and his death was The Right Honourable The Lord Tweedsmuir. Unlike other peers, barons are always called "Lord", not just in short-hand. Take the queen for example: we use, Her Majesty The Queen, not Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom. This is verified by the page called "Forms of Address in the United Kingdom". 74.12.104.185 (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you've done the same with not a few of the Canadian Governor Generals who were British peers. I will make the proper adjustments. 74.12.104.185 (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I did was follow on the example of the London Gazette, which, when making reference to the individual, as I recall, uses both their given name and their title. I'll admit, however, that I'm no expert on the peerage, so I'll defer this time and assume you're right and the Gazette is wrong. I will, however, say that there are a few problems with the most recent edits to these articles: firstly, post-nominal letters don't go in the list of titles; they're already covered in the list of honours. Secondly, it may not have been you who made the contrary edits, but prior to 1931, viceregal offices in the Dominion were British offices, representing the British Cabinet and not the sovereign in his/her own right as monarch of the Dominion. Thirdly, going by the Gazette again, "Privy Councilor" never forms part of someone's full title; when editing, I wondered how to handle such a thing and searched for examples, but came up only with the impression that simply the post-nominals are used.

I've started some work in rectifying these problems, but must break now to head to work. I'll try and continue later to ensure that all the Canadian GG articles are consistent. --Miesianiacal (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On the Duke of Devonshire, I'll leave his viceregal titles for now. But when he succeeded to his peerage, his style was absolutely not His Grace The Right Honourable. He was The Right Honourable beforehand, being a commoner and a Privy Counsellor, but peers do not use The Right Honourable on account of being Privy Counsellors. They use one of The Right Honourable, The Most Honourable, or His/Her Grace according to their rank in the peerage. If he had been the Marquess of Devonshire, surely, we would not have had The Most Honourable The Right Honourable, or The Right Honourable The Right Honourable had he been a baron, viscount, or earl. From 1908 to when he became Governor General, he was His Grace. About the nationality of the governor generalship, I seem to have been mistaken, and you appear to have rectified my mistaken editing already. But the style during the governor generalship that you have put, His Excellency His Grace The Right Honourable, requires an authoritative citation to save it from absurdity. Same thing for Queen Victoria's son. 74.12.98.138 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For Bessborough while he was heir apparent to his earldom, he was not The Honourable Vere Ponsonby followed by his courtesy title, it is just the courtesy title. The Honourable is for younger sons of earls not the eldest. A holder of a courtesy viscountcy is just Viscount X, nothing else. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

R.e. courtesy titles: My apologies; I misread Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom. However, for the honorific prefixes, all former governors general of Canada have been entitled to the use of The Right Honourable both during their tenure and for life afterwards; so Devonshire's use of the style would not necessarily have been due to his membership in the UK Privy Council. Further, though His Excellency His Grace the Right Honourable does seem a bit unwieldly, why is it acceptable to have His Excellency The Right Honourable (as is current practice for styling the viceroy) but not His Grace The Right Honourable? --Miesianiacal (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellency is a mark of distinction for a representative who is not already distinguished. The styles of His/Her whatever do not correspond to offices the way Hon. and Rt. Hon. tend to - though they do not always either. For example, Excellency is also used by Spanish grandees, who have nothing to do with governors general in the British empire. As the case is, His Grace supercedes His Excellency, so the latter would be redundant, would it not? The rationale behind not having His Grace The Right Honourable or His Royal Highness The Right Honourable is more complicated. Unlike today, where the Rt. Hon. in Canada is handed out arbitrarily like candy (take Paul Martin Sr. for example), it was available to governor generals in the British empire (and to those whose offices were Canadian/whatever but who were British nationals, post 1931), specifically because of they were made members of the British Privy Council. However, since peers do not use Rt. Hon. for that purpose, peer governors general would not require Rt. Hon. That is why His Royal Highness for Connaught, and His Grace for Devonshire are to be advocated. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question: why do the military ranks of Byng, Willingdon, Athlone, and Alexander come after Excellency during their vice-regal tenure? My understanding was that the military rank preceded everything. I remember on the page of George III's son, Ernest Augustus, before they scrapped the military rank altogether, he was, Field Marshal His Royal Highness The Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale. One other thing, in Tweedsmuir's box, why is Excellency there? It is not for any of the other GG's. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(To save space, I did not indent this.) I checked both Burke's and Debrett's on the correct style of the Duke of Connaught during his term as governor general. They both list him as His Royal Highness. This puts to rest the view that not only he, but also, the Duke of Devonshire, whose case is identical, should be styled The Right Honourable in addition. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The practice on the governors general's articles is to have the infobox state their last honorific style; hence, most say simply The Right Honourable, but as Tweedsmuir died in office, his was still His Excellency The Right Honourable. I'll keep the other parameters for styles and titles in mind in future. Cheers for your help. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Liz II's trips to Canada

Grrr, I'm still waiting for my tax rebates from all those 'royal' visits. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're just playing devil's advocate here; you know full well you wouldn't get any rebate for presidential visits, either. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's funner to pick on the monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Letter to the palace

Hi there, this is just a request for your further input concerning the letter. Although I'm not absolutely clear in my mind of the distinction you are drawing between nationality and citizenship - or rather, how it can be defined - I would like you to add these points, in your own words, in the form of a further question or questions to the draft of the letter, if you will. This is to try and cover all possible bases beforehand. Thanks. ðarkuncoll 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably send it on Sunday. Please let me know if you're in any way unhappy at how I've phrased the question about "nationality", or indeed any other aspect of the letter. Thanks. ðarkuncoll 23:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion about the letter at Talk:Time Person of the Year. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I really was upset with that interaction, and I was further disturbed that nobody seemed willing to provide a reality check, as to whether I was being a dick or not. Thank you for bothering to read through the interaction, and for confirming to me that I'm not completely insane. It seems clear from the WQA page that Roux has some issue with your contribution, but I just want to let you know that I appreciate that you took the time. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No trouble, really. I was actually impressed by your calm approach and didn't want you to put that in doubt; it's a valuable asset. That said, based on my own experiences, I can't stress enough the advice that you immediately disengage with that user. He will be relentless, and has actually managed to gather a group of admins and editors who will support him no matter how much he baits and taunts. It's not worth the disruption, either to the encyclopaedia or your emotional stability. Also, I ask in advance that you forgive me if I won't involve myself any more in this particular matter; as I said, I merely didn't want to see a (rare) rational editor be unfairly knocked about. --Miesianiacal (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about me. I'm an admin myself, and I think I know how to sail well enough that this wave won't knock me out of the game. I went ahead and replied to him there, because he's been vaguely threatening me for a while, and I wish he'd just put his money where his mouth is. I was hoping for some kind of reality check from WQA, but no such luck. We'll see what happens, but I don't think this guy will be the rock that sinks my ship. If he is... I must not be much of a sailor. Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! :D Best of luck, --Miesianiacal (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Various King James

Hi, I note that you feel strongly enough about the titles of the Jacobite kings to have reverted my minor edit, which I'm not going to argue over - but if you are going to use both numbers shouldn't the VII be first? You might however wish to contribute to the discussion occurring at Talk:James I of England#Please move. Cheers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Template: English and British monarchs

Do have any smelling salts? GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not any more! --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there, just sent you a message via email. Thanks, An Infinite Loop (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation for the Prince of Wales

[moved from User talk:JohnArmagh] Per the changing of Charles' to Charles's: as you are not making any correction, and are instead merely replacing one acceptable style with your preferred altarnative, you should leave the long-standing punctuation mode alone until you have achieved a consensus for making any changes to it, rather than edit war. I've begun a discussion for you at Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales#Possessive punctuation. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are quite wrong there. It is not my preference - it is definitive correct usage. The alternative usage is only employed by those who are unaware of correct usage. Whilst this may have been acceptable in previous centuries before the advent of standard correct English usage, it should not be considered acceptable in this day-and-age - and to allow such incorrect usage is the start of the decline of the English language into the nebulous mire from whence it originated. The terminal apostrophe is only ever properly used when the s indicates plural. Charles is not plural. --JohnArmagh (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the discussion I earlier directed you to, WP:MOS may be the place for you to bring this up. --Miesianiacal (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Flag icon

Did you bother to look at any of the links I provided? Or did you just revert your precious little article back to your preferred version without looking. Try looking at them now - Ulster Banner, Flag of Northern Ireland, WP:FLAGCRUFT. The Ulster Banner was not the Flag of Northern Ireland in 1949. It is not the Flag of Northern Ireland today. Therefore per WP:FLAGCRUFT it should not be used. O Fenian (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem... My main concern at my "precious little article" is consistency in its appearance; simply deleting a flag icon from one lone location disrupts that consistency. I'm not going to argue with you over what is the correct flag to use for Northern Ireland; I will only maintain that there should be a flag next to the Belfast entry. Hence, as I suggested in my last edit summary at the article, your concern should be directed towards those who created the template with the Ulster Banner as the flag for Northern Ireland, not at me for merely using a pre-made flag template. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly stating that "consistency in its appearance" is your main concern puzzles me. Shouldnt providing correct information be the main concern? Northern Ireland has no current flag. The Union Flag and the EU Flag represent Northern Ireland as a constituant but they are not the Flag of Northern Ireland. A solution to this problem has been found here. I propose that the same solution is used with respect to this issue also. Thoughts? regards --Vintagekits (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I said incorrect information was acceptable; I certainly wasn't going to thwart that other individual's efforts to get the correct NI flag in the NI flag template. I simply did not like O Fenian's adopted tone, nor did I want to get drawn into a debate on Irish issues, enough of which I've witnessed around the project to know to avoid. I had never before heard of the {{noflag}} template, and I have before seen on articles the Royal Union Flag used for NI, so I'm not really sure what's become the accepted practice across Wikipedia. It would be good to know if there is a policy of sorts in place, so that I can be guided by it in future. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One is best off staying out of "Irish issues" alright, horrible little blighters they are! Havent got much time for them myself but one must show kindness I suppose. Anyways, must dash - toddle pip! TTFN! regards--Vintagekits (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, well that was helpful. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I misread you. The refs didn't back up the latter name, which is why I deleted them. They do back up the first (this shouldn't have been removed anyway). I missed your adding of "Royal" back in, correctly. My apologies. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no worries; I did think in retrospect that where the refs were placed had caused some confusion. I only put the refs supporting the first term where I did because there's no punctuation immediately following it. I should probably have made it clearer on the talk page which ref supported which phrase. In fact, I'll do so now. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A polite request.

Could you please stay away from Arms of Canada. You cause me an enormous amount of stress, and you haven't touched the article ever before today, according to its history. I left the royalty articles so I could stay away from you, and work on heraldry stuff now. Please leave it, and me, alone. → ROUX ₪ 18:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux - Three points: 1) Thank you for being polite, and I think I understand your concern. 2) I'm genuinely sorry you feel the way you do, and I hope you don't take this as anything to the contrary, but, I want it to be known that I don't take responsibility for causing you to do anything. And, more to the point, 3) I actually used to edit the Arms of Canada article quite extensively in the past (between 5 June 2005 and around 10 April 2008), and it remains on my watchlist now. That said, I have avoided editing it for the last year + in order to maintain the same peace that you similarly desire. Also, heraldry is not a subject I'm very well versed in, so I've left those matters to you and others. However, I waded in there again today because something done touched on, for the first time since early 2008, what is both my main concern and area of expertise: the monarchy. Rest assured that I will continue on as I have been doing, and will remain, so long as there are no royalty-related issues, hands-off on all other matters on the page. --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not enough, sorry. I have assiduously stayed away from the articles you edit on a regular basis. I did the work that got that article back to GA status. Please allow me to edit the article in peace, which means you not editing it or its talk page. → ROUX ₪ 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You did indeed do much good work on the article. And of course you are as free to edit in peace as any of the rest of us, Roux! We can also, though, each have our own self-imposed limitations, and I stand by mine. Best, --Miesianiacal (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, you are saying you will not stay away from the article? → ROUX ₪ 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that you are apparently not going to honour a simple and polite request, I have asked for admin insight here. → ROUX ₪ 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And that, unsurprisingly, went absolutely nowhere. Thankfully, more people than just I can recognize a demand even though it be thinly veiled as a request. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Joint monarch

You are right of course. It's a shared monarchy. Not countries with a joint monarch. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can of worms

Sorry, I couldn't resist. You may be interested in some of the results presented here Note especially the amazing link provided by User:Surtsicna which proves that the Canadian House of Commons consider the UK and Canada to be in personal union... Best, --Cameron* 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Veeerry interesting... If I recall, though, there were still sources, now used at Commonwealth realm, that state the realms are not in a personal union. I suppose numbers do count, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

True, I merely though that the government's opinion trumped that of any political "commentators"... I actual fact I was never convinced by the source being used at the moment. The source states that the "Commonwealth" (as opposed to the Commonwealth realms) are not in personal union, which would seem to be evident anyway since Commonwealth nations do not all share the same head of state. Regards, --Cameron* 12:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that was my interpretation as well! Who wants to take a look at that paragraph again...? *shudder* ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose numbers do count, though. What wins - quantity or quality? I suppose quality is more important. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, quality is certainly a more important factor. I merely meant that one version of things may have greater validity if it is backed by a larger number of verifiable sources than the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jean-CinC.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jean-CinC.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 01:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No longer a fan of Tharky

Yep, I had it with his persistant Political PoV at Template: English monarchs. I should've listened to you. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I see you've also been dealing with john k; in my experience, not the most cooperative or collegial of individuals, either. If Tharky's POV-pushing and edit warring again, there's always WP:AN3 or WP:WQA. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope things don't come to that. I'll try and remain calm in my discussions with them. GoodDay (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't take things so personally. This is Wikipedia, not real life! ðarkuncoll 12:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you the bloke, who used to 'swear' at others? GoodDay (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly true - often just after I'd got back from the pub. ðarkuncoll 15:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:NPA? Comment on the content, not the contributor.:) But a good flaming is sometimes fun to read, I have to admit. That's why Tharks is good value for money.:) He does it with style. Sticky Parkin 14:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Have a looksee here, eh? Finally, a discussion to amend those unfair naming conventions. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Parliament Hill template

Hello. I was a little bit surprised to see what this template considers to be the "Parliamentary Precinct". I didn't edit the template, because I may be missing something here, but I left a note on the template discussion page. Just wanted to let you know in case you did not have it watchlisted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

territories on Canada topic

Why did you remove the territories from Canada topic Template:Canada_topic&diff=prev&oldid=303751524? It is used by a great many navboxes that include all Canadian province and territories Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Canada topic. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted for now because it broke the navigation on so many articles. There is a parameter provinces_only which you can set to "true" to avoid displaying the territories on individual articles. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well thank you for fixing my error. I only saw the territories included in the navbox on pages relating to lieutenant governors, which, of course, the territories don't have. I didn't realise the template was used in locations where inclusion of the territories is appropriate. I seem to have figured out the "provinces only" parameter now; so, cheers for your help. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I award you this Barnstar for your work on Order of Merit RP459 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was a pleasant surprise to come back to after a hideous meeting. Thank you kindly! And I'm not even done yet. ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anytime :) RP459 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian VC

Hello, just a reminder that date formats in articles should not be changed without a discussion. (WP:MOSNUM:If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.) If you are going to change the date style without discussion, please make sure that you get all of them. The same goes with the citation style, (... seek consensus first, before converting citation styles.) Changing the reference format in one VC article makes it inconsistent across all the other articles; I have renamed the reference related sections for consistency. I also removed the see also section as that link is already in the navbox. If you have any questions please leave them on my talkpage, regards, Woody (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly obvious that I was progressively making my way through the article from start to end, and, hence, am not yet finished with it. I have been going through the articles on the Canadian honours and decorations, and am trying to give a certain consistency to the pages; thus, the date format change. I'm not sure what you mean about converting reference styles. As its really mostly technical in nature, I certainly didn't suspect that my work would be the cause of any controversy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I did see that you were going through it and I thought you had finished your edits. The rewording of the text looks good, though some of the sentences have got a bit unwieldy, one is about long lines long. I don't have an issue with the prose edits, as I have said, they look great.

In terms of the reference format, the article used {{cite web}} etc and shorthand for books eg <ref>Reynolds, p.XXX</ref> with a references section at the bottom with all of the publishing information for the book. This is how it was and how all of the other VC pages are which are all part of a featured topic so we try to keep the basic formatting uniform across all of the articles. You have changed it to {{citation}} which uses a completely different format. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I found that the {{citeweb}} template was used improperly in some cases on that page, and thus changed those to use a more specific template from WP:CIT. I've seen the technique used where full publishing details are given in a references section and footnotes link to it; as was done on Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis. However, from the discussions I had with other editors there some months ago, I came to understand that such a format was typically employed when the footnotes section was extremely long, and thus full book information was lost in a sea of other detail. I didn't think the VC article's reference section was too extensive, and so abandoned that method; but if it's felt otherwise, I'm sure I can put it back. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I should also add I'm about to head out of town for the long weekend, and so may not be able to check in here for a couple of days, so please don't think I'm being neglectful! ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the three other VC articles use the other ref format, as do the recipients lists e.g. WWI VCs though they use a slightly different method for the Reference headers. I find it easier to interpret the references if they are in shorthand format, it just seems less cluttered, and it is used across all of the other articles. I suppose the question is whether to keep consistency across the VC medals or across the Canadian honours. I hope you have a great weekend! Regards, Woody (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the original version for the sake of consistency across VC articles; that particular arrangement makes little difference across Canadian honours articles, I think. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, it looks good. Woody (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Why did you revert me with this edit? You added small tags to the references which I have never seen before and make it harder to see. (see the talkpage) I also think it goes against WP:ACCESSIBILITY in that it unneccessarily reduces the size of the font which is already small. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a graphic thing; the regular size inline footnote tags push lines apart, leading to a disorganized typesetting wherein baselines are unequally spaced apart; this not only looks messy and unprofessional, it can also negatively affect readability. I inquired about this some time ago at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates, inquiring after a way to reduce the size of the inline tag at the template source, but there was no response. Given the silence there, and at all the articles I've since employed the technique at, I've formed the impression that my method of correcting this inherent inferiority is acceptable. I could, of course, be wrong, and there is another way to rectify this, but I've not yet come across it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The only way to avoid the perceived problem would be to abandon footnotes altogether and use the standard Harvard system. That is not something that I could agree with but using small tags made them very hard to read. If you really have a problem with them then I would take it up at WP:VPT and cross-post to FAC or somewhere similar. With regards to your other articles I would remove the small tags. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(I responded to your comment before you changed it.) Note I am not actually seeing the issue here. I can't actually see the difference between the lines that you describe as so unaesthetic. Woody (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal Victorian Order

First of all, well done on all the work you've been doing on Royal Victorian Order (and, for that matter, Order of Merit) - I can tell you've put quite a bit of effort into improving the article, and it shows. But I wondered if there isn't some way that the star detail from the GCVO mantle might be retained? I went to some effort to get that picture (it's not just a detailed crop of the full picture of the mantle) and I think it adds to the article in a positive and non-tautologous way. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh; I see you're the author of the image in question. Well, it is a fine image; so much so that it's used in the article; it's the first in the table of grades in the "Officers and grades" section, though I did cut out the visible mantle around the star and warped it slightly to eliminate the perspective. A detailed picture of the star would be nice, but I just think that if the full star image was re-inserted, we'd have three pictures of the exact same emblem in close proximity to one another. Could it serve as an illustration on another article? If you feel very strongly that it should be in Royal Victorian Order, I suppose it could be placed in the "Current Knights and Dames Grand Cross" section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 09:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just followed my own suggestion and added the image to the "Current Knights and Dames Grand Cross" section. I have to say, though: I'm curious as to where you saw all those mantles of such various orders; I was especially intrigued to see you'd taken a photo of one for the Order of the Star of India, which hasn't seen an appointment since 1947. Wherever did you find these? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 10:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I think it looks better there, whereas it did look a little bit cluttered before. A society I'm in organised a trip to look round Ede & Ravenscroft's main storage warehouse in Waterbeach earlier this year. Mainly we were there to have a look at their massive collection of academic robes, but they also put on a display of other items from their secure store - including an earl's coronation robe, a pursuivant's tabard and mantles of various orders of knighthood, including a rare GCSI mantle. I and several others took the opportunity to photograph them. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The mantle for the Order of the Star of India looks brand new; so, I thought it was, but couldn't understand why they'd still be producing them! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

EIIR Coronation article

I was just recently wondering why there isn't an article on the Coronation of the Queen. Theres an article for every US Presidential inauguration, so why not a separate article for the Queen's Coronation? I was wondering if there was some sort of discussion or anything on this with the outcome of not having separate articles on Coronations of Monarchs? I'm sure it should be alright if every single US presidential inauguration can have it's own article. Anyone for Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know. I imagine coronations of the British *ahem* Commonwealth realms monarchs all follow a similar formula, which is outlined at Coronation of the British monarch. However, there may have been some elements of EIIR's ceremony that were unique; I actually have some pictures of the event, showing Canadian contingents marching in her coronation parade. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't the US presidential inaugurations follow a similar formula too? Are there any objections to a Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II article? Would it be alright to go ahead and make it? The Coronation ceremonies (or what happens on the Coronation Day in general) have been considerably different for each Sovereign. An article on the Coronation of EIIR could include the ceremony, the parades, the marches, even about the celebrations across the Realms. We do have articles for Her Majesty's Silver and Golden Jubilees, why not have one for the Coronation too? --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

True enough, I suppose. I can't see any reason not to try and create an article; the worst that can happen is that there isn't enought to fill it and it goes up for AfD. But, I somehow doubt that would ever be the case. Give it a go, and I'll help out where I can! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've started the article and filled in information about it from what I know and can find. Could you be so kind as to add references, fill in the 'Celebrations' section, add some pictures, and improve the article in general. Thanks. :) --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 14:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of Merit

I love all your little flags, but I have just corrected Robert Robinson/T.S.Eliot by the way!

Can we discuss what your parameters were for birth outside the U.K. and formal titles etc asap? --Martin 91.110.236.6 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean about parameters for non-UK birth and formal titles, though. Could you clarify? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK apart from Robert Robinson/T.S.Eliot, I am not convinced of the accuracy of the 'Past' list from The Earl Roberts to say Henry Jackson - incidentally I wrote the new article for Henry Jackson - the only O.M. without an article and I still don't know why he deserved one! Look at some of their articles and there are those born outside Britain? Do they deserve extra flags or not? Also there is now an 'inconsistency' over the titles and ranks which was not there before.

The original list at least fully described titles/ranks from an impecable source, and even when I slightly abbreviated them for length, they gave good descriptions. I can see you have done an awful lot of work on the list of 'Past' members, but is it entirely accurate or to what level?

I am going to put in the 'Past' members dates of death by the way to give length of membership. --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had considered this before, but opted not to follow through as each person's date of death is shown in their article, hence it seemed superfluous to have it in the OM article as well. I suppose it does no harm to have it, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the frames which will make it look a lot tidier; I will eventually put all the other 'dates of death' (termination of O.M. membership in) until you want to of course?

At the moment, I am more concerned about the accuracy of the flags as I have already found THREE errors: Robert Robinson/T.S.Eliot & Henry James; do you want to do all of the checking? --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on adding the dates of death as well, when I have a need to do something dull tomorrow.

Per flags: Robert Robinson was born and worked in the UK; T.S. Eliot was born in Missouri; Hnery James was born in New York. I went through each and every article earlier this evening checking places of birth and where adulthood was spent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry James, O.M.

Surely he was Anglo-American? So I have added your Stars & Stripes! Please confirm whether you agree or not? Unfortunately I just reached my boredom threshold at 40# (plus a.n.other), more shortly! Again, you need to decide your parameters for dual nationality please AND exactly why some titles/ranks have gone missing? My original list was of official titles/ranks of course.

In the meantime, please look at re-instating FULL dates for 'Current' and 'Honorary' OM members. --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There never were full dates for current members, only years, which are still there now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are WRONG! All O.M. members up to 2000 originally had complete appointment dates showing!

Go back to February 2009 and see (for example):

113. The Duke of Edinburgh, KG., KT., OM., GBE., AC., QSO., FRS. (b. 1921) 10th June 1968

so I think you should re-instate all of those official (full) appointment dates please a.s.a.p.? --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying now; you're speaking of when current members were also listed in the past members section. We're both right, then, as the page used to show only the year of appointment in the "Current members" area (what I was referring to) and full dates in the "Past members: 1902 to 2002" section (what you were referring to). Then, yes, the full dates can be put in the present "Current members" section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Having now put the dates back, I note that all appointments after 2002 do not have (nor ever did have) full dates. What was your source for those for 2002 and earlier? The Gazette? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the question of the Royal Household, with regard to current members 169-175 and honorary member 11. --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can conclusively prove otherwise, there is no way Dorothy Hodgkin had dual Egyptian-British nationality, so I have deleted the Egyptian flag for the time being! Can I suggest you need to review the rules for NATIONALITY as soon as possible and apply them consistently? For example, Sir Aaron Klug is of Lithuanian origin/born in South Africa, but presumably 'British'! ps On second thoughts, I am wrong about him being born in South Africa - but what about Sir Tom Stoppard "Born Tomáš Straussler in Zlín, Czechoslovakia" - does he deserve a second flag or not? --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I am merely going by what the biography articles say. If I missed some, please add what's missing. Also, I've so far only been able to go through the past members list; I shall try and make a go through the present members today. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear "Miesianical" (?),

I have filled in the dates of 'departure' for the Past Honorary's, but for a health reason I have "run out of steam", so may resume the rest later on today. I do like your sample of images in the otherwise vacant column, and suggest that you should select more to fill it up all the way down! Personally I would like to see the British O.M. scientists if possible, especially my "hero": the late and great FRANCIS CRICK, followed closely by PAUL DIRAC please. Perhaps you can do a sample from each decade? Can you run your choice of images past me before adding them?

I am trying to remain more 'constructive' rather 'critical' by the way - even if overall the information on the Past O.M.'s has been 'dumbed down' to some extent, as was referred to above.

I do know that Dorothy Hodgkin was born in Egypt, but did that necessarily make her of 'dual Egyptian-British nationality'; I really don't think so, but if you can prove she was - by all means reinstate the Egyptian flag! The last person I met (of dual Australian-British nationality) seemed to say it was a matter of choice [i.e. not 'automatic'] and gave her the right to reside to both countries, but most importantly the right to return and live in "Oz". --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe anything has been dumbed down; it is Wikipedia policy to keep detailed information on a subject in that subject's article and summaries employed if that subject is mentioned elsewhere. The flags were a way, I thought, to illustrate how the order's membership is and has been composed; i.e. its international stature, and which countries have qualified as foreign and which have not. It also seemed to potentially help readers quickly see how many persons from their country had been inducted into the OM. Of course, that approach leads to the question of what to do with those who were born and possibly raised in one country but lived also in another. It seems logical to me to show both their country of birth and that of later residence, regardless of the individual's personal preference or identity; they were born somewhere, whether they liked it or not.

On another note, can you please stop creating new sections for each post you make here? It breaks up the flow of the discussion (not to mention unnecessarily eating up bandwidth). Also, it isn't necessary to copy entire parts of articles and paste them here; each page already has an archived record of itself and you can simply direct me to the one you want me to look at. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I am moving this discussion to Talk:Order of Merit, as it seems to be getting quite detailed and will attract input from others better there than here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See my message on Order of Merit/Discussion; I am sure you will want to complete the dates of death for me; I look forward to seeing your choice of images, preferably in advance! Like the Americans, we may speak the same English language, but whether we really understand each other?

I hope to return with precise dates for Current Members if/when I hear from the Royal Household. --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Harriet Harman

Would you please add your opinion at Talk:Harriet Harman#Request for comment? -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Had a quick look and some inital thoughts, but its late here (1am), so I'll have a more fresh gander tomorrow. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I need your help at Harriet Harman right now! Please, this guy is acting like an idiot! -Rrius (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I got completely distracted with other, er... pressing individuals. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has now moved to WP:BLPN#Harriet Harman. Could you weigh in? -Rrius (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Prince Philip/Order of Merit

Dear 'Miesianiacal' (?)

"Philip was born at the Villa Mon Repos on the Greek island of Corfu on 10 June 1921"

Another Flag! --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do feel free to add it yourself, if you like. I'm going to get some lunch now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking! I have no idea of what the Greek flag was/is, or where to find it; I am most surprised that you missed him; not for nothing was he nicknamed "Phil the Greek" of course.

Hurry up and do finish the remaining dates of death from 101-107 onwards, ie locked for editing?

My best friend at "high" school ended up in Toronto, but he is currently hiding in Sheffield, UK! I think the BBC made the Doctor Who TVM in a place called 'Vancouver', have you heard of it?

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, THANKS FOR DOING THEIR DEATH DATES FOR ME. BUT KEEP CHECKING THOSE FLAGS AGAINST THE PAST MEMBERS' ARTICLES! "THE EARL ROBERTS" IS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG BTW; REGARDS,

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarkozy and Euro Monarchies

You can't possibly be so stupid as to think Sarkozy is a monarch. Therefore you are simply vandalizing the European Monarchies entry. Whether you're doing it to make some sort of ridiculous political statement or just for amusement, it needs to stop. If you want to goof off, go to uncyclopedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.160.51 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Please read the article Monarchies in Europe, Politics of Andorra, and indeed Nicolas Sarkozy itself (note the infobox) to see that Sarkozy is a Co-Prince of Andorra. Also, do please familiarise yourself with WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of Merit 2

I am checking the Flags of Past Members for you and will send you the results shortly - apart from the error just found on no. 75! I cannot understand why you had the American flag for no. 75? --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did go through all 160-something biography articles - many twice - to check birthplace and/or place of later residence; but, extra eyes can't be a bad thing, I suppose. Alfred North Whitehead (#75) gets an American flag because he spent the last 45 years of his life in the US. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Alfred North Whitehead (#75) gets an American flag because he spent the last 45 years of his life in the US."

I'm sorry my Canadian friend, but words fail me! You seem to moving the goalposts all the time?

I have SERIOUS concerns about the accuracy of the following O.M. members born in the following countries:

1# India

2# Ireland

3# Ireland

9# Gibraltar!

14# Ceylon

22# Florence, Tuscany (?)

46# Ireland

79# Ireland

151# Ireland

I think you need some more flags? Birth in Belfast,NI or Ulster does NOT qualify for 'Ireland' but 'Ireland' does needs to be strictly defined as pre-Partition or post-Partition politically!

IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS MORE PRIVATELY, MY E-MAIL ADDRESS IS ON MY WEB PAGES (see my Talk)? --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right about #22. #s 2, 3, 9, 46, 79, & 151 Are fine as Ireland was a part of the UK pre-1922. British Ceylon and British India are tricky ones, though; they were both colonies of the UK, but still somewhat autonomous, especially India. Are their unique colonial flags employed or just the UK one? Perhaps the latter is the better of the two options. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Link: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderofMerit/Listofcurrentmembers.aspx

Suggest someone in Canada needs to check his list in the article against the above URL's list? --Martin

ps Let's populate the O.M. article with some more images - other than more Canadians!, please?

Hmm.. That is a very good source; I referred to the Buck House website a number of times when cleaning up the OM article, but never saw this list of members. Per images: there's only one of a Canadian in a total of four images. What other individuals were significant appointments to the order? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Honours/OrderofMerit/OrderofMerit.aspx --Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I used that link as a source for the OM article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I COULD NOT RESIST ADDING THE IMAGE OF HENRY JACKSON, CLASSICIST - AS I WROTE HIS WIKI ARTICLE!

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Coronation article

Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II - Some help please? Pictures, references, and more information would be nice. Thanks. :) --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Florence Nightingale

I don't think I imagined it, but didn't she also have a 'Florence, Grand Duchy of Tuscany' flag?

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do recall it being there as well. Don't know how it was lost. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Order of Merit

A great book; my message to its author read:

"PLEASE FORWARD THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO STANLEY MARTIN,CVO: AUTHOR OF "THE ORDER OF MERIT" (2007)

I have just had the pleasure of reading your book and bring to your attention that 'O.M.' can also stand for "Old Millhillian", an old boy of Mill Hill School of course, whose shining example was the late Francis Crick, O.M. of course!Also Sir Winston Churchill's full surname was Spencer-Churchill,ie with a hyphen;regards, M.D.Packer"

Good luck with the 'Spencer-Churchill' correction; try checking his birth certificate of course!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

STANLEY MARTIN

Stock Photo The Order of Merit: One Hundred Years of Matchless Honour (ISBN: 9781860648489) Stanley Martin Bookseller: Books Express North America

(Wayne, NJ, U.S.A.)

Bookseller Rating:

Price: £ 23.45 Cs41.89 (?)

[Convert Currency]

Quantity Available: 2 Shipping Within U.S.A.: £ 5.46

[Rates & Speeds]

Book Description: Palgrave Macmillan. Book Condition: Brand NEW, unread book. Bookseller Inventory

Cheapest copies in North America! YOU could do a better job with one than I can, mate! Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OM NUMBERING

I have renumbered all of them to be 100% consistent with Stanley Martin's book, as you have no doubt already seen; I have no problem with leaving in 1# to 24# (+ Mandela) by the way; but there should be NO actual duplication of numbers between the Current, Past (Substantive), Past (Honorary) members. I cannot understand how the numbering sequence got into this mess, do you?

Nitramrekcap (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No; as I said, it was essentially that way when I started editing the page. The only change I made in that regard was to remove the duplicate mention of current members in the past members section. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but can YOU re-instate all of the "Past/Substantive" Knighthoods etc please? I have done enough! (I will cross-check them all, but do please make them 'consistent' with their articles?)

Nitramrekcap (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not right now, no. As I asked at Talk:Order of Merit, does the inclusion of the knighthoods not then mean the addition of all post-nominal letters as well? Seems to be an awful lot of additional information that's not particularly relevant to the article's subject. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, you HAVE to include all the Knighthoods for the 'Past' members as a. you already have them for 'Current' members, b. you already have similar honours shown for the ladies, and c. some of the OM's look quite RIDICULOUS without their titles, e.g. "SIR Winston Churchill" of course! I appreciate it is a big job but you are only putting back in some of what was there originally. So forget about "all post-nominal letters" and complete the 'pre-nominal' titles? The Stanley Martin book (2007) is a really interesting read by the way. Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadian order of precedence (decorations and medals)

All the images I made and added and other naming changes I did came straight from a Government of Canada website (found here: [ http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/index-eng.asp National Defence and Canadian Forces: Canadian Honours Chart]. I re-added them. Dr. Stantz (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this at Talk:Canadian order of precedence (decorations and medals)#Scope of list. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?

In the page you created, List of members of the Alberta Order of Excellence you made a | revision as of 06:45, 22 August 2009 that included a ref tag <ref name=10-2009/> that resulted in a cite error. Could you go back and fill out the full source information? Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

former Governors General of Canada

Howdy Mies. Have you noticed anything confusing about the introduction of those articles, starting with Vincent Massey? They begin with saying when the person ends his/her GG service & latter mentioned when he/she are appointed. It should be flipped the other way, the current way is mis-leading at the start, making it seem like the individual was GG from their birth 'til their leaving office. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

LG bios needed

There are now wikipedia biographies for every provincial lieutenant-governor save three, Frederick Francis Mathers, Henry Ernest Kendall and John Elvin Schaffner - all of Nova Scotia. (The biography of James Robson Douglas also needs work). Can you provide any assistance? 64.229.202.135 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Korea Medal

Firstly re. placement of ribbon - general convention is to have a obverse/reverse/ribbon grouping at the top of the infobox. This not only ties all the key elements of the medal together in one location, but it also leaves the caption2/image2 fields at the bottom available for use for a second image of the medal - eg one with clasps, a notable variant, an image of the medal's subsequent award bar etc. (two quick examples where there is otherwise no picture of meal clasp - General Service Medal (1918), India General Service Medal (1854)) This is widespread amongst the medals-by-country categories, except it seems the US, and latterly the Canadian categories. Admittedly it can look a little odd if we have, as in the case of the Korea Medal, two excellent res pictures of obverse and reverse, both of which include substantial views of the ribbon. Is the ribbon image redundant in this case? Not sure. Happy to discuss it if you have better ideas though...

Secondly, your edit summary. On first reading it looked like fix & undo previously unannounced revert of ribbon image placement. Fine, I was a little sloppy in the edit summary. Only a second look do I see that previously is actually deviously. Hoping that this was just a typo, but if not then assume a little good faith please. A civil inquiry on an editor's talk page can often lead to reasonable explanations or admissions of error in cases like this - there's no need to burden the article's history with accusations of bad faith.

Thanks, Xdamr^talk 14:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what convention you're speaking of; but, regardless, you admit that the Canadian honours and decorations don't follow it. Given that the Korea Medal was a Canadian medal, why is it now the only one in the Canadian series that doesn't follow the formula of placing the ribbon image at the bottom of the infobox? Besides, alternate images of the award can be placed in the article body, which is a universally common tactic.

I only said "deviously" this time as you've twice now changed the placement of the ribbon image without being explicit in the edit summary. I'm sorry if I misconstrued sloppiness for surreptitiousness. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Arms of Canada

Hello,

After I had mentioned that the blazoning was the accepted one issued by the English heralds, recognized by the Canadian heraldic Authority and signed by the Crown, you continued to edit the blazon. It seems that you are not familiar with the blazoning of achievements and coats of arms, so I kindly ask that you refrain from editing the wording provided. I assure you, it is an acceptable and correct blazon.

Xanderliptak (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to contact you about this, mostly because what you inserted in the infobox is a near verbatim copy of the Canadian Heraldic Authority's website, and thus comes very close to being a copyvio. Nonetheless, I thought I'd wait to see if others had anything to say about your changes. I did not alter much of what you put in; some links and breaks can hardly affect the content, so it must be the punctuation corrections I made that you feel have violated some heraldic code. Can you explain how semi-colon breaks and making capitalization consistent renders the wording as incomprehensible? I may not know much about blazons, but it seems odd that or, argent, and the like, is only capitalized randomly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see you've reverted again. I'm thus moving this to the more public forum of Talk:Arms of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ribbons

If you can tell me what the "right" size is, I will produce some images that are of that size. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I came across a little blunt in my edit summary; it's late here and I'm getting over a cold.

There doesn't seem to be a "right" size for ribbon images (annoyingly); I just ended up using that which was employed for the majority of ribbons relating to Canadian honours - 106x30 pixels. If I recall correctly, there were at least two versions of those WWI ribbons and I selected those that conformed in size with the other files, rather than those that were most realistic. It's actually not much trouble for me to adjust the ribbon files tomorrow, if those you put in the article are definitely the right appearance. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"If I recall correctly, there were at least two versions of those WWI ribbons" - At least!

"It's actually not much trouble for me to adjust the ribbon files tomorrow" - OK, I'll leave it with you.

"if those you put in the article are definitely the right appearance." - As much as any 2D rendering of a 3D object can be "definitely the right appearance". They look much more like my grandad's ribbons than the pictures I replaced!

e.g. It's reasonably similar to this, which although not quite like my ancestor's, is reasonably similar to it. (Whereas this one looks like it's made out of a different type of fabric! The text here says: "The ribbon is watered silk with red, white and blue stripes. This is the same ribbon as that worn on the 1914-15 Star.", but quite obviously they don't look the same at all.) This looks close. This isn't so good.

You may (or may not) find this of use.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've just resized the images and inserted them into the article; much tidier! (I'm anal retentive that way.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, that looks much better. Well done. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First Canadian Place

It's WP:OR commentary. It's not up to us as editors to comment on the appearance of buildings, even if in your perspective it seems obvious (or in the perspective of whoever added that para). To me, I don't see any unique similarity beyond common 1970s international style design. Frankly, in my view, the Aon Centre is way more similar to the World Trade Centre Towers than First Canadian Place. It's all subjective. I can think of a lot of buildings that look similar in appearance, usually due to their vintage, but we can't all going adding our unsourced architectural observations into articles. I suspect you could probably easily find a source, if as the disputed language suggests they are widely recognized architecturally as being similar (as in the way, for example, the TD Bank Tower was widely compared to the Seagram Building). If we can't resolve this, I will need to tag it as disputed opinion content. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're not going to make a dispute out of nothing; the Aon Center and First Canadian Place were designed by the same architect and, unlike Mies' works, are the only two of his that are nearly identical in appearance. It's not simply a matter of the overall style, but of the height, plan shape, and (formerly) the exterior treatment. Just as we don't need a source to confirm that First Canadian Place is in Canada, we shouldn't require a source to state that one building is the same in all but window orientation to another; Wikipedia's main requirement is verifiability, and when the physical evidence is right in front of us as verification, why should a citation be required for the obvious? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible new status for Elizabeth II

The recent health problems of the King of Thailand, may eventually give 'Lillibet' the title of 'current longest reigning monarch of an independant country' . GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis

The Maple Leaf Award Awarded to Miesianiacal for his contributions to Canadian articles

Love for you to take a look at Indian Health Transfer Policy (Canada) if you have any time. Buzzzsherman (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow; thank you. I must admit, though, that I don't have a terribly deep knowledge of relations between First Nations and the federal government, but I am rather intrigued to know more; hence, I see working on The Canadian Crown and First Nations, Inuit and Métis as more of a challenge than other pages I've contributed to, but am eager to do so in the hopes that it will improve my comprehension of the subject. That said, I've had a cursory glance at the article you point to, and will have a go at it, if not now, then in the near future. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)