User talk:Miesianiacal/April-September 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Miesianiacal. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Months ago, I advised you to ease off from pushing monarchy on the Canadian articles, with the exception of stuff like Monarchy of Canada, Governor General of Canada etc; but you didn't heed me. When you don't ease off, you're always gonna be seen as an 'agenda pushing editor'. I'm not as harsh as Roux, but I do understand his (and others) frustrations. Anyways, this is just food for thought. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an incredibly one-sided view you have of the matter. I, and others, have an argument; so, too, do those on the opposite side (which seems to include you, despite your oft-made claim of impartiality). Trying to resolve a dispute via the proper channels isn't POV-pushing; it's trying to see a dispute resolved properly, so the potential for future disruption is minimised. If you think I am, by doing that, POV-pushing, what do you call what editors do when they keep in place a favoured edit by edit warring, ignoring policies and guidelines, and the use of intimidation, character assasination, and obstruction to bog down or even stop the dispute resolution process? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely telling you why you get so much mud thrown at you. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there are many other factors involved that you're glossing over. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Seen your 'recent' edit at Elizabeth II; giggle giggle - never any detail too small. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems that pre- (and mis-)conception of yours about what drives my edits overrides even the appreciation one would expect you to have for the expansion of commentary on republican sentiment to include other countries, including Canada.

BTW, how do you reconcile that with User:UrbanNerd's recent accusation that I go "Britishing things up" all over Wikipedia?

Perhaps you should all stop making stupid assumptions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I would never accuse you of Britishing things up, where Canada's concerned. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Template:Music of Canada". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 20 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Template:Music of Canada, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Continuing with a facilitated discussion

While the Request for mediation had to be declined because at least one of the parties declined the mediation, I am willing to facilitate the discussion at Talk: Canada. I've asked users if they would summarize reasons for inclusion/exclusion of GSTQ. Would you be able to put together a brief summary (200 words, max) of your reasons as to why it should be included? I know that you have argued this at length in the past while. We just need a summary of your main points. This seems to me to be the best way to resolve this matter, as, I don't believe it is something that can be taken to arbitration. Sunray (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your assistance with this matter, Sunray; it's appreciated. However, I think the dispute that needs resolved is at Template talk:Music of Canada; the little spat at Canada (which seems to have subsided now, anyway) is an offshoot of the Template:Music of Canada dispute. Could we shift the summisation of points to Template talk:Music of Canada? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to me that there were two issues: the template and the infobox. I'm I mistaken about that? Sunray (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you were right. Though, the two were related. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent remarks

You recently referred to another editor's comment as a "pedantic argument." [1] This strikes me as contrary to WP:CIV. Would you be willing to strike out, or remove this comment?

Done.

I can only wonder when, however, roux's and Walter's repeated (and gross and towards many editors in roux's case) violations of WP:CIV and WP:AGF will be dealt with properly. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have addressed others as well. Sunray (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, one doesn't seem to have cared to take note. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Vere Ponsonby citations

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I appreciate it when I hear from fellow editors who are genuinely concerned about article quality. However, I must tell you that I am quite a bit older, wiser, and meaner than most of the other folks who edit Wikipedia, and I really do not have the patience, or the inclination, to get bogged down in the cumbrous and needlessly byzantine, if not phantasmagoric, complexities of citation formats. I am a retired professional and a past master - you simply have to take my word on this - of English prose and research writing. My goal at Wikipedia is to make edits that are clear, concise, pertinent, and and above all, correct, with a link to reliable sources. The vagaries of citation formatting, which seems to be forever sprouting new and different variations, are of no interest to me: that's not how I want to spend my time here. People who care about such things can work on them, and really, I think there are bots and other automated mechanisms unfamiliar to me but which could be put to good use in such an endeavor by those who know how to use them.

However, having said all that, let me add that I think I am finished with Ponsonby, a personage I never heard of before today, but simply landed on his article from a link on another article. And then, as I am wont to do, I saw some little thing that I thought could be remedied by a swift, uncomplicated edit; unfortunately, I made the mistake of googling his name, and discovered a host of other little omissions begging to be rectified, so obeying my conscience, and having nothing better to do at that time, I set to work and a couple of hours later finished, with weary eyes and fingers but a much greater appreciation for the noble Earl, who seems to have lived an exemplary life.

BTW, those London Gazette formats are not invulnerable; in the course of my edits, I came across a couple that are dead links; so all the labor somebody put into producing them has been wasted, for whatever cause. I hope you can understand my feelings in this matter. I come to Wikipedia for learning and for enjoyment; when it ceases to be the latter, I don't want to participate. Textorus (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Impressive User page

Hi Miesianiacal,
I was just passing by when I accidentally clicked on your user page. This is the best user page and quite an impressive work as far as I have seen on Wikipedia. Sorry that the comment is not related to any article but just wanted to share my thought.
Happy editing :)
--Inlandmamba _{(talk to me)} 13:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

subst:ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — KC9TV 14:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Would you consider [2] and [3] to be vandalism? I shall be very grateful indeed if you would posibly share your thoughts and add to the discussion over at the ANI board. I thank you. I rest, your servant. — KC9TV 14:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Elizabeth II

This is a note to let the main editors of Elizabeth II know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 5, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 5, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Elizabeth II (born 1926) is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations. In her role as the monarch of the United Kingdom she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. She is also head of state of the Crown Dependencies. Her father, George VI, acceded to the throne in 1936 on the abdication of his brother Edward VIII. She began to undertake public duties during the Second World War, in which she served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. On the death of George VI in 1952, she became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Her coronation service in 1953 was the first to be televised. In 1947 she married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, with whom she has four children: Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward. Her reign of 72 years is the second-longest for a British monarch; only Queen Victoria has reigned longer. Elizabeth's Silver and Golden Jubilees were celebrated in 1977 and 2002; her Diamond Jubilee is being celebrated during 2012. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Time for a change

After 5 years, I think we can change Elizabeth II's wikipedia photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavno (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But, if so, it will have to be an image completely without copyright restrictions. Please see WP:NFC. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

ndash vs mdash

First, let me hasten to mention I profess NO expertise on this topic. I'm just asking a question.
On our mutually favourite page of the moment, there appears to me to be lots of mdashes. I was under the impression that the preferred character was the ndash. What can you tell me? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the context and purpose of the dash; see En dash and Em dash.

The correct type of dash is used correctly in the article. However, they're now (again, because the anon can't seem to stop reverting) not rendered consistently (two are typed code "—" and the rest are characters dropped in via the edit page "insert" bar below the edit window; see Wikipedia:How to make dashes). There should also be no spaces around an em dash. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's both helpful and useful! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring IP: your post at AN3

I wasn't aware of the other numbers. They're all Orange Home Broadband IPs, and they are all used in grouped blocks of time. It looks like his ISP switches IP number every few days - there's probably not much point in blocking earlier numbers used. When the ISP switches the number he will effectively evade the block. 163.167.171.212 is different - that's a number at London Met University. If he persists, I'm not sure there's going to be a solution to this other than to semi-protect the articles he targets. DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The individual's used a couple of '163' IPs, I think. Is it of any concern that he may well have an account (I won't say yet which one I suspect it is), though hasn't used it in any of the warring I've seen him conduct? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you put it forward to SPI to check? DeCausa (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it, but was unsure if it would be of any use; it might just cause more problems than solutions. The person seems to have backed off with the IP edits (for now) and the account I speak of hasn't been active for 15 days. Probably best now to just let it lie. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Prince of Wales

Good morning Miesianical (are you an architecture buff?) - I have reverted your deletion from the Charles Prince of Wales article, of his most senior military honours to date, announced on the day of Trooping the Colour, given him by HM the Queen, in all three services. This was one of my edits and was fully referenced. I am sure you would not feel happy had the boot been on the other foot. Much of the Charles article is taken up with personal stuff about him, that more properly belongs in other articles. However, an honour and appointment as senior as this should not be excluded from the Wikipedia article. I note you have a banner at the top exhorting "good faith" - I try always to observe it and not to suppress others' work, or elements worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia, come to that. FClef (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

One could call me an "architecture buff", yes.

I reverted your revert. Neither the validity of the information, nor its notability, the sources for it, or the faith with which it was added were ever at issue. The information was also never excluded; not by me, anyway. (In fact, you deleted info I had added about his elevation in the three branches of the Canadian Forces.) The two matters in play in this case are:

1. Brevity: There is a more succinct way to express the information than the way you did. My edit conformed with common practice on Wikipedia: if information is covered in detail at a main article (such as Charles' titles, ranks, and honours are at List of titles and honours of Charles, Prince of Wales), then its summarised at others and linked from there to the main one.
2. Order/coherence: The order disjointedly placed the most recent military appointments before any of his others. You imply you did this because of the seniority of the ranks. However, placing them at the end, as the culmination of a list of appointments of incrementally increasing seniority, achieves the same effect and is, at the same time, flows better for the reader and thus is more comprehensible.

There may well be other excess detail in the biography that would be better placed elsewhere. That doesn't justify adding more minutiae that's already covered elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Order and coherence: sometimes chronological order can be soporific, especially when there are many terms. Stylistically it is, I think, permissible to vary order of information, unless you can show me that this runs against Wikipedia policy. Sorry for deleting your Canadian stuff - unintentional.

Brevity: One could argue on this, that much of the Diana stuff should go - like her demise in a car crash, etc. etc. If we are going to leave in details of how Diana became a media darling in the Prince Charles article, then surely we can put in the fact that he is an Admiral of the Fleet?Those three appointments are very senior and I have restored them to the article.

Your attack on me for verbosity: pot, kettle, black spring to mind. Ungracious.

Do try not to be so sensitive.

Of course information can be arranged in any order. The question is: Which is best? I say yours was not.

I've already addressed the presence of excessive detail elsewhere in the article and its relevance (irrelevance, actually) to what we're discussing. The article presently does say, by inference, he's Admiral of the Fleet.: "...since 2012, [Charles holds] the highest ranks of the three branches of the British Armed Forces."

Perhaps you'd like to raise this at the article talk page and see what others think? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

ref on 2011 proposal...

Yes the ref is good, but already had two! The categories are "okay"! But the sentence was definitely not needed as it was redundant, and misleading. Yes they approved making the changes, but that does not make the changes approved!  :) --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:OC-Sov-badge.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OC-Sov-badge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Queen of Australia

Although I am certain that you will disagree with me on some points, I would like your input into a recent discussion of the 1975 Australian Constitution Crisis. You are one of the few Wikipedians with any sort of knowledge on these matters, and I would value your comments most highly. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of royal tours of Canada (21st century), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Catherines (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) 17:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Connaught - Parks

A reply to your reply.

Please forgive my complete incompetence re my first entry. Wrong section. Breaches of code etc etc. And I'm probably doing everything wrong here!

I've now put my entry in the first section. You might be interested to read up about his Royal Openings. Much grander than yours, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackari3 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)