User talk:Miesianiacal/April-September 2013

Perth Agreement Help

Hi, I've tried updating the article Perth Agreement to reflect the current situation with the Canadian law that just passed. It keeps getting changed to inaccurate information. Could you please look at what I'm doing wrong? You seem to be knowledgeable on this subject. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't quite tell what the issue is; is it regarding the matter of Canada's act being called a law? Perhaps you could start a discussion at the talk page and clarify? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wowsers, the Canadian government (supported by the Canadian Monarchist League) & with Elizabeth II's consent, has stated that one is Monarch of Canada by virture of being Monarch of the UK. Haven't you been arguing against that position on Wikipedia for years? GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a matter you'll have to bring up with the authors of all the sources out there that say something entirely different. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Decorative flags and icons

Could you please not add or restore decorative flags to Wikipedia articles? WP:ICONDECORATION is pretty clear that we only use such items where they add information. If you disagree with the guideline, I suggest raising it at the guideline talk page. --John (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Following on from this, I've raised the practice at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Please feel free to chip in there if you feel strongly that there is an encyclopedic reason for using these icons in this way. --John (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no flags. And it really has little to do with a non-binding guideline; those images have been there for years, which means consensus by silence comes into play. The onus is on you to mount a convincing argument as to why, after all this time, the guideline WP:ICONDECORATION needs to be stringently applied as though it were a policy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I loved your edit summary here! Do you come from a country where irony is understood? Maybe not. In any case, the onus is definitely on you to create or demonstrate a consensus for the encyclopedic benefit of diverging from the guideline, which enjoys long-standing and project-wide consensus. Can you do that? --John (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you got the point along with the laugh. See WP:BRD for further info. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, remind me, where in BRD does it say you should edit war while reminding others not to edit war in an edit summary? --John (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The better question is: where in BRD does it say you should respond to a revert of your bold move by reverting the revert, rather than discussing? I mean, you do see that it's BRD and not BRRRRRRRRR, right? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Here, I'll help you out before you get lost in your own sarcasm. WP:BRD is an essay, and so is WP:DRNC. Have you ever read it? --John (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere; that's right. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you again. I noticed you again adding decorative images to a couple of infoboxes. In case you've forgotten, you were unsuccessful in demonstrating or achieving a consensus in template talk. It would be better to pursue this route than to slow motion edit war across multiple articles. MOSICON has been around a few years now and there is a strong consensus against using icons this way. --John (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken: the images had consensus through silence--"Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus"--having been present in those articles for years without dispute until you arrived. The new consensus to remove the images was thus yours to achieve. After you initiated a discussion, you failed to garner a consensus to remove the images; only two other editors weighed in and neither said the images should be eliminated.

I restored the images I did because a) the above and b) other editors had undone some of your deletions of the images (demonstrating more support for keeping them), but you did not revert those other editors' changes (I brought this to your attention and you chose to ignore it). Thus, through your haphazard reverting, you'd created an inconsistency across the series of articles.

I trust you're clear now on the reality of the situation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your message

It was unsigned- nobody's perfect. Thanks for ref. tip. No need to gripe if some are less adept than others. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Gripe? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

--Your fixing link for list on book page noted with thanks. Good to see it done- couldn't figure it out. Qexigator (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences

Hi, I'd like to create articles for each Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences as well as for earlier Imperial Conferences. I've found this online resource The Commonwealth at the Summit:Communiqués of Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings, 1944-1986. Would you like to help? Imperial Preference (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm

Buddy, let's talk. You're clearly being a dick with your constant reverts. What do you not understand about the needed change? Norrk (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA, as well as WP:BRD. And look at the article talk page before coming here to be confrontational. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

|Yo

-- Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Queen of Canada -- Moxy (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Bar of the Senate

Exactly what is the definition of the Bar of the Senate? Will it be ok for you to include the definition of it? Komitsuki (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's the rail at the back end of the Senate chamber, beyond which only senators, the governor general, the monarch, certain other officers, and, for some reason unique to Canada, the prime minister. Not sure where one would find a full definition of what it is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth

Dear Miesianiacal,

The link (http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Commonwealthmembers/MembersoftheCommonwealth.aspx) which you re-inserted into the List of current heads of state and government article (with the explanation: "it is not a note about the Commonwealth of Nations") does appear to be about the Commonwealth; its title says 'Commonwealth members' And its first sentence goes: 'There are 54 member countries of the Commonwealth. These are listed below, with the years in which they joined the Commonwealth.' What do you mean that it's not about the Commonwealth?

Regards, ZBukov (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll see I said the note is not about the Commonwealth of Nations; I said nothing about that link/source. But, now that you point it out, the relevant paragraph in it is the following: "'Realm' indicates a Commonwealth country which has The Queen as Sovereign..."; that is, the Commonwealth realms. The note explains why the same person is listed sixteen times as a head of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If you check out the talk page of the article I have already raised the issue there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_current_heads_of_state_and_government#Commonwealth_reference_.3F). One person bothered to give an opinion and he was against including this reference. But as I noticed today, someone reinserted it nevertheless. I am aware of the difference between the Commonwealth of Nations and a Commonwealth realm. The reason why I think including this particular link is superfluous is that the UN protocol list, the first link in the External links section, includes the heads of state and government of all the countries and consequently this additional reference adds no value. ZBukov (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't just about a reference; you deleted the entire footnote. You need to find a consensus to remove either the note or just the link that is a source supporting the note. That talk page discussion you started (which I was aware of) did not achieve any consensus for either. I will contine to discuss this there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Elisabeth II

Please explain why you have reverted my removal of the Canadian arms on that page? There is a specific article for all of Her coats of arms as queen of 16 countries, why should that article show only one dominion outside the UK and not the rest? Fry1989 ^eh? 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Because there's no reason to keep a free image of her Canadian arms off the page when her British arms are there. The real question is: why should her bio article show only her arms for the UK and not for the other Commonwealth realm for which we have 1) a free image and 2) (unlike other realms) sources affirming that they are her arms in right of Canada? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the file you're using isn't Her Canadian arms, it looks nothing like the current or historical (1957) arms. And there are free Commons versions of the arms for 14 of the 15 realms excluding the UK, Granada is the only one we do not currently have on Commons. So once again my question stands; Why should Canada be the only realm outside of the UK with it's arms on that page? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, I'm not using it; I didn't put it in. Secondly, I said the arms for Canada have sources affirming they are the Queen's for Canada. The others, so far, don't. Thirdly, my question still stands: Why should her UK arms be the only realm's included in her bio article? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A retort to deflect a relevant question doesn't work with me. It is a fact that we have free files. It is a fact that as Sovereign, all her realms' arms are properly the "Arms of Her Majesty" and not of just of the state. It is a fact that there is an article specifically for the arms of all her realms. Why should only the UK and Canada be there? If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't revert. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Try inserting the others without sources confirming they are the Queen's arms. Take all her arms out of her bio article. I don't particularly care, so long as there's no nationalist bias and everything's sourced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Government of Canada

"restore long-standing" and "discuss any perceived issues" sounds a lot like WP:OOA. I have no problem discussing edits on article talk pages when needed, but every editor has a right to make changes to the encyclopedia and the fact that something has been in an article for a long time is not a sufficient justification for it to remain. A lot of crap exists in Wikipedia simply because no one has gotten around to removing it yet. If you wish to justify keeping it on the article's talk page, please do so, but don't revert another editor's edit simply because it is "long-standing" text. Regards Taroaldo ✉ 19:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody denied your right to make an edit. However, long-standing is a justification for some material to remain: it is the status-quo, which, according to WP:EDITCONSENSUS, WP:BRD, and WP:SILENCE, if an edit to it is reverted, should remain until a consensus is found for a change to be made. It's up to you to find consensus to remove that which you want to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Canada 1953

You will be aware that Succession to the Throne Act, 2013 includes a Hansard citation, where the following can be found: Bill to Assent to Alterations in the Law Touching the Succession to the Throne, Senate Second Reading, Serge Joyal - 'In 1953, there was a second involvement of the Canadian Parliament when Canada changed the Royal Style and Titles Act on February 11, 1953, to reflect Her Majesty as Queen of Canada. The Royal Style and Titles Act states: The assent of the Parliament of Canada is hereby given to the issue by Her Majesty of Her Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles, namely: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories....[1] Could the date of that enactment have a bearing on anything under discussion? Qexigator (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it in particular offers much in the context of the discussion we're been engaged in at Talk:Commonwealth realm; all the realms at that time passed similar legislation. The words "Realms and Territories" are part of the common format for the monarch's title in each realm that was agreed upon at a Commonwealth Conference in (I think) 1952. List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II has some information on the subject. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see an interesting note about Queensland. But I had been looking for something which would indicate the attributes of dominion /sovereign realm status. The information there and in other articles suggests that on federation Canada and Australia were given great seals and that the constituent states/ provinces also had "great seals" of their own, as had Scotland after the union with England. But nothing is definitely said about this in connection with dominion or sovereign realm status. And the words of the Latin inscriptions if anything unclarify the words in English.Great Seal of the Realm. Qexigator (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Great seal

Are you able to let me know of any website that has detailed information, including dates, for Great Seals as used in any of the dominions/realms? Qexigator (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Beyond Great Seal of Canada, no. Sorry. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That gives a fair amount of information not readily accessible otherwise, but, as above, the information I am looking for does seem to be lacking here and elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Chop logic

There is sometimes an air of chop logic when SYN and OR are invoked unhelpfully, but there appears to be practically nothing about it in Wikipedia. Curiously, Wiktionary has this: The verb "to chop logic" functions as its own antonym. In one sense, it means "to argue properly" and, in another sense, "to argue improperly." [2] As a long-standing editor, would you see an article or part of an article about this being a useful addition to Wikipedia? Qexigator (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

But I have just found this at The Free Dictionary: Chop´-log`ic n. 1. One who bandies words or is very argumentative. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co. [3], which could be a starting point for the topic. Qexigator (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lac-Mégantic derailment

In Lac-Mégantic derailment you indicate here "The train: not owned by US". Do you have a source for this? The news reports all list Maine-based Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway as the owner of the train and privately-held Rail World in Illinois as that company's owner. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:1DA7 (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The source required would be one upholding the claim that the company is owned by the United States. As you've indicated above, it is owned by a private company, not a country. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sir William Henry Clark

Can you help with his date of birth please? I cannot find in the UK, perhaps in Canada?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19521122&id=jQAxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NN4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=7293,4544815

"Clark was the first British High Commissioner to Canada from 1928 until 1934, during which time he acquired and lived in Earnscliffe manor, the former home of the first prime minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald."

Martin Packer

Random reversal of edits

why did you reverse my improvements to the quebec train derailment artical? 70.78.45.67 (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't regard them as improvements; too many unneeded insertions of the word "Canada" and the deletion of sourced material. Plus, you're an anonymous user and didn't leave any edit summary explaining the rationale behind what you thought were improvements.

I see you've reverted my revert, anyway. So, apparently you didn't actually care about the answer to your question above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal instructions

According to the Royal instructions, it says At the time of Confederation and still to this day, certain subjects matters remain within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers, such as international treaty making and the creation of Indian reserves. Is there a source how Canada's royal instructions get involve with international treaties? Thank you. Komitsuki (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like there's a source there already for that sentence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Mies: Another point: the lead has "...issued to the Governor General of certain Commonwealth realms.", but the article goes on to instance only Canada before and after confederation, and not after SoW. How is the link with "Commonwealth realms" explained? - are not such instructions constitutionally incompatible with the sovereignty of any of the realms? Qexigator (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I find this part of the text rather obscure and the legal source does sound rather obscure. Komitsuki (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not familiar with the subject at all; I'd never heard of "royal instructions" before that article was pointed out to me. It seems awfully like a repetition of Letters patent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The topic is distinct, not identical with letters patent generally. Anyhow, I have fixed the mistake there about Commonwealth realms. Royal instructions are specifically mentioned, for example, in "The Development of the Legislative Council 1606-1945", Martin Wright, in the series "Studies in Colonial Legislatures" edited by Margery Perham of the Institute of Colonial Studies, Oxford, England[4] (Faber & Faber, 1946).[5] Appendix 10 on Instruments by which Legislative Councils are Constituted lists: order in council; letters patent; royal instructions; local ordinance; act of imperial Parliament. It touches on certain other topics: Canada and the Durham Report; and on p.25: "Ireland was degraded from a dominion to a dependency by Poynings' Law in 1494, which compelled the Irish Parliament henceforward not to meet nor to enact legislation without the prior consent of the English Privy Council."; on p. 39 The Dependency of Ireland on Great Britain Act 1719 "had declared the subordination of the Irish Parliament to the legislative authority of the British Parliament." Qexigator (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. Strange that I've never come across the term once in all the years I've been adding information about the Commonwealth realms to Wikipedia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that article is only two years old, and meantime other things may have kept us busy - cheers! Qexigator (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if you didn't know this. Komitsuki (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"absorption"

I am curious (not disputing) about "absorption" in "...to legislatively ratify the Canadian Cabinet's earlier consent to the absorption into the laws of Canada..."[6]. Is this taken from a parliamentary source or some expert commentator, or common usage? Qexigator (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Are you requesting a source for the actual word "absorption"? Or for the act becomgin a part of Canadian law? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry not to be clear. Sometimes a common word gets caught up in specialist discourse. This is quite frequent when legal/constitutional points are being discussed: forfeiture, severance, divisibility, dissolution, margin of appreciation. Has absorption come to be used in such a way, as "Commonwealth realms" is now part of the language used in parliament? Is it being used in court pleadings or judgments with reference to some established legal doctrine, or one which is emerging? Qexigator (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. But, I honestly don't know the answer to your question. I used the word in its literal sense: the act was absorbed into (became part of) Canadian law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest, tentatively, that "absorption" might look to some as if it were one of those jargony "terms of art", and some day may be one, but in the meantime could not "become part of" serve? What either is meant to say is the same thing, and that is no less debatable however expressed. So its only a question of which more easily communicates with the ordinary reader. For all I know, against my preference, it could be "absorption". Qexigator (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't use "become part of" because it doesn't work in the sentence. "Incorporation" might be an alternative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The correct word would be "received," although that probably would not be accurate either. If someone in England with a property in Canada died, it would be inherited according to the English laws of succession. But the inheritance of the crown of Canada is an exception because it is only valid if the Canadian parliament assents to the law of succession. TFD (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context, it would be "reception". The Canadian Cabinet consented to the Abdication Act as passed by the UK parliament becomgin a part of Canada's laws, which is all that was required for that to happen, as per S.4 of the Statute of Westminster, then still in existence in Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That looks right per Doctrine of reception but before using it I myself would like to be able to check for confirmation in authoritative sources about the Canadian constitution, but I may be over cautious about that. My own concern would be that the more one looks into a so called legal doctrine, the more uncertain its application in a particular case may be, unless the specific point has been definitely ruled on, settled and generally accepted for the purposes of an article such as Succession to the Throne Act, 2013. That's about as positive as I can be on this one. Qexigator (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian legislation is not relying on s.4 but on the preamble which says, "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne...shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." S.4 was replaced for Canada by the Constitution Act 1982. It is similar to when parliament passes a law in order to enforce a treaty with a foreign government. The statute may refer to the treaty or incorporate it in full. The NAFTA Implementation Act 1993 for example says, "The Agreement is hereby approved,"[7] but does not actually include the text of the agreement. TFD (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The part of the article quoted above is talking about events that took place in 1936. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So reception would be wrong because the law replaced the British law that had been received. TFD (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What law did the Abdication Act replace? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I had thought it replaced the 1936 abdication act, but it actually just repeated the 1936 Canadian order in council. TFD (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Abdication Act 1936 replaced the Abdication Act 1936? I'm no longer at all clear on what you're talking about. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to Canada's 1937 act, that gave assent to the 1936 act. I did not actually call it the "Abdication Act". TFD (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you said "it", which, in the context, is a pronoun fot "the Abdication Act" in my immediately preceding question.

Regardless, the Canadian government, via order in council, requested and consented to the Abdication Act becoming part of the laws of Canada. In the sentence in question, "absorption", "incorporation", "reception" would thus all work. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mies: (I don't know how many indents I should be using) Like most loyal Canadians and others, I lack the knowledge of much of the finer details of Canadian law which would let me settle this point in my own mind, but may I say (as a non-Canadian) that my sense of usage in this kind of context makes me feel uneasy about the using of any of those words here. I believe the phrase was absent before you put it in a day or two ago?[8]. The passage was more intelligible without it than with it, whichever word is used. If you are not using something having general currency and from an acknowledged source, does it amount to more than POV or one of the other WP restraints? Could you consider a self-revert, without loss of face? Qexigator (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what your concern is. We needn't copy sources verbatim (in fact, it's discouraged as either plagirism or, more serious, a copyright violation). What I added is reliably referenced with both primary and secondary sources. The addition was composed as it was so as to work within the pre-existing flow of the paragraph. I think the word "absorped" functions fine. I've given a few alternatives, regardless. You're unhappy with all of them, but have contributed no additional possibility yourself; just complaints and a request that the "problem" (as you see it) simply be made to disappear. I'm sorry to say I see no problem and (perhaps thus) find the latter to be a wholly unacceptable "solution". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"source" - is that Twomey, The royal succession and the de-patriation of the Canadian Constitution?[9] After looking in her article for something of which the words you added could be a pre'cis or summary, I am not sure that I have found it. Is it here: "As His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 (UK) extended as part of the law of Canada, Australia and New Zealand as well as the United Kingdom, the effective date of the abdication in those four countries was the date of commencement of that Act, 11 December 1936, rather than 10 December, which was the day on which Edward VIII signed his declaration of abdication." She goes on to contrast that with the position in South Africa and IFS, but makes no further reference to the Abdication legislation. What I have quoted permits a Wikipedia editor to say that the UK Act, by extending to Canada, became part of the law of Canada. Or, relying on that, to write more simply for the article: "...the Succession to the Throne Act 1937, passed by the Parliament of Canada to legislatively ratify the Canadian Cabinet's earlier consent to the absorption. taking into the laws of Canada of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936..." Would that be acceptable? I think it is plainer English and safely avoids any hint of neologism, but at the same time chimes with reception. I would have mentioned this before if I had thought of it. Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Twomey's wasn't one of the sources I was talking about, but it could be added as a usable one.

I don't object to your proposed sentence. "Taking into" and "absorption" are synonyms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Arms of Canada

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm already aware of it, thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Is there any way I could possibly email you, or speak to you off-site? If you are ok with it, you may email me through my user page. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's related to the coat of arms matter, I'd prefer to keep things pubilc. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Need some watching

This user by the name User:Hoardkey just vandalized the Kevin S. MacLeod article not too long ago. I wonder whether you can watch this article together if there's a case of vandalism presented. I made some positive contributions before and I made the Korean traslation before. Anyhow, be careful of vandals, please. Komitsuki (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --John (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of extending a low-grade edit war and making pointy and hypocritical drops of template threats on others' talk pages, your efforts would be better employed pursuing dispute resolution, since your attempts to find a consensus for your edits failed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain edit summary

It may be of no consequence, but I do not understand your edit summary "why is this named?"[10]. Qexigator (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship Oath

There is a reply to your question about the Legislated mandate of Citizenship Judges96.50.86.210 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Monarchy of Australia

I highly recommend you read the entire table before just making changes without prior discussion, Thanks. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 04:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the policy that says I have to start a discussion and receive someone's approval before making a change? And, if so, also why you don't have to follow it?

But, thank you for indirectly alerting me to the fact that other prime ministers' names have been needlessly repeated in that table. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to be snippy geez. But as I was the one who created the table, modelled off the Canadian one I figured that you might want to discuss sweeping changes since I am still around. However I am going to presume not, so please carry on doing what ever you want.. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 21:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, it was a bit snippy; but, it was pretty tame. The point is: I can make a bold edit; one need not search back through the edit history to find out who originally wrote or made what one wants to edit and seek that person's input and/or consent before making any change. And removing one repetition of a prime minister's name and that of a person who isn't even yet prime minister is hardly a "sweeping" change; unless you mean the subsequent edit wherein I removed all repetition of prime minister's names. If so, again, it's within my rights to do that, just as it's within yours to revert it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

God Save the Queen

I believe you reverted my edit of God Save the Queen erroneously.

My version: ...with the third verse ("Thy choicest gifts in store", etc.) sung as a second verse.

Yours: ...with the third verse ("Thy choicest gifts in store", etc.), sung as a second verse.

There is no need for a comma between "the third verse" and "sung". Julesd 19:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Mmm... Yes, you're right. I missed the brackets somehow. Though, even if they weren't there, my edit would still not have been grammatically correct. Well, I've reverted myself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)