User talk:Miesianiacal/October 2010-March 2011

GG Canada

While I can understand you wanting to revert Johnston, I am baffled at your reverts to Jean - She is no longer the GG as of 0000 EST October 1. In the event from now until Johnston is sworn in that requires the intervention of the Queen or her representative, it's the Chief Justice acting as the Administrator of Canada who will take on the role.--Cahk (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your source is for the exact moment the Chief Justice was commissioned to act as administrator, but the Administrator of the Government doesn't replace the governor general. Jean has to have her commission from the Queen revoked to cease being governor general and, unless there's evidence to the contrary, that hasn't happened. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it has already be gazetted so the previous commission is revoked. [1]--Cahk (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication therein that Jean's commission has been revoked. And note the pertinent words in the Queen's letters: "And further We do hereby appoint that, so soon as you shall have taken the prescribed oaths and have entered upon the duties of your Office, this Our present Commission shall come into effect." As I keep saying, Johnston hasn't yet taken the oaths of office; so Jean remains governor general until that exact moment. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Side note ..we should refer to her now as the "27th Governor General" and not "former Governor General". Former sounds like she got fired were 27th make it obvious she served the whole term. Ps Officially David is the "Governor General Designate" until hes sworn in. Moxy (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Mansbridge & CBC news says her tenure ended at 10:00 AM est & the Chief Justice is now Acting GG. Would Peter lie to me? GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's just hearsay about what a reporter said; we need a more substantial and reliable source for a claim as big as the Office of Governor General is vacant. You don't even have a link. And Peter has been known to be wrong in his on-air commentary (the 2003 D-Day ceremonies in France come to mind).

The Chief Justice is now Administrator of the Government. That in no way means Jean has ceased to be governor general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I do like the new coat of arms.Moxy (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Note who is accepting the vice-regal salute - it clearly isn't Jean! --Cahk (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it wouldn't be, because, as has already been pointed out, the Chief Justice is acting as Administrator of the Government. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As I already posted on another board - the two posts (i.e. Admin and GG) are mutually exclusive. They cannot co-exist together because the entire reason of having an admin is because GG is "removed or incapcitated" - does that make more sense now? (Early morning communication isn't as effective I guess) --Cahk (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And is Jean either removed or incapacitated? And, if yes, by who's authority? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Johnston will be sworn-in soon, so the vacancy argument will become moot. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much of vacancy per se (or whether Jean is still the GG), but more for future reference because that's our Constitution! I am surprised with the amount of mis-information in media about the installation .... only CBC got it right so far which baffles me! --Cahk (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, CBC news has said that the Chief Justice is 'tecnically' Acting GG (not Acting GG). Therefore, Mies has got a point there. I reckon this argument will continue at List of Governors General of Canada article. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically acting GG because she's the Administator of Canada for the time being. There isn't a post called "acting GG" but for public information sake ... --Cahk (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How is the chief justice the administrator, when the 1947 Letters Patent clearly only allow for the chief justice to be administrator in the case of the "death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Governor General out of Canada." Jean is none of the above. Likely, the chief justice is acting as Deputy to the Governor General.

The bottom line is, only the Queen can terminate the governor general's commission, and there's no evidence she did so. Jean can't remove herself from office. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you over who can terminate the commission. However, the administrator of government would be her correct title - because each deputy of GG has to be re-appointed by the next GG to continue that role. Since Jean is no longer the GG, only the Chief Justice, as the Administrator of Canada (because GG is no longer in office), has the power to preside over the ceremony. This is in line with most Commonwealth countries. --Cahk (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your whole position, though, rests on the assumption that Jean is no longer governor general (assuming Johnston hasn't yet taken the oaths of office; I can't tell because the CBC's video stream of the ceremony failed to materialise). Where is the evidence to support the assertion?

This situation is actually not at all common in other Commonwealth realms; in fact, this is only the fourth time in Canadian history that a governor general has attended the installation of his or her successor. Aside from diverting some attention away from the main focus of the ceremony - the governor general-designage - this action creates a whole mess of legal and protocol problems. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mansbridge just did it again, calling the CJ 'Acting GG'. Then again, CBC news has been a tad inaccurate today, calling Jean 'former GG' & 'outgoing GG'. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is precisely why we shouldn't be relying on them solely as a source of information. The law tends to be more clear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On the assumption that CBC news covered previous GG's installation in this matter, I'd oppose having the current Chief Justice listed at List of Governors General of Canada as an Acting GG. Afterall, her alleged status merely lasted a few hours (if that). PS: Do they have to have preys? geez. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PPS: Oh great, now they've got the 'kids choir' thing, going. I think those are the same kids they've been using at these cermonies for the last 20+ years. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, at least you can see what's going on. CBC's website has done an epic fail on the live streaming video of the ceremony. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnston has assumed office. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Canadian PMs infoboxes

In relation to the GG discussion, I noticed an inconsistancy among the PM infoboxes. Some of them list the Governor General, while other don't. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember when, but it was decided some time ago to show just the monarch. The infoboxes should all be consistent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps tomorrow, I shall begin deletions. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

General Campaign Star (Canada)

Good Afternoon,

I Am Curious As To Why We Are Going Back And Forth On The Subject Of The Canadian Forces Air Force Marking On The Tri-Force Insignia. The GCS Page Lists The Air Force Insignia As A "Soaring Eagle", When In Fact The Bird Is An Albatross. My Reasoning For This Is Based On 5 Years In The Canadian Forces And The Education I Have Been Provided On The Subject As A Result.

Thank You For You Time,

Chris Brown Mobil300 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verificability and reliable sources, and the source for the assertion that the bird is an eagle is the Department of National Defence: "The GCS is a gold-coloured four-pointed star, 44 mm across, representing the cardinal points of a compass bearing on the obverse, built-up in order from the back: a wreath of maple leaves terminating at the top with the Royal Crown, two crossed swords, the blades and hilts forming four additional points to the star, an anchor and a flying eagle" [emphasis mine].[2] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The DND Website Is In Error; However Until They Fix It, This Issue Is Closed. Thanks For All The Time And Effort You Put Into Wikipedia, We All Appreciate It.Mobil300 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this DND source goes into the albatross v. eagle issue and asserts that the bird is indeed an eagle, though a rumour of it being an albatross persists. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I have been an Officer in the Canadian Armed Forces Primary Reserve for almost 10 years, and I was told it was an Eagle, not an Albatross. When I first joined as an Officer Cadet (I was one for about 2 hours) I was given the CF Tri-Force cap brass, then given the Artillery Badge when I was commissioned. (NCM's and Subordinate Officers wear the Cap brass, Commissioned Officers wear a cloth badge) Dphilp75 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dashes and the MOS

There sure is, and it says "Do not space em dashes." You can space en dashes, though. The MOS doesn't bother telling us not to put hyphens into verbs like "lay in state" because that's just common sense. 85.178.65.144 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay; if there's a problem with spaces, then it lies in the {{mdash}} template. The code — should probably be used instead of the template. The dashes you put in at Ray Hnatyshyn certainly didn't show up as mdashes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I changed them to en dashes, which, when spaced, can be used equivalently to unspaced em dashes. There's no need to use code like — and – when you can use the characters — and – directly. 85.178.65.144 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

David Johnston

Despite the fact he has already been sworn in, he has yet to receive his KStJ. As noted on the GG website, "[KStJ] will be presented to Mr. Johnston within the first six months of his mandate." [3]

When a LG/GG is presented with the Order of St. John, it is gazetted and thus, at this point, he is not KStJ but only the Prior.[4][5] --Cahk (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on the site you link to any mention of Johnston "receiving his KStJ" within the first six months of his mandate. The statement isn't entirely clear, anyway: one doesn't receive a KStJ; one is appointed to the order and receives the appropriate insignia. Which are you referring to when you say he's to receive his KStJ?

Another question is: If the governor general is the Prior and Chief Officer of the order, then who, but Johnston, is presently Prior and Chief Officer? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Strange - they updated the website today I suppose .. if you take a look at Google [6] = that's where I got the citation re: in 6 months. I only removed the KStJ ref but left the Prior because he is indeed in that role, only he has yet to be appointed to KStJ. --Cahk (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure of that? I've searched the Gazette, and I don't see where Jean was gazetted. It strikes me that if the sentence was removed, it may have been because it was inaccurate. -Rrius (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

If you look at Category:current national leaders you will see that HRH is not listed there either. I don't know if other GGs are listed. I noticed this when an anon added the category the other day. It appears that the category serves a different purpose. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

HRH? Which one? I'm not sure I follow your logic, anyway. The anon removed Michaëlle Jean from the category and added David Johnston to it. No, Elizabeth II is not in the category, but that's perhaps because the article's already in about twenty heads of state categories, I don't know. But, Quentin Bryce, Louise Lake-Tack, Arthur Foulkes, Colville Young, Clifford Husbands, Carlyle Glean, Patrick Allen (Governor-General), Cuthbert Sebastian, Pearlette Louisy, Paulias Matane, Anand Satyanand, Frank Kabui, Iakoba Italeli, and Frederick Ballantyne are all included. What purpose do you think the category serves? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

After I wrote here I checked and discovered that GGs are listed. As are the Prime Ministers of those countries. It appears to be a glaring omission that Elizabeth II isn't and it makes me believe that there has been an error in one of those two. I'm not sure which is the case though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check prime ministers, per se; but, I did notice Stephen Harper in the cat. I can't see why anyone would object to Elizabeth II being added. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Re: Citations

Thanks. I planned on throwing it in a template and usually do, I just didn't have time at that moment. See my work at Canadian Afghan detainee issue. --Natural R_X 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't check your edit history. Fair enough, then. Apologies, --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hyack Festival and common

I wonder if WG could prove at talk just how common blowing anvils apart is in Canada. It's unique. There is no question of that. However fireworks on Victoria Day are not common in locations in western Canada. I believe that they are unique to southern Ontario, but I have no WP:RS let alone WP:V sources for that latter concept, and I'm certainly not familiar with how Victoria Day is celebrated in Quebec or the maritimes. I wouldn't call fireworks "more common" though. I even had a problem with "common". They do occur, but not with the anticipation of Canada Day celebrations, and certainly not as widely, and they're certainly not as "large" (number of pyrotechnics or duration or even in attendance). The Hyack festival is the only popular (and by that I mean publicized) Victoria Day celebration in the Vancouver area, while every city and municipality has an official Canada day celebration. In many communities, such as Surrey, BC, there are smaller, unofficial celebrations for Canada Day hosted by community groups. You don't see that happening with Victoria Day. So "common" makes it seem to the outside as though they happen in many communities. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The words "more common" referred to the comparitave commonality of fireworks versus anvil blasting, in general; an evening of fireworks is a more common way to celebrate than blowing apart anvils. Given the verity of the statement, "more common" are therefore not weasel words. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As a comparison with anvil blasting (which I don't even a common practice globally--I have only heard of one other such celebration) it works. I was obviously reading it in isolation and not in context. Is there a way to fix the phrasing so that if someone were to take the phrase out of context, it could still be correctly understood? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The wording as it is is fine. It was the accusation of using weasel words that I objected to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. If I could go back and strike that phrase I would do so now that I understand the reasoning behind the addition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, thank you for saying so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why GoodDay is wrong about the Monarchy....

Sorry man.. I just couldn't resist... I presume he also has you on his watch list, so I thought I would pop this here to rattle his chain when he gets back...! ;) Hope all is well with you! Dphilp75 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I still think he's a closet monarchist... But more on that when I return from my weekend out of the city. Cheers, --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

How much will the British taxpayers pay for Billy & Cates nuptials? I suppose you two are tickled pink, today. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That's up to the British Cabinet to decide, and be accountable for. I'm not particularly moved by the engagement announcement; it was a long time coming. I'm more curious to know if the Canadian Privy Council met to give its approval. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No doubt they will. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears you might be right about the meeting taking place in future. Charles proposed to Diana in February 1981, but the CPC didn't give consent to the wedding until March. Quick! You still have time to write to Harper and have him block the union! ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be wasting my time. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, very few editors realize that there's 2 articles of the same topic. We've got Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton & Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton. Those at the former's AfD (voting keep) seem unaware of the latter's existance. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

'Tis alright now. The former was made into a re-direct to the latter. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

Care to weigh in on this? Specifically, the part about Middleton's title when she marries William? There seem to be a few people that don't understand why she won't be "Princess Katherine" and why she will be "Princess William of Wales"...Dphilp75 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that the section entitled "The bridal couple" is repeated elsewhere - that is why I kept it short and included the "Main article" references. If you disagree with my reinstatement, please go to the discussion page first. Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BRD, it's up to you to seek the necessary consensus for your addition after it was first reverted. The material you say belongs in the article is totally superfluous; nowhere in an article about an event do we give mini-biographies of the participants. I'll raise this matter at the talk page, though, instead of discussing it here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oy.. This Proteus guy is driving me crazy in his obstinate insistence that Kate will be a Princess... Dphilp75 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If the Broadbent stuff gets deleted again, I'm done with that article. Atleast (among the monarchist there) you're being neutral about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

PS- Would you reason with Martinvl? -- GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can; I'm not even fully able to understand what his feelings are on the matter. He complains that I "sanitised" Broadbent's comments, but then says Broadbent's comments don't belong because they're so offensive. Huh?

Anyway, I don't think he'll convince many others to adopt his unique position. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he likes me. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Canadian flags

Sure why not? I just copied the text that existed before the image was removed. I appreciate your subsiquent edit, but there is no reason to be critical of someone making a good faith edit.--Svgalbertian (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The comment wasn't meant to be as critical as you appear to be making it out to have been. I suppose you could've been a little more diligent when adding the image and related information, but I was feeling more droll than cantankerous at the time. Please don't take it personally. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms

I believe a Rfc on this topic, will be required in the future, as alot of articles are effected by it. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton

Hi Miesianiacal

I have taken the liberty of indenting your comments in the RFC so as to distinguish them from the previous editor's comments. I trust that this is in order. Martinvl (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was responding to the opening comment of the RfC, not Kittybrewster, as your indenting implied I was. No worries, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I know how anxious you are about this topic, but I due agree with John K's points. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Anxious? You make it sound as though I spend sleepless nights worrying about Wikipedia. I don't. Especially when I know you'll change your mind within a week. ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't line up well with Anne to George VI. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Likely because the articles from Anne to George V are about monarchs of a unified empire and from George V to Elizabeth II, monarchs of multiple independent countries; though, the pages of George V, Edward VIII, and George VI don't yet fully reflect that reality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Elizabeth II article will someday have to be moved back to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Either that or something must be done with the intro or the infobox content. Downplaying the UK, in that bio article, has been overdone. Anyways, time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Overdone" is unclear and subjective. "Overdone" how? And compared to what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom is prominant among the 16 realms in relation to Elizabeth II. She lives there, has most of her homes there, has no governor-general there. Is rarely described as Queen of Australia or Queen of New Zealand or Queen of Canada (for example) during her foreign trips. Royal weddings take place in the UK, not in the other 15 realms. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't really explain how the UK is downplayed at all, let alone to the point of being "overdone" or what the downplaying is "overdone" in comparison to. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Along with the RM to Elizabeth II, the intro & infobox content used to read ...Queen of the United Kingdon and 15 other realms. I no longer accept the reasoning behind those past changes & have sided with John K. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've already said your position has vacillated, yet again. I was trying to uncover why, but you won't answer my questions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

'Cuz your version is wrong, per common & international usage. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Common and international usage of what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

...of the United Kingdom, please don't bring up the England stuff. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, common usage does not necessarily equal correct usage and I don't see on the article Elizabeth II any usage, or lack thereof, that counters the usage of the words "of the United Kingdom" in international diplomatic circles (which is what I assume you mean by "international usage"), wherein they're only employed when Elizabeth is being referred to specifically as Queen of the United Kingdom. So, I need you to explain in more detail how "my version" (i.e. that which was, through the proper channels, reached by consensus) is wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The push for showing equality among the 16 realms, has caused the distortion I've mentioned. PS- Ya know where the article-in-question is, for future discussion. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That Elizabeth lives mostly in the UK and is more directly associated with it is a fact that the article doesn't subvert. That Elizabeth II is queen of all her realms equally is also a fact, but one you (and john k) seem to wish to subvert (on the grounds that somehow there are degrees of queenship related to geography). Based on that observation, many would argue that it's you who's (now) pushing for a distortion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Titles and styles of Canadian Governor Generals

Hello. I just wanted to communicate with you about the titles of the Governor Generals of Canada who held UK peerages, and specifically about the capitalisation of the word "The" in their peerage titles. This standard is observed across Wikipedia, as you will be able to see on the pages of various peers, such as the following: Charles Spencer, 6th Earl Spencer; Miles Fitzalan-Howard, 17th Duke of Norfolk; George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston. I have listed these articles as a few examples entirely in good faith, inasmuch as I have never edited them. There are many more. I should like further to bring to your attention the Wikipedia page the deals with this subject, which is Forms of address in the United Kingdom. The information on this page is based on -- though I do not believe that the citations have been added yet -- and has its authority in the published sources of, among others, Debrett's and Burke's. In all the editions for example of Burke's Peerage that I have consulted, the entry for each extant peerage is followed by the correct form of address for the incumbent at the time of publication. They are invariably The Lord/Viscount/Earl/Marquess/Duke (of) X, always with a capitalised "The" and prefixed by the appropriate style (The Rt Hon/The Most Hon/His Grace). If this still remains a contentious point, I shall be happy to look up the reference for each Governor General in question, at each point during his life, in previous editions of Burke's and add them to the sources of the article, but perhaps you might let me know if you feel it to be that contentious. Thank you very kindly. GiovanniCarestini (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked specifically about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Capital letters, where it was said that Debrett's indicates a lower case "t" and the conclusion was not to capitalise. If you disagree, feel free to reignite that discussion and, if it results in a different consensus, I'll make the accordant changes. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that I follow. In the discussion that you linked, you wrote that you consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, but then you rejected the standard that it laid out regarding the capitalised "The". Indeed, it referred to the same page to which I referred above, namely Forms of Address in the United Kingdom, which clearly uses the capitalised "The". If the consensus that you reached in the discussion page were a strong one, why did you not make parallel changes in the page itelf or in Forms of Address in the United Kingdom? Furthermore, I am not sure that it is correct to apply a consensus reached on a project discussion page as a standard unless the project page itself is made reflective of the consensus reached in its discussion page. As I said, if necessary, I shall be able to find published sources giving the form of address for the Canadian GGs in question (perhaps even at every stage in their life), using a capitalised "The". The most egregiously dubious part of this whole business is that apart from the handful of Canadian GGs whose titles you have seen fit to change, no other peer has his titles listed using the lower case "the". GiovanniCarestini (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are following: I asked other editors for input because the project was either unclear or conflicted with practice outside of Wikipedia of capitalising the "t" in "the" before a peerage title ("t"he Viscount X) and the honorary prefix ("t"he Honourable); projects are neither official Wikipedia style guides nor policies. I don't know why three members of the project offered advice contrary to what the project page says and the project page wasn't changed. Ultimately, though, I'd love to see at the conclusion of this matter some kind of clear guide established for future reference. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Billy & Kate

Grr, you Canadian monarchist. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Acting up

Howdy Mies. Would you know the name of the Canadian Parliamentary Act, which allows government services to be conducted in the language required in a given area - for example Cree language? GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any such act. All I know is that the Official Languages Act requires federal Crown offices to provide services in the two official languages according to the ratio of use of French and English in the region served. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I may have found what I was looking for. Section #32 of that Act provides that government services are done in miniority languages, if required. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Chapel Royal

Hi Mies, can you be more specific about your latest undo? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment at your talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I did and that is why I wrote and asked you to be more specific. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more specific I can be. Many of your edits to that article haven't conformed to Wikipedia standards. For example, here you inserted improperly formatted references, here you made a section that consisted of nothing more than an interlanguage link, here you made a confusing and grammatically unsound section header, here an image was improperly sized and given an incorrectly punctuated and justified caption, here an unreliable source was given and a section was created consisting of nothing more than an improperly done interlanguage link, and here you expanded that section with just more bulleted links, a nonsensical sentence, and a misplaced main article link. I've placed maintenance tags to notify editors (including you) that what's there isn't up to standard, but you haven't addressed those problems you made and now are just making more. I don't mind fixing up some mistakes here and there (I make a few, myself), but I'm not going to keep tidying up behind you; for your own benefit and that of Wikipedia, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the guidelines for creating a good article and adhere to them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mies. Eddaido (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mies if you read the article carefully I think you will see that the Flemish Chapel people were people from the Spanish Netherlands living in Spain. You can check by following the links to individuals. It is something that needs to be clarified within that article, I mean made clear. Eddaido (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

List of titles and honours of King George VI

What I was getting at is in a list like that, the use of the NZ Army logo is not in compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8. It states "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." We have text already that it is the NZ Army, we already have a flag of NZ showing it is New Zealand. Having the image there that is copyrighted is pure decoration and our policy will not support it. Sure, the crown copyright will allow the image here, but our policies go beyond what crown copyright will allow us. (Also, if you note, many other countries that have copyrighted logos for their armies had their images removed or commented out due to the same reason). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure . . .

Hello, my friend. I am not quite sure why you sent me a message concerning graphic sizes. Is there something I should be aware of? Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsure

While I, as a republican, don't agree with everything David Smith says, he is the most persistent researcher on the the role of the Australian Governor-General and what he has dug up on this rather arcane subject is well worth reading. A recent address summarises his position, but copies of his earlier papers are easily found on various Australian monarchist websites, and his book is essentially a compendium. Incidentally I attended both presentations at the ANU Law School to which he refers. The key to understanding the role of the Australian Governor-General is not to stop reading at s2 of the Constitution. --Pete (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of, though not intimately familiar with, Smith's work, and, while I understand his argument, don't find it entirely convincing.

Also, thank you for the advice on understanding Australia's governor-general. Though, I don't quite get why you offer it to me, given that I've made it evident to you that I've read the Australian constitution well beyond section 2. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK

Thanks for that. I could have sworn it was a dirty word. :) John Hendo (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Just don't ask me to explain MILF, then. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I've never heard of it. I must live in a different universe. John Hendo (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look for me

Was wondering if you could look at Template:People of Canada make sure if i got the "Medals" section right..as in right order and see if any major links are missing. And is there a list for recipients of any of the Governor General's Awards? :) .Moxy (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a minor change in the order of the orders (and decorations and medals). I also commented on the template talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Belated reply

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

For future reference

Just so you know all you had to do was remove "|state=expande)" if you did not like the fact the first main box was showing in the navboxs - Anyways no big deal ..And FYI ref #113 in Monarchy of Canada was deleted when you did the last updates ...and i am having trouble finding- i take we still need it?Moxy (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Australia similar flags

http://www.anbg.gov.au/oz/flag-similar.html will explain on why the confusion about the flags and I think a section about this should be present in some way. I can see about the formatting, but having a section like that would be no way encyclopedic. I would suggest something like Flag_of_Japan#Related_flags for the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at the article's talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth

What article text should I be reading, according to the edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_II&action=historysubmit&diff=411994833&oldid=411993170. She has a personal flag for Canada, not a personal arms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That was quick! I am in the midst of gathering and checking the relevant sources for Elizabeth II. What I meant by "the article" was Arms of Canada. I'm sorry; I shouldv'e been more clear. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Then a source needs to be added to the caption. I would suggest to use http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/fip-pcim/pgi-gop-eng.asp#3 instead of the link that is present in the Arms of Canada article because this is coming from the main source, the Canadian Government. Also, what I am thiking for that article on Queen Elizabeth is since you show several different coat of arms that she uses, why not show some flags too since that is explicitly mentioned in the article text of Queen Elizabeth. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent source; thank you. As I said above, I am gathering up some sources for the article Elizabeth II; I am right now placing them with the caption under her Canadian arms. I'll include the one you gave and will add it to Arms of Canada, as well.

As for images of flags and arms, in general, at Elizabeth II: If we are to have illustrations in that section, I would keep it to only the country-neutral personal standard and her arms. Given the limitations on space, I can't think how we'd decide which of the near dozen standards she's had during her life to leave out without causing offence and breaching NPOV and WORLDVIEW. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Though, I should add: I'm not convinced we should include any of her arms after she became queen; the same question arises as with the standards: which do we show and which do we not? I mean, the Coat of arms of British Columbia are the arms of Elizabeth II in right of BC; do we include those at Elizabeth II, as well? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say maybe show one personal arms that she uses, then have a link to the galleries of each. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Governors General of Canada Question

Pls see User talk:Moxy#List of Governors General of Canada Moxy (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Miesianiacal, thanks for responding on Moxy's talk page... interesting about Carleton, shown non-consecutively twice, as #9 "|Le comte de Frontenac et de Palluau is also shown non-consecutively twice, with the same numeration as opposed to Carleton, whose changes. Frontenac's name is shown different the second time also, although unlinked. Shouldn't he be like that of Carleton, in numeration form, link form, and name difference? Thoughts... Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Philip's house

I agree it's daft, but look at p. 87 of Bell, Bousfield and Toffoli and p. 107 of Bousfield and Toffoli. The official line in Denmark is House of Glücksborg [7]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are those sources online? I looked at the various ones by those authors on Google Books and couldn't find the pages you refer to.

I also wonder (and asked about at Talk:House of Windsor) whether or not Philip's renunciation in 1947 of his titles and place in the lines of succession of Greece and Denmark had any effect on the royal house(s) to which his children belong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

By Bell et al., I mean Queen and Consort: Elizabeth and Philip, p. 87 says "The Duke's dynastic name is Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg, his father's Danish-Greek royal house." and the other is Fifty years the Queen: a tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II which says on page 107 "...in May she went to visit her kinsman, King Frederik IX of Denmark, who, incidentally, was also head of her husband's family, the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg". I saw them at google books, but access to pages varies between sites and users. I wouldn't call these strong sources on this issue though. The lead of that House of Windsor article looks a right mess; I think it should just be cut back to what we know. DrKiernan (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

16/sixteen

• WP:ORDINAL

To gently correct you, this edit appears to have been based on a rule that doesn't exist. I checked the manual of style just to be sure, and according it, "... numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words ..." I find it humorous, but the MoS actually uses 16 or sixteen as an example of this. Anyway, I think 'sixteen' looks better in this case, so if you have no other pressing concerns, I'd like to change it back. If you still disagree, that's no problem. I'm happy to consult the talk page for more opinions. The article is short on bitter disputes over minor issues, after all :P. Best, Swarm ^X 02:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the rule changed. IIRC, it used to be zero to ten, but 11 and over. The new "rule" is unclear in that it seems to say that if the number can be expressed in one or two words, you can use either figures or words. That is almost completely useless and leads to the possibility of "two thousand" being written out, which seems silly to me. -Rrius (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

All depends on the context, I guess. Swarm ^X 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Lavigne

Will you be waiting for Senator Lavigne's verdict tomorrow, or are you a normal person who couldn't care less? -Rrius (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt I'm often classified as normal, but I certainly haven't given a thought to Mr. Lavigne. Why do you ask? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering. I think I'm the only one I know (here or IRL) who cares. Incidentally, his verdict is now due on 11 March. -Rrius (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I do now recall hearing a brief blurb about it on a CBC podcast not too long ago. Strange how little coverage it's getting. I guess who did or did not put the word "not" into a letter is a vastly more juicy scandal.... Canadians are weird. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

As per your wishes, I have filed a mediation request here. GoodDay mentioned it on the talk page, but you have not responded. Could you go to the page and add your signature in agreement of the mediation process, please? --Pete (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will when I have time to also write my view on the matter. I'll only be on Wiki for brief intervals today. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't "per my wishes" at all, BTW. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to me, from the LOHOSAG talk page, that you raised the subject and steered discussion that way. Hence my gentle nudge above. But, of course, I am not a mind reader, and if I read your wishes wrongly, I apologise. The way forward is for each of us to participate in good faith and harmony, and that's the main thing. --Pete (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Library of Parliament

While the link I added might be in the external links section, the link you put back are the ones for Library and Archives Canada which has NOTHING to do with the Library of Parliament. This is a very basic piece of information. Having those links there is nothing else but false information.--RXcanadensis (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem now. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are no gargoyles or grotesque stone carvings on the Library, just friezes and floral patterns on top of the towers and flying buttresses. Thank you.--RXcanadensis (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for Informal Mediation

Your request for Informal Mediation (MedCab) has been accepted by User:Ronk01. Please give an opening statement in the indicated section on the case page.(Located here) Ronk01 talk 14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your Statement. I have read each of them, and encourage you to give rebuttals where you feel it to be necessary. I would now ask that you propose a solution on the talk page for review by all participants in hopes of developing consensus on a compromise. This message has been delivered to all participants Ronk01 talk 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've set up a quick straw poll on the mediation talk page. Ronk01 talk 00:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada Infobox

Hello. I noticed that you have reverted my edit and restored the infobox to its orignial form. I'd like to know why. Thanks, 174.7.19.170 (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there was nothing wrong with the previous infobox, it has been used for a long time in that article without issue, and it is consistent with the infoboxes used for other Canadian ministers, the governor general, and lieutenant governors. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The page on Australia's prime minister seems to have been changed, and I looked at their other ministerial posts. It looks like they have the same ones as Canada. Shouldn't it also be changed back? I'm not sure I understand why the case is special for Canada. 174.7.19.170 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the situation is for the article on the Australian prime minister. The case isn't special for Canada; it's just that Canada doesn't have to follow Australia. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that Governor-General of Australia and the articles for the state governors still use the infobox. Someone must have felt the urge to change all the boxes for Australian federal ministers, but, again, I've no idea why. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

So, if I am up to the work, can I do the same thing, and change all the federal ministerial posts to that of Australia's? I was also looking at other infoboxes of other nations, and they seem to have the same infobox as the one Australia has. Shouldn't we keep it consistant? And this is just my personal opinion, but I think the writing looks a lot better on Australia's infobox, then Canada's. One of the main reason why I wanted to change it in the first place. So, can I change them, if I'm up to the task? 174.7.19.170 (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Personal I like the old one because of the color code that matches the other Canadian articles within the same scope - should not move this talk to Talk:Prime Minister of Canada? Moxy (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't see any reason to change to a different infobox; I think the colour coding is useful, it's better to have all the Canadian articles consistent with each other, and the articles on Canadian ministers need not be consistent with those for other countries; see WP:OSE. What is it about the writing of the other infobox you think is better? It's possible to change the Template:Infobox minister office itself. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. What I meant with the writing was that on the other infoboxes, the infobox text looks more bold, and like the text in the article. The one on this infobox, looks different and more cramped. What's your opinion? If you agree and, it's possible, and not too much trouble, can you change it? 174.7.19.170 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to seem pushy, but so you have an opinion to what I said above? 174.7.19.170 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've increased the size of the font. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I honestly don't see any difference to the prime minister's page. The infobox looks the same. 174.7.19.170 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I increased the size of the font; the proof is here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought you changed the prime minister's infobox on the actual page. Got it. So, can I put it in? 174.7.19.170 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea how to implement it. Could you do it? 174.7.19.170 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asking if you could implement the new infobox with the larger font size into the article, but I think it happens automatically. If it has already happened, then is there anything else you can do to make the font look more like the font used in the other infoboxes? Right now, it looks almost the same as before. 174.7.19.170 (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So, is there anything you can do? 174.7.19.170 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It would seem not. I see no difference between the infoboxes in terms of font size, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well alright then. Thanks anyways. 174.7.19.170 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The first time

In my 5+ years on the 'pedia, Pete's the first Truth defender I've come across. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not out to score debating points here, merely to see if I'm correct or not in observing that representing the Queen is not the primary function of the Governor-General."[8] [Emphasis mine] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he doesn't wanna go any further, concerning DR. I hope he doesn't resort to canvassing. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Lonewolf BC

I checked in on your Sandbox & I'm sorta discouraged. I thought we'd seen the last of Loner. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Of interest to you

Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#First Minister bio infoboxes.Moxy (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was actually aware of that little issue. But, I try to stay away from Scotland/Ireland/Wales disputes. They're bad for the digestion! ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

order of precedence

Could i get you to check --> Orders, decorations and medals make sure i missed none and there in the right order. ThanksMoxy (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, I see the order is off. No big deal. You might want to use Canadian order of precedence (decorations and medals) as a guide. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

King/Queen Name X

Hi Mies. So, I see you're in favour of "King"/"Queen" before monarchs. I'm not really. Are then any guidelines either way? DBD 10:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in particularly in favour of it; to me, use depends on context. I don't know if there are any guidelines. I think there should, at least, be consistency where it's called for. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have chosen to not stop entirely — I am paying attention to whether "Queen " is strictly necessary and leaving it when it is. DBD 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you to stop entirely, of course; I was referring only to the constant removal of "Queen" from before "Elizabeth II". I wonder: when do you believe it's "strictly necessary" to have "Queen" preceed the Queen's name? I can see neither rhyme nor reason behind the deletions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Canada

Mies, would you please get a psychatrist for me? GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

David Johnston

Though we likely won't see him tomorrow (except for latter photos), Johnston gets to be the centre-of-attention. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea, it's unfortunate the governor general gets ignored by the media except for a couple of days a year. But, I guess his ultimate purpose is for constitutional matters. The charitable and diplomatic work is just an added bonus. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

4 fed elections in 7 yrs. Unfortunately, whether it's Conservative or Liberal, we're gonna end up with another minority government. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Miesianiacal. You have new messages at Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)