User talk:Miesianiacal/October 2014-March 2015

Dowdeswell photo

Now you will see that the licensing issue has been resolved (I hope).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dowdeswell_Throne.jpg

Jagislaqroo (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Canada

OK - I see the link now. but why does it say "European (76.7%)" and the reference say 32,852,325 (total population) and 20,157,965 (European origins) which to me equates to 61.4%. NB It's not my query - it was raised by some one e-mailing the Foundation - I'm just the middle man. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Mm, I can't say. I assume the infobox needs updating to align with the text in the demographics section. But, a cite isn't needed in the infobox; the text in the article should be cited (and I believe it is). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal

I'm not sure we are reading the same paragraph. But recipients of the Cross of Valour are not members of the Victoria Cross and George Cross association, Two recipients of the VC for AUS were awarded the medal after the fact. The only mention of the Cross of Valour in the article links to the Canadian version, which is not good enough a reason to exclude the Australian Cross of Valour. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 22:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we're not reading the same article. The source you provided for your edit (already used in the article) makes no mention of separate presentations to any VC holders or of CVs at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A humble request

Given your assiduous contributions on the Canadian and other commonwealth realm monarchy related articles, would you be kind to provide some input over at Talk:Monarchy_of_Sweden#Is_all_of_expansion_subject_relevant.3F where the scope and size of that article is discussed? This polite request is of course in no way, shape or form meant as to rally support for my position (I would not presume to second-guess your position). I thank you in advance and will not think of you any less if you chose to abstain.RicJac (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd hate to think what less than a "monarchist colonial flunky" is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Simply a misclick. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Head of state

Howdy, Miesianiacal. Would you comment on this topic, as I believe you've more knowledge about it, then I :) GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agreed to Qex's Canadian proposal, merely to shut Skyring up. I know it wasn't a good reason, but I was getting fed up. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I know. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've reversed my position. The article should be restored to its pre-November 11, 2014 status. PS: I can certainly understand HiLo48's frustration, aswell as yours. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's your turn to respect WP:BRD, now. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's usually everyone's turn to "respect" BRD (to a degree). But, it's primarily you to whom it applies in this case, since you made the bold edit on Jan 23 that got reverted. And "consistency" isn't a policy, neutrality is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You made the bold edit, by changing from ...in the United Kingdom and a further 15 countries to your version. Suggest you re-check the article history. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You made it "in the United Kingdom...[blah, blah]". And that edit is in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You should've revert'd back to the version before your change at 21:34 Jan 23. Anyways, what's done is done. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Better yet, I've reverted my edit of 23 December, the one your compatriot anon undid 23 days later. But, hey, that's just because you're making it look like you don't (or don't want to) understand the definition of the word "neutral". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn't do anything to erase the UK, would you? GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, it's perfectly clear you're evading the issue of your edit's lack of neutrality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I rather have the topic removed, then fought over. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a way to evade your edit's lack of neutrality. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you were gonna let this go. I hope your decades-long determination to push what you want on Wikipedia, doesn't end up with your being topic-banned. Trust me, being t-banned from something you're passionate about, isn't fun & nearly impossible to appeal. PS- I'm not picking on you or trying to influence you. Just pointing out the down-side of being obcessed with a single topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a passive-aggressive accusation of bad faith. Was not this hypocritical blaming of others and this kind of trolling the type of behaviour that got you banned? From reading through this and this, it would seem so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Last month, Skyring chilled me, over the Australian head of state topic. Now, you've chilled me, over the presentation of the UK topic. I've tried to help you, but I've failed. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you think you have only because you believe people need help and you're in a position to give it; i.e. it's everyone else who's behaving badly and you're the paragon of proper etiquette. Maybe you could shift your perception of others and yourself. You're not always the victim. And no one did anything to you; you feel as you choose to feel. You're just as "obsessed" as you say I am; after all, you're forever there with your "it should be the UK and..." statements (I can't call them arguments, because they're not).

You don't think I don't get tired of the same fight with the same people over and over? There are times I strongly suspect your and Pete/Skyring's motivations aren't pure; you're trying to push for edits that align with your political opinions; it's no secret how each of you feels about the monarchy and the UK-only or UK-first edits are so blatantly non-neutral. But, they remain suspicions only, they come and go, and I still give you the benefit of the doubt. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Commonwealth parliamentary constitutions

May I express a pov, connected with recent discussion elsewhere, where I felt some unease about certain comments? Given that for those familiar with the finer points of English law and common law jurisprudence generally, the use of terms such as "C/crown", "S/state", "Q/queen" is not identical or interchangeable in all contexts (while, maybe, allowing the usual latitude for loose journalese, so far as possible to be avoided in encyclopedic editing), you may agree that caution is a watchword when we see statements such as "the Queen is the state". There are so many soft edges. The leading authors in every generation, present and past, have considerable difficulty in making concise or extended definitions which will outlast their own time. Thus, while the paragraph which opens The Crown article is more or less adequate for its purpose there (and it may not be easy to do better), it could be shot to pieces if submitted in a doctoral thesis. In the higher appellate courts, the judges have the advantage of attending to specific issues, after receiving skilled argument on all sides, and with the works of leading authors to hand, but dissenting judgments can be delivered, and rulings made may be later overruled; while anyone writing about, say, "The Crown" for a peer reviewed publication would be able to hedge around with qualifying paragraphs and footnotes, and use what is liable to be condemned by some Wikipedia editors as "weasel words". On common law topics, editors may not always be alert to certain divergences which have developed in the jurisdictions separated as a result of the founding of the USA and the independent statehood of what are now called Commonwealth realms. Finally, and in this connection, may I say (without any kind of irony) that the rewording proposed[1] for the Kerr/Whitlam episode accords with the motto "less is more". Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Bullying

Looking here, you seem to be calling me a bully. If that's your perception, fair enough. However, i don't want you to feel that way. It is certainly not my intention to bully you - or anyone else. Robust, informed discussion, certainly, but I don't want to be involved in making any editor (including myself) feel uncomfortable about participation.

If you have any concerns, feel free to raise them at any time with me. I can be as emotionally unintelligent as the next man, and if I offend, it is unintentional. Failing that, bring up any conduct matters at ANI for examination by a wider audience or ask for help from others. I enjoy our discussions, so long as we stay within wikipolicy, but if I'm making a dick of myself, then if you could politely let me know rather than escalating the situation, that would be helpful.

The same applies to any other lurker here. If I'm being a prick, it's not deliberate. Let me know. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me gentlemen. You both have (shall we say) strong stances on 2 topics. With you Mies, it's the pushing that the United Kingdom doesn't have a special place among the 16 commonwealth realms. With you Skyring, it's the pushing of the Australian head of state dispute. It's possible that you both have more in common then you'd both admit. It's because of these strong stances, that you both 'sometimes' frustrate other editors, in those respective areas. Anyways, I hope you'll both reflect on this & 'maybe' try to get along better. PS: From an editor who's been at times overly frustrated with the both of you ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. It's not got anything to do with differing strong opinions. It has to do with using WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, WP:3RR, WP:UNDUE, etc. when it suits him and ignoring them when it doesn't; the "bullying" remark was specifically related to the edit warring and ownership (ignoring BRD and CONSENSUS) he demonstrated at Head of state and (later) Governor-General of Australia. I could also add the tendentiousness and gross willful ignorance is a more passive aggressive form of bullying; a slow-building pressure that just wears his opponents down with head-banging frustration.

I swear, in the decade I've been editing at Wikipedia, I've never known someone with such a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I could say the same of you, Mies! Sometimes we, as normal human beings, are blind to our own failings. I think GoodDay has the right of it - we share many similarities of personality and we should do our best to get along! --Pete (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I address every point you make. You repeat yourself and literally respond as though the words you're responding to hadn't been written (sometimes at great expense of time and mental energy). How many people have you thoroughly pissed off in the last couple of weeks alone?

Say what you want. The record stands, regardless. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I might say the same of you. It is my honest view. These are common failings here to one degree or another. If we can set aside personal opinions and egos, recognising that we can find the truth through discussion and with the assistance of others, we can do good work together. --Pete (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"If we..." "Common failings..." Yeah, you miss the point, which mostly focuses on your failings. But, whatever, I've heard your extra-polite, conciliatory pleas before. You didn't change your actions, though.

Whatever. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that the both of you walk away from your above-mentioned areas of interests. For the momment, you Skyring, need to step back from the articles related to the Australian head of state topic, like Head of state & Governor-General of Australia for examples. Likewise, Mies, you'd have to back away from any articles/discussions concerning the UK's place among the Commonwealth realms. I think it would be darn good compromise between you both. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: He's bullied me out of the HoS discussion, with his disruption charge. Remember, I'm on probation, so it's dangerous for me to have such accusations thrown my way. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's the way he operates. He reverts to his preferred new version: he improves. You revert to the long-standing version until debate on changes is complete: you disrupt. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame Wikipedia is set up in such a way as to let his kind of behaviour thrive. Spinrad (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The number of editors he's rubbing the wrong way, is growing. His refusal to listen & back off, is merely leading him towards either a topic-ban or worst. It's regrettable, that he hasn't learned his lesson from a decade ago. The edit-warring, talkpage filibustering & attempts to legitimize this conduct by claiming it's only wiki-process, will only lead him to ruin. I've tried in the past, to help him, but I've failed. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Governor-General of Australia

Looking at your recent changes, I reverted them, asking for point by point discussion and provision of sources. You did neither. You insisted they were minor. I then inserted the sourced material from Sir Paul Hasluck, which you removed, for no good reason that I could see. I asked for discussion. Discussion ensued, but no reason for removing the Hasluck material was advanced. I then announced, five days ago, my intention to reinsert it if there were no objections. No objections were forthcoming. Five days later, I insert the relevant and sourced material. You commence edit-warring. Very well. Let us hear your objections. --Pete (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole section is being reviewed because it's an essay of your creation to support your POV. Thus, adding to your essay at this point is not acceptable. Whether or not your Hasluck material goes in and how can be determined in the currently ongoing discussion on the section you're trying to add to. You're also a hypocrite for reverting my changes until I find a consensus for them while insisting you can make your changes without regard to objections. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for specific objections multiple times, and the only objections raised are to do with process. Well, fair enough, I'll leave it another day or so, but how long do you think would be fair?

I raised the point about OR in your changes and you have not responded to that, despite being pressed for sources several times. Looking at the discussion there, limited to only a few editors despite the RfC, I'm not getting the feeling that you are generating much support for your view.

You can talk about hypocrisy if you wish, but I am not seeing it in myself, and I don't think it's a requirement of wikiprocess to be pure of spirit before editing. (A little bit of philosophical humour there.) If we can bulldoze our personalities to one side and stick to the way Wikipedia does things, that might make things easier, do you think? --Pete (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So, now you've taken it upon yourself to decide what objection is really an objection.

If you can't prove your OR is fact, there'll have to be a rewrite. We can go through the whole dispute resolution process, if that's what it takes.

The last comment I made there in the RfC was yours to address. You haven't done so yet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I rather thought you'd shot yourself in the foot there. I asked for your sources and none were forthcoming. You mentioned Sir David Smith's view, which may be found in his book "Head of State" and while you may disagree with it, it is a source supporting a view contrary to your own, which remains unsupported. You do see this, don't you? Sorry to be tiresome and ask for sources, but otherwise discussion degenerates into vehement declarations of internal faith, which are arid and ineffective. --Pete (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked for your sources. All you have is Smith. So, you can have the article say "Smith says..." That's not what the article says. Get the difference? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can discuss this on the article talk page? If we tag unsourced statements in the article with "citation needed", then we can identify problem content. It's fine that you ask me for sources. That's the way things work. If you would be so very good as to accept the same excellent advice you have just provided, then we can get rid of OR and improve the quality of the article in a fair and productive atmosphere. --Pete (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to say I didn't want the same debate going on in two different places. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You both are edit-warring and I suggest discussing the issue on the talk page or you could both get blocked or see the article locked from editing. TFD (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ribbon bars

I know a lot of biographical articles have these ribbon bar composite images, but I don't really see what benefit they serve, and the vast majority of them are completely unreferenced. Even if one were able to provide a reference for each award (probably quite easy for major orders and decorations, but well-nigh impossible for commemorative medals and the like I would have thought), to assert that these were the ribbons as actually worn by the article's subject is still WP:OR. I personally think all these ribbons should be removed from articles unless they are accompanied by a photograph of the wearer, in service dress, wearing them (like this one in the case of Lord Athlone). Opera hat (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, firstly, can you leave them alone, please, until the matter is sorted out? If there's some change to one, the same will have to be made to all the others.

It isn't clear what you're saying is unsourced. Do you mean just the ribbons or the entire list of honours the ribbons are associated with? You hint above that it's the latter, yet, your edits (deleting just the ribbons) indicate it's only the former. There's nothing that states the ribbons were actually worn by the individual; the caption is simply "Ribbon bars of [X]". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source". So if there's any doubt over the material (and there is) then it should be removed until the matter is sorted out, not left where it is until the matter is sorted out.

I had (reasonably, I think) assumed that the "ribbon bar" composite images were intended to represent the ribbon bars the article subject wore on his uniform. As such, they are entirely unsourced, and I suspect in most cases un-source-able, which is why I removed them. The lists of honours usually given below the images are mostly unsourced, and contain a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS of the "such-and-such a medal was awarded for this campaign, this person served in that campaign, therefore this person must have been awarded that medal" type.

If you want to include ribbon images for orders, decorations and medals, I think a better solution would be to integrate them into the list of honours itself, maybe converting the list to table format. An example of this is at William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim#List of honours. I get the impression your main area of interest is on articles on Canadian governors-general; would you object to this format being implemented across these articles? Opera hat (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay.

If your problem is with the sourcing of the honours, how did you think deleting the ribbons would fix it? If they're arranged according to the proper order of precedence (which can be sourced), then, they are shown as they would be worn on a uniform. However, I'm now wondering what the value of that is; the order of precedence for the wearing of British and Canadian honours can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia: Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom and Canadian order of precedence (decorations and medals). Perhaps the ribbons should go (not because they or their order is unsourced) and links to the Wikipedia articles on the relevant order(s) of precedence be added. The ribbons that correspond to each order, decoration, and medal can be seen at those pages.

As for sourcing the honours, I think your standards are a little too high. If someone participated in a campaign and everyone who participated in that campaign was granted a medal, then, the someone received a medal. All Governors General of Canada serve as the Chief Scout, so, it's known each of these people were appointed to that position. I think it's stretching the edges of WP:SYNTH pretty far to have them encompass such easily reached conclusions. But, I'd think it must be fairly easy to find more sources showing what honours these prominent peers received... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Please see the post I made at the Talk Page for Guard of Honour. I could not enter Edit mode for whatever reason to change honor to honour in the Infoboxes for India and Pakistan. I hope the next time I'm at Guard of Honour you will have made the changes, so no response is necessary. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Canadian war memorials

Thanks for this. You were right to remove that. I've now added it here (to Canadian war memorials), though now I think about it, it probably doesn't fit there either... (that list is difficult to see being completed, and should really only be the memorials with articles, unless the list gets split up and reorganised). The memorials in London are done in list articles by location, with no distinction made for war memorials. Not sure how it is done for other countries. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Prince Philip's style

G'day Miesianiacal, please restore the capitalisation used in Prince Philip's style. This article has been stable on the capitalised form for several years and changing it away from this without consensus contravenes Wikipedia policy. Whilst I appreciate you have had a brief discussion on capitalisation of non-royal nobles, this did not result in establishing a Wikipedia style policy. In any event the advice you were given by the one editor who commented on royal titles thought (correctly) that they were different. Debrett's Correct Form, Debrett's, Surrey, 2006 p 80 (also - Duke of Edinburgh, The Royal Family website's guide to Philip's style, and "No. 41009". The London Gazette. 22 February 1957. all use His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Short of being contradicted by the actual Letters Patent, I put to you that it is not possible to find more authoritative/reliable sources for this. Adding to the matters you raised in the earlier discussion, the evidence I have seen in Debrett's, et al is that the correct form is:

• 'His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales' or 'HRH The Prince of Wales' or 'His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland'
• 'His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge' or 'HRH The Duke of Cambridge' or 'HRH The Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus'
• 'His Royal Highness The Prince Harry of Wales' or 'HRH The Prince Harry of Wales' - capitalised 'The Prince' adopted from descent from monarch (within the right degree of separation eg son, grandson, great grandson) 'of Xxxx' courtesy style adopted from fatherand descendant of monarch without a substantive peerage title and adopting courtesy.
• 'The Rt Hon Xxxxx' and 'The Hon' - always capitalised (including when written in full and regardless of if starting mid-sentence),
• 'the Duke of Xxxx' - lower case 'the'/'of' for a substantive peer,
• 'Baron Xxxxx' - no 'the'/'of' when used as a courtesy title by the son/grandson of a substantive peer),
• 'the Marchioness of Xxxx' - lower case 'the'/'of' for a substantive peer or current wife of a substantive peer,
• 'Xxxx, Countess of Xxxx' - no 'the' for a divorced wife of a substantive peer (this is then relinquished on her re-marriage, upon which if her new husband is titled, she adopts her style from her new husbands and, if he has none, she reverts to her courtesy style, if any, from her father. The exception is in Scotland where if her new husband has no title, she may continue to adopt her style from her first husband as an alias). Variations may be made where the substantive title holder re-marries.
• 'The Dowager Duchess of Xxxx' or increasingly 'Xxxx, Duchess of Xxxx' for the widow of a substantive peer (the latter form is used by the junior widow if there are simultaneously widows for two substantive holders of the title.

Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Why caps?

Given some editors' dislike of caps for common nouns, such as the royal assent which is formally given to let a bill pass in a parliament of UK or other Commonwealth realm, I would be interested to know why you make an exception here[2], not that I see that as a casus (edit)belli. So far I can only conjecture that it may have something to do with the Canadian way of life or political or legal culture, not merely to the excessive capitalizations found in the 1867 act, as if reproducing in print something written in Queen Victoria's own hand.[3] But a heading appears before section 53: "Money Votes; Royal Assent": could that be the reason of it? Qexigator (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a proper noun. Plus, the article Royal Assent capitalises it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a proper noun at the UK parliament website[4], or here[5]or here[6] or here[7] or here[8] or here[9] or here[10]. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We're working with Wikipedia style guides. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hat tip for those uncaps.[11] NPOV query: Is the Quebec case still pending? NPOV comment: Funny it was due to be heard in June, after the UK general election in May, when who knows who will take Clegg's place as Lord President. Updating the article will be a continuing task, not only when Australia has eventually enacted the federal law. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Props to your user page

Just felt like letting you know that, according to me, you have the coolest user page on WP. Cheers, --J.B.M.D. 18:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed this... But, thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for also correcting some of Mabelina's many eccentric edits. Her repeated refusal to edit according to MOS principles is a continuous problem in the articles she sets her sights on. She is especially bad with habitually capitalising common and generic nouns as you have by now noticed. Afterwriting (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No trouble.

Yes, I have noticed many odd edits. I thought she was a novice editor. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just read your messages. I'm not sure what can be done about her problem behaviour. I recently reported her for stalking and harassment. She seems unable to either understand or respect the MoS. You will see comments about her problem in this regard by other editors on her talk page. The more people try to help her the more stubborn and aggressive she seems to become. Afterwriting (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just reported her again on the Administrators Notice Board in case you may want to add anything to what I've written. Afterwriting (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'll see what I can do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes hello Afterwriting you did indeed report me but it didn't get you very far. Your friend Anglicanus tried pulling a similar stunt and got himself temporarily banned. I don't know what can be done about my so-called problem behaviour either apart from sitting down with whoever devised the MOS and pointing out to them how seriously deficient it is in certain areas. I am sure MOS deals well with many issues but let me rest you assured that if you guys are applying MOS in the correct way (which I believe should be scrutinized independently) it does not relate accurately historical matters (at least those over which we are in seemingly eternal conflict). My whole raison d'être is to get the correct info onto Wiki & I have no interest in being an MOS specialist (please forgive me) - I note your small gang never does anything other than monitor MOS. Please advise who devised MOS & I shall be happy to contact them immediately. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina. Your already frequent bizarre comments about me and other editors are becoming even more so. And you never let the facts get in the way of a tall story. I have never reported you (as much as this has been merited numerous times for your constant incompetent and unconstructive editing) and I have never been "banned" even temporarily. So put that in your pipe and smoke it! Anglicanus (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

People make MoS edits--explaining each one--and you undo them. You're fooling no one with the "but I write good history" straw man. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina

I just realized this is the same editor that links to other wikis in article text. Still doing it despite our policy and a few people explain why its not a good idea...first its an external link that readers are not aware of.... second we cant see the articles we should make here, I mention this because of the "Eric Barry" comment ....I have seen this as a blue link before....but I guess its to some other Wiki or website in article text. Do we have this problem with many Canadian articles...that is misleading links that take readers away from this site and to a site that cant even read because its not the right language.-- Moxy (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I've not come across the issue much; certainly not for some time. But, it's definitely a no-no.

I'm learning Mabelina commits many no-nos, despite having edited here since 2008. It's quite impressive, really. In a sad way. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blimey it could be deemed that you are now accusing me of being sad! Don't worry I am not taking offence - I simply conclude that you have no other defence (having tried exhaustively every other tactic to dumb down Wiki's info) - please study your historical facts - this would be good & maybe to Wiki's benefit too? M Mabelina (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a reliable source to verify a claim in Wikipedia is, by definition, the opposite of "dumbing down" the project; it is entirely to "Wiki's benefit". Please stop being a disruptive editor and follow Wikipedia policies (including WP:AGF). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Miesianiacal - firstly perhaps you can accept my apologies for allowing our exchanges to become a little heated? I am not fond of needless confrontation as I am sure you aren't either. Sorry. However ref this OStJ stuff I do happen to know quite a bit about it & part of the problem is that a common trait with history is that a view is formed often some time ago which is in print then lesser scholars neglect to undertake either original research or check the veracity of the info and simply regurgitate it - so it then can appear in print many times over. One of Wiki's huge advantages unlike book-form is that it can be quickly amended either as new material is available or as events move on. Look ref what seems to have become our bête noire - the Order never died because it wasn't abolished or attainted and this 1831 date has simply been picked upon as a reference point (quite understandably) but as ‎Qexigator and I have been discussing the Order fell into somewhat of an obscurity in the 17 & 18c. New research has been published but it doesn't yet seem to be online: St John in Cornwall, "The Cornish Banner" (August 2011). Riley-Smith & co. were correct in saying that the Order wasn't visible or active - it didn't have any members for example (but in strict terms it was dormant not extinct - and I see that you are much au fait with the peerage so will be conversant with that terminology). Anyway sorry for such heated exchanges (which apart from anything else waste huge amounts of time) - onwards and upwards! M Mabelina (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. Miesianiacal - in the spirit of co-operation I've just been re-reading the latest version of Order of Saint John & it seems a lot of the debate could perhaps have been avoided since much of the info was already in the body of the article; but no matter - I've just introduced some additional info which maybe you could be so kind as to review before continuing? Many thanks in advance. M Mabelina (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - had hoped you might be in touch but anyway - here's the rationale (& I guess you'll also be hoping that this long-winded way of doing things doesn't have to continue!):
from the top - ref inter-Wiki I was taught by an Admin to this so as to encourage translation of foreign articles - presumably you know of a change of policy? (otherwise why does the facility even exist if it is not be used??) - this ref de Mortara etc
corrected "the" gatehouse to "a" gatehouse - 'cos obviously St John's Gate was one (& there would have been four normally but somebody else can search for that - bit too technological for me)
this word society and/or group keeps reappearing - I would venture to suggest that this is misleading & perhaps organization would be better
basic style corrections such as replacing scheme with project - scheme sounds very devious!
Lord Chief Justice Denman added...
7th Duke of Manchester (the present one is the 13th)..
Albert, Prince of Wales (as he was known) but added later Edward VII for clarity (& I didn't understand why you questioned his wife being LJStJ??)
you like to have a little dig about "flourishes" when there are all sorts of factual inaccuracies & the whole MOS system doesn't work terribly well with getting the facts over here (but I won't argue about that because it only gets me into hot water) so hope Christian values & promotion thereof works for you!
numerous links - UN / Grand Master / Ards etc
correcting Knight Grand Cross to Bailiff..
note 5 still says Venerable Order - how to correct to Most Venerable please?
Anyway interim comments & I'm sure you'll have more - await to hear but hope you like the work so far... Best M Mabelina (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. Admins have also taught me abt offline referencing so what is wrong with Burke's PB and Who's Who links????

Your source is Whitaker's Concise Almanack 2012, not Burke's or Who's Who.

The issue with your use of the source was explained in my edit summary: "nowhere near enough cite info given, especially page number". Please use the proper citation template (namely Template:Cite book) and fill in all the standards fields: last, first, title, publisher, edition, date, location, page(s), url, and isbn. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Order of St John

I thoroughly support this edit, and in particular your studied introduction of the word "emerged" – we shall see whether that proves satisfactory to all parties. However, I note that you have written "The creation of the league has been regarded ...". I think "league" is a typo for "langue", but I hesitate to correct it in case it isn't. If it is, you might also wish to link it (or the previous mention of the word) to Langue (Knights Hospitaller). GrindtXX (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't now say why I used "league". Regardless, I've made a corrective edit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Why did you delete my changes? They are correct and explain the chronology of styles. Or is this just part of the usual habit of Wikipedia editors in deleting comments made by women? VictoriaGates1 (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the edit summaries. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

They do not provide adequate explanation - "not debated" etc. I am going to change these in the style you approve and if you revert them I am suggesting you be blocked for vandalism.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

They do, indeed. If you think otherwise, you're not paying attention to what you're doing (which is a bad trait for an editor).

Take your threats elsewhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Perth Agreement timing

The legislation for the Perth Agreeement came into effect at a given time. It was implemented by various nations - New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom etc. at a certain hour. UTC is the accepted way of pinpointing a time that may differ locally amongst several widely separated nations. I can't see why you are pursuing a revert war against such a standard convention. --Pete (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and closed at Talk:Perth Agreement. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)