Misplaced Pages

Monarchy of Canada

I've looked into your background on Misplaced Pages and I must say that you have quite a rap-sheet for edit-warring -- yet there you are on Monarchy of Canada, at it yet again, against multiple users (I mean the name-account ones), and hypocritically issuing "warnings" against it, which quite frankly come across as hostile, under the circumstances, especially in conjunction with your hyperbolic accusations. I think you need to relax and recognize the right of other editors to edit. If you are half a vehement as you come across, you are going to ruin your health. You seem to be getting terribly upset over some fairly minor changes in wording, relating to some fairly straightforward history. It should not be seen as problematic for other editors to try out different wording, and this sort of minor tweaking should not need lengthy discussion on the talk-page. I strongly suggest that you cease and desist from so persistently putting things back as you, personally, want them.

Please, for your own sake as well as for the good of Misplaced Pages, consider your history of conflicts with other editors -- the escalating blocks you've had, the reams and reams of arguing and its tendency to turn personally nasty, the continual involvement of administrators in one way or another. If you look at it honestly, trying to be objective, you should see that you, and your behaviour and attitude, are the common denominator. This stuff is not helping the project, and I don't see how it can be doing you any good, either.

Sincerely,

205.250.72.215 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, before commenting further, have a read of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Your remarks are personal and unnecessary.

Secondly, you are an anonymous user making edits to matter that is clearly already contentious, doing so in a manner counter to guidelines such as WP:BRD and WP:CONS, and generally refusing to participate in discussions on the talk page. As you employ multiple IPs, it becomes extremely difficult to notify you of your policy and guideline breaches, though you seem to ignore them anyway, given that you've just reverted again at the article in question, giving an edit summary that shows a gross misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages works. All together, you are engaging in behaviour that only serves to inflame.

I suggest you review the rules of this project and make more of an effort to abide by them. Either way, as you've obviously noted from my own example, you'll either learn or leave. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I see from your aggressive response that I have made no impression at all on you. I'm sorry that I've upset you further. Do try to calm down; these are only some niggling differences, in an activity that is far from a matter of life and death. Maybe you should take a Wiki-break. That might give you a chance get a proper perspective.

Cordially,

205.250.72.215 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And I see from your dismissal of criticism of your editing habits as "aggressive response", you continue to beleive you're immune to Wkipedia policy and guidelines. I sincerely hope you're going to rectify that very soon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No such dismissal; no such belief. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of your criticisms of me, your response was aggressive -- a lashing back against the suggestion that your attitude and actions are problematic, rather than any evident consideration of that suggestion. Ironically, this response of yours is typical of your troublesome mode of interaction of with other editors, about which you need to think. -- 205.250.72.215 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You believe it was aggressive; perhaps you're simply too sensitive. Show no respect (by ignoring policies and guidelines, avoiding contact through switching anonymous IPs, and then audaciously levelling personal criticisms on others) and you'll probably get little in return. Nice to see the lines of communication opening up, though, if only a little. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Queen does not represent Canada outside of Canada

From Rideau Hall When Her Majesty travels abroad in the world she doesn't travel as the "Queen of Canada" she travels as the Queen of Great Britain. And that is why it is necessary, by the way, for the Governor General to travel abroad representing Canada, because the Queen cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.67.72 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an actual source for that? Because, I have quite a few that say the opposite. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there have been several examples of HM acting as Queen of Canada outside of Canada. The 60th anniversary ceremonies of the landings at Juno Beach is one example. During the recent Vimy Ridge memorials, she also released statements referring to "We as proud Canadians...". I'm sure it shouldn't be tough to find those references..

Thus, stating that HM doesn't travel as Queen of Canada is untrue. It is simply more the case that when Canadian interests are represented outside of Canada, the GG does it. Should the Canadian Government request that HM were to go somewhere or do something on behalf of Canada, (Such as the ceremony for the landings at Juno) she is then acting as Queen of Canada.

When HM travels, she represents whichever of her Governments requested she take the trip, if it be the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, ETC, which then shows which Crown she is "wearing" Dphilp75 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

With all the past & current bickering over Liz's article title, let's hope Charlie chooses the regnal name George VII. Can you imagine the spats if he chooses Charles III? GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!! You know, that very same thought occurred to me as well! Dphilp75 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can lobby Clarence House now to urge him to adopt something truly unique: Chartreuse XII, maybe? Gowron the Devourer? For the sake of Misplaced Pages, of course. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Day

It is known as the May Long Weekend in BC and no one here calls is May two-four so perhaps this is a regional bias, but at least there is some verification of the former and none for the other terms. Feel free to take this up on the talk page, but as it is, it's the second-best reference to a term on the page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to disbelieve you, but Misplaced Pages works on verifiability, not word of mouth, so your assertion needs a reliable source. As I said, About.com doesn't meet WP:V, in my opinion, but I'm not going to make any more of an issue out of it than it already is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"small" tags for refs?

Why are you using <small> tags around <ref> tags? These tags are already small as it is; there is no need to make them even smaller. Gary King (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They're otherwise not small enough to prevent lines of text being pushed apart, making for inconsistent line spacing and thus more difficult reading. The issue's been raised a number of times in different locations and nothing ever comes of it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point me to these discussions? I have never heard about this issue before. This should not be happening, as the reference text is, as is written right in the code, supposed to be the exact same height as the line with the text itself, so it should therefore not cause any extra spacing above the line. I found the discussion, currently reading. Gary King (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Phew... well, there've been many over the years; it's been raised at Village Pump and talk pages, both for aticles and personal. Two slightly more recent ones I can find are at Misplaced Pages talk:Footnotes#Square brackets and Misplaced Pages talk:Citation templates/Archive 5#Inline tag size. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've read those discussions (as well as this one, which is probably the most insightful). I assume you have not yet tried the JS or CSS changes provided yet to see if those help the problem? It looks like you are looking for a solution that works for ALL Internet Explorer users, which is understandable. As a web developer, I can also understand that it is difficult to create a solution that works for all major browsers, including IE. However, what version of Internet Explorer are you using? Have you tried the latest version, Internet Explorer 8, which was released in March 2009, to see if that solves the problem? Although IE has historically been known to have lots of problems formatting webpages, it has improved over time, and the latest version should solve the problem. Have a look at the following screenshots (NOT created by me) of the same article but in different browsers for comparison, and tell me what you think:

• Firefox 3.6
• Internet Explorer 7
• Internet Explorer 8

I can certainly see that the line spacing is uneven in the IE7 screenshot, but to me, it looks like the line spacing is equal in both the FF3.6 and IE8 screenshots. What do you think? The reason that I, and probably others, prefer NOT to use <small> tags is because they make the reference links smaller, so they're harder to read and click, and because they clutter up the already-hard-to-read wikicode even further, especially for newbies. Ultimately, ideally, all browsers should render the same page the exact same way. IE has perhaps the most quirks, and so it's promising to see that the latest version is getting more in line with the other browsers. If that's the case, then this problem should essentially be considered "solved", as more and more people upgrade to the latest version of their browsers. Gary King (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I note the differences in the screen shots you link to; what I see is what's shown in the one capturing IE7; likely because I'm using IE7 on the two computers I generally access. However, I don't know how to make the JS or CSS changes, and, moreover, I still wonder why the problem can't be dealt with in a way that affects all users, without individual fixes. As I noted at another discussion on this matter, other language versions of Misplaced Pages seem to have successfully avoided the issue, even for IE7 users. Why can't English WP? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely you can't really expect for all of Misplaced Pages to reach a consensus together to change the way it formats references across more than three million articles? Is there any reason why you have not upgraded to Internet Explorer 8? Again, the reason the problem exists in IE7 is because of the way IE7 renders webpages, not because of the code that the English Misplaced Pages uses. Now that IE has rectified the problem in IE8, there is less of an argument in favor of changing the referencing style used here. Gary King (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There must be countless people out there still using IE7 or older; I wonder why they (and I) should be asked to put up with inline ref tags causing inconsistent line spacing in articles merely because it's difficult or impossible - for whatever reason - to immediately upgrade their web browser. The question becomes even more germane when it's evident that the fault doesn't lie in IE7, but in the way the code is written; as I said, though I use the same browser, the same problem doesn't arise on other language Wikipedias. They did it there so I still don't understand why it can't be done here. And I doubt - or at least sincerely hope! - the input of every single editor would be needed before any change could be made. I'd have thought there'd be a segment that oversees such things. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And one further point, unless you can show me where this is the correct way to format a <ref> tag, I will remove the formatting on the article in question. I leave you to delete this comment as well as it is on your talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your pointless threats aside, you'll have to show where it's incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Threat, no. Promise, yes. You've got a lot of refs to fix with <small> if you think that's correct. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A promise to ignore built consensus and impose a contested preference without a new consensus is certainly bordering on a threat to revert war. I sincerely hope none of that is your intent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus as you suggest. There was simply blissful ignorance. I also checked a few articles in foreign language Misplaced Pages articles and your suggestion that using <sup> around <ref> tags is not the case for the articles I looked at in the German-language and French-language articles at which I looked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're on about regarding other language Wikipdeias, but, yes, there is consensus, per silence: "If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus..." You're of course free to seek a new consensus, but per WP:BRD, should do so on the talk page, not by constantly reverting to your preferred new version. If you're so sure of your position, it should be no trouble to get other editors to agree with your case. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

But there has not been silence. I tried to challenge this, but you simply wore me out. At this point, project wide, refs are created without the small tags everywhere but in the corner of the project where Mies edits. That just doesn't make sense. While people with your browser configuration may well have the same problem you do, you seem to be, literally, the only one unable to tolerate it. Making the link more difficult to use to suit one person's aesthetic preference is beyond strange. I would take this to a wider forum, but I really don't know where that would be. -Rrius (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There has indeed been silence on Victoria Day,

and almost every other article I edit, and I'm not the only one who uses the code (I picked it up from someone else); though, admittedly, it's rare; but, I chalk that up to the fact that most editors don't care about the graphic quality of articles. I don't know what you mean about wearing you out; where you brought this up was at Parliament of Canada, and I there acquiesced to your insistance that there be no <small> code around refs, as it still stands today.

You can see above that the matter has been raised before at other forums, but talk always fizzles out; I wish something could be done, but nobody ever seems to care too much, one way or the other. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And why do you think that is? Could it be that it only garners scrutiny for a few months at this time every year? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it fizzles out? As a software tester, I have learned that changes are weighed against their benefit. It doesn't seem to annoy a sufficient number of users. That is why no changes are made: they are not deemed valuable.

However the additional formatting seems to annoy a sufficient number of editors. This is why it should not be applied. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (with User talk:Rrius). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor page comments

Regarding this edit, I appreciate that you had something to add to the conversation but a user is entitled to remove talk from their page if they wish. By removing it it is assumed they have read it. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. However, what you said was salient and I wanted to add my voice to the chorus. That's all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Aware

I know you're aware of the editing, and as you know I need to warn you. You know how the game is played. It's always best to warn people as sometimes it is easy to get carried away. It wasn't intended as any insult, I was just warning both parties in this little edit conflict, you know the process. Canterbury Tail talk 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. And my edit summary wasn't meant to come across as snippy as it would probably have been read. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The other party has now been blocked for edit warring anyway after my warning. Canterbury Tail talk 16:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rwanda

I don't know about you, but I've never felt any responsibility nor need to seek forgiveness over the Rwanda civil-war. MJ's apology on behalf of all Canadians, truly annoyed me. It's bad enough she wishes to spend as much taxpayers money as possible (her future foreign trips) before her term expires. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, you know better than that, really. Trips are at the Cabinet's recommendation and paid for out of budgets approved by parliament. Her speeches are similarly vetted by a minister. And, in regards to this case in particular, I don't know where anyone's getting the idea Jean made an apology. The full text of her speech isn't up on her website yet, but from any clip I've heard or anything I've read I get only an acknowledgement of the atrocity and an admission that had Canada done more the calamity could have been lessened - not prevented, just lessened. You know the House of Commons passed a motion saying pretty much the same thing, right? So did Bill Clinton about the US (and I know you love American presidents!). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

MJ should've said ..on behalf of the Government of Canada. She shouldn't be dumping 'guilt & wrongdoing' on the people. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the speech is up now. She never apologises on behalf of or dumps guilt on the people of Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The blokes on CBC news/CTV news sure know how to get a feller upset. Now, if she'll just cancel her future foreign trips. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I know about the stupid media. I can't imagine sacrificing my dignity to make such boldly inaccurate, ignorant statements all in the name of creating a money making scandal out of nothing. I swear I lose IQ points after every 10 minutes of giving my attention to the press - American and Canadian. Of what there is in Canada, I particularly loathe Global... "Will the dirt in your keyboard KILL YOU? Tune in at 11!" grrr... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you even get Global News in PEI? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain, I don't recall it on the channels. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lucky you! lol --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe, I'm signing out for a few hours. Has anybody prepared smelling salts for Tharky? He's gonna go into shock when he checks out the Elizabeth II article. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

hello!

I see your reverting the template..I cant realy find any discussion on why we would black out the links..this is not at all normal as we should be tring to help people navigate this topics, not hide them. The only thing i can find is this old thing here, but i dont see you why its black... I think we should revisit this decision to hide the links, i have been talking to few people about it that is why i changed them all!! I will bring this up over at the Wikiproject...Moxy (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can see there were different variations, some with red text, some blue, and some black. The composition that was decided on just happened to have the black lettering. By all means, raise the matter again if you wish; any decisions on alterations have such a wide ranging effect, I would think that getting a project consensus first would only be natural. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the Commonwealth

This is a non-free (copyrighted) image and cannot be used on articles for which a fair-use rationale does not exist and cannot be justified. This is Misplaced Pages policy: WP:Non-free content criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

smref template

Template:smref is fixed now. You should now be able to use it multiple times on a page without the name= parameter and have them appear as separate references. Hgrosser (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I should add another parameter to the template so that you could specify a size in percent instead of just <small>...</small>?

Lieutenant Governor

Hi there,
I see that you are a major contributor to Lieutenant Governor of Alberta. As a person not in politics the lead sentence of this article is very confusing, and doesn't make sense (of, as she). I don't what to change it because I see it is the same as the other provinces. Thoughts? 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Toronto-Dominion Centre

Hello. Typically, a reference to an Ontario Heritage Trust site means that the Trust owns/manages it. Sometimes it is even used for sites where the Trust doesn't own or manage the site, but holds a conservation easement over the property. You are absolutely right the Trust installs plaques throughout the province (and beyond, IIRC) and has installed one here, but while the plaques are important (and probably the most well-known aspect of the Trust's activities given how many of them there are), they confer no legal status (they're commemorative signage) and sites with plaques are not commonly thought of as Trust properties. Moreover, the installation of a plaque is very different from a heritage designation - the plaques are essential an education program. While the Trust typically provides the Ministry of Culture advice on provincial designations under the Act, it doesn't designate properties, nor does the installation of a commemorative plaque (pomp and ceremony notwithstanding) in any way designate a property or provide it with any heritage protection. In this case, parts of the T-D Centre were designated by the City in 2003 (not 2005 as referenced in the lead, or 2006 at the bottom of the article), and other parts were later included in the Union Station Heritage Conservation District (which parts escape me at the moment), but as far as know there is no provincial designation (which isn't unusual, even for significant properties, where there is already a municipal designation)(although, again, provincial designations aren't directly related to the Trust's plaque program). I just think it's odd that the reference to the complex being designated links back to an organization that installed a plaque, rather than to the article which outlines the process and legal ramifications of a heritage designation. I hope that helps, and am happy to discuss. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Day‎

Just to clarify, the reference for May Two-Four indicates that it is a phrase, but does not indicate its meaning. The dictionary is not available to me. Similarly for May Long. You are also not taking care and deleting edits that have been made to improve the article, which is why I tagged you for vandalism. I only did it after your second time. I now see that you did it a third time. Please take care when you revert changes that you're not deleting additional material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You may believe you are improving the quality of the article with some of your edits, but I can assure you I see the exact opposite; you are repeatedly undoing formatting that keeps line spacing consistent, clearly unaware of the effects of your edits since you won't discuss them after being reverted, choosing instead to immediately revert the revert, and you have just done yet again. Your accusations of vandalism towards me are thus wholly unfounded and presumptuous, demonstrating an assumption that somehow it's any disagreement with your edits (and subsequent uninformed and uncaring reverts) that is deliberately destructive.

You also evidently didn't pay attention to the guideline I directed you to, clearly outlining that references are not required in article leads, unless for some particularly contentious material, which the colloquial name for a holiday certainly seems not to be.

You should have discussed your other issues at the article talk page before being so disruptive. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You may believe you are improving the quality of the article with some of your edits, but I can assure you I see the exact opposite; you are repeatedly restoring formatting that is not consistent with the rest of Misplaced Pages. If you want to "fix" the ref tags, do it in the code, not in the pages themselves as this is not correct on English Misplaced Pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As for discussing, I have discussed it and it has been ignored. I am not being disruptive, I am editing for clarity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're not the format police. The formatting has been there for almost a year, meaning it's gained consensus through silence on that article and you must seek a new consensus to change it.

You only just started a discussion at the talk page, after reverting to your limit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I am not the formating police. I'm just an editor. The fact that it's been there for almost a year does not mean it's gained consensus, it means no one has bothered to remove it. It means no one has noticed it or cared to change it. In fact, I have made edits to the page over the past year and never noticed it until today when I recognized that no other of the 500 odd pages I've edited have this formatting so I removed it. As I've said, feel free to get the <ref> code changed to reflect your desire to not change the leading when the tag is used, but don't add formatting to individual tags.

As for discussing, I brought it up on your talk page and on the article's as well and no one bothered to follow-up. Since this is a seasonal article, it's no wonder that changes happen in periodic intervals. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are, of course, incorrect in your assumptions about consensus; see my response to your comments above.

You only raised the matter of my undoing your erroneous edits after vigorously reverting numerous times on the article; something you have a habit of doing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True on one occasion accidentally, in the midst of another edit war. After I saw that you were upset today, I made the changes one-at-a-time on two separate occasions. The first one, you reverted (or just undid) all of my changes, not only those with which you disagreed. As we have seen the formatting change is contentious with other editors. The reference that is not WP:V continued to be restored. The reference added to the lede was selectively removed as you left others. The citation request in the lede was also removed for some unknown and unreferenced[REDACTED] policy. It seems to me as though you have no foot on which to stand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was within my rights per WP:BRD to revert you; you were not, however, to revert the revert. It was at that point you should have discussed your changes at talk, or at least made subsequent edits that demonstrated you had paid some attention to my explanations in my edit summaries, but you clearly ignored those and insisted your version was "right" anyway.

Yes, it seems there was another ref in the lead that need not be there; I missed it. That's not an excuse, however, for your actions. I've explained already about seven times why a citation request maintenance tag is misplaced in the lead; it seems the leg you're standing on is little more than wilful ignorance. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)