Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
== uw-coi:Edward Graham Harris (United Commonwealth Society) and James Skinner (Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation) ==
] Hello, Miesianiacal. We ] your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things ] on Misplaced Pages, you may have a ]. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, see the ''']''' and ]. In particular, please:
*'''avoid editing or creating''' articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
* instead, '''propose changes''' on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{tlx|request edit}} template);
*'''avoid linking''' to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see ]);
*'''exercise great caution''' so that you do not violate Misplaced Pages's content policies.
In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's ] ''']''' of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to ], ], and ]. You appear to have considerable links with both <i>Edward Graham Harris</i>, c/o (and possibly of) England, United Kingdom (formerly trading as <i>"the United Commonwealth Society"</i>, and formerly operating the <i>unitedcommonwealthsociety.org</i> website ), and also with <i>James Skinner</i>, of Wales, England and Wales, United Kingdom, and also of British Columbia, Canada (trading as <i>"the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation"</i>, and operating the <i>cfmo.org</i> website ), at least as a supporter or an activist, or both, to both organisations or to both causes thereof. Thank you.{{#if:| ] (]) 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)}}<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED IF THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -->]<!-- Template:uw-coi --> -- ] (]) 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
>> If I left you a message:
please answer on your talk page, then place
{{MTalkback}} on my talk. >> If you leave me a message:
I will answer on my talk page. If you do not reply
within a few hours, I will place {{MTalkback}}
on your talk.
We're beginning to let ourselves get overly frustrated with each other, again. Let's cool down & allow the others to chime in some more. OK? GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
No, not okay. Because, unless something changes, no matter how long a break we take, the same scenario is going to eventually play itself out over and over again.
Nobody is disallowing others to chime in more. But, what does it matter if they do or don't? If they don't back your totalitarian demand 100%, they're POV pushers and only wanting to make a point; they're disruptive, in other words. You're being obstinate and laying the blame for the ensuing fight at the feet of others again. I'm sorry if that's not an olive branch, but, I'd rather see solutions in action than symbolic gestures. --ĦMIESIANIACAL05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Post-RfC
The content had all the appearance of deliberately snide and disorderly, which is far from friendly, as others can see for themselves. Qexigator (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"Disorderly" makes no sense. "Snide" is your subjective opinion, so far seemingly founded on nothing except maybe some bad faith.
Disruption is one of the most major no-nos on Misplaced Pages. What GoodDay was doing—repeatedly making the same remark over and over and over and over—is something he got himself in trouble for a while ago. Reviving the practice at Talk:Elizabeth II was already in breach of WP:TEND; doing it again—twice—immediately after an RfC had settled on something other than what he ideally wanted definitely seemed like stirring the pot: WP:TEND, WP:DRAMA, WP:CCC. And he didn't seem likely to stop. But, I'm not an admin. So I asked the one that closed the RfC—since he's the most directly connected—to clarify. I don't want to report GoodDay to AN/I or anything. I, like I'm sure most everyone does, want disputes (if they're going to come up) resolved as quickly as possible, which requires, at least in part, as little disruption as possible. GoodDay not digging his own grave again would be an added bonus.
Your edit I took to be less indicative of disruption. However, WP:CCC does say "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive" and you weren't just proposing, you were making. Again, I asked for clarification. I don't know in what way anyone could take that as a personal attack.
Reading that as a well-intentioned apologia (as distinct from apology) I have to say that nonetheless I stand by my comments, not to be disagreeable, but because the way in which you chose to express yourself was in my opinion "ill-judged" which is something of a commonly used understatement, in the language I am used to anyway. For my part, I have been aiming to tread fairly softly in discussion and go ahead with edits on the basis of acceptability, as I think the record shows. Qexigator (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Chancellor Chain Order of Canada.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chancellor Chain Order of Canada.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not the first time that User:Sfan00 IMG is stating to delete images that I had place on Misplaced Pages (he had an issue with a photograph of aide de camp insignias that I had also added). Each picture has been taken by me, and all that I am willing to do is share them with the public. Are you willing to help review the situation please.
It seems his issue isn't with the images you made, but, rather, with the insignia being pictured in them; the entries at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2015 October 28 state: "The design of the order medals is not necessarily the uploaders to re-license." I'm afraid I don't know if the copyright status of an object or artwork in a picture is a problem in terms of free use on Misplaced Pages. If it is, the matter of licencing on Misplaced Pages is getting to the point of absurd. --ĦMIESIANIACAL23:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You know, it occurs to me that, since a photo that captures in it the insignia of an order cannot be deemed to be free for use on Misplaced Pages, it can be uploaded and used under the fair use policy, which states that a non-free image can be used if no free one is available. Apparently no free image of an order's insignia can ever be produced. --ĦMIESIANIACAL05:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Good. And, FWIW, it does appear you've been unfairly targeted. There are a number of other images of insignia of Canadian orders and of Canadian decorations and medals that haven't been deemed to be not free. Unless the image stasi have yet to target them... --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
To back up that bad faith accusation, you will have to prove I have an "aim of creating irritation" or exacting "revenge for a perceived slight". In fact, I am "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles", 90% of which are on my watchlist; because of the latter, I see you are tendentiously attempting to make a point, violating WP:NPOV in the process. In fact, it appears as though you're the one trying to cause irritation (you know the edits you're making to long-standing wordings on multiple articles are contentious; ie. you're baiting) with the wider goal of exacting some kind of revenge for the perceived slight of not getting your obsession for "United Kingdom and 15 other countries" satisfied at Elizabeth II. This is the same behaviour you used to exhibit at articles relating to the British Isles.
Please stop moving from article to article deliberately stirring up drama. I appreciate that sometimes you can accept a compromise (occasionally it's even you who comes up with the one that sticks). But, the fact you can be compromising only begs the question: if you're going to alter the wording, why not just try for something similar to other successful compromises in the first place, rather than go straight for the "UK and 15 blah blah" you know is going to get a negative response? In the absence of any other answer, it seems you're just looking to stir up a controversy (and then complain about it). --ĦMIESIANIACAL23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is, it's usually only you who protests via revert or alterations & let's be honest here, you're obsessed with avoiding "UK+15". It's been over 10 years now, you can't deny that you're keen on downplaying the UK's unique place among the Commonwealth realms. If you want to go out into the real world & campaign for recognition of "16 are equal" over "UK and 15", with the hopes of changing the world's view? then by all means, do so. But don't push for it on Misplaced Pages. I'm trying to reflect the real world's view of Elizabeth II & that view is she's foremost "Queen of the United Kingdom". I didn't make the world see her that way, but that's how she's seen. You're obstructing my ability to reflect that. PS: I'm grateful, that we both can lock horns now & then, but we don't go overboard (i.e ANI). We're in agreement, that trying to get an editor removed, isn't the adult way to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
PS - I'm still peeved that Harper & the Conservatives basically allowed the British Parliament to amend our country's monarchial succession, with the old Whatever the Brits say, will go along with it baloney . I don't like the fact that our country has a monarchy. But since it does, I'd rather our country taking care of it & not the United Kingdom or the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You have evaded the point. You have been on a mission to shove into many articles the words "United Kingdom and 15 other" or something very similar:
That's all in the space of less than a month. It is the definition of tendentiousness. It all started after the events at Elizabeth II, where consensus did not favour "United Kingdom and 15 other"; so, it appears as though you're trying to make a point. I know you know the words "United Kingdom and 15 other" are contentious and I know you're capable of creating other wordings; so, it appears as though you're baiting and trying to cause drama by way of battles. (After all, once disruption has been caused, you use it as justification for then complainingaboutothereditors "behind their backs" and cabals, making badfaithaccusations, playingthe victim, and moredrama.) As I said: This is the same behaviour you used to exhibit at articles relating to the British Isles and diacritics. (Being addicted to drama, battleground mentality, playing victim, avoiding culpability, making bad faith accusations about POV pushing and SPAs, back-handed comments, pointy edits, being on a crusade to "fix" Misplaced Pages: these were all criticisms that came up in the amendment request that resulted in your one year ban.)
So, please do not drop at my feet false accusations of stalking, as though, once again, you're a victim. Your gnoming is fine, but, when you veer away from that, you become a problem editor (knowing you can't go back to British Isles or diacritics, your focus is now on the Commonwealth realms). As Skyring said to you: "There are eyes on all of us. The transparency of Misplaced Pages helps keep us all working in harmony." --ĦMIESIANIACAL19:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You're the only one who's following me around & reverting my changes, which creates the impression that your reverts are pointy. But, I do thank you for toning down your edit summaries. As for the content dispute itself (i.e. show or don't show "UK+15" or just "UK), we're not going to agree. I'll make edits that I see fit, for our readers & you'll do whatever you see fit for our readers. We'll leave it at that. Anyways, no hard feelings. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Miesianiacal. I see that you prefer "art history" to "history of art" (although you gave no edit summary to explain why), or even "History of Art". But that's what it seems to be called at the Eton College website, although it's listed there as a "pre-U" rather than as an "A-level". I wonder if it was the same in 1998? I think it probably was. But I can see no direct support for the A-level subjects in the article, certainly not in that dreadful people.com source. Ideally I think they should be given as "Geography, Art and History of Art". Eton offers "Art" as a real A-level. Any further ideas? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not so much that I prefer "art history" to "history of art" (though, they both appear to mean the same thing, only one uses less words), it's that "art history and art" is better writing than "history of art and art" (what is "art and art"?). Looking at the whole sentence now, I see there's actually a comma missing that would help; it should be "after passing the entrance exams, was admitted to Eton College, where he studied geography, art history, and art at A-Level", or, if it were to use "history of art", "after passing the entrance exams, was admitted to Eton College, where he studied geography, history of art, and art at A-Level." But, it still reads clunkily. I suppose it would be better to flip art and art history: "after passing the entrance exams, was admitted to Eton College, where he studied geography, art, and history of art at A-Level." I couldn't be fussed either way so long as there's no "history of art and art". --ĦMIESIANIACAL22:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that too, and you're right it looks (slightly) better in that order. But any views about upper case for proper nouns? or the fact that History of Art probably wasn't a real A-level at Eton? or the fact that none of them is supported by a reliable source? Do you think it's worth a note at the Talk Page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Re capital letters: I'd say it's best to just keep all lower case if we aren't sure what's correct. Art history (or history of art) typically isn't a proper noun and even if there were an Eton course titled "History of Art", "history of art" still describes the subject that would be studied.
Course titles, even university ones, are typically uncapitalised at wiki, which I find quite irritating, But I'll not bother with that I guess. But a tag might be useful. I'm really surpised that the people.com source is tolerated. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC) But I now see that DrKay has tidied things up nicely.
I have to disagree. Without the Oxford comma, it could be assumed there's a portfolio called "Science and Economic Development", when, in fact, "Science" and "Economic Development" are two separate things. (That kind of issue is covered at MOS:SERIAL.) While I see the .gc.ca site does not use the Oxford comma, I don't think a website is really the definitive guide for proper punctuation, nor are we bound to mimic it. We should stick to internal policies and guidelines, I believe. --ĦMIESIANIACAL16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, and ultimately don't mind (because I think serial commas are much more practical). I don't understand the reasoning about where this information comes from, though. Websites serve only as services which host and publish information from a particular entity (kind of like a book), and the entity in this case is the Privy Council of Canada. There's also the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada and Industry Canada. These websites give the name of the office, as used officially. More sound would be to say "I don't think a government is really a definitive guide" --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't seem entirely fair to give me one website as an example and then show me two more and critique my prededing response. Regardless, while I see there's some consistency, it's not because there's "a government" writing the content of the pages and we're still not bound here to mimic what others do. I'll hold that using the Oxford comma is the better way to go. But, I won't put up a huge fuss if more editors want it removed. --ĦMIESIANIACAL18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The first one I gave was used as a source in the article, and I assumed that this was the practice around all of the government's other websites (since they have their own private style guides and conventions). The others, I found later. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
HRH Duke of Edinburgh and related articles
I think that Philip is only informally (and incorrectly) called "Prince Philip"; although I am prepared to accept having myself corrected, upon seeing some official (and preferably British; not Canadian, from Rideau Hall; et al.) sources. - Urquhartnite (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The bold edit was yours, but, it was reverted. Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to begin discussion. I suggest you seek consensus for your edit(s) at the article talk page(s), as it will attract the attention of the community better than any discussion at this personal talk page will. --ĦMIESIANIACAL21:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A user by the name of M.starnberg has been making numerous useless edits to a large number of pages, such as Winston Churchill, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and many more. Although other users (including you, if I recall correctly) have pointed out to him that he is edit warring (see his talk page), he has not stopped and continues to make edits that serve no apparent point (continously downscaling postnominals in infoboxes, changing Peers' infoboxes to Officeholder version while those peers have never held any interesting offices, etc.). I am currently in the process of reverting his edits, but since he has done a hundred of them or so today, it is starting to become a rather tedious job. Do you know how to stop him from making all these disruptive edits? JorisEnter (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I can only think to bring the matter up at WP:AN/I or possibly at WP:AN/EW (I don't see that s/he's technically broken 3RR anywhere, but, it does seem like he's edit warring here, here, here, and here. (I'm sure there are others.) The auto-reverts (with no edit summary) won't be to his/her favour, either). There's certainly a lot of warnings on his/her talk page; you're not the only one s/he has pissed off. --₪MIESIANIACAL22:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, from the look of that talk page, I think a quick note at AN/I will draw an administrator's attention and probably result in a swift block. --₪MIESIANIACAL22:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
uw-coi:Edward Graham Harris (United Commonwealth Society) and James Skinner (Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation)
Hello, Miesianiacal. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Misplaced Pages, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:
avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Misplaced Pages's content policies.
In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of userequire disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. You appear to have considerable links with both Edward Graham Harris, c/o (and possibly of) England, United Kingdom (formerly trading as "the United Commonwealth Society", and formerly operating the unitedcommonwealthsociety.org website ), and also with James Skinner, of Wales, England and Wales, United Kingdom, and also of British Columbia, Canada (trading as "the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation", and operating the cfmo.org website ), at least as a supporter or an activist, or both, to both organisations or to both causes thereof. Thank you. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Miesianiacal: Difference between revisions
Add topic
Welcome! This is Miesianiacal's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Miesianiacal.
archive: 12/08 | 01>03/09 | 04>09/09 | 10/09>03/10 | 04>09/10 | 10/10>03/11 | 04>09/11 | 10/11>03/12 | 04>09/12 | 10/12>03/13 | 04>09/13 | 10/13>03/14 | 04>09/14 | 10/14>03/15 | 04>09/15 | 04>09/14 | 10/15>03/16 | 04/16>06/22 | 07/22>03/24
