Misplaced Pages

User talk:Miesianiacal: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:52, 26 May 2010 editSkeezix1000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,242 edits Toronto-Dominion Centre: + comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:55, 7 December 2024 edit undoDaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers25,899 edits Happy First Edit Day! 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:Miesianiacal/Talkheader}}
{{User talk:Miesianiacal/Archive box}} {{User talk:Miesianiacal/Archive box}}
{| style="width: 100%; background: ##F5F5DC; border: 1px solid #000000; padding: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; vertical-align: top;" {| style="width: 100%; background: ##F5F5DC; border: 1px solid #000000; padding: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; vertical-align: top;"
| |
== Topic banned ==
Per , you are indefinitely topic banned from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. This applies to any discussion, article, or part of an article anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 11:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


Alas, this is adieu to Misplaced Pages, then. That's my area of expertise and, if two decades adding to it dozens of articles and building up dozens more with hundreds of thousands of words and hundreds of reliable sources doesn't stand for anything against the, by comparison, small compendium of examples of my having exacerbated fractious disputes, and if even my fulfilling, over the last couple of weeks, my promise to modify my behaviour means nothing, well... I no longer see any logic in donating my time and effort to this venture; the complete lack of appreciation was already leading me to question how much I ought to keep giving. This topic ban seals the deal. Unofrtunate, as I was just in the midst of a few productive discussions.
== Monarchy of Canada ==


Thanks for the 20 years. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 14:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
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 ], 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.


:You might consider waiting a while to cool down -- and I can well empathise with the frustration you must be feeling -- for a couple of weeks or months, and then perhaps appeal to AN or indeed yo Arbcom. Either way, all the best. ] (]) 17:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
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.
::It's quite cool over here; about eight degrees, right now. My decision was premediatated; I knew weeks ago a ban was a possible outcome and considered my reaction. And that was before I'd self-analyzed, explained at AN/I where my faults lay, promised to change, and then did, as demonstrated by all the discussions I've been part of over the two weeks since. The fact the ban has come today, regardless, not only shows it's personal, but, it also affirms my earlier suspicion that the balance between the work I've put into this project (inlduing work on myself; on my emotions and behaviours) and what I've received from it is way, ''way'' off. It's bad for one's mental health.


::I won't be appealing anything if the majority of the other guilty parties don't also change. There will never be a point to coming back for another hypocritical beat-down.
Sincerely,


::The best to you, as well, 109. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
:::I entirely agree about the mental-health aspect. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a crucible of facts, not just of psychological endurance, as seems to what's actually the case in practice.. But moaning about that aside, for the people that have suffered as a result of it that should be priority for sure. Take good care of yourself, and ignore Misplaced Pages for as long as necessary. Including forever... ] (]) 12:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
:First off, before commenting further, have a read of ] and ]. 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 ] and ], 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


:A shame. We had our differences on the Charles article but I always valued your contributions there. Hope one day you might choose to come back: if not, I wish you well for the future. ] (]) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (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.
::Agree this would be a loss to Canadian articles overall in my view. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
::Cordially,
::] (]) 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


Sorry to see you go, but I understand the frustration. I do hope you seek an appeal in future, but you need to do what is best for you. Being an editor can be a thankless job, but know that many of us appreciate many contributions you have made over the years.-- ] (]) 00:56, 15 April 2024 (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. -- ] (]) 01:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks to you, Tim, and Moxy for the remarks; your appreciation is appreciated. The thanklessness out there is one thing and could probably be pretty easily rectified; barnstars exist for a reason!
:::::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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
:However, when I spoke above of what I got from this place in return for what I put in, I wasn't lamenting a lack of kudos for my time and effort, I was referring to the harassment, personal vendettas, and biased use of power that came my way, on many occasions. For years, I'd feel anxiety when logging in here, dreading seeing that a certain stonewalling, gaslighting editor had started the 836th weeks-long conflict with me or which of those who hate me for personal reasons had jumped in to double, triple, or quadruple the resistance against me; and I mean resistance, because none of them ever showed a willingness to compromise with me. That resulted in the situations in which I felt I wasn't being heard, my reaction to which I admitted at AN/I was my error, not only insofar as exacerbating conflicts, but, feeding my opponents ammunition to use against me; I was helping continue the very cycle I despised.
:But, despite rectifying my behaviour and putting my time and thought into some productive conflict resolving, finding some compromises and working on others, I was still "rewarded" with my haters falsely accausing me of being disruptive and a topic ban (effectively a Misplaced Pages ban, for me) from an admin who doesn't do his due dilligence. I'll give for no thanks. I won't give for relentless abuse and toxicity.
:I'm sure you three and 109 will continue to maintain the Canadian monarchy articles to a high, factual, well-written standard. And trackratte, too; should he decide to fully return after what seems like a voluntary break of his own. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


=="de facto head of state"==
==Queen does not represent Canada outside of Canada==
I understand your not here...but if you happen to look here. Ten years ago or so we had some wording about "de facto head of state" at the GG article. Do you recall what sources corved this? The debate is back and i recall us coming up with context for this but cant find it. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
From Rideau Hall
:While I could otherwise assist, the terms of my topic ban disallow me from discussing this. Sorry. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|}
:Do you have an actual source for that? Because, I have quite a few that say the opposite. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 02:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:GG-Romeo LeBlanc.jpg==
::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..
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
::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" ] (]) 14:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 02:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
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''? ] (]) 15:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
:ROTFLMAO!! You know, that very same thought occurred to me as well! ] (]) 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello,
== 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. --] (]) 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 ], in my opinion, but I'm not going to make any more of an issue out of it than it already is. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
== "small" tags for refs? ==


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
Why are you using {{bcode|1=<small>}} tags around {{bcode|1=<nowiki><ref></nowiki>}} tags? These tags are already small as it is; there is no need to make them even smaller. <font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;(])</font> 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 02:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
:: <s>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.</s> I found the discussion, currently reading. <font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;(])</font> 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 ] and ]. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
:::: Okay, I've read those discussions (as well as ], 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, ], 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:


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
::::*
::::*
::::*


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
:::: 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 <nowiki><small></nowiki> 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. <font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;(])</font> 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? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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. <font face="Verdana">]&nbsp;(])</font> 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
And one further point, unless you can show me where this is the correct way to format a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> 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. --] (]) 23:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:Actually, your pointless threats aside, you'll have to show where it's incorrect. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Threat, no. Promise, yes. You've got a lot of refs to fix with <nowiki><small></nowiki> if you think that's correct. --] (]) 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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 <nowiki><sup></nowiki> around <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags is not the case for the articles I looked at in the German-language and French-language articles at which I looked. --] (]) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::I've no idea what you're on about regarding other language Wikipdeias, but, yes, there is consensus, ]: "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 ], 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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. -] (]) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::There has indeed been silence on ],


Kind Regards,
:::::::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 ], and I there acquiesced to your insistance that there be no <nowiki><small></nowiki> 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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? --] (]) 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. --] (]) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Agreed (with ]). --] (]) 04:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


]
== Editor page comments ==


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
Regarding , 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. ] ] 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->
:Yes, I know. However, what you said was salient and I wanted to add my voice to the chorus. That's all. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
== Aware ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
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. ] ] 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
:Understood. And my edit summary wasn't meant to come across as snippy as it would probably have been read. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
::The other party has now been blocked for edit warring anyway after my warning. ] ] 16:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== Rwanda ==


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
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. ] (]) 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!). --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Actually, the speech is . She never apologises on behalf of or dumps guilt on the people of Canada. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 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... --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 15:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::Giggle giggle. ] (]) 15:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Do you even get Global News in PEI? --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 15:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not certain, I don't recall it on the channels. ] (]) 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Lucky you! lol --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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. ] (]) 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 ], 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...] (]) 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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: ]. — ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 19:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

== smref template ==

{{MTalkback|hgrosser}}

] is fixed now You should now be able to use it multiple times on a page without the <code>name=</code>parameter and have them appear as separate references.
] (]) 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<code><nowiki><small>...</small></nowiki></code>?

] is fixed now. Just remember that if you use it with a name but no text, like <code><nowiki>{{smref|name=xxx}</nowiki>}</code>, it actually generates <code><nowiki><ref name=xxx></ref></nowiki></code> rather than <code><nowiki><ref name=xxx/></nowiki></code>, so it should not be the first occurrence of that name. This is the code I used to test it at ]:

<pre>{{smref|wkqueygwgh}}

{{smref|efuygjyewgyuefwg}}

{{smref|kwugefwejyg|name=xxx}}

{{smref|wugdyefgwudg|name=xxx}}

{{smref|name=xxx}}

<references/></pre>

] (]) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

== Lieutenant Governor ==

Hi there,<br
>I see that you are a major contributor to ]. 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? ] (]) 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. --] (]) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry, I didn't realise the matter was so complex; I honestly thought a plaque was an indication that the property had been designated as a heritage site by the OHT. I've made a change to the article that, I think, removes any erroneous claims, mentioning only the installation of a CHT plaque, rather than that the site was made a heritage property. The plaque does seem to have been erected in 2005. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 05:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::No worries. But even with the rewrite, it is extremely odd that the article lead is focused on a commemorative plaque rather than the more signficant heritage designation. --] (]) 11:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::True. That can be removed, I guess. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 14:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Sorry for the delay in responding.<p>You needn't remove it. While I'm not sure that I would have thought the installation of a plaque merited inclusion in the lead, you did, and I don't dispute that. Perhaps the sentence should read: "Part of the complex, described by Philip Johnson as "the largest Mies in the world," was designated under the ] in 2003<ref>City of Toronto , enacted September 24, 2003.</ref> and received an ] plaque in 2005." --] (]) 12:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

==Victoria Day x2==
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. --] (]) 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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 <nowiki><ref></nowiki> 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. --] (]) 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 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 ] 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. --] (]) 04:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I was within my rights per ] 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. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: Ledes require citations just like the rest of the article, particularly over contentious issues or questionable terms. It seems the leg you're standing on is little more than wilful ignorance. --] (]) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: Also, based on your earlier thesis, I would argue that you didn't miss it, you have given consensus to it. --] (]) 14:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Since inline citations are used in leads only for contentious content, leads do not require citations just like the rest of the article. As I've said about five times now, the colloquial name for a holiday hardly seems contentious.
:::::::::I will also reiterate that I missed the other ref in the lead. I don't give consensus, the community does; your suggestion of the opposite may reveal a misunderstanding of consensus on your part. I could be bold and remove that citation. You could then revert that deletion and justify the move by pointing to consensus by silence. I would then, if I insisted that the cite should not be in the lead, try to garner on the talk page a new consensus to remove that ref. That's the essence of ]. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: The fact that no ] citations can be found, I'd say is contentious.
:::::::::: The fact that you missed the ref is exactly the point that I and other have made regarding the <nowiki><small></nowiki> tags around the references. You cannot have it both ways. I would argue that it is not consensus but an oversight. As a software tester, I see this problem all the time. When you're not looking for something, it is quite often overlooked. It is similar to misdirection that is used by illusionists to great effect. --] (]) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::I would appear you didn't give enough attention to what I wrote. Please re-read it. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

==Canvassing==
I will continue to "canvas" input from the other editors after you approve the format of the comment you want me to leave. That comment is on my talk page. So far, the only person on your side is mildly on your side. Not on side for the formatting but on your opinion. --] (]) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:You can seek input from other editors all you want; it's encouraged in disputes, actually. Seeking input specifically and only from those editors you know will support your position is called vote stacking and using non-neutral words about your opponent in your appeals is called campaigning. Vote stacking and campaigning both fall under ], and you did both.
:I will take a look at your note forthwith. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Additional comments on my talk page. --] (]) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

== Thank you ==


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #ffffff;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Cleanup Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thank you for fixing all my mistakes in the temples and for putting up with me!! Did not mean to make work for you!! ] (]) 23:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
|}
:Oh! Well, thank you! And I haven't even finished yet... --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 14:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


</div>
== ref tag proposal ==
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 -->


== Happy First Edit Anniversary! ==
I can't tell if you accepted my proposal to try to resolve the small ref issue. -] (]) 19:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:I said any help would be appreciated; so, yes, your help is welcome. I'm just not yet sure what is the best course to take. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
== Consistency ==
{{ombox
| name = First Edit Day
| image = ]
| imageright = ]
| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(to right, #a8ff78, #78ffd6);
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| plainlinks = yes
| text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi Miesianiacal! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! <span style="font family:Lobster;text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink">] ]</span> 03:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
}} <span style="font family:Lobster;text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink">] ]</span> 03:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


==Happy First Edit Day!==
It's not really consistent when the MM/DD/YYYY form is used in an article that primarily uses DD/MM/YYYY ] (]) 23:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
<!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## -->
:No, it certainly isn't. My mistake; I thought I was changing it back to dd/mm/yyyy! --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ombox
:Come to think of it, all of the Canadian dates are inconsistent; both my passport and driver's licence have YYYY-MM-DD, and the Vancouver Sun uses MM/DD/YYYY. ] (]) 23:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
| name = First Edit Day
:: YYYY-MM-DD are used primarily for international documents such as passports and DLs. The Vancouver Sun uses the Short US format. --] (]) 02:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| image = ]
| imageright = ]
| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(to right, #a8ff78, #78ffd6);
| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;
| plainlinks = yes
| text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi Miesianiacal! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] (]) 03:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
}}

Latest revision as of 03:55, 7 December 2024

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

Topic banned

Per this ANI thread, you are indefinitely topic banned from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. This applies to any discussion, article, or part of an article anywhere on the English Misplaced Pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Alas, this is adieu to Misplaced Pages, then. That's my area of expertise and, if two decades adding to it dozens of articles and building up dozens more with hundreds of thousands of words and hundreds of reliable sources doesn't stand for anything against the, by comparison, small compendium of examples of my having exacerbated fractious disputes, and if even my fulfilling, over the last couple of weeks, my promise to modify my behaviour means nothing, well... I no longer see any logic in donating my time and effort to this venture; the complete lack of appreciation was already leading me to question how much I ought to keep giving. This topic ban seals the deal. Unofrtunate, as I was just in the midst of a few productive discussions.

Thanks for the 20 years. -- MIESIANIACAL 14:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You might consider waiting a while to cool down -- and I can well empathise with the frustration you must be feeling -- for a couple of weeks or months, and then perhaps appeal to AN or indeed yo Arbcom. Either way, all the best. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
It's quite cool over here; about eight degrees, right now. My decision was premediatated; I knew weeks ago a ban was a possible outcome and considered my reaction. And that was before I'd self-analyzed, explained at AN/I where my faults lay, promised to change, and then did, as demonstrated by all the discussions I've been part of over the two weeks since. The fact the ban has come today, regardless, not only shows it's personal, but, it also affirms my earlier suspicion that the balance between the work I've put into this project (inlduing work on myself; on my emotions and behaviours) and what I've received from it is way, way off. It's bad for one's mental health.
I won't be appealing anything if the majority of the other guilty parties don't also change. There will never be a point to coming back for another hypocritical beat-down.
The best to you, as well, 109. -- MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I entirely agree about the mental-health aspect. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a crucible of facts, not just of psychological endurance, as seems to what's actually the case in practice.. But moaning about that aside, for the people that have suffered as a result of it that should be priority for sure. Take good care of yourself, and ignore Misplaced Pages for as long as necessary. Including forever... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
A shame. We had our differences on the Charles article but I always valued your contributions there. Hope one day you might choose to come back: if not, I wish you well for the future. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree this would be a loss to Canadian articles overall in my view. Moxy🍁 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, but I understand the frustration. I do hope you seek an appeal in future, but you need to do what is best for you. Being an editor can be a thankless job, but know that many of us appreciate many contributions you have made over the years.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Tim, and Moxy for the remarks; your appreciation is appreciated. The thanklessness out there is one thing and could probably be pretty easily rectified; barnstars exist for a reason!
However, when I spoke above of what I got from this place in return for what I put in, I wasn't lamenting a lack of kudos for my time and effort, I was referring to the harassment, personal vendettas, and biased use of power that came my way, on many occasions. For years, I'd feel anxiety when logging in here, dreading seeing that a certain stonewalling, gaslighting editor had started the 836th weeks-long conflict with me or which of those who hate me for personal reasons had jumped in to double, triple, or quadruple the resistance against me; and I mean resistance, because none of them ever showed a willingness to compromise with me. That resulted in the situations in which I felt I wasn't being heard, my reaction to which I admitted at AN/I was my error, not only insofar as exacerbating conflicts, but, feeding my opponents ammunition to use against me; I was helping continue the very cycle I despised.
But, despite rectifying my behaviour and putting my time and thought into some productive conflict resolving, finding some compromises and working on others, I was still "rewarded" with my haters falsely accausing me of being disruptive and a topic ban (effectively a Misplaced Pages ban, for me) from an admin who doesn't do his due dilligence. I'll give for no thanks. I won't give for relentless abuse and toxicity.
I'm sure you three and 109 will continue to maintain the Canadian monarchy articles to a high, factual, well-written standard. And trackratte, too; should he decide to fully return after what seems like a voluntary break of his own. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"de facto head of state"

I understand your not here...but if you happen to look here. Ten years ago or so we had some wording about "de facto head of state" at the GG article. Do you recall what sources corved this? The debate is back and i recall us coming up with context for this but cant find it. Moxy🍁 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

While I could otherwise assist, the terms of my topic ban disallow me from discussing this. Sorry. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GG-Romeo LeBlanc.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GG-Romeo LeBlanc.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary!

Calendar emojiHappy First Edit Day!
Hi Miesianiacal! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Hemlock :3 leave a message 03:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Party popper emoji

Hemlock :3 leave a message 03:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Calendar emojiHappy First Edit Day!
Hi Miesianiacal! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Party popper emoji
User talk:Miesianiacal: Difference between revisions Add topic