Given your contributions to the Diamond Jubilee article in 2012, I thought you may want to have a look at the Platinum Jubilee article and add what you think is missing. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 18:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a gander at that page not so long ago. It seems like a massive project to clean it up--organize the info, copyediting, formatting refs, etc. However, I can try to give it a little love. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in expanding the Canadian section at Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II. Peter Ormond 💬 21:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came very close to blocking you as well as NewsAndEventsGuy for your comments on their talkpage about a third editor. I decided that that would be overkill, since you only made the one comment, and it wasn't directly addressed to that third editor. Please understand, though, that your comments on NAEG's talk were personal attacks, for the same reasons I described in my block notice for NAEG. Please consider this a warning; future comments dissecting fellow editors' mental health, critiquing their mental health decisions, or speculating as to their motivations as you did will lead to blocks. As I said to NAEG, if you really feel that way about an editor, the correct response is a straightforward AN(I) post. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Canadian Crown and Indigenous peoples of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wounded Knee.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters were way out of line. We have a policy that you need to read and understand and follow at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Follow that policy and discuss content not contributors. Do not continue with personal attacks. You are at risk of being blocked if you continue. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I suspect you don't know the history and so are seeing my frustrated words out of context. That's not an excuse. Just an explanation, of sorts.

I would love to discuss only content. What, then, does one do when the contributor is the thing getting in the way of producing content? When a contributor is coming at you with obvious distaste and the notion you're a provocateur with an agenda he needs to check? When a contributor sparks over half a dozen disputes with you in two weeks and then confounds dispute resolution with methods that aren't actually contrary to any policy, such as not answering questions or replying only with red herrings, straw men, and non-sequiturs? Does one have to accept a consequential choice only of quit Wikipedia or be involved in an endless series of multiple RfCs going on simultaneously (as is the situation now)? Is seeking an IBAN necessary? These questions aren't being asked facetiously; I genuinely want to know. This has been going on for the better part of 15 years. My desire to get past this aggrivating state of affairs to a place where I'm only discussing content is real. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is to stop editing as if "you're a provocateur with an agenda". So, do a serious self-check. If you continue on your current path, a block may well be in your future. So, if you are truly here to build an encyclopedia, please change your conduct. Otherwise, the chips will fall where they will. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you accusing me of making mainspace edits that are agenda-driven and provocative? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am describing to you quite frankly the behavioral changes you need to make if you want to keep editing Wikipedia. You can, of course, ignore my advice if you think that I am wrong. You are skating on very thin ice here, in my view as an administrator. The choice is yours. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're not describing anything. I wrote, "I see," thereby indicating I understand; I didn't make any excuse for my offending comments, thereby taking responsibility for them; I asked questions seeking a resolution to a frustrating situation; and your answer was to lay an entirely new accusation against me without even an explanation, let alone proof. (I can at least dig up diffs to backup everything I wrote above.) That is, ironcially, a personal attack that endorses personal attacks. If you have anything specific that says otherwise, please let me know.

Nonetheless, to your first charge; that of making personal attacks: As much as I try to avoid that editor (and have recently asked him twice to leave me alone; I had to tell him, years ago, to stay off this page and, thankfully, he has complied), it seems unlikely I'll be able to do so completely while also continuing to edit the articles I've edited for decades. As such, I will try to temper my demeanour when dealing with him; to keep it as it was between my return from a break two weeks ago and when my vexation really increased a few days (maybe a week?) ago. So, thank you for the heads-up, at least. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Canadian organizations with royal prefix, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Royal Alexandra Hospital and Royal Victoria Hospital.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Elizabeth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just FYI .... article has had AAA rating for accessibility because of image placement..MOS:IMAGELOC....."Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. A consistent left margin creates a stable anchor for tracking through lines of text making it more readable / accessible" Moxy- 20:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had learned that we should try to stagger images left and right, while avoiding conflicts with lists and sandwiching. However, I can't seem to find that instruction anymore. What I see now tells me we can have left-aligned images, so long as most illustrations are right-aligned and those on the left don't mess up lists or cause sandwiching. As far as I can tell, I met those requirements. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It just the standard for accessibility now web style guideline. It's what we tell our students at Harvard and most academic institutions. That all said not a big deal.....but someone may change it back as this has come up 5 times or so before. Moxy- 22:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Miesianiacal. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of monarchy in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to me reverting your edits you stated: Male-line descendants who DO NOT have the style 'royal highness' and princely titles use surname Mountbatten-Windsor; the Wessex children have, by letters patent, RH style & princely titles. That is WP:OR and incorrect. Prince Harry's children are also entitled to HRH styles but they use the Mountbatten-Windsor surname. The letters patent have nothing to do with what their surnames are. Not to mention that all male-line descendants of Elizabeth II and Philip can use the Mountbatten-Windsor surname regardless of their status. William and Catherine used the Mountbatten-Windsor surname in one of their legal fights.^[1] Additionally, the palace specifically refers to Louise as "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor".^[2] Keivan.f^Talk 06:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR? On the contrary, it's verifiable. And clearly so; unlike the British monarchy website, which contradicts itself. You yourself just admitted the Wessex children have royal styles and titles; they just "do not use" them. They have the styles and titles, they have the surname Windsor. "My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."[1] If you have an authoritative source stating something different, please show it. If you want other sources for "Louise Windsor": [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

(The Sussex children are irrelevant. They were born great-grandchildren of the monarch; the Wessex children were born grandchildren of the monarch.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:OR because you are interpreting the 1960 announcement in a way that doesn't match the actual reality of how the surname is used. First of all, the Sussex children are grandchildren of the monarch at the moment. Doesn't matter what their status was at birth. The 1917 letters patent apply to all grandchildren regardless of when they were born; there is no mention of any difference between grandchildren due to their status at birth. With regards to what the 1960 announcement says, it does not "ban" the male-line descendants with the HRH style from using a surname. Normally "descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness" do NOT need a surname, such as William, Harry and their wives. The descendants without such titles (such as James, Louise, Archie, and Lilibet) do, and they all use the Mountbatten-Windsor surname clearly per palace sources. Not to mention that the ones carrying the HRH style use it as well (I just provided an example). And there's no need to list a sea of secondary references. Everyone knows Louise's common name is "Lady Louise Windsor". That is different from what her actual legal name is, which is "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" (more examples: the updated list of Royal Family members, which is provided by the Lord Chamberlain's Office,^[3] and the line of succession, which was updated after the Queen died^[4]). Keivan.f^Talk 20:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote nothing about bans. I reiterated what the letters patent say: those in the family who don't have the style his/her royal highness and the title or prince or princess do have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor: "My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." Otherwise, family members have the surname Windsor: "My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor." It's pretty straightforward.

If Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is her "actual legal name", please show the legal document making it so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I take it back. It's contrary to the letters patent (which makes one wonder what the point of them is), but, "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" is used repeatedly all through the Court Circular, going back years. So, Mountbatten-Windsor it is. Which then begs the question: why is her bio titled "Lady Louise Windsor"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify things a bit, I was trying to make it clear that all male-line descendants are entitled to use the surname. That is why I said there was no ban when it came to those with an HRH style. This was not to say that you indicated that there was a so-called 'ban'. And yes, the Court Circular and the Palace in general constantly refer to her as "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor", and there have been RMs to have the page moved to that title but users are not able to reach consensus as the media keeps referring to her as "Lady Louise Windsor". If one can demonstrate that "Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" is both her official and common name then the issue would be resolved. Keivan.f^Talk 22:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also found these two announcements which were published in the months after her birth,^[5][6] and she was referred to as "Lady Louise Windsor". They clearly messed this up at the beginning which is why the media picked up the name "Louise Windsor" and has been running with it ever since. They have a habit of doing things like this; for example with Princess Alexandra the original announcement made by the palace regarding her appointment to the Order of the Garter in 2003 describes her as a "Lady Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter",^[7] but her official biography states that she was "made a Knight of the Order of the Garter (KG) in 2003".^[8] In any case, I pointed out the contradictions regarding Louise's surname in the "Titles and styles" section with sources from the palace and the Court Circular to back it up. Since "Mountbatten-Widnsor" has been used more frequently and recently, I'd say that is the actual correct surname though. Keivan.f^{[[user_talk.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).:Keivan.f|Talk]]} 23:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now. I do realize Royal Family members with titles have a lot of leeway when it comes to surnames; they can and have used everything from Wales to Windsor to nothing at all. But, I think I was failing to see the flip-side of my own argument. Louise does have a royal style and title. So, the letters patent do give her the surname Windsor. But, it's by the very possession of that style and that title that she's the same as the aforementioned other members of the family with titles. So, she, like them, can use (or her parents could say she will use) "Wessex", or "Windsor", or "Mountbatten-Windsor", or no surname at all.

As to the page name: I'd think the official sources trump media sources and, so, the page title should be "Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor" and then, mention at the beginning of the lede, that she's frequently referred to in the media as "Lady Louise Windsor". Then, the titles and styles section can go into further detail. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Crown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Wade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you're going to revert another editor, provide a rationale for this in an edit summary, and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. You've the edit count you've accumulated since 2008, I'm assuming you know this already. I provided a rationale for my edit when I summarized the level of unncesssary detail that had been in that passage, provided more detail in my subsequent revert. If you disagree with this, then let's discuss it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for the edit was already given before you came along and undid it; if you paid attention to the history, you'd've seen there was a kind of evolution from one wording to the other and you reversed it all in one fell swoop. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you should lecture on edit warring right before making your fifth revert in 24 hours, going well past WP:3RR. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay, in light of this, you should review WP:NPA. This did not indicate you meant "son-in-law". It just looked like a genuine mistake, adding "son" when that's already implied in "children". Either way, it was a poor edit on your part that needed correcting and I wasn't rude in my edit summary correcting it. I'd think that, as an administrator, you ought to know better and, frankly, it makes it seem like this, with a nonsensical edit summary and coming immediately after my edit over which you became unjustly offended, is more about payback than improving the project.

This reaction to the above only reaffirms the suspicion you're making this personal and prompts one to remind you of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:AGF.

Best. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the above, you appear to be the one making it personal. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep on attempting to abdicate your respobsibility for being the only one to make personal attacks ("don't play stupid", "you are ruining articles") as much as you like; the record stands, regardless. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "only one"? Accusing me of "nonsensical" edits, "payback", "making this personal"? You don't assume good faith. You hold me in such deep contempt that you think I don't even know how many sons Philip has, even though I have made more edits to that page than any other editor? Treat others with respect, and they might reciprocate. Treat them like shit you've scraped off the bottom of your shoe and they will likely respond by blanking your messages to them and asking you not to message anymore.

Please do not message me anymore. DrKay (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was nonsensical and that criticism of it was wrapped in the observation that your accompanying edit looked like it could be payback (for the reason I spelled out); just as I said you're making it appear as if you're making things that aren't personal personal. That's not the same as the far more emphatic "don't play stupid" and "you're ruining articles". But, okay, for the sake of argument, then, you can keep on attempting to abdicate your responsibility for being the first one to make personal attacks as much as you like; the record stands, however. That includes the fact there's nothing in this to even suggest I was "treating [you] like shit". For all your experience, you're not incapable of error and my revealing that truth simply as an unavoidable consequence of correcting an error of yours, without insult or condescension, isn't a personal attack, let alone one as grievous and cutting as your melodrama attempts to make it out to be. I was just correcting your mistake. I've been editing articles for 20+ years and I still, from time to time, make mistakes similar to yours; I forget something, mix one person up with another; make an edit not realizing it contradicts or repeats something said a few words later. Sometimes I pick up on it and correct it right away; sometimes I catch it much later; and sometimes another editor catches it before I do. It just happens. To all of us.

If you don't want a response from me, don't respond. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made a series of edits to Oath of Allegiance (Canada), and then I made three. I hope I didn't inconvenience you. I am finished with this article, so if you want to edit it some more, feel free. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no conflicts. Though, I'm confused as to why you changed the name of that one citation (I used "Camp" merely because it was easier to remember), the citation templates, and added the unnecessary quotation marks around the ref names... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply earlier because I don't use a watchlist and you didn't ping me in your reply. The answer to both questions is in WP:REFNAME, which says

• Names should have semantic value, so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors who are looking at the wikitext. This means that ref names like "Nguyen 2010" are preferred to names like ":31337".
• Quotation marks are preferred but optional if the only characters used are letters A–Z, a–z, digits 0–9, and the symbols !$%&()*,-.:;<@[]^_`{|}~....

From the first bullet I conclude that the author's actual name, Campagnolo, makes a better ref name that shortening it to "Camp". From the second bullet, I have a practice of always quoting ref names. If you reply, please ping me so I'll know. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miesianiacal. If you are going to be using short form refs (e.g. {{sfn}} or {{harv}}) can I suggest you turn on the associated error messages? They are off by default, you can find the details of how to turn them on here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monarchy in Manitoba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canada national team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream contacted me recently about your editing at this article. While you seem to have backed away from editing that article for now, please avoid personal attacks in edit summaries like this in the future. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My. If that constitutes a personal attack, one can only wonder why the following has passed without remark:

• "[Y]ou don't seem to be willing or capable to directly respond to the things I've actually said..."[18]
• I honestly don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem, whether you were being intentionall deceitful..."[19]
• "That's not what OTHERSTUFF is about. What part of this are you not understanding?"[20]
• "It is a principle cited for one type of matter that you are fraudulently passing off as a one that the community cites for another."[21]
• "[N]ow you're trying to hide behind the false whine that being warned about this consistutes an 'aggressive attitude.'"[22]
• "[Y]ou're again fabricating a false standard that no one else here recognizes..."[23]
• "[Y]ou chickened out of answering, presumably becuase you know the answer is 'yes', and couldn't say that..."[24]
• "Claiming that 'we' got to that wording is a deliberate lie on your part."[25]
• "Another self-serving bit of spin."[26]
• "[N]o one here is fooled by your intentional twisted of others' words..."[27]
• "Enough with the whiny false victimhood."[28]
• "You continue to employ intentional deceit."[29]

Even in the message on your own talk page:

• "Miesianiacal's holding up those two editors as supposedly supporting his preference, is a deliberate lie on his part, and not the first time he has employed unambiguous deception..."[30]
• "[O]ne trouble making [sic] who has a penchant for lying and manipulation..."[31]

And it's not just directed at me:

• "I don't know exactly what issue you must be suffering to not comprehend this, but let me try one more time..."[32]
• "What part of this do you not understand?"[33]
• "No it doesn't. I answered it. You're just ignoring the answer because you don't like it, and lack the ability to falsify it, much less admit this."[34] (With the edit summary, "Responding to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.")

I wasn't the only one to notice.

So, is "you're/he's a liar" over a dozen times, plus a couple of "what comprehension problem do you suffer from"s, a-okay? Or did you merely not notice them? You indicated you read through the talk page.

But, your reprimand for my one snarky edit summary is noted. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]