>> 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.
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[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[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[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 3[edit]
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 provocateurwith anagenda 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[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[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[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[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[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]
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[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[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[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[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]
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.
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.fTalk 06:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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.fTalk 20:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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.fTalk 22:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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.
Judging from the above, you appear to be the one making it personal. DrKay (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]
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.
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[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]
"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]
"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.")
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[reply]
Hey, I just noticed the last edit on the coronation page, and was wonder just wondering if you may have accidentally added the wrong source. Cause the link is bringing me to a seemingly unrelated article (on the title change). Leventio (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leventio: No, that is the right source. Recalling off the top of my head, the commentary re the medals is near the bottom of the article. I'd prefer an additional source or two, though, so it's not just one person's complaint, and I'll try to get around to it. --₪MIESIANIACAL 23:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have declined your filing at WP:3O. As the name indicates, that venue is for requesting third opinions, while the discussion you linked to has more than three involved editors. You are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doniago:WP:3O states "3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions". Since there are only two sides to the referenced dispute, it's effectively no different to one involving only two people. --₪MIESIANIACAL 04:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that's how the folks there will see it, but if you want to reinstate your filing to see whether someone else will take it, be my guest. DonIago (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. I'll try again and be clearer about invoking the "flexibility clause". --₪MIESIANIACAL 04:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Donlago that the case is not suitable for the third opinion process. The exceptions you refer to seem to be for cases where the third editor only has minimal involvement, which does not appear to be the case here. GoodDay has also said that they would start an RfC, which probably also means that a third opinion is not particularly relevant. — LauritzT (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that, coincidentally, we got our fifth opinion, anyway, which is the only reason GoodDay is now gunning for an RfC so as to try to make his preferred wording in the article inviolable, at least until past our taskforce's deadline of Charles' coronation. --₪MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw your plan for taking the dispute to ANI. I'm not wholly, fervently against it, but at least wait until the fiasco with the GA review is resolved. There's a lot going on already without throwing a hand grenade onto that already combustible pile. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty: Mm. Fair enough. I'm not wholly, fervently eager to do it. It's a bit of a conundrum, though, as, at the heart of the "Accession and coronation plans" debacle is a desire to make the article better--i.e. by having the article body give expanded information that the lede summarizes, exactly as WP:LEDE tells us to--but, that very fight over the section is an impediment to attaining GA status. Anyway, I won't be going near AN/I for the timebeing. (Interesting, though, that your analogy is a hand grenade, whereas I scaled it up to a nucearl weapon!) --₪MIESIANIACAL 19:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Phew. With murmurings on the talkpage about the article's stability (which is fair enough) I didn't think that that course of action would benefit the article in the short term. I haven't really got an opinion on whichever way the "Accession and coronation plans" section goes; my main concern is getting the article to GA class soon (although it looks like it will not be ready for 6 May). Like I said, feel free to pursue the issues you're interested in, but that I would advise against doing it now. On a lighter note, I've no idea about hockey, but picking at random: I predict the "Edmonton Oilers" will win the Stanley Cup (I really have no idea). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty: How dare you! If you're going to randomly pick a team, you ought to pick mine! (But, if Edmonton does win, you'll be a verified clairvoyant...)
Back to internal matters: You might want to take a look at this. Someone seems to be inviting his allies to launch their missiles from his island, once again putting the GA review at risk of becoming collateral damage. --₪MIESIANIACAL 02:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [Apologies; I just now noticed he pinged you.] --₪MIESIANIACAL 02:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@109.etc:@Tim O'Doherty: How do you two feel about my going to AN/I now? Given the person who volunteered to do the GA review said he (? the handle is "AirshipJungleman"...) will start in a week, I'd like to get this whole shitshow finished and cleaned up before then. We've done a lot to improve that article and this is the last bit to finish up. I think (and hope) outside admin involvement will get things working as they should pretty quickly. My intention is just to ask whomever at AN/I to look through the relevant sections of Talk:Charles III, identify the problems, and say what needs to be done and/or stop. --₪MIESIANIACAL 00:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd still rather not. Yet. I agree there's fully cause to do so, when editors are indulging themselves with reverts on sight and summaries no more informative than "stop doing that", with no talk-page cashing by their arses of those cheques their mouth is writing. And the slightly more intellectualised versions of GD's same proceduralist behaviour from DK and CH. But there seems to me to be little realistic prospect of getting it "cleaned up" before then. If anything, "blown up" might be more likely. If that reviewer withdraws their offer, it'll be closely as a "quickfail", especially with an ongoing AN/I. Which it likely deserves, except that I'd personally really like to get the review, to have a fresh pair of eyes put their verdict in black and white, so that at least we have a possible roadroad to finish the job on a second go. So I'd recommend waiting on then. Maybe some editors will calm a tad the heck down post Chuck getting his ritual lubing up with Chrism oil. If they don't, nor after the GAN proceeds, and just turtle-up with rolling RfCs against changes they can't actually think of reasons to oppose, then I'm out of alternatives, and would support a trip to AN/I, or indeed do so myself. 109.etc (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. Fair enough. As I see it, the main problem is as visible as a hippopotamus under a spotlight. Hence, my hunch is that an admin will identify it pretty quickly and it wouldn't so much be a lot of back-and-forth on WP:AN/I as a swift imposition of order on Talk:Charles III; WP:BRD and WP:TALK#USE are adhered to and a resolution's reached. But, I hadn't thought of a proper GA review process as a potential opportunity to get past the roadblock. I suppose it has a chance; there does, though, remain a nagging feeling that it won't have the force to tame an old beast. Regardless, I wouldn't go to AN/I without at least an a-okay from the two who've done the most to move the article toward the GA goal. The battle royale has--for me, anyway--always been about elevating the quality of the article closer to GA status--even just by meeting WP:LEDE and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and using good encyclopedic writing. However, the deadline of the day of many chairs, oily heads, and shiny hats put added pressure inside the rattling boiler; exacerbated by the connundrum of the fight to better the article so it can pass GA review being an impediment to passing GA review. All for naught, it turns out, as the GA review process rather botching itself did us in just the same. It's disappointing all the readers who'll descend upon the article tomorrow won't get anything more than "Charles is king of the United Kingdom and 14 blah, blah, blah, oh, you didn't bother with the footnote? Didn't think you would". At least they'll get a better article than was there a couple of months ago. --₪MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you really think that the ANI discussion can be resolved by the 13th, and it's a wise course of action, then do it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really did think it would be resolved by the 13th... Until 109.etc raised the possibility of the GA review giving us an opportunity to settle the matter. I'm not 100% convinced it will; but, I feel it's got a chance. Well, that was prior to GD having just potentially scuttlled any chance of getting the article to GA within the next month. It's been quite the roller-coaster of feelings over the last few hours. --₪MIESIANIACAL 08:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Settle" might be at the high end of my hopes, much less my expectations. But if GD becomes the only person doggedly reverting everything, then resolution is at least in sight. As Tim says, you must act as you see fit though. I might be wrong about getting a GAN review or the value of such, I might be wrong about how speedy or effective ANI might be, I might be wrong about the article and discussion being any more stable or good-tempered post-crowning. Your call. 109.etc (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I confess, I'm running out of both reasons and patience to wait. 109.etc (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. It's starting to look like the more we talk about going to AN/I, the more he ratchetsup the drama, as if enough of it spread wide enough will somehow bury his earlier transgressions. --₪MIESIANIACAL 22:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how there's any PA, borderline or otherwise. This isn't remotely like that other discussion nine months ago. Though I know the list isn't exhaustive, nothing that's been said runs afoul of anything under WP:WIAPA. That list includes "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." But, the problematic behaviour is so obvious multiple editors are noting it and I'm herein trying to collaboratively assess what to do in a quickly changing and growing situation that wraps in muliple matters, like the GA review. If you can suggest a better venue, I'm all (virtual) ears. --₪MIESIANIACAL 23:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's definitely an WP:AGF vio. Hard as that is to practice in this case, at this point. But the above isn't just documenting GD's edits, it's speculating rather elaborately about their detailed motivation. 109.etc (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note to say I haven't forgotten about this. It's only that chores and concerts (very much not of the coronation variety) and such have got in the way. --₪MIESIANIACAL 05:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frustrations aside, I think waiting a bit longer for the GAN review to happen still makes sense. 109.etc (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even the slew of (many rather odd) edits made on coronation day and since seems like stability by comparison. Letting a gang of monkeys have at it might still seem like stability. (It would be horrendously embarrassing if they got the article to GA status! *casts squinty glare at monkeys*) --₪MIESIANIACAL 03:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or moribund, between the RfCs about everything, and the ext-semi-prot! But a week off won't kill anyone. 109.etc (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 30/500 protection should be removed, in my view. The coronation is over. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd imagine it will be, but who knows on what timescale. Wikilockdown is getting more and more ubiquitous. Then again if I just keep spamming Miesi's talkpage with a couple of hundred more inane comments... 109.etc (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Need to rack up 500 edits somehow. Maybe spam "random article" and make some fixes, or make a draft in your sandbox, or partake in some light vandalism.Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ALOL. 109.etc (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AN/I might just be your opportunity to rack up a couple of hundred edits. If not, you're free to spam here. Should I end up incarcerated and confined to this talkpage as an unforseen consequence of the AN/I thing, I'll need all the distraction I can get. Tell me all about diet pills and which Nigerian prince wants me to look after his millions! --₪MIESIANIACAL 00:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if either of you have concerns or comments about what I posted at AN/I, do please say so and I'll do what I can to rectify/amend it ASAP. --₪MIESIANIACAL 00:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're the one that insists on using "pf" instead of the more usual "of". The fact that you made the exact same error in every revert demonstrates that they are indeed blanket reverts. DrKay (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Missing a typo in no way whatsoever proves my last edit to that article was a blanket revert. The diff speaks for itself. I'd take screenshots and make a whole presentation if I thought it was worth my time.
That's the 13th time you've said that or something similar, as far as I'm aware.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]Please do not repeat it to me again. The lead contains statements lke "undertook official duties and engagements on behalf of his mother", "more than 800 other charities and organisations" and "authored or co-authored 17 books." That doesn't mean we have to list every official engagement he performed, all 800 charities, or every book he claims to have written somewhere in the body of the article. DrKay (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confident my actual history--considered dispassionately, fully, and in all relevant contexts--while likely showing room for improvement, also shows my efforts were primariy focused on communication and compromise (within the rules and guidelines, as well as under a deadline to get the article to GA level before 6 May).
Which brings me back to your remark on the lede and body: No one suggested the body list every realm, territory, dependency, crown colony, and balliwick. The last proposal listed just the realms; because that was the compromise taking in all discernable arguments, supports, and oppositions expressed up to that point. Nothing indicated it was the final, indisputable composition. Other versions are possible. (Which is why it's wrong for the RfC to present a slightly bastardized take on it as the sole alternative to the status quo.)
Every other conflict on that article got worked out through a combination of editing and discussion; such as reaching the compromise on the accession proclamations dispute. I only hoped this one would go the same. --₪MIESIANIACAL 08:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process: "making the same argument over and over, to different people" is "considered a form of disruptive editing".
There was an open invitation to submit alternatives to the RfC.[48] I was the only editor to take advantage of that offer and proposed an alternative.[49] There was also substantial warning that an RfC was being planned,[50][51][52][53] and so there was adequate time for anyone to influence the wording of the RfC if they chose to do so. DrKay (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't take the argument to anyone except WP:3O, WP:DRN, and (with encouragement and after discussion) WP:AN/I to get fresh voices involved and to AirshipJungleman29 only to get some understanding of whether what the dispute was about had any relevance to the article attaining GA status. The others were already involved by their own free will. You've dropped the false comparison to GoodDay's bludgeoning me in that other dispute well in the past. But, now you misrepresent the arguments against GoodDay's attempted unilateral control of the CIII dispute, and against the timing of his RfC, and didn't even respond to what I actually just said about it, almost begging me to repeat myself.
What's your purpose here? With all the cherrypicking out of context whatever's convenient to your predetermined conclusion and straw man arguments made just to cast negative implications about me? I don't see you saying anything to anyone else involved, let alone fixating on any other and badgering them with nonsense, or, at best, exaggerated accusations to see if any will stick. There's a whiff of personal vendetta around this. --₪MIESIANIACAL 18:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you wish to avoid personal interaction, you can do so easily by not asking me questions, not answering back and refraining from referring to me in edit summaries, which is what started this entire thread[54]. If you don't want a response from me, don't respond.DrKay (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another straw man avoiding the question asked. It's my talk page and you came here by choice; nowhere did I demand you do or ask you to. I don't object to you coming here. But, if you can't or won't state what your ultimate goal is in all this, it can't possibly lead to anything beneficial. So, either get to the point or give it a rest. --₪MIESIANIACAL 19:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made my point already. Unlike you, I'm not in the habit of repeating myself. DrKay (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't you? You tried the "you repeat yourself" bit with me already. But, if you feel you made your point (whatever it is), great. I can wrap this up and put it in the dustbin of history. --₪MIESIANIACAL 04:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the notice. And good on you for not calling it quits. I've been away for the weekend and will be spending most of tomorrow travelling home. I'll give consideration to CIII/GA2. --₪MIESIANIACAL 04:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to ask why the flag of the King should not be used in the Arms of Canada article but the flag of Anne, Princess Royal. 2401:E180:8841:B282:8297:1599:3CC8:211C (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why should the flag of the King be used? --₪MIESIANIACAL 16:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel that the King's flag does not have personal monograms and decorations, and allows readers to focus more on the elements of the Canadian coat of arms introduced in the article, and this flag will also be used by the future monarch. 2401:E180:8840:3028:4EB:F651:810A:835E (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we don't have to change the personal flag in the article when the princess dies.
I don't understand that you reverted my edit a few days ago. I think the king's flag is a better way to draw readers' attention to the Canadian heraldic elements used on the flag. 2401:E180:8840:3028:4EB:F651:810A:835E (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The illustration is of various other symbols that incorporate the shield of the arms. The Princess Royal's flag does that as much as the King's or Prince Andrew's or Prince Edward's or Prince William's or the flag for every other member of the Royal Family does. So, it's rather a random draw as to which one to use. Princess Anne's flag's been there for some time without contest; so, it's clearly doing the job its intended to do there. It doesn't have to he changed when she dies.--₪MIESIANIACAL 20:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I just think that the examples in the article use a flag that will be used permanently in the future is much better than a flag that will be abandoned in the future.
It should be better for future readers to understand, if you think we should continue to use Princess Anne's flag in the article, I have no objection. 2401:E180:8840:CA48:3DF9:FE04:FD37:5DDB (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean no offense but your knowledge about constitutional law seems limited. I say that because of your last two comments left on the Amendments to the Constitution of Canada. In response to my proposed change saying that the National Assembly and the Parliament of Quebec weren't synonyms, and that the former could only pass bills and the latter could enact laws, you replied that is was nonsense. Then you took it back, I agree, but someone with a good knowledge of constitutional law would have never written this.
Then, when I changed Quebec Legislature for Parliament of Quebec, you replied that constitution trumps provincial law. It is true, but not always. You see, provincial parliaments can amend the Constitution of Canada through section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and it could do the same thing through section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867, before 1982. It is by using the latter that the Parliament of Quebec renamed its Legislative Assembly (which was the name given in the Constitution Act, 1867, s. 71, to Quebec Legislative Assembly) in 1969 by National Assembly. Nowadays, there is no doubt that everyone agrees with this constitutional amendment and uses it. The Supreme Court of Canada uses it and you too used it a couple of times in your proposed changes. This amendment was done by a provincial law although the Constitution Act, 1867 says something else.
Another example concerns the Legislative Council. Again, section 71 of the Constitution Act, 1867 says that there shall be a Legislature for Quebec consisting of the Lieutenant Governor and of Two Houses, styled the Legislative Council of Quebec and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec. But in 1969, the Legislative Council was abolished by a provincial law.
So in 1982, the name of the Legislature of Quebec was changed by section 2 of the Act respecting the National Assembly. It does not matter what the Constitution says about this topic, it is indeed a amendment to the Constitution of Canada.
Also in the Quebec Legislature wikipage, you wrote that the king wasn't part of the provincial legislatures. Again, this statement is contrary to what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council stated in one its earliest decision.
It is true that I undid quite a few times some proposed changes, but it was justified by the fact that those changes weren't based on judicial decisions and constitutional doctrine. You kindly invited me to discuss on the talk page, which I wasn't aware of, and I did. Now, you seem to be opposed to any changes that I propose although I provide a short justification.
I teach constitutional law so I have nothing to prove. I wanted to share my knowledge about constitutional amendments which is one of my leading field of expertise. I am not here to spend my time undoing everything you write at every hour of the day. If you want people of our country to be misled by your way of thinking about the constitution of Canada, fine! I will put my efforts elsewhere.
Kind regards
Mariemaude Mariemaude (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were already informed that, on Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources. The Act Respecting the National Assembly does not claim to amend any portion of the Constitution Act 1867. You were also advised to use the article talk page, which you began to, and then fell back to "discussion via edit summary".
In your two months really editing on Wikipedia, you've only edited that one article and the history shows you've butted heads with other editors. I'd say that, with give and take, a fair compromise has emerged. "Parliament of Quebec" is used five times in the article already. If we can use "Quebec Legislature" as a valid synonym to avoid mind-numbing repetition, well... --₪MIESIANIACAL 23:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your lack of knowledge comes out again. An act does not need to amend the Constitution explicitly to be considered an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. The Act respecting the Legislative Council, S.Q. 1968, c. 9, s. 1, did not explicitly amend the Constitution Act, 1867, but the Legislative Council was anyhow abolished and the name of Quebec Legislative Assembly replaced. Similarly, the Act respecting the National Assembly does not need to to so.
I relied on reliable sources, like section 2 of the National Assembly Act, which states that "The National Assembly and the Lieutenant-Governor form the Parliament of Québec. The Parliament of Québec assumes all the powers conferred on the Legislature of Québec", but you called it "nonsense". You deleted my reference and replaced it by an obsolete reference. I didn't see any discussion coming from you about this topic in the talk page... only unilateralism.
So use all the synonyms that you want if you really think that the National Assembly, the Quebec Legislature and the Parliament of Quebec are all the same. I guess that you would also write that the House of Commons can enact laws or use "federal legislature" as a valid synonym to avoid mind-numbing repetition. Similarly, why not use Upper Canada as a valid synonym for Ontario, the word being used six times in the same page? Mariemaude (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you keep deleting the amendments made by Quebec when it chose to add sections 90Q.1 and 90Q.2 to the Constitution Act, 1867? Your rationale is that you feel free to remove it as there is no reliable source regarding this constitutional amendment. Honestly, I don't see your point. The other amendments cited in the table are no more than the Quebec amendment accompanied by a reliable source. So I don't see why this amendment shouldn't be in the table because it lacks a reliable source.
Section 166 of the Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, S.Q. 2022, c 14 provides the following:
166. The Constitution Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (U.K.); 1982, c. 11 (U.K.)) is amended by inserting the following after section 90:
“FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF QUEBEC<
“90Q.1. Quebecers form a nation.
“90Q.2. French shall be the only official language of Quebec. It is also the common language of the Quebec nation.”
The wording is clear. The constituent power has clearly expressed the wish to insert two new sections into the Constitution Act, 1867. Mariemaude (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you need clarification on reliable sources, see WP:RS.
As it stands, there are numerous sources stating there's no certainty on whether ot not provinces may unilaterally amend the Constitution Act 1867. (The supposed addition fixing French as the only official language of Quebec is particularly odd, given S.43 of the Constitution Act 1982 clearly says, "an amendment to the constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including [...] (b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province, may be made by proclamation issued by the governor general under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.") If you have a higher source that affirms Quebec and Saskatchewan have, for the first time since Confederation, by themselves amended the Constitution Act 1867, then do please present it. Not your own argument for why you think the amendments have been made; a court, federal parliament, or federal government source stating the amendments have, without a doubt, been made. --₪MIESIANIACAL 03:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a source : The Supreme Court of Canada. In numerous decisions (Severn v. The Queen, (1878) 2 SCR 70; Hewson v. Ontario Power Co., (1905) 36 SCR 596; Manitoba (A.G.) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., [1987] 1 SCR 110 just to quote a few because there are dozens of these), the SCC has affirmed the presumption of constitutionality. This principle holds that a law is valid until it is declared invalid by a court. In other words, a statute should be presumed constitutional unless proven unconstitutional. Therefore any amendment made by a provincial parliament is valid (and not ambiguous) until it is, if so, declared invalid by a court of law.
In our system of government, the federal parliament or the federal government have no authority to declare whether a provincial statute is valid or not. Mariemaude (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take a moment to read MOS:ALSO, particularly "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". At Signal Hill, St. John's, you added Royal eponyms in Canada to the "see also", because one sentence mentions the "Queen's Battery Barracks". Then at Royal eponyms in Canada, "Queen's Battery Barracks" links back to the Signal Hill article. I'm not sure how this improves either article. There are many King and Queen streets across Canada too; please avoid the temptation. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just in the midst of typing something on your talk page.
Regarding this: I can't fathom why you'd ask for a source affirming a place called Prince Albert is named for royalty. Regardless, the sources are at Royal eponyms in Canada, within the sections for their respective namesakes. Is there anywhere else you'd like me to place them?
When reverting me at Signal Hill, St. John's, you claimed the Queen's Battery Barracks are "not notable". By that reasoning, the article shouldn't mention the structure at all. The link to Royal eponyms in Canada under "See also" at Signal Hill, St. John's didn't take one directly to Queen Victoria's section in the former article; it took one to the entire article, where one finds more information, which is rather the point of "see also". And you're not sure how including a building named for someone in an article on eponyms improves the article? Why would we not include buildings at Royal eponyms in Canada?
"Many King and Queen Streets" is a red herring.
Fair enough on the providing a brief annotation. --₪MIESIANIACAL 23:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20090325162006/http://www.saskd.ca/heritage.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. In Canada, government documents enjoy copyright protection. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, what? I did a significant amount of work to that article and not only did you undo all of it, you removed all trace of it on some grounds of copyright vio without an explanation of what, exactly, was in violation of copyright. Since I can no longer check the source versus my edits, I can only go by memory, but, even so, I can certainly guarantee that nowhere near everything added was copy and paste; I'd say none of it was. But, if some happened to be, why undo everything instead of just editing the offending sentence? This was drastic overcorrection on your part. Poor form. --₪MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your addition was flagged as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. I found the remainder by manually checking your addition against the PDF and discovered the entire edit had to be removed. Sorry but while sometimes I have the time to re-write the material, and actually I don't have time today, and re-writing is not required of copyright patrollers. — Diannaa (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
51% of words doesn't mean a copy and paste; it means the words like "salute", "gun", "monarch", "remembrance", "day", "foreign", "royal", "family", "head", "state", "and", "the", etc. are/were in both the source and the WP article. Using the same words arranged differently is not a copyvio. My point stands: there was no copy and paste, there was little to no copyvio (I still say no), and, therefore the scorched earth obliteration of my work was an overreaction. --₪MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's not what happened; entire sentences were copied practically unaltered; the material was only lightly paraphrased. If you would like to get a second opinion, you might consider asking one ofv the people on this list. — Diannaa (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are mistaken.
What's the point of pursuit of a second opinion? An opinion based on what? My work is irretrievably gone. --₪MIESIANIACAL 03:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards named after governors general of Canada until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Miesianiacal. You've added a reference for "Lagassé & Baud 2015" to Canadian nationality law, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you add the required cite to the General Sources section, or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. Thanks for notifying me. It's rectified now. --₪MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 6[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monarchy in British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whistler.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 Wikipedia 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Monarchies in the Americas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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
