User talk:Rrius/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome! Hello, Rrius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --TimPope 16:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Fianna Fáil. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dppowell (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did leave a note in the edit summary. The text I deleted was not a complete thought, so I deleted it. As such, I have now re-deleted it. -Rrius (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism tag was accidental--a function of the editing script I use. There are several varieties of "rollback" next to each other on a line, and I accidentally clicked the one which tags the rollback as a vandalism revert. Once you click it, there's no going back. I apologize. You'll note that I didn't use a "vandalism" warning template on your talk page.

As to my revert: "Reynolds had favoured allowing both governments" is not a "sentence fragment," as you put in your original edit summary. It's a complete sentence. The edit summary accompanying your second removal of the text raises a different concern, but still doesn't fully explain your deletion of content. If you don't think that portion of the article is written properly, try rewriting it. If you're challenging the accuracy of the information, you might place a {{fact|date=December 2007}} tag after the sentence to request a citation. If nobody produces a citation within a reasonable amount of time, you can delete the claim. In the meantime, your edit is an unexplained content deletion, and the previous version should stand. Dppowell (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit, "fragment" wasn't quite accurate. The sentence is incomplete and does not make sense. As I am unsure what it is supposed to mean, I cannot rewrite it or begin to question its accuracy. Rather than escalate to an edit war, I have started a section on the relevant talk page. If you know what the text is supposed to mean, please help. -Rrius (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

I'm hoping others will agree with the 21 December 2007 date. Now that I've read your responses, it makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Phillips

Not a problem, no harm done. By the way, I see Peter Phillips is engaged to a Catholic; looks like Zara (who recently moved down a step, with the birth of Viscount Severn) will be moving back up again in the succession. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

James Windsor, Viscount Severn

I may be missing something, but I don't see anywhere in that press release any mention of styles. Can you revert your edit or provide a better reference? Chrislintott (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I much prefer your more recent edit (11.47); that makes your logic clearer to a non-expert like me. Sorry if I'd come across as offensive - your response on my talk page sounded rather narked. Chrislintott (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

West Chicago locator image

Here is the location of the master file with the layers: You must download the full size image to obtain the layers. In the discussion page of that image describes how I make the image. If you would like me to make it instead let me know and i'll find time in the next few days to finish it and upload it. Thanks for helping out with the chicagoland pages!! — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Area code 847 and 224

Why did you delete the communities list and some other content from Area code 847 and 224? There was nothing wrong with any of the content, and the communities list is in most area code articles. Also, why did you replace the categories with a nonexistent category? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Right here. If this was a mistake, please tell me so it can be fixed. If not, please explain. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put things back to the way they were before the edit in question. My guess is this just got deleted by mistake somewhere along the line. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Tuesday

Curious as to your edit 186216315 to Super Tuesday, marked as reverting possible vandalism.

I ask, as the only "possible vandalism" you were reverting that I can spot had already been fixed, and all the reverting did was removed some {{fact}} tags. -- g026r (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured it was just some sort of mistake, but wanted to make sure. (And yes, I was referring to Super Tuesday (2008).) -- g026r (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Super Tuesday (2008)

Your edit [1] to Super Tuesday (2008) has me puzzled. Which one of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia are no longer states? By my count, this is 24, not 23 states. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that I was reacting to someone else's edit? I don't recall how my count was different. It may have been because I couldn't see Delaware or because one contest is a convention, not a primary or caucus. In any event, it was obvious that 22 (the previous edit) was incorrect. Your second sentence above is unnecessarily nasty, but I guess I should expect no better from Wikipedia editors. -Rrius (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

de facto

That guideline only really applies to that article; is there any relevant section in the manual of style? --Golbez (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

UK

Not jumbled up with another participant's comments, I'm afraid. Just very poorly written. I've applied a sort of a blue pencil test. Thanks for your comment. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Elections talk

Please join the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008#Charts.—Markles 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments please!

Hi, I'm trying to focus the concerns in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting) but I want to be sure that we're all talking about the same problems. I've whipped up a small section at the bottom of the page that codifies what I think the MoS is trying to say. I believe you disagree with it, but I'm not sure, so that's why I whipped it up, so we're both looking at the same terminology.

Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? Maury (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates

They really shouldn't be, that's not how they're set up and the majority of what I see don't have full dates. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll say MOS, but I'm not sure. They put a lot of information in such a small place that should be in specific articles instead. There's a reason that the section is "years". Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Top Importance Chicago Articles

If you want to help me choose Category:Top-importance Chicago articles, come comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates by June 5th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Civil partnership act

Rrius, I know "New Jersey is not the only place where the law has changed since 2005." However, it is the only place named in Schedule 20 that now has both DP's and CU's. Until Schedule 20 is updated, I think it's important to warn the unsuspecting reader that British law, as currently written, does not specifically refer to New Jersey civil unions as being the equivalent of UK civil partnerships.

But I'm not going to get into an edit war with you; I leave it up to your conscience and good sense. Oh and I did use the word "sic" quite correctly, to show the original verbatim wording of Schedule 20. Check your dictionary.Textorus (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like our notes crossed in the mail.  :-) A list of unions not mentioned in Schedule 20 sounds like a good idea to me. That way, we won't be misleading our readers.Textorus (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd think the UK would have amended Schedule 20 several times by now; I wonder if that can be done administratively by civil servants, or if an Act of Parliament is needed? Also, I wonder if any couples with the new NJ CU's have gone to the UK and demanded recognition as civil partners. Sounds like a great opportunity for an enterprising barrister to me.  :-) Textorus (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Oh, didn't realize we had crossed paths on this one too, Rrius. Concerning the revert on this article, I noticed it had been reverted by another editor for NPOV issues; and then un-reverted; and so I glanced at the revision history and saw all these links to Sodomy, Buggery, Bible and Homosexuality, Christianity and Homosexuality, etc. So I hit the "undo" button without further thought; you know that article gets hit by right-wing POV-ers all the time.

I agree, links like Domestic Partnership in the United States and LGBT movements in the United States are appropriate for the See Also section. I still don't think Sodomy and Buggery are, unless you add a note explaining why each link is there: for the same reason that it would not be appropriate to add Copulation, Sexual Positions, Fornication, Adultery, Child Abuse, etc., to the regular Marriage article. Just the titles alone would seem to deprecate the subject of the article, if no explanation is given, see what I mean?

However, looking over the SSM article, I'm not seeing a link between the history of the gay rights movement in this country and the SSM issue; Lawrence v. Texas is not mentioned even once, which is a glaring omission I think, bearing as it does so heavily on the civil rights issue underlying SSM. Perhaps a paragraph making the causal connection early on, under the Legal Issues section, would be a good place to add some of those links, with explanation? Go for it, if you're so inclined.  :-) Textorus (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, I'll be glad to help you on the SSUUS article; I'm busy today with other things but I'll give it a lookover this weekend in your sandbox. The material at Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Federal_law is a good summary that you can probably copy-and-paste a good bit of. Also, I wrote pretty much all of the first 5 paragraphs of the main Civil union article, which other people have left alone for over a year now, so I guess those are working well. I'll get back to you in a day or so; let me know if you have some specific things you want me to work on. Textorus (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S.--Just remembered, I started a chart of all the states and their gay-related laws a good while back, but got sidetracked and haven't gotten back to it. If you want to include it in the SSUUS article, we could work on that too. Check it out at my sandbox. Textorus (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

I find it interesting that you would make a snipy remark about how I didn't comment on the talk page, when I was in the process of doing so immediately after the revert, considering you had done this exact same thing a few moment earlier (leading to my confusion and posting above). The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured you couldn't be replying to my comment yet because I had just finished. I'm sorry that I offended you. -Rrius (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:The Evil Spartan) You didn't really offend me. I get a bit snappy myself when perceive that others don't assume good faith, have a double standard, or ignore me (these are the three things that will set me off in a conversation). No worries. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:The Evil Spartan) I was assuming good faith, really. You had an earlier comment further up the talk page, so it was natural to assume that was what you meant. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

Hello Rrius. My major concern is how the 'previous' United States presidential election articles are done. You correct though, there certainly will be gradual changes, from now 'til November. There's gonna be alot of shifting back-and-forth of the Obama & McCain images. Ya see, upon first glance, one gets the impression that Obama is being shown as having won the election. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Guranteed, there'll be McCain leaning editors, who'll wanna switch the images & Obama leaning editors, who'll wanna switch'em back. I just felt, if we held off from adding the images, it could be avoided. I suppose though, holding off the images would become even more difficult, once the two candidates were actually nominated (in August & September, respectively). GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a plural number of editors prefer adding the McCain & Obama images (choosing not to wait 'til November). I guess they'll have to learn the hard way. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, IMHO the United States presidential election articles should includ only candidates who pick up Electoral votes (as for those who get faithless electoral votes? make mention of it, but add no images). As for the current growing squabbles on 2008? it's only gonna increase. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a possible Libertarian supporter, in the mix. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not true when you say that a Libertarian candidate has never recieved a single electoral vote. Please see the 1972 election. Thanks! Rational Renegade (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers. Sooner or later, those faithless electors show up to mix things up further. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what WikiProject we could go to, to help end the growing edit wars. Perhaps (in this case), the edit wars are a good thing - they may help add weight, to the no candidates until November argument. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections; perhaps they've can help out. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like things are about to get more messy. An argument for including Ralph Nader in the Top Infobox? has begun. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool; I suggest having the 'tickets' in Political Party alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Feathers of HRH Prince Charles

The "PrinceS" thing provides enough keyboard hesitation to prevent my fingers typing "Princess" before I can stop them. It makes it easy for me to proofread that I typed the plural where I meant to. Would you be as irritated if I typed "replaced the growN with the growING" (in that casing) instead of "replaced the grown plant with the growing plant"? I find the former much easier to follow. YOU might be intelligent enough to ... whatever you said, but that doesn't mean that I am. As to the White Rose thing I did not even mean to imply that I was sure that DofCornwall does take precedence over DofYork. I was just trying to say that I could find another reason (time) to AGREE that a DofC&Y could use the White Rose.64.131.188.104 (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Bolding

The discussion kind of petered out. Would you mind a visit here? Maury (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re move of Same-sex marriage in Norway

Hi, to answer your question: I did the move back on 14th March. At that time, the current legislation was Civil Unions and the proposed legislation was full marriage. The convention for various other countries where coverage on both topics is required is that rather than having two seperate articles, there is one combined article on "gay unions". Although marriages are now legalised, both topcis still deserve coverage, hence I think the combined article is still needed. Hope that answer helps. --Rye1967 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Commonwealth realms

Just saw your post to the our template page (I will answer in a minute). Just thought I'd introduce myself as we haven't already met: Hi, Im Cameron, very pleased to meet you. = ) I noticed your ubx about the British Empire and would therefore also like to invite you to discuss about whether to expand WikiProject Commonwealth realms to incorperate (not yet created) WIkiProject British Empire or to create it as a seperate project. The discussion can be found on the project talk page. I look forward to your contributions to the project and getting to know you better. = ) Regards, --Cameron (T|C) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the WikiProject, from a fellow member. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving pages

Jumpin' Juniper. I've gotten a new computer since the last time I've archived my page & now I can't archive my page. Whenever I go to paste my copy on my 'newly created' Archive Page? it won't paste. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to archive everything from Round 2 in April 2008; then place it at User talk:GoodDay/Archive 4. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yaaaaaaaahooooooo! Thank you oh so much, Rrius. You've saved my day (not to mention, my marbles). GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the templates aswell; you day man. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please sign the petition

I don't usually do this kind of thing but would you please sign the Come back Jack petition. Our fellow Wikipedian and respected editor User:Jack forbes has sadly decided to retire. Hopefully when he sees how many other Wikipedians really value his edits he will decide to come back! Thanks, --Cameron (T|C) 12:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I will change the writing's colour (I like the red too much!). --Cameron (T|C) 10:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

PS:Thanks for commenting on Jack's page. To be honest I considered removing the rude comments on his page. After all the page our only memory of him, that's why I wanted it to be a nice page with comments by his friends. --Cameron (T|C) 10:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You a lawyer?! Oh hella yes!

I don't know what field you do but please peruse eminent domain and other real estate legal stuff if you have time :) .:DavuMaya:. 05:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

At the risk of being labeled a troll there; I shall try it. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's painful to see. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country

There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers --fone4me 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I was one of the ones directing people to Scotland. -Rrius (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tasmania

I put TAS in the template because of this http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/06/062008oz.htm . But I meant to put it in the other spot. Sorry! Pieuvre (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Rrius, thank you very much for your review. It has been very useful and motivate the work. Every single idea you suggested will be follow like a manual :)

I want to ask a doubt: I have to do a edition review of somebody?

Yours, --Albeiror24-Neopanida (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom#Development

It seems we are walking ourselves into a stalemate. I have suggested something there. --fone4me 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Hey you just reverted a lot of text at Tim Pawlenty that was not related to the comment you had at issue, could you please just edit the text instead of a full reversion next time. I understand you take issue with the "reactionary" remark but the other half of that text was on a separate topic. Please be careful! Thanks. .:DavuMaya:. 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted one edit that contained POV tone. The onus is not on me to sort through the edit to fix it. It was a clean revert. If you want something from that edit to stand, it is your job to make it NPOV. -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have steadily edited Pawlenty's avoiding POV for quite some time now. I suggest next time something sounds amiss you read the sources and the edit history to decipher the editor's intention. There is no such thing as "this isn't on me" to prove. It's been proven and we have compromised based on the edit history. That kind of attitude is not what makes a WP editor. .:DavuMaya:. 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no duty to correct POV edits. It is perfectly acceptable to revert them, and there is nothing wrong with that "attitude". A shouldn't have to investigate the ref just because B wrote up the edit with an obvious POV. I realize that you edit the article a lot and was surprised to see you making that edit, but none of that is relevant. The fact is, when you see a POV edit go up, you are perfectly entitled to take it down and let the first editor rework it from a neutral point of view. As to the subsequent edits, copyedits were required. It would be totally inappropriate to revert an edit because of grammar or usage problems if the meaning is understandable. -Rrius (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for compromising. .:DavuMaya:. 19:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that we did compromise. "Conservative" is not POV like "reactionary" and "hard-line", so your second attempt was NPOV. My subsequent edits were merely to make the sentence make sense. -Rrius (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not reaching you on this issue. So I will say next time, it would be good faith to remove the wording you believe is POV and preserve the meat of the edit so that an editor would not have to go back, recopy large amounts of text and reapply it. The reason I bring up "not a court of law" is because I see the signs of WP:ROWN being used in this manner. An undo button, the spirit of it, is for vandalism, not for something you disagree with (a POV argument). In simply reverting other editors you disagree with, then the article goes nowhere, the content is not growing or evolving, it's simply being slapped with rules and diction. Please follow the spirit of WP rules not to the letter! .:DavuMaya:. 19:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. It is okay to revert a POV edit. This is especially true where, as here, there is a ref. I don't have to read your ref to make sure I am editing the text to correctly reflect the reference. It is fine to put the ball back in your court. If you think that "undo" is just for vandalism, you are sadly mistaken. Editors regularly use "undo" to revert edits that go against consensus, don't make sense, or violate policy. This one violated policy because it was POV. Your notion that it is up to other editors to fix your POV edits rather than revert them flabbergasts me.

I'd recommend this discussion take place at Tim Pawlenty (which is where I'm off to). GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. Removing wording backed by a PoV reference is the correct move. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't and don't know whether the reference is POV. The edit that the reference supported said Pawlenty was appealing to "reactionary conservatives on hard-line issues", and I reverted it (diff). The above exchange and one at WP:Editor review/Rrius ensued. -Rrius (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my head's not on straight here. IMO, Dave simply over-reacted to your revert. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's okay. No, I reverted because the edit read, "Pawlenty accepted the Republican party endorsement for re-election in 2006. He appealed to reactionary conservatives on hard-line issues...". The diffs start here. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to show you where I got the word reactionary and why I added the term hard-line. I guess you are in question--these are not POV statements intentionally.

[2] DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez said the governor was running on "a platform of discrimination and exacting revenge." In a statement, Melendez said that "Tim Pawlenty said he wants to be elected so he can enforce the death penalty, ban gay marriage and kick out immigrants ... Where's the forward thinking? ... His leadership has been seriously called into question ... and now he's running back to his right-wing reactionary base to lick his wounds."

"Hard-line" I synthesized from here [3] Pawlenty called for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. He said Republicans may not support everything he's done in his first term, but they don't want the alternative. "I can tell you what your worst nightmare is," the governor said. "It's one of the big spending, tax raising, abortion-promoting, gay marriage-embracing, more-welfare-without-accountability-loving, school-reform-resisting, illegal-immigration-supporting Democrats for governor who think Hilary Clinton should be president of the United States." While the delegates gave Pawlenty their enthusiastic support, many conservatives are upset with him for signing two stadium bills and a billion-dollar bonding package that includes money for the Northstar commuter rail line. David Strom, president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, says Pawlenty was a hero to fiscal conservatives at the beginning of his term when he balanced the budget without raising state taxes. But Strom says they were outraged last year when Pawlenty backed a cigarette charge that everyone considered a tax, and called it a "health impact fee."

I understand I probably should have quoted this article [4]

Gov. Pawlenty briefly recognized this, immediately signaling support for a modest gas-tax increase to fund backlogged transportation-infrastructure projects. But, within days, he snapped back to the conservative public policy hard line: no gas tax increase.

I'm not sure what your issue is Rrius but at least we are engaging in edit, revert, discuss. Thanks to GoodDay for helping arbitrate. I think this is the method in which Rrius understands how WP works. .:DavuMaya:. 20:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think ERD is the only way Wikipedia works. I made a good revert, and I will try explain why:

1. This edit asserted a clearly non-neutral point of view in that it said that Pawlenty "appealed to reactionary conservatives on hard-line issues".
2. Being non-neutral, the edit could either be further edited or reverted.
3. The edit was based upon a reference.
4. When editing text based upon a reference, you must make sure the resulting text conforms to the reference.
5. I did not have the desire to slog through a reference to properly improve your edit.
6. As you had already read the reference, you were in the best position to re-write the text.
7. Since the POV edit could not stand, I reverted it and explained why in my edit summary, leaving it to you to correct it.

You have this notion that I have to go out of my way to improve your edit. I disagree. You act as though my revert thwarts progress in the article. In fact, it forced you to improve your edit, thereby improving the article over what it had been before I reverted it.

Also, you seem to think that the fact that I am a lawyer has any impact on how I edit at wikipedia whatever. With the exception of correcting legal citation in articles, that it simply incorrect. I spend a lot of time making usage and punctuation changes, correcting spelling, reverting vandalism, dropping inline citations to references, and adding {{cite web}} templates. Sometimes I revert changes that violate policy or contravene an established consensus. Don't let yourself get biased by a Userbox. -Rrius (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PS- I've put your page on my 'watchlist'. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, we can't have you both displeased with each other. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh lord. Lets call truce. I'm not asking Rrius to change his ways but be more respectful, assume good faith, and maybe I have not communicated that in a nice way. .:DavuMaya:. 20:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to, but the problem is that you seem completely unwilling to recognize that I have a legitimate point and to assume good faith. You immediately took a condescending tone and have repeatedly acted as though using "undo" is far more drastic than it is. Saying things like "Oh lord" and "be more respectful" are insulting, and I can't understand where your assume-good-faith comment is coming from as I have assumed good faith throughout. I did not revert your edit because I though you were trying to do something wrong; I did it because your edit was POV, regardless of intent. -Rrius (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do want to say that I have seen your edits at that page and have a great deal of respect for what you do there. I only wish you would attempt to respect what I was trying to do. -Rrius (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a legitimate point. I am wrong. .:DavuMaya:. 20:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was never asking you to say you were wrong. -Rrius (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to shake hands & agree to disagree; how's about it fellas? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

.:DavuMaya:. 21:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's the Wiki spirit. PS- and ya's didn't need my help. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Your Review

I'd recommend Cameron as a reviewer. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rrius! I'd be glad to review you but before I do...would you tell me what your goal is? Would you like general tips as an editor or both that and a few nudges towards going for adminship sometime in the future? Regards, --Cameron* 11:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Chin up! Some people have special attachments to specific articles and therefore can get slightly aggresive when somebody has a different opinion. At wikipedia you have to learn to not take things as seriously as in real life. = ) Keep up the good work! Regards, --Cameron* 10:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation

Hi, I've accepted the United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation, and you are listed as one of the participants. Please feel free to comment and participate in the discussion on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Argyle Socks

I can't say there was a case prior to the "2nd". Being my first SSP submission, you could say it was user error, but I prefer to blame the convoluted SSP creation process for adding "2nd" where it wasn't needed. That said, I can offer that there's a Nimbley account, never used (perhaps due to a forgotten password), followed some months later by Nimbley112007 and, shortly after that one being blocked for vandalism, Nimbley6. Some editors also know him as Bennet556, who has been named as the SSP for many accounts via Checkuser. Best of luck fighting this... please pardon my griping, but he's been at it for months and as far as I've seen Wikipedia policy only allows for whack-a-mole rather than proactive response. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts

Would you care to explain your reversion? You write simply "Uh, no" but my edits were perfectly accurate. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My response is at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts#Marriage versus benefits of marriage. -Rrius (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

The Wiki is a very large sandbox and although we cluster into herds it's still uncommon to bump into the same people more than once unless it's on some topic of mutual interest. I recognize your name, and seem to recall the "bump" being a good one, even though we don't seem to travel in the same topic circles.

Well now it seems we do. I see here that your serious question didn't even get an answer. And now I'm involved too.

Do you have any updates I should know about?

Maury (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, it was MOS! My memory still works, it was a good bump. Maury (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the MOS. Such a waste of time. I did get a response on the GA thing. Apparently the article was so replete with errors that blah blah blah. The guy did provide an exhaustive list of what's wrong, which I haven't looked at because I refuse to be the only one who helps with an article that I really only watch. I was more struck by the unfairness than anything else, but it seems these people think they have every right to go around the normal procedures because they are part of a task force. Yeah, wiki-power trips! -Rrius (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Melt the Clouds of Sin and Sadness, Drive the Dark of Doubt Away

Joy

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  04:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia

It's good to have a nice gentle debate as opposed to the UK articles. My doctor tells me my blood pressure has returned to normal. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I AM THE LIZARD QUEEN!

...is what I really wanted to say, with a pipe to the Lisa Simpson article.

*sigh*

I just will never understand some people, y'know? Thanks for the nod :) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th)

You recently closed the above SSP with the simple conclusion that it was too big for SSP and that a range block should "perhaps" be requested. A number of people have been working hard to report this user's abuses, but I don't think any of us know the process. Unless you provide more specific guidance under your conclusions on what is supposed to be done, the closing of the SSP will only lead to the opening of WP:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (5th). -Rrius (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't really do anything about it unless you get someone to permanently range block his entire IP range. Try WP:RBI. He'll get tired eventually. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in New Jersey

Hey there bud, we've talked about the NJ article before. I see your point about the Canada edit, and since I've slept since then, I'm a little mystified myself. Probably it was just carelessness on my part; I think what I meant to do was remove California from that particular list (giving my reasons as listed on the talk page), not Canada, which was right next to it. Whups! Slippery fingers....

But looking at my edits for 31 July 2007, when I created that section of the NJ article, Canada was indeed there, and it is specifically mentioned in the Formal Opinion by the NJ Attorney General, so I'm glad you replaced it. I've just fixed the formatting on that too, so now it's good to go.

Hope your summer has been good. I thought I would work more on WP this summer but this year I've just been too lazy..... :-P Textorus (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just happened to notice the MD DP stuff and was amazed; I usually keep fairly up to date with gay news but that was totally off my radar, so I did a quick search and updated the article. I think it's been a lazy summer for everybody......take care.Textorus (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 US Prez election

Within 24hrs, easily. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Off the topic - PS, I'm a little dissapointed, Obama chose an old-white guy as his running-mate. I was guessing he would've chosen Bill Richardson (thus a double-minority ticket, something new -i.e. change-). GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the aneurism episode is a bit scary (but then Cheney had heart-attacks). As for the Republican side? there's alot of Mitt Romney talk; but having a 72 & 61 yrs-olds on the same ticket might be pushing it. I'm guessing McCain will choose Tim Pawlenty. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly 5hrs (see top response) it took. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's Sarah Palin, eh John? Talk about hitting the Democrats raw nerve. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully (for her sake), she won't commit any gaffes; or she'll be labeled a Dan Quayle. Yep, it's looking like a Conservative Majority Government. Democracy in action around the world; ya gotta love it. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

PS- I wish my country's federal election was next week - I'm eager to see the results. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN's inaccuracies

Hello Rrius. Can somebody get in contact with CNN, concerning their trivia bits on Democratic & Republican National Conventions? John McCain will not be the oldest non-incumbent to receive a major party presidential nomination (age 72). That distinction goes to Bob Dole, who was 73 at the 1996 RN Convention. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah. CNN corrected themselves during the Republican National Convention; jolly good. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Imagine if we had had Wikipedia during the 1988 US prez election? The Dan Quayle article would've been locked for months. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Infobox on the U.S. Presidential election, 2008 article..

Hey, this was discussed between myself and GoodDay on the talk page for the article, but he said I should come to you for verification of it. Apparently, there existed some conclusive poll that was taken of Wikipedia editors that confirmed that only major party candidates should be included in the topinfo box, even though this is obvious crystal balling and contrary to NPOV (at least, that's the way it seems). However, when I searched the edit history of the talk page archives for such a discussion actually transpiring, it seemed that at the time the poll was taken, it was a tie, in which case there was no consensus reached and we should at least recount it. Sorry for disrupting you on your talk page here, but I didn't really know where else to put it, and I would like a source for this claim that a decision had already been made on that. Thanks in advance.Final Philosopher (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Who goes on the topleft

Yep, it's only going to get worst as we near November 4. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		I, Cameron, hereby award Rrius the Royalty and Nobility barnstar for all his work in the royalty and nobility area. Keep up the brilliant work! Regards, Cameron* 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Canada

Why a republican? a country's Head of State should be elected (the people's choice) - No person or family should have a birthright to the HoS position. I prefer your system (the presidential system). An elected Senate & House. An elected President & Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could accept a figure-head President (the European republican system). I wasn't too impressed with the treatment given Ralph Nader at the 2000 presidential debates. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
		Thanks for all your work on Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2008 Tshiels1 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Rrius by Tshiels1 (talk) on 06:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5