User talk:Rrius/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rrius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Note of appreciation

It's nice to encounter a fair, reasoned and balanced Wiki editor every now and then, outside of FAC. Thanks for all of your input on the CU case! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Monarchal article titles

Holy smokers, I actually voted against my previous proposal. As Joey LaMotta (played by Joe Pesci) would've said "you're crackin' up". GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing there, with the different proposals, and the votes for a proposal coming immediately below a counter-proposal, etc. I really hate these sorts of discussions, which is why I tend to stick to the article and article talk spaces, and haven't edited much at all at UK and E, S, W, NI in a long time. It sucks that the status quo is so idiotic. The part of me that wants to make points wants to suggest renaming the article Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen. -Rrius (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My trimmed down proposal, might get a rough reception. The parenthesis concerns can be dimissed, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just anxious for most (if not all) monarchial article titles to be consistant. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Parliament of Canada

Rrius, I note you've changed some capitalisation on Parliament of Canada. Two points, though: "Senator" and "Prime Minister" are titles, and should be capitalised; "parliamment" is not and should not. Also, the full size ref tags make an absolute mess of the line spacing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Titles like "senator", "prime minister", and "governor general" are not always capitalised. They are not capitalised when referring to the office generally, but are capitalised when referring to the name of the office, when used before the name of holder of the title, or when used in place of the holder's name. Thus, "Senator Lavigne is on trial because senators aren't supposed to do the things he's accused of. The Senator will automatically lose the office of Senator if convicted because of the terms of the Constitution Act." See WP:MOS -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps because it's 11 pm and I haven't yet eaten dinner it took me a while to get that, but yes, I suppose you're right. It also seems "Parliament of Canada" is a proper noun and should be capped.

As I said in my edit summary, it makes them too small on high resolution displays. You may not like the way the line spacing looks, but that is a secondary concern to usability. -Rrius (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's too small, and, as it's been that way for some time, not many others could've found it too small, either. As silence equals consensus, should you not be discussing your desired change after it was reverted? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, silence does not equal consensus. You are trying to tell me that I can't make an edit without discussion because the article has been one way for some time. That is ridiculous, and if it were true, all edits would need to be discussed first. I simply reject that logic.

I realise you don't see how it is too small, but you are using your display, not mine. If putting wrapping refs in small tags were the right way to do it, the software would just be changed to reduce the size of superscripts. I am not going to simply accept that articles you like editing have a special rule about the size of superscripts that doesn't apply to the rest of Wikipedia. I shouldn't have to work harder to get the link because you don't like the way the normal Wikipedia format looks. -Rrius (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, it's right there at WP:CONLIMITED: "silence can imply consent... if there is adequate exposure to the community." Then, per WP:BRD, if you're reverted, you discuss. You may not like the small tags, but you appear to be in a distinct minority, being the only person who's complained.

That said, if you know how to go about getting the software changed, please let me know. The idea's been floated numerous times (not by me, though I participated), but never seems to go anywhere because nobody knows where to go to fix it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The link you are pointing to doesn't support what you are saying, and in any event, you initially said I should have discussed it first, which is very different from what you're saying now. In fact, if anything, it suggests that you, Mies, can't override the normal rule that refs are not made small in the limited subset of articles you edit.

As for software, issues, ask at Village Pump. I've often wondered why we enclose superscripts in square brackets. Spanish Wikipedia doesn't, so it is clearly not necessary. -Rrius (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm baffled as to how a direct quote isn't supported by the source from where it's drawn, as well as to how "discuss after being reverted" can be interpreted as "don't touch without discussion first". Regardless, Village Pump was already tried; discussions just get bounced around from place to place to place and back to where they started. The bureaucracy of Wikipedia rivals that of some former Communist blocs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point about the square brackets, too. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I misread your earlier post. I thought you said I should have discussed before I edited. I had no idea I'd been reverted because I'd come across your weird style at several articles yesterday, and didn't keep note of specifically where I'd changed it. The edit coming at the same time as the capitalisation edits was certainly not a knowing reversion of your revert. In fact, I am only assuming from what you say that I did revert anything. So, in other words, if that is what I did, it was not intentional. -Rrius (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And, having taken a look back, I don't see where I was reverted, so I reject your analysis. -Rrius (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Edit is non productive. Collapse is compromise to completely removing. 68.28.104.227 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dropping it would be best. 68.28.104.227 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet you didn't. Please learn policy before taking such entrenched positions. -Rrius (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

SPI cont'd

Thanks for your note and for doing that one reversion. The "stalker(s)" are a series of IP's, probably the "Jersey Boys" as I call it/them, as it/them emanate from Noo Joizy. I can see the argument for deleting my original, somewhat pointy comment; but my last comment was, in fact, productive and was acted upon by the admin, so basically the IP is just trolling. Meanwhile, I've asked for the page to be semi'd in order to keep the IP riff-raff away from it, as it's basically closed anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

NW protected with a version of your comment. -Rrius (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My post was less important than was the IP turning up from nowhere and unilaterally deleting it, which was not its place to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. It felt odd defending against that attack, but the principle of defending the rule trumped the overall importance of the comment itself. -Rrius (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reversions came from IP's that are all over the map, which suggests the banned IP-hopping user Pioneercourthouse, who has been obsessed with hassling me for at least the last year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Any chance at a range block? -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's PCH, a range block won't work. He's figured out a way to hop all over the place. Even if it's not him, it might as well be. I've arrived at the epiphany that all socks, stalkers, trolls and vandals are basically the same guy. It makes things much simpler. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see how that would be. I just hope I haven't collected my own stalker troll. -Rrius (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As one admin told him (or whoever) when he was on one of his rampages, possibly the time he was creating socks to try to get an already-indef'd user (Axmann8) into further trouble last summer: "There are many of us and only one of you." That's the reality where bad-faith editors are concerned. There are way many more good-faith editors, and they have the capability (directly or indirectly) to swat those mosquitoes when they appear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

refs

Here's how it works:

<ref>, as you know, is a custom tag that can take a group argument and a name argument, then contains the actual reference, then a closing tag, </ref>.
{{#tag}} is a 'magic word' used to invoke custom tags. So when you do {{#tag:ref}}, it's invoking an instance of <ref> without actually typing <ref>. This is required because you cannot nest <ref> tags, but when you call the other one with {{#tag:ref}}, that limitation is bypassed.
And having a template-like format, arguments are separated by bars. The first argument is the content of the ref (what goes between the <ref></ref> tags in a normal ref), and the further arguments are the ones that would go inside the <ref> tag itself, like group, name, etc.
So, a fully functional one might look like this: {{#tag:ref|This is the text of a footnote.<ref name='boggs'>Boggs and Callahan, pp. 14-16</ref>|group='N'|name='testref'}}
If you didn't have to use {{#tag}}, the above would look like... <ref group='N' name='testref'>This is the text of a footnote.<ref name='boggs'>Boggs and Callahan, pp. 14-16</ref></ref>
So if I'm reading your question correctly, to use a single footnote twice, you would run it normally the first time, like so: {{#tag:ref|This note will appear under both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger<ref>And this is the reference!</ref>|group='N'|name='bothpeople'}}, and then for the second instance of it, you would simply do "<ref group='N' name='bothpeople'>"; you only have to cheat the syntax on the first instance. You would want to give the inner ref a name as well, as I think it would be duplicated in the reflist later on.

Does this help? :) --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

California Lieutenant Governor

Howdy Rrius. Just curious, isn't the deadline for Maldonado's comfirmation approaching? GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Schwarzeneggar & the state assembly have been in a legal battle since Feb 11. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that that nomination is dead, but that Schwarzenegger renominated him, so now the clock will run out in May. -Rrius (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More precisely that Schwarzenegger isn't going to fight the battle on whether it's dead, leaving it dead in fact regardless of whether it is in law. -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, what a mess. PS: NY Gov Paterson, won't seek a full-term afterall. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

New York, California, and Illinois are competing for the gold medal in dysfunctional politics. Competitors are judged on bizarre political situations and magnitude of results. I think Illinois is winning, though. One governor is in jail, another is on the way. The Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor had to withdraw for being, well, whatever the hell he is after a primary that saw incredibly low turnout and an awful lot of establishment winners (especially considering the need for reform). In terms of results, Illinois has a deficit almost as big as California's, but a third of the population and nominal GDP. California is definitely giving Illinois a run for its money, and could take the gold if they end up needing a bail out. New York is flashy, what with its sex scandals, Senate coups, and absolute lack of leadership from the Governor, but ultimately they seem to be doing okay. My prediction:

Gold: Illinois
Silver: California
Bronze: New York

-Rrius (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

South Carolina is the only other state really even trying: they didn't impeach their governor at least in part because they were afraid of handing power to their lieutenant governor, but they clearly aren't at the same level as the other three states. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, things are very boring in the Canadian provincial & territorial governments. It's a shame. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

At least you have interesting federal politics. As long as you have Stephen Harper as PM, things will always be interesting. -Rrius (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

For sure. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PIIGS/ Image

What I should have said is that nothing in the text refers to the event in the image. Additionally, those particular protestors appear to be the inevitable youths trying to involve themselves in something they don't understand, and which really isn't foremostly their problem in Greece. Their sort can be found anywhere and are better left for MTV to cover. Thus the image isn't even showing a proper protest, and just makes the Greek people look properly terrible. This is not what Wikipedia is for.

I've all but let your section on corrective policies go (with a good tag), but that image is very likely to be reported and removed again and again, and by many people. DinDraithou (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you mean by "they". But that picture is undeniably just of local youth or rabble, and in a city in Greece only. Plus the original poster added it under Controversy with the fairly obvious intention of associating some of the sentiment referred to in the article with the behavior of the rabble in question. This person has since returned from two or three IPs but is claiming to be three different people. DinDraithou (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I've checked and the uploader has given no author. Permission may be doubtful. Source is a website in Greek. DinDraithou (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m at loss for words to describe the clearly unconstructive (to use a polite word!) behaviour of DinDraithou: first he kept on vandalizing (“bye bye yet another time”) the paragraph on “Corrective Policies” without which the article would be meaningless….; and now he’s making up faux copyright issues (User Yion has established picture is under 3.0 CC) to justify his erasing a pertinent picture- perfectly illustrative of the content of the article in general & of the paragraph in question... => I’m not an expert with WP protocols: is he allowed to erase the picture definitively after a week, even though there’s no copyright infringement here? Moorehaus (talk)

nicknames

I am far too busy to get involved in extended discussion over this issue, perhaps six months ago but these days I am much more focused on larger issues and leave the minor ones to take care of themselves. Personally I like my women to be strong and independent. I rarely look at that article these days, the edit I removed yesterday took out..Harriet Harman's nickname in Parliament and the British press is "Harriet Harperson", due to her outspoken views on feminism, which are sometimes interpretted as a sexist or anti-male... thats a bit strong isn't it, anti male. Its good that your watching it as it does seem to attract such additions, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about that edit, though. I only noticed the guy on the talk page complaining that the word "feminist" had disappeared again. I didn't bother looking at that edit, but looked at where the article had been recently. Looking through the edits, it became clear that some months ago, I had been reverted from "feminist", that RoadWarrior had re-instated it, and that you had reverted him again. There is nothing wrong with the word "feminist", and it bothers me that you seem to assume I must be anti-woman. As I've told you before, I'm a feminist (even men can be feminist). As a result, your problems with the word are both mystifying and frustrating. -Rrius (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Impeachment article edits

Good job with the edits to the Impeachment in the United States article! I agree with ya the section about the Task Force was out of place. Also good job on trimming the stuff about Blagojevich and clearing up the first and second votes the IL State House took on his case. This was confusing at the time. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Filibuster in the United States

Just a quick point, given that you recently moved Filibuster in the United States to Filibuster (United States Senate).

If you look at the discussion in Talk:Filibuster#Proposal to split off United States section into its own article you'll see that I had originally proposed the same title that you have chosen. JPMcGrath (talk) had pointed out that "naming it Filibuster (United States Senate) would suggest that there might be a Filibuster (United States House) article, which is certainly not needed." I agreed. Furthermore, the page itself on Filibuster indicates that the article is about the parliamentary procedure and to see Filibuster (disambiguation) for other uses.

Naming the page Filibuster in the United States makes more sense, as pointed out by Iota (talk) when the page was first moved: "The meaning of 'filibuster' in the U.S. is the same as elsewhere. Moving to be consistent with other articles such as Impeachment in the United States."

I think your move should be reverted. —ShinyG 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. There is no necessary implication that there is a corresponding House version. Rather, there is a necessary implication that the only meaning in the United States is that relating to the Senate's right to unlimited debate as modified by cloture. I agree entirely with the first sentence that you quote, but that sentence supports not at all the proposition of having the article at "in the United States". -Rrius (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion belongs on the article talk page. I will follow up there.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion there some time ago, but I'm not sure I'll be on much tonight. -Rrius (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Loosmark

I notice that you have been having something of a problem with Loosmark. Me too (he's been accusing me of bad faith editing and lying about my posts & edits & reaction thereto). Do you think it's worth filing a Wikiquette alert? He appears to think that WP policies do not apply to him. Varsovian (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in doing so, but he is definitely a difficult editor to deal with. If you choose to do so, let me know. -Rrius (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't filed a Wikiquette alert about Loosmark. However, I noticed that he has been warned in the past with regard to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, so I left a message about him on the talk page of the admin who gave him the warning. You can find it here [1]. Varsovian (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion madness

Thank you so much for the help with the transclusion commentary in Filibuster (United States Senate). I fear I might have created a nightmare with all the code, rather than helping the cause of keeping both articles in sync. I'm still on the fence, but perhaps those transclusion tags will prove to be more pain than it is worth for future maintenance of both articles. I guess time will tell

In any case, thanks again! I really appreciate it! —ShinyG 01:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a cut-and-paste operation once we get the article to a stable state. It is really good for keeping the articles in sync, but it is really bad for those of us who rarely if ever use inclusion tags. -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

United States Cabinet

Hey, good work on this page. I was so concentrated on making sure Biden was the VP, I didn't notice the other stuff. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. When you get that much back and forth, it can get more complicated trying to figure out what is correct. -Rrius (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

James Arbuthnot

I think you are right so far as you went. But that the roles within MiniTrade were somehow split between junior ministers. I am checking it. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Both the article and his parliament.co.uk biography say he was Shadow Secretary of State for Trade; neither says he was Shadow SoS for Work and Pensions (as it was called both then and now). If he was also shadowing a junior minister, that is not in the article, and I'm not sure it is Infobox-worthy for someone who was a Chief Whip, was a shadow secretary, and is a departmental select committee chairman. If it is, we have to add that he was Minister of Procurement at the MoD as well. Adding those two would fill the infobox, which I suggest isn't a good idea for an MP who isn't standing down and could well return to frontbench politics. -Rrius (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Markles is an admin and should be able to do that move.DCmacnut <> 20:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Haven't been on much this afternoon. He's not part of WP:USC, but Nyttend is an admin I've worked before. He'd probably do it if we explained the reasoning to him.DCmacnut <> 01:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Alternative text for images

Re alt text in Ice Ice Baby. Part of the trick of writing alt text is to avoid repeating information that is in the caption, such as names, as screen readers will read out both, so it is repetitious. Please see the suggestions at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images and the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images. Also, you can ask questions there. Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What was the purpose of your writing this? The alt text, as written, was too long so I shortened it. Both versions of the text, mine and the original, did not duplicate the caption in any way. The caption says (and said), "Vanilla Ice based the song's lyrics upon the South Florida area in which he lived." The alt text describes, and described, the physical appearance of the subject of the image. It appears you are the one who needs a patronizing note explaining alt text. -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To point out that repeating Vanilla Ice in both the caption and the alt text is to be avoided. Why are you being so patronizing to me? I introduced alt text to the article, which was an improvement. I am not saying I am perfect. Why are you so rude? Tuxedo junction (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I didn't introduce Vanilla Ice's name to the alt text; I merely corrected the grammar of the user who did. Ultimately, the alt text at a headshot at Ice Ice Baby isn't important to me, so I didn't revert him, especially because I don't want to spend all day engaged in nonsense. If you do, have fun. Second, I found your note patronizing. How you could find my response patronizing is beyond me. In any event, I reacted as I did because nothing in my edit warranted your patronizing explanation of how alt text works. Perhaps if you take care next time to make sure you post your little missives at the correct users' talk pages, you won't draw reactions you consider rude. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

111th Congress

I am not sure if you are the one that updates the pmg images on this page. The image on the current House total count reflects 433 when it is actually 431. I updated the democrat count from 255 to 253, but I do not know how to update the pmg image to reflect the current total of 431. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latnsenator (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was able to get the 433 version by reverting to a prior version, but I don't know how to actually edit the file, so I can't help. What we really need is an SVG that matches the Senate image. -Rrius (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Have vs. Has

Hi, sorry about that edit on the DeMint article, wasn't meant to be contentious - I just noticed somebody had today changed it from has to have, so I was changing it back. I Googled "the couple has" and "the couple have" with quotes and found that the have variation gets more hits. I was under the impression that collective nouns require "has" but I suppose either works and it varies greatly due to a huge number of factors. Since you appear much more well-versed in the WikiWorld than I (and grammar!), do you know if there exist any style rules for this sort of thing? It seems odd to not have them for something like this to ensure sitewide consistency. Or can you give me some technical reasoning if you have time? I don't doubt that you're right in your selection, I'd just love to know details. Also, Chicago is a great city! You're lucky to reside thereabouts. Kelseypedia (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I look to the Wikipedia Manual of Style first, then go to my usage and style books. When something isn't actually wrong and doesn't violate MOS or some rule, I usually won't change a minor stylistic choice unless I think another choice is materially better. But I will revert someone who makes a makes a minor change like that. Therefore I might have done exactly what you did; I'm not sure because it's a bit of a close case to me. In any event, I didn't realize you were restoring the status quo ante, so I probably wouldn't have changed that if I'd looked back through the edit summaries. For what it's worth, "have" felt and sounded right to me, but I actually turned to Garner's Modern American Usage. Garner says,

“

Couple (= pair) is a collective noun like team, company, or faculty. As a rule, a collective noun in AmE takes a singular verb unless the action is clearly that of the individual participants rather than the collective. When two people form a couple, they may act as individuals <the couple plan to take jobs in Philadelphia> or as a single entity <the couple is buying a house>. But unlike other collective nouns, couple should take a plural verb far more often than a singular one.

”

I can see an argument that in the DeMint article it is more like the second example than the first. However, as I say, "have" sounds right to me. It may be that the reason is that "the couple" seems to me to be standing in for "they". -Rrius (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Meetup and update

Last fall you indicated that you continue to be active with WP:CHICAGO. If you continue to be active please update your active date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, we are planning a Chicago Meetup. If you will be able to attend the meetup from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West, please sign as an indication of your intent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: London Gazette

Thanks for the tip about the template. There are so many templates available, and if you don't use them regularly, it's hard to keep track on what there is. I'll certainly make use of this one in future. JRawle (Talk) 19:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just looked at Michael Bichard's page, and there was a big orange notice warning that the template had been used incorrectly (page instead of startpage). I guess this is the disadvantage of such templates: keeping track of what the parameters are for each one. JRawle (Talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That was just me being stupid. -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James, Viscount Severn

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is James, Viscount Severn. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James, Viscount Severn. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Palin not qualified to be US President?

CNN people & guests who are anti-Palin, should use their words more carefully. According to the US Constitution, Sarah Palin is indeed qualified to be US President. I know that's not what these people are getting at, but it's funny to hear'em say it. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think they're also counter-productive. They said the same thing about the second Pres. Bush, and people just dismissed that sort of talk as elitism. I don't like her either, but her detractors would be best served pointing out her flaws and letting others draw their own conclusions. -Rrius (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Congressional districts#"Territory At-large" or just "Territory"

You are invited to join the discussion here. —Markles 19:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

English & British monarchs

I've reverted back to capitalization, despite the MOSCAP stuff. It didn't look right, seeing lower titles in those articles having capitalization & the monarchial titles being in lower-case. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the work you did on House of Commons Commission, the article benefitted greatly from your efforts.

John Cross (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for creating the article. -Rrius (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Table standardization for federal courts

Would appreciate your input at this discussion. Billyboy01 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. --White Trillium (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! What did I do to deserve it? -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Metra origins

If you take a look at this 1885 map of the Chicago and Alton Railroad, you'll see that today's Metra Heritage Corridor goes much further back than 1947. ----DanTD (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes you so certain it is exactly the same line? -Rrius (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This link might help. ----DanTD (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why not correct the data instead of deleting it from the column (without even removing the column header)? -Rrius (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because I care an intermediate amount: enough to remove obvious misinformation, but not enough to research the correct information. However, I did care more in the past, and User:NE2/Chicago railroads should have most if not all of the correct years. --NE2 01:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't actually addressing you. DanTD knew the correct date, you didn't. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you have only an intermediate interest, why not slap a {{dubious}} tag next to the suspect bit of information and bring it up on the talk page? Blanking all the cells in a column doesn't exactly seem like the least disruptive way to handle the situation. -Rrius (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it wasn't dubious; it was incorrect. Full stop. --NE2 02:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why not simply blank that cell. Blanking the data from a column, leaving the column intact, is a pretty silly way of dealing with one bit of wrong information. Er, full stop. -Rrius (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I had good reason to doubt the accuracy of the entire column. Do not restore it without a reference. --NE2 07:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You could have questioned the accuracy of the data or removed the entire column. Instead, you just removed the data. That was, once again, a silly way of dealing with it. -Rrius (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would I question it if I knew it to be wrong? Anyway, I've replaced it with much more accurate data; hopefully that will be the end of this. --NE2 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in your initial edit summary, you specifically said you didn't know which ones were right. Now you are trying to say you knew them to be wrong? Even in your latest version most are the same as they were previously. In the situation where you look at a table and say, "Hey this bit of data is wrong, so more of these might be wrong," it is clearly ridiculous to delete the data from each cell in the column. It would have made a hell of a lot more sense to either delete the entire column or deal with that one cell and make your doubts about the remaining data known on the talk page and, if you felt it necessary, added a banner disputing the table's factual accuracy or a {{dubious}} tag next to the questionable data. Since you provided no more sources than the table already had, it remains to be seen whether this is an end to it. -Rrius (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I knew at least one to be so incredibly wrong as to throw the accuracy of the whole column into doubt. You should stop messing around with things you know nothing about. You're lucky there was nothing there about a living person; your type of reverting without checking is how libel and quasi-libel sticks around even after being spotted and removed. --NE2 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, sir, you are being silly. If you felt that the information was all so dubious that it had to be immediately removed, you could have, as I have now said numerous times, removed the whole column instead of just removing the data. That was a bizarre thing to do. Thank you for your lecturing, but I don't need it. It was not a BLP, and I don't really care what you have to say. If you wish to discuss this further, you may as well stifle your desire because your comment will be deleted without comment. -Rrius (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Woah, people, chill out here! There were certainly some dates that were blatantly wrong, but they can always be fixed. And I know you were talking to me, but it was NE2 who blanked out the years at first. I know we don't have to get rid of everything, but in his defense he said some seemed reasonable, and the Heritage Route was just flat out wrong. In any case, it seems we have our facts straight about a lot of the lines at this point, so let's not pick a huge fight over this. If not, then try to find out what's what and correct it. ----DanTD (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That isn't much of a defense to the suggestion that he should have either removed the column or dealt only with what he knew to be wrong and raised questions about the rest on the talk page. Blanking the data without deleting the column was a stupid way to deal with the situation. -Rrius (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there were some things not to be certain about, and some thing that you can be certain about. And the one thing is that the Heritage Corridor was around way before 1947. If you know one is wrong, and you don't know the info about the others, I say get rid of them until you find them all the dates. It's best to be on the safe side, but if you know of some dates, leave them in. You made a valid point about the this being about the lines rather than the stations, however if you look at the maps, the history, and the surrounding vicinity, they don't exactly lead you to believe that the line was built after World War II. ----DanTD (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You aren't listening. This is not a matter of whether anything is right or wrong. I'm granting that N2e knew one bit of information to be wrong and didn't know about the others. Given that, he had two reasonable courses of action: remove the one offending bit of information and cast doubt on the rest, or remove the entire column. He did neither. He removed the data from the column without actually removing the column. That was silly. On top of that, he didn't bother beginning a conversation on the talk page about it. I'm really, really tired of repeating that, so unless you have some justification for such an idiotic course of action, please stop posting about this. -Rrius (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikify & orphan baronets

Hi, I noticed that you have tagged a dozen or more Baronet articles with a wikify and/or orphan tag. Can you please help by explaining just how these can be wikified in their current state, or better still, help out by doing some yourself? Examples are the Ralli Baronets or the Puckering Baronets. 11:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The templates were put in place based on AWB's criteria. If you don't think the wikify banners are warranted, feel free to remove them. -Rrius (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I take it you didn't understand the rationale either ;-) AWB can be a pain at times. Cheers, Ephebi (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I really don't. I figure the orphan tags go up if there are no or almost no links to the article. I have no idea what its standards are for outgoing links though. -Rrius (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Canada

Rrius, it looks to me like you're technically blockable for 3RR on Canada. Actually it looks like you posted to talk after 3, then pushed on up to 5RR. Surely you know that's a really bad idea? Ideally you would make one revert and proceed to talk pages either immediately or on the next re-revert. It's easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment and argue via edit summaries when you are defending an article, but that puts you on the same level as the edit warrior, which is not a good place to be. Please escalate things a little sooner next time you find this happening, we have many ways to stop edit wars. Regards! Franamax (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I did post on his talk after the second, but he then re-reverted again anyway. By his 4th (I think), he appeared to be editing in bad faith, so I thought it was okay to revert him despite 3RR. Later, I reviewed 3RR, realized a much higher standard was required, and stopped. It won't happen again. -Rrius (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest and posting on my talk page about your 3RR violation. Having looked at your edits I've chosen not to block you for this. The reasoning? 1) it was yesterday, you haven't been doing it today so the block would be a stale one on older edits and I'm not comfortable with it 2) you weren't warned by anyone, whereas the other editor was. I only block on 3RR when an editor has been properly warned, I feel it only fair as it's easy to get carried away sometimes. Generally a warning will make them stop and think, and since you didn't get such a warning I can't in good conscience block you. Another admin may feel different, and if they do then so be it, but I can't do it.

That being said, don't do it again. Canterbury Tail talk 21:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, Canterbury did the blocking for a different edit war (same user, same page, different days). :) I noticed that surprise deletion of the talk page history too, all fixed now. You were doing the right thing, just in a way we frown on. It really looks to me like you started going to talk after your third revert, IMO it's way better to post to the article talk page immediately before or after your second revert on content issues. Franamax (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right; it was three. -Rrius (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of couples with British titles in their own right

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of couples with British titles in their own right. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of couples with British titles in their own right. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).