User talk:Rrius/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

G2/PoC

Hiya Rrius. The ANI report on G2? has been declared resolved & the Wikiquette report on G2, seems to have ended. So far, things seem to have eased off a little. PS- congrats on the Barnstar. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they're still arguing on G2's page. G2 is barred from PoC's page, at the latters request. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it, GoodDay. Though, I've no real issue with PoC at my talk page; it's the wind-up he's started at Monarchy of Canada again that concerns me. I'm getting a pre-emptive bad feeling about it. --G2bambino (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to keep out of it. You're welcome for the barnstar, Rrius. ;) Best, --Cameron* 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I fear that both gentlemen have been blocked for disagreements at Monarchy of Barbados. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada, seems stalled. GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland Arms

Well it that is the correct arms please put in in the info box then --89.240.252.52 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the infobox, especially with all the controversy. So, no. -Rrius (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hello again Rrius. I'm trying to archive my talk page & I'm having trouble (again). I creat my Archive page User talk:GoodDay/Archive 5. Then I go to my talk-page, highlight & cut my page - but again It won't paste to the newly created Archive page. What am I doing wrong? GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm hopeless, Rrius. I could archive with my old computer, but not with this one. For some reason, the new computer leaves the paste (which is next to the cut & copy) faded, when I go to my newly created archive page. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive everything beginning with June 19th (ironically the last time we discussed Archiving); please/thanks. I like the Bot idea. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sooo each time my talk-page reachs 100kb; it'll automatically be archived? GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yip yip yip, yahoo. Thank you very very very very much, Rrius. You've saved my sanity. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, absolutely wonderful. Rrius, you've saved my day. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob, I'm content. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Boxers & republicans

Thanks. I was wondering why that distortion was occuring. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't know how ya know these things, but I'm glad ya do. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you, that's very nice of you. I don't think I did anything particularly noteworthy though. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being modest, honestly. I want this issue to end, and while the sentiment was honest, I will freely stipulate that a large part of my reason for actually saying it was to (attempt to) hasten the resolution of the mediation that he requested. It doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon, unfortunately. But there's not much I can really do about that. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 03:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Hello Rrius. Your proposal fo that article's Infobox? is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just about gonna mention the LTG & VP thingys. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Another Sock?

I've blocked him. It's a crystal clear sock to me (but I have tracked most of these accounts). Lindsay McKenzie has been a target of Nimbley for some time, plus there's the same bad spelling and obsession with subheadings and flags. The kid won't stop, so we need more folk to be able to spot him to stop them wasting their own time. Thanks for the nudge. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ddstretch and I requested it once before, and the checkuser just said "I know it's annoying, but you'll just have to keep reverting him". I wasn't happy with the response at all, and so I've had to throw a big chunk of WP:AGF out the window to compensate here. It may be worth revisiting the idea of a range block again though. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DIEU ET MON DROIT

Your refs: (Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.) (This article requires cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.) (April 2008)

A. Originally spelled Dieut et mon droict in early Modern French, the t in Dieut and c in droict were later dropped in accordance with present French orthography.[citation needed] Ref A. The Royal Arms by C. Hassler. Every depiction (100’s) states DIEU ET MON DROIT. (With the exception of Kings Manor, York, which has the letter “N” reversed.) B. For the Royal coat of arms of the Kingdom of England to have a French rather than English motto should not be considered unusual, given that English had only recently replaced French as the language of the English Royal Court and ruling class.[citation needed] Ref B. This is a purely personal and speculative POV without any valid verification.

Both of these sections have been challenged for verifiable citations for over 6 months, without response. As such, I will be removing them. After this cleanup, I will improve this article, by restructuring the remaining text, with further verified reference material. After doing so, I will also remove your (unverifiable and cleanup) references, subject to any consensus or further opinion on the re-written and re-structured article.Stephen2nd (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't even begin to tell you how confused I am by this. I did not originally add the text listed in A or B. I changed the text in B at one point because the old version was messy. I don't know why you are addressing this to me or how you are using the word "ref". As it is a fact that unverified material can and should be removed (except when it is so obvious that it doesn't need citation), I have no problem with those things being removed. If the reason you are telling me is that I added the cleanup and citation templates at the top of the page, then you should know that you have no obligation to keep me informed. If you fix it, you are free to remove them. If you had thought I was wrong, you could have removed them.

Incidentally, on Wikipedia, a "ref", short for reference, is a citation, not a claim made in the text. For example, the only ref in this discussion on my talk page is The Royal Arms by C. Hassler. Also, the things I added to the top of the page are templates. -Rrius (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Australian Senate election results, 2007

If you are going to make these sort of changes, please ensure it is correct. At the moment there is a broken ref in Australian Senate due to the copy and paste nature of the article creation. Timeshift (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but maybe you could be a little more pleasant about things like this in the future. We do all make mistakes. -Rrius (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I did say please. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In a way that, intentionally or not, makes you sound scolding. At any rate, I said "pleasant", not "polite". -Rrius (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be working now. -Rrius (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut

Do we need to list both marriage and unions for Connecticut? If marriage is legal, doesn't that mean unions are useless, if they can get married? If unions are for straight couples that don't want to get married, do we care about that as a project? CTJF83Talk 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, if a same-sex couple tries to get married today or next week, they will fail. If they try to enter a civil union, they will succeed. Moreover, the statute creating civil unions will not disappear when marriage does finally take effect. The same is true in California. That a "higher" union exists does not eliminate the "lower" one. It will be for the legislature to decide what to do about civil unions, they could open it to opposite sex couples or make it impossible to create new ones (ending old ones when the couples marry), but it is unlikely that they will convert them to marriage against the couples' wills. -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that unions won't "dissolve" once marriages start? It seems odd they would have both. Also, if you could weigh in on this and this CTJF83Talk 21:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you instantly dissolved the civil unions, couples would be suddenly left without the protection of the status they had the day before. If you make all those civil unions into marriages, then you are making the choice for all those people that they want marriages. As the supreme court just said that there is an important difference between the two, that would be odd.

When NJ created civil unions, they had previously had domestic partnerships available to same-sex couples and older opposite couples. Upon enacting civil unions, people with existing DPs were able to keep them, but only older couples (same- or opposite-sex would be able to create new DPs). California's court legalized SSM in May, but DPs still exist, and same-sex couples can still enter into them. I suspect that next year they will do the same thing NJ did so long as Prop 8 fails. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You suspect though, lol...I dunno, I just don't see a point in listing both. As my suggestion said that I asked you to comment on, we should only list the "highest" right we have. CTJF83Talk 22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't present the truth. The truth is, you can get a civil union in Connecticut and a DP in California. As to my suspicion on California, the other major alternative is that they do nothing. I wasn't saying that anything should be included or excluded anywhere on Wikipedia based on my suspicions, so I don't understand your "lol". -Rrius (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

HAHA, I just like to throw "lol"s in a lot, lol :) CTJF83Talk 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Sorry, I made a bit of a mess trying to get things in line with the 2006 elections set of pages. The talk page was moved to Talk:Results of the Canadian federal election, 2008: All on one page. But if you think its more appropriate I can separate it from the main page and move it back. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadians, eh?

Hi Rrius. Seeing as Canadian MP terms aren't fixed in the style as American Represenatives & Senators; we'll probably have to go with the instantly in office approach. Oh well, they'll be sworn-in within a 2-weeks, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I must confess, my knowledge of Parliamenty workings, needs polishing. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U

There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [x] 15:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS on Talk:Stephen Carter (politician)

Do not restore unsourced material, its a blp violation. Your claim that the material is sourced is clearly not so as there is no ref. From your contribs I am surprised you do not already know this. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page. The part I put back was sourced. From your contribs, I would have expected you would recognized the "1" enclosed in brackets as a ref. -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

Hello Rrius. I must confess, things haven't been as disruptive as I had presumed at the TopInfobox images. PS- Thanks for the comment at my discussion page (concerning mandatory registration). GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I sure wish people would adopt my no images in the infobox idea. Oh well, November 4 is approaching fast. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Lest then 2-weeks to go. Think we'll survive the Infobox disputes? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there, we're in the homestretch. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Privy Council list

Hi. I made a number of corrections to the List of current members of the British Privy Council. You then made an edit in which you noted the corrections I'd made (the correct year for Peter Mandelson, that some of the recent appointments were occluded, etc.) but reversed them. If it was because I'd amended the list of ministers to be chronological by appointment, I thought that was the best way considering the nature of the article and I'm not sure how else to list them - the previous listing was all over the place, and there's no official order. I've reverted back. --92.12.59.194 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now - some of them having not actually been "sworn in" yet. I took the government announcement the the Queen "has been pleased to approve that [they] be sworn of Her Majesty’s most honourable Privy Council" (as it says on the Number 10 web site) to mean they had become members. -- 92.12.59.194 (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they have to actually be appointed, which is announced at Privy Council meetings. At the two since the reshuffle, only a few have been noted as sworn or appointed. Since there are actual orders recorded in council saying people have been appointed, that that should be the least we should accept to say someone is a member. I would also note that the official lists printed after the announcement of the new councillors still list them with out "Rt. Hon." or "PC" when they are used for others. Murphy was a priority because he was made a secretary of state, but the rest will probably wander in over the next couple meetings The prior arrangement was how they were listed in the official announcement in the London Gazette and on the No. 10 website. There is also no point in arranging the ministers by date appointed to the Privy Council. No one will look for them that way. I question the need for the list in the first place, but if some wants to see a list in chronological order there is List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present). -Rrius (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List of current members of the British Privy Council#Lists by job and comment. -Rrius (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see a reason to keep those lists at the top. Also, the alphabetical lists include some job titles, several of which are wrong. I can't quite understand why you reverted me again. I see you've put some of the corrections back in after doing that, but not all. But I don't want to get into a revert war about it so never mind. --92.12.59.194 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't find all the corrects in the diffs because if you move a paragraph and change things in it, it doesn't show the corrections in red. My objection is to arranging by date because it is difficult to see how that could ever be helpful. Even if someone were dying to know which ministers were admitted in 1999, he or she could go to List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present) and pick out the ministers. Also, could you add to the talk page your thoughts on removing the lists? I'd like to see some discussion before deleting them. -Rrius (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, just delete them - they're a mess, and as you say, there's no reason for them to be there. -- 92.12.59.194 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in mate! A few things though — I had been trying to use "a" in front of Lord of Appeal... in case people thought there was only one, but I guess I might've been being silly there. Also, I was trying to keep titles (like "Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary" or "Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs") a short as possible by by utilising the really common and accepted shorthands (like "Senior Law Lord" and "Foreign Secretary". Also, I've been trying to keep to the guideline which says you needn't links subsequent mentions of a page's subject by linking to each article once only (or once per pipe or similar). That's why I'd gone through A→Z, so I could keep track (using a notepad list, which I could put into my user pages if need be). And you've missed out a few dates — any reason? What do you say to "my ways"? Any of them make sense? lol Ooh! Another thing I just noticed — with Sir Scott Baker and Dame Mary Arden we're currently not using their "L Justice" style — we should standardise across all the judges, use the LJ style or not? Cheers DBD 09:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay — so always link; use The Bible of Judges (great find — I'll add it to the External Links); use "common names" for offices. Agreed? DBD 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Naturally old chap. Also, I've just noticed the U-Zs are mostly missing postnominals — any reason? DBD 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been adding them from the leads of the articles, as one of the tasks, along with checking the article link, the role for which there were sworn, and important roles thereafter. DBD 21:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Ancram and Thatcher is that Ancram has two styles, one in use (The Rt Hon Michael Ancram etc) and one "proper" (The Most Hon The Marquess of Lothian etc), whereas Thatcher has one style ("The Rt Hon The Baroness Thatcher etc") and a name she is generally called ("Margaret Thatcher"). That was why. Academic anyway, since your solution is certainly acceptable. DBD 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

HM/HRH in Order of Precedence in England and Wales

Hi there, what are your thoughts on the issue of HM/HRH being included in the list, these were removed by user Fram I believe. Orders of Precedence in other monarchies, such as Denmark and Norway still have these. I think they are needed to distinguish royal peers and non royal peers. As well, keeping them in allows people to easily see why some people are ranked higher than others. Please advise. Eddo 13:24 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The US Congresses up until 1933

Hiya Rrius. Have ya noticed those Congresses have their closing date as March 3, when in fact they should be March 4. I've tried to get that corrected, but to no avail. There used to be a similiar resistants on the Presidential & Vice Presidential bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pat McFadden...

...is Rt Hon. If you want confirmation then e-mail his office. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Effective date of new officials

I accept your rationale for reverting my change to New Hampshire on Shaheen's election. I made a comparable change in Government of New Hampshire (in the table of officials); you can revert it if you like, though I think that the table is quite clear (as it includes a "Term expires" column) that Sununu is the senator and Shaheen is the senator-elect. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit makes it look as though Sununu is no longer senator because his name is crossed out. If his name weren't crossed out, it wouldn't be clear who Shaheen is replacing. In the end, there is no reason to get ahead of ourselves. The third of January will be here soon enough. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

2013

I'm in a disptue there, concerning the date of the US Presidential Inaugural. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we say ..takes office.. (instead of takes power). As a Vice President can take power if a President doesn't qualify on January 20th (until a President does qualify). GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rrius, you da man. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

MiszaBot

thanks, yes I edited page as the whole page had got deleted by a vandal and the project boxes had not been restored. i'll bear in mind the point about miszabot template syntax, perhaps someone could change it so it does not need space, Tom B (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Canada 2008 Federal Election seats.svg

It would also be prudent to change the seating at the Conservative/NDP/Independent end, as it is drastically different from the actual seating chart made by Parliament. —kurykh 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually have an accurate version, but I think the current version actually does a better job (believe it or not) of showing the state of the parties than the accurate one does. -Rrius (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and uploaded it as Image:40th Can House.svg. -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess that also works. It's mostly for the 40th Canadian Parliament article. Thanks! —kurykh 02:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They changed the seating again to match post-Speaker-election seating. Mostly a shift on the Liberal side. (I hate not knowing how to do SVG images...) —kurykh 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done -Rrius (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should link Party standings in the Canadian House of Commons and leave it at that, since the subarticle has the external link. —kurykh 01:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

US Senators from Illinois

Thanks for adding more data to List of United States Senators from Illinois. I suggest two things: 1) limit the party shading to just the party column. 2) The notes column has typically been used only to explain how/why the person left the seat: Died, retired, resigned, lost renomination, lost re-election, redistricted, etc. —Markles 11:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What to use in the notes, I followed the Nevada page (or I followed some other one when I worked on Nevada). I really don't see the point of noting why each person's term ended. I find it far more interesting that So-and-So was governor, or Whosit was a senator from two other states than that Short-timer lost the election a few months after being appointed. At the very least, we could stand to branch out a bit. As to what gets coloured, I don't care; I just followed the format from another page. -Rrius (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oath of Office

I noticed your recent reversion of an edit to Traditions of the United States Senate. I support your revert, as the oath is required and technically isn't a "tradition." However, it is not required by the Constitution as your edit summary states. The only oath mandated in the Constitution is that for President of the United States, which is why 5 USC 3331 says "except the President." I'm well familiar with the requirements, having had to take the oath prior to my (former) employment with the United States Senate.

There are traditions associated with the Oath, though, that may be appropriate. For example, a fellow senator from the state or distinguished former senator often accompany the senator-elect to the well to take the oath. Sentors usually are sworn in in threes, and they then sign the official oath in a book that all senators sign. They get to keep the commemorative pen they use, which is enscribed "United States Senator" rather than United States Senate, and is only given to senators. After swearing in, there is a one-on-one reenactment with the Vice-President in the Old Senate Chamber, since photos are prohibited in the Senate. I need to pull some sources from my senate history archives for these. What do you think about adding them to the article?DCmacnut<> 22:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What I said was correct. Article VI states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". My edit summary said the oath is required by the Constitution and the form prescribed by statute; I cannot fathom where you find fault with that. I am well aware that there are traditions associated with the swearing-in, that there is a reenactment (which used to take place in the VP's Ceremonial Office), and that the reason is that photos are not allowed on the floor. -Rrius (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I misinterpreted your edit summary. I thought you were stating that the congressional oath of office was included in the constitution as written, since that was the nature of the previous edit. I also forgot about the generic oath requirement in Article VI.DCmacnut<> 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate of Canada

I'm hoping, that Harper is waiting for the Senate to become 100% vacant (thus de jure non existant). IMHO, the Senate is an embarrassment, a hypocracy to democracy (just like the monarchy). As I understand it, Harper can't reform the Senate 'cause the Senate Liberal majority won't let'em. They keep stalling his bills on the subject. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There's one (and only one) thing I like about the Canadian Senate, compared to the American Senate. The age limit (75) of serving. Byrd & Stevens (now a lame-duck), should've retired long ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The House of Commons have (on 2 occasions I believe) passed Senate reforms. But, when the reform bills got to the Senate, it got bogged down. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Conservatives would've had a Senate majority; the Senate may have been abolished by now. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Grits

Yep, they're having money problems. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

40th Canadian Parliament

Yahoo; finally some drama is occuring within my country's Parliament. Can you imagine, a Liberal-New Democrat coalition government. Propped up by the BQ, no less. Also, with the Liberals possibly pushing their party leader to resign sooner rather then later. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My sides are still sore from laughter, after hearing how concerned for Canadians, the opposition parties are. Had the Harper Government chose not to cut public funding for political parties, I betcha there would've been no talk of a coalition government or confidence vote. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The plot thickens. The Harper Government has chosen to bring in cuts to the party fundings, at a latter date. If the oppositions parties delay their plans, now? it would add substance to my theory. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya know what bugs me about all of this? The Governor General (and her husband) are enjoying a holiday tour of Europe, via our taxpayer's money. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Love him or hate him, Harper is good at outfoxing the opposition. He's betting that the public will increasingly go against a Liberal/NDP coalition & that the proposed coalition will fall apart by Jan 26, 2009. It doesn't help the Liberal/NDP, when Bob Rae & Jack Layton are saying they'll oppose the Harper Government no matter what. Nor does it help them that Canadians (as they've shown in the 2008 election) don't want Dion as Prime Minister (not even for a few months). GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's good to see CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS are covering this story. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article "William H. Dieterich (senator)" incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page William H. Dieterich (senator) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate terms pre-1933

Hiya Rrius. I peek-a-booed at your sanbox & noticed you've correctly put those Senators terms as ending on a March 4. I sure wish you could persuade the folks at Wikipedia: WikiProject US Congress to do the same across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are a smart fellow. I still have a few bumps on my head, from the last time I argued the point at that WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Next Canadian election

Concerning this edit, please see the talk page for the justification. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 19:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"-elect" v. "-designate"

You put in a good effort to make your point at Template talk:Infobox Officeholder, and it's a pity that the template is currently protected. I would do the edit for you, but the template is quite complicated, so you could save me some time if you could specify the exact change needed in the template itself. (One way to do that would be to copy the template to your userspace and do the edit there.) When you're done, please add {{[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/Template:Editprotected editprotected]}} to your message so that the change gets implemented as quickly as possible. — Sebastian 17:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)    (Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)

Thanks, it took a while, but I figured out where the problem is, if not how to solve it. In the end, I found a work around by using the "office" parameter instead of the "jr/sr" parameter. -Rrius (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux

Hiya Rrius. I've checked Roux's contributions (to see what got him angry). It was a spat with a provoking editor who's RfA, Roux (rightfully) opposed. I'm afraid, if Roux's declared anti-social attitude towards all of us remains, his time at this Project will be short. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I fear he no longer respects the collaborative part of Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That, too, is wrong. Of course I respect the collaborative nature of the project. What I refuse to give into is the concept that people are allowed to harass me with impunity. Anything collaboration-related can be discussed on the relevant article page. And really, I have now had more than enough of explaining my actions. I have valid and logical reasons for the course of action I have chosen to take. You can choose to respect it or not, but kindly both of you leave me alone and stop saying things about me that aren't true. //roux   01:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is the untruth? It is my opinion that you are acting unreasonably by deleting more than just the offending comments. It is also my opinion that you were unreasonable during the G2 dispute. I am entitled to my opinions and you are entitled to differ with them, but don't call me a liar. -Rrius (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You categorically stated that I have no interest in being reasonable. This is untrue. //roux   02:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your actions say otherwise, and that is the last response you'll get from me. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to persuade G2, out of his strike. Wowsers, G2bambino's on strike, Matt Lewis has retired (again), Roux is angry. Oh well, it's up to them. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on deleting our discussion on Roux, at my talk page (as he appears to be upset by it). I'll give you a chance to read it before, I do (that's If you agree). GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I get upset when someone lies about me. I'm funny that way. Discuss all you like, just stop hurling accusations around that aren't true. //roux   01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not clear how our opinions about your conduct could be lies. I would also note that this comment is a classic case of what others have accused you of, namely accusing someone of doing something that you yourself are doing. Here, it is casting false accusations. -Rrius (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. But I guess once again it doesn't matter what I say or do, you--as many people do--will persist in saying things about me that aren't true. Oh well, more proof that my decision was the right one. //roux   02:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rrius, I'm deleting the discussion from my talk-page. You're free to delete this discussion aswell (of course). Again, my apologies to you & Roux. My concerns for others can (sometimes) cause problems. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

New York Senator Caroline Kennedy?

Hmm, this is interesting. I assume though, it's up to Governor Paterson. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the media have more than a month to get bored of the story. If public opinion doesn't consolidate behind her, I still think Andrew Cuomo has the best shot. -Rrius (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah, Mario's boy. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama's resignation from the Senate

I don't have a source on me (typical). But, I believe he resigned during November 16th. As a result, the seat has been 'vacant' since that date. I use the Veep vacancies as an example. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Veep vacancies; there hasn't been one since December 19, 1974. I believe this is the longest continous line of Veep service, in USA history. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding further to the veep trivia. Assuming Cheney doesn't resign, die or be removed from office before January 20, 2009. He & Al Gore, will be the first back-to-back 8-year Veeps. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Tompkins & Calhoun came close (Calhoun resigned, with 'bout 2 months left in his 2nd term). GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

111th United States Congress

With the LA04 seat up in the air(?), can you adjust the party summary and other totals. I've totally lost track.—Markles 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Absurd warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Miesianiacal. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sending messages intended to stir up the G2/Roux thing again really isn't a good move Mayalld (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This warning is an outrage. If you were to read my page, you would see that PoC/Roux attacked me. I did not attack anyone at Miesianiacal's webpage, and your suggestion to the contrary defies logic. In fact, I did not attack him at my page or GoodDay's, where the initial conversation took place. Miesianiacal very nearly left the project forever and it was my intention to share with him that he is not the only one PoC/Roux overreacted to. Be more careful in the future in using appropriate warning templates. Also be careful in allowing the condescending "Welcome to Wikipedia" introduction to stand. While you are entitled to you opinion that no one should ever bring up the G2/Mies - PoC/Roux battle again, doing so is not an attack. -Rrius (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Rrius didn't attack Roux. If anybody deserves a warning, it's me (for having contacted Roux, at Roux's Userpage). I should've read Roux's request more clearly. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It remains my view that stirring the pot, running telling tales to either party about the other is a low-level personal attack. It certainly isn't the worst attack ever, but it is likely to be disruptive, and it should have been avoided. Oh, and if you think the warning absurd, feel free to delete it, rather than refactoring the section heading. Mayalld (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that I was stirring the pot. I was validating, commiserating, whatever. Your characterization is just off the mark. As far as the heading is concerned, I have every right to change it. I also have every right to leave it as is until it is archived in due course. I really think you overreacted here. I did not follow the G2/PoC drama closely enough to know whether you were deeply enmeshed in it, but I really don't care. You shouldn't push whatever baggage you have on others. If you wanted to say that you didn't think "stirring the pot" was appropriate, you could have said so. Instead, you took the unnecessarily provocative step of issuing a "personal attack" warning. Therefore, you will understand if I do not feel especially inclined to take lectures from you on who to behave in the user-talk space. -Rrius (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may dare to wade in here (I hate to see people get chastised for something that involves/involved me): I believe Mayalld is simply being stringent in making sure this PoC-Roux/G2 matter is dead, and stays that way – a desire I share with him. However, this classification of Rrius' note at my talk as a personal affront seems to demonstrate that an extreme definition of "attack" has been adopted at large, and subsequently used as the basis for civility enforcement, in order to keep a hyper-sensitive minority placated. I made it clear on my new user page that I want the past to stay in the past, and that is an honest statement. But, on the other hand, however much the stringent enforcement protects the project, bringing a chilling effect down around anyone who dares to even mention Roux to me seems counter-productive in itself. The ironic thing is that I had already caught up on what had happened to a few users while I was "away", and so was well aware of what was going on here before Rrius' message to me. As nobody was any the wiser about my having done so, it's evident that my looking at something doesn't stir any pots, and so I'm with GoodDay and Rrius in feeling that Rrius' asking me to look at something (which is all he did) doesn't constitute a personal attack on any level. And saying "Welcome to Wikipedia" to a well established user does have a slight taste of derision to it. That's my two cents, anyway. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Iggy's cold feet?

The Liberal interim leader (he'll be chosen leader in May 2009) Michael Ignatieff has said coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coaliton. Unlike NDP leader Jack Layton or BQ leader Gilles Duceppe, Iggy wants to see Harper's January Budget first, before deciding on bringing down the government or not. He said it would be irresponsable to do otherwise (a slap in the face to Layton & Duceppe). GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If the Harper government is defeated on the Budget (Jan 27, 2009), I'm certain, the Governor General will (at Harper's request) dissolve Parliament & have another election. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Senate vacancies

Here's a doozy. PM Harper is going to fill those vacancies before Christmas. He wants to be sure there's a stronger Conservative presense there, in case the GG appoints a Liberal-NDP coalition government, should the government be defeated in January. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's speculated, Harper wishes to appoint Senate reform minded Senators. Reform in the Senate, is something the Liberals Senators are against. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Senate appointments should shake the cobwebs out of the Senate chamber. The NDP will growl (they protest anyways) & the Liberals may squirm. But, they don't like Harper anyways. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy

Yeah, I don't quite understand it, either. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of pressure being put on Governor Paterson, to pick her. The pro-Kennedy people, better not push her 'unofficial' candidacy, too much. My impression of Paterson, is that he doesn't take kindly to bullying. I hope Paterson chooses somebody else & then if Kennedy is really intereted, she can run in 2010. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Timing of Presidential Nominations/hearings

While Obama nominations are not official until January 20, the Senate can hold hearings prior to them being nominated. The bulk of George W. Bush's nominees had confirmation hearings in the Senate committees prior to their official nomination, and there was just a perfunctory committee vote and floor vote on Inauguration Day to approve those nominees. I presume the 111th Congress will treat Obama's nominees the same way. If and when hearings are held, how would we describe them in the articles? "The Senate Committee on XX held a hearing on President-elect Obama's choice for Secretary of XX" seems like the most logical to me. Obviously it's not an issue now, but I'm wondering the best way to handle massive IP edits once hearings start being held.DCmacnut<> 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the formulation you suggest. I just have a problem with people saying Obama nominated X, when clearly he did not. I do not have a problem with calling someone a nominee before their nomination, so that could help. It is pretty standard, even mid-term. As I'm sure you know, the media start calling someone "nominee" at the time of the announcement, which can be days before the actual document nominating the person is sent to the Senate. The most careful of them say "announced he will nominate" until either the nomination is sent, the nominee makes a big trip to the Hill, or the relevant chairman schedules a hearing—in other words, when something happens. Ah, okay, I feel better now. -Rrius (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009

I don't have the time or skill or diplomatic wherewithal to tackle this now, but I think it needs to be done. United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009 violates WP:crystal. I started a discussion on this point on its talk page. One user seems to be the driving force behind the article's unnecessary verbosity. Can you resolve this for me?—Markles 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I created a better version of it, then made it into a redirect to the 5th Dist page. It should be an article if and when we know there is another vacancy. That said, I wanted to create a better version just in case. -Rrius (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessarily provocative warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009, you will be blocked from editing. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I didn't blank anything. I made it a redirect and explained why at the talk page. -Rrius (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have explained why I believe that your recent edits make no sense on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I read the closing editor's note, my edits made perfect sense. The first set of my edits, which removed speculation, was not contradicted at all by the outcome of the AfD. The second, creating a redirect, was also not in contradiction given the balance of comments and the closing editor's note on closing the AfD, which said that the result was not as much "keep" as "no consensus to delete" and specifically left the door open to moves and merges.

None of this explains the extraordinary step of issuing a warning for edits that were explained on the talk page and in the edit summary. My edit summary on reverting Markles explained that I disagreed with his interpretation of the AfD. Moreover, nothing I did suggested I would have reverted if someone reverted me saying, "let's discuss first," or even re-raised the AfD (especially some who, unlike Markles, opposed the AfD). I think the warning was a breach of protocol, and your response should have been more along the "let's discuss first" line. -Rrius (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger is wrong.—Markles 20:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems I failed utterly at the task you set me. I've had some success finding compromise and consensus elsewhere, but I wrongfooted myself here. I about ready to draw a line under the whole thing on the theory the senate seat can't stay vacant forever. Either they will keep and expand one part of the speculation, deleting the rest, or they will delete it all (even if it takes till Jan. 3, 2011—my state is such an embarrassment). Anyway, to hell with all of it for now: it is time for some Christmas Keira in the annual Love Actually viewing. -Rrius (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• As a finale, check out my final comments at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009#Uncle. —Markles 15:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Illinois's ills

I'm guessing impeachment proceedings for Governor Blagojevich are about to be underway. Fear not, Lieutenant Governor Quinn seems to be an honest guy. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I still want my country's Senate to be abolished. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the US Senate would accept any appointment by Governor Blagojevich (after Monday's discoveries) & the Illinois bi-cameral legislature will never certify such a tainted appointment. Also, the Illinois Attorney General is considering heading to the Illinois Supreme Court, to have Blagojevich stripped of his powers & duties on the charge of being 'unfit to serve' (I'm guessing pyschologically unfit). I'm guessing that Blagojevich will either be suspended by the Illinois Supreme Court or impeached & convicted (by the Illinois Legislature). Eitherway, the special election idea will evaporate, as nobody will question a Senate appoinment made by Pat Quinn. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: In the Illinois Supreme Court route, if they rule against Blagojevich; he remains Governor in name only & Lt Governor Quinn assumes (only) the gubernatorial powers & duties as Acting Governor (at least I think so). Of course, the other 2 routes (Blagojevich's impeachment/conviction or resignation) would make Quinn the 41st Governor of Illinois. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a guess: If AG Lisa Madigan has no medical proof of Blagojevich's unfitness for governing; the Illinois Supreme Court will reject her request. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah, I change my guess. Now, how long will it be, for the SC to announce it's ruling? GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If your state is lucky, Blagojevich will resign. Chances are though, he'll be stubborn. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Blago has been out foxed. I hope nobody's recording his verbal reactions to her actions. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the Illinois Supreme Court rejected Madigan's case. My guess is, she couldn't proove he was unfit to serve (no medical records as evidence). GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, an Impeachment conviction is the only way, now. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Durbin's demands

I'm surprised Senator Durbin prefers a special election (noting his relationship with Quinn). Such a preference could backfire on him, as a Republican could get elected in such a scenerio. It wouldn't surprise me if Senate Democrats were asking him to 'back off'. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesse, Jr

Why is Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr, carrying on like a guilty person? GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It don't look good for Jesse Jr. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Madigans

Something don't look right, here. Illinois House Speaker Madigan & daughter Attorney General Madigan, both eager to chase Blagojevich out of office? Me thinks, both should back off & let others take up the task. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Burris nomination and Illinois Special elections

See my comments at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009#Burris nomination. I know you've backed off from watching this article, but I think Blagojevich's nomination of Burris (regardless of whether Burris actually is seated) removes any speculation on whether a current member of the House will get nominated. Thoughts?DCmacnut<> 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Senate Office space

Senate offices are picked based on seniority, rather than a lottery like in the House. All incoming freshmen senators will be assigned temporary office space in January either in the basement of the Dirksen building or the courtyard of the Russell building, and will get permanent offices after being sworn in. I don't know if they've already picked space officially, but they've likely listed their top choices. They'll move into those new offices sometime in March, depending on how fast the Sergeant and Arms and his staff can get the offices ready. With the large freshman class, it could take longer. The freshman with the most seniority would pick first and so on. My experience having worked there is many senior senators are unlikely to switch offices, making the pool of offices smaller. With the large number of departing senators, those elected in 2006 may want to upgrade if someone doesn't beat them to it first. All of those departing senators were told to leave their offices by December 1.[1]

With respect to Coleman, his office is being held off limits until the race is decided, and no one is making him move. He probably wouldn't move even if he wins, because his office is in a pretty good location. Hart building is the top choice of many senators, since you can have all your staff in one main suite, rather than multiple disconnected rooms like Dirksen and Russell.

If Franken wins, he'll likely get Coleman's office, particularly if the race is resolved after the other freshmen get their picks. House office lotteries were done weeks ago, and candidates in undecided races against incumbents couldn't participate. That's why Joseph Cao is getting William Jefferson's office, but will have to give it up in 2010 and participate in the lottery like everyone else. Jim Talent got Jean Carnahan's office when he beat her in the 2002 special election. Franken would still have to move into temporary space until Coleman's office was ready for a new occupant. It takes a lot of time to archive and close down a Senate office.

If the race is decided in Franken's favor before January 6 and before the other freshmen pick, Coleman's office would then be added to the pool of new office space available to any incoming freshman, and Franken would have to pick along with everyone else. Franken would come before Jeff Merkley in seniority based on Minnesota's population (21st) versus Oregon (28th) and would pick 8th.DCmacnut<> 00:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)