User talk:Rrius/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

NowCommons: File:James Scrugham.jpg

File:James Scrugham.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:James Scrugham.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:James Scrugham.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

pro forma

No clue. That's the Unanimous Consent request entered into on August 7. The adjournment resolution merely said the Senate could adjourn any time between August 6 and August 11. But that's how Reid opted to do it, so that's how it went. 2009 Congressional Record, Vol. 155, Page S9096 .DCmacnut<> 01:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd knew what was happening in the first place from the Cong Rec because I was following who did and did not get confirmed in the last days. I was just hoping you knew. -Rrius (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
After 7 years, I learned that anything can happen. One reason to stay in session over the weekend would be to allow for additional nominations to be submitted by the President prior to the recess.DCmacnut<> 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve LaTourette again

An IP editor or editors keep reverting my deletion of a line that references a townhall meeting where LaTourette called a consituent question "bullshit." They insist on including it, even though I think it is poorly sourced as the only reference given is a video of the event posted at Huffington Post. It has not been covered elsewhere to my knowledge. I think WP:BLP requires its removal, but I don't want to get into an edit war. Could you weigh in at Talk:Steve LaTourette and tell me if I'm off base here? Thanks.DCmacnut<> 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich Merger Proposal

I just noticed on my WatchList that you executed a page move with respect to the Rod Blagojevich gubernatorial administration article, and I was wondering if you had any thoughts regarding the merger proposal pending with respect to that article. Please see Talk:Rod Blagojevich for further details and discussion on the proposal. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Regards to indent level

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in the text of my last edit at the Osho Talk page that I wasn't directing my comments to you. I've never really considered indent level to be indicative of replying specifically to the last editor but merely to clearly indicate the next comment in a thread of discussion. At the same indent level it appears to me to be one continuous block at first glance. At least to my eyes. Tell you what, I'll go and edit it so there's no indent at all, so to indicate it's not directly connected to the comments immediately preceding it.Number36 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your theory is comments like the one I changed the indent level of. It is always a good idea to be one indent level in from the one you are responding to, but it is vital when you direct the comment at "you" or respond to the specific words used in a comment. Even if you don't see the indent levels that way, many, if not most, people do. -Rrius (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it appears I wan't expressing myself clearly again :) I didn't mean to forward that as my postion or theory, I was just explaining that is how I thought about it, past tense, not that I'd given it a great deal of thought. I appreciated your point that it could cause confusion as to who I was replying to, but was adding that I didn't think it worked perfectly at the same ident level, I have seen threads where someone hasn't signed their comment and the next person has added at the same ident level and it becomes very difficult to discern where one person's comments start and another ends for instance. But anyway I just think it's easier to follow visually if the comments are seperated. Actually it now occurs to me that my commenting on this could be taken to mean I think it's a big deal or something, I was really just mentioning it as an aside, to apologise if it looked like my comments were directed at you and to share my position. Cheers Number36 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. It would be cool if colons and bullets could be used together. That way, the first paragraph of a comment could use a bullet, and additional paragraphs could line up beneath. The way it works now, indented text ends up lined up a little to the left or right of bulleted text. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

POTUS Discussion...

Responded on my talk... -- Foofighter20x (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Special election in Massachusetts

Yes, but how would a Brazilian know what the qualifications are? They are not superfluous. Registered voter is a Massachusetts qualification. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would a Brazilian care? Also, the Constitution sets the qualifications for office, and the Supreme Court has said the states cannot add to them. Show me some better source than the Mass. election site for the proposition that being a registered voter is an exception to that rule. -Rrius (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Because they're writing an article on United States elections for their high school civics class, or they're looking for references for further reading, or maybe they're curious. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Which is why they would mosey on over to United States Senate. The fact is no other election or special election article I have seen has gone into that kind of detail other than the 2008 presidential election. That one went into detail because of Obama's and McCain's unusual circumstances. As a result, I don't think I'm out of line for thinking the stuff is not relevant enough for inclusion here. -Rrius (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it would astonish you how little your average United States citizen knows on the topic. It's an encyclopedia, and the single sentence satisfies a comprehensive description of the process, which in this case has the attention of many thousands. Your argument is from the perspective of one who knows, not the person who doesn't know. Page view stats: http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts%2C_2010
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it would astonish you how little the average American's ignorance astonishes me. We could also put in a section about how each state has two senators, and that if they are evenly divided, the Vice President has a casting vote. The point is that your contribution gives undue weight to the qualifications and ballot access. The worst infraction is the ballot access part because it is now two paragraphs of a relatively short article. How many signatures are needed and who determines the dates for the filing deadlines is just not that important. Again, there is a reason that most similar articles do not address either the qualification or ballot access issue. -Rrius (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Of all states, New York's byzantine ballot qualifications should be listed in articles such as this. In any case, if you wait a few weeks, the article will be expanded by the news about the political opportunity of a seat effectively held by the Kennedys since 1953, and the nascent article will have improved proportionality. More interesting about ballot access is that unenrolled candidates can be from out of state, since they need not qualify under the deminimus 90-day party registration. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You may find it interesting, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Certainly there will be more information in the article, but does not change that your information is given undue weight. The ballot access information boils down to how long before seeking the nomination you need to have been a voter registered with that party affiliation. That is not important to the article unless a candidate who doesn't meet that requirement tries to run. I've started a discussion at the article's talk page, so I won't respond anymore here. -Rrius (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Date of Senate appointments

See http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator.asp?sortord=S&seniorder=DESC&Language=E - the term is "date of nomination" and the new senators are listed with Aug 27 as the date. 65.95.118.13 (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Harper announced 18 appointees in December 2008, but they are all listed under various dates in 2009. -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, whatever the intended meaning of the word "nomination" on the source page, it means the date of the letters-patent summoning the new senator:

  • Moore 26 September 1996[1]
  • Pepin 8 April 1997[2]
  • Robichaud 22 September 1997, Callbeck 23 September 1997[3]
  • Joyal 26 October 1997[4]

Shall I go on? -Rrius (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a press release

This is not a press release and neither is this. They are both official lists of current Senators from the Parliament of Canada website with the dates of nomination/commencement of term. If you disagree with them I suggest you write the Parliament of Canada and complain and explain that as an American you have knowledge of how Senate appointments work that is superior to that of the parliamentary staff who put together the website. I'm sure they'll give your views the attention they deserve. In the meantime, I've reverted your edit as original research. 65.95.118.13 (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The list did the same thing with the 18 Harper nominated in December, then changed the dates. It is not reliable on this point based on that experience. Now stop holding this discussion on my talk page. As to the nonsense about no knowing how Senate appointments work, I'd say you should not assume things about people's knowledge. It's rude, and makes you look like an idiot when, as now, you are wrong. -Rrius (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You're engaging in original research as you have no source that states the appointments are still "pending" while the Parliament of Canada website states the terms have already begun. 65.95.118.13 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not original research. Based on experience, we know the source is not reliable on this point. I have already stated this at the article talk page and will not further discuss it here. -Rrius (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of Senators

What is wrong with listing the date of nomination rather than the date of appointment? I'd also like to point out that a number oif Senators were appointed before 1996. So, if the Senate website is deemed an unusable source for that, it means you would need to find sources for all of the other nominees, so we can ensure every one is correct. -- Scorpion0422 22:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with listing the date of nomination is that the others list the date of appointment. It makes no sense to list apples alongside oranges, only to replace them with oranges when some become available. "Pending" works equally well as a placeholder, and is closer to being accurate. On the other point, the Senate site is perfectly reliable on what those dates are. I established that by proving it correct on the 1996 to January 2009 appointments. The only thing the site has shown itself unreliable on is the date of appointment for senators between the time the PM announces he will appoint them and the date they take their seat. Frankly, the point is that from December 22, 2008, to approximately January 16, 2009, the website said the 18 appointees were appointed (or "nominated", if you prefer) on December 22, 2008. From approximately January 16, 2009, on, it has said they were appointed on January 2, 8, or 14, 2009. In this case, the website has said since August 27 that they were appointed on August 27, 2009. It is the same scenario, and there is no reason to believe the summonses were drafted and signed on that date. In fact, it seems unlikely, since the documents have to be prepared, and the Governor-General has to sign them. I wish we had a medium of exchange on Wikipedia so I could bet you that the dates on the website will change within days of September 15, when the Senate reconvenes. Maybe we could use barnstars as stakes. In any event, I'm not impugning the site for all purposes. However, it has a track record of not using what we use for a date. -Rrius (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

41st Canadian Parliament (sooner, rather then latter)

See my responses at my userpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of special elections to the United States Senate#Two questions

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:List of special elections to the United States Senate#Two questions. Thank you. —Markles 10:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Please do not threaten and bully

I did not vandalize. Please do not threaten and bully. Acme Plumbing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

No one is threatening. Your edits certainly look like politically motivated vandalism. If you think a hatnote about senators named Byrd needs the addition of the victim of a racially motivated murder named Byrd, and Robert Byrd's infobox needs to call his occupation "klansman", bring it to the talk page. For me, the klansman edit used up the last bit of AGF, and the third addition of James Byrd despite reversions by two different editors in a short period seemed to cross the vandalism line. Prove me wrong. -Rrius (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop following me round

I would request that you stop following me round, you attitude towards me is void of good faith. I noticed your informing Chillum that I had a warning on my talk page, stalking editors you have a grudge against and attempting to get them blocked is considered to be in poor taste. Just take me off your watchlist and I will vanish. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quit being paranoid. I have had Peter Mandleson watchlisted since he rejoined Cabinet, and George Young since I read he was promoted to Shadow Leader of the House several hours ago. Yours were the first edits since that time that needed fixing. You were on my blocklist, and I did mention the accusation to Chillum because he had a right to know. Since you saw my note to him, you know that I took no position on the accuracy of it. I never looked into it, and don't really care. If you can't deal with seeing me at articles related to UK politics, that's too damned bad. If you look at my contributions, you'll see that I have scads of edits related to UK politicians and nobles, and to UK-government topics, and I am not going to change for your benefit. -Rrius (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You followed me to the george young article, you have no edits there previous to today after I edited the article [[5]] Just take me off your watchlist and save yourself the trouble of following my edits. As for your comment to Chillum, I am sure he can easily keep his eye on me without your reports. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just told you, I added Young just after I found out he had been appointed Shadow Leader my best guess is that it was 07:30 UTC when I added it to my watchlist. I never said I had edited it before. I had looked in on the edits that were made before yours. They weren't vandalism, they were grammatical, they followed WP:MOS and they used wikicode properly. Yours did not follow MOS and you used the {{cite web}} template incorrectly, so I fixed it.
Finally, since you don't seem to understand watching pages, let me explain. If you watch a page, edits to it show up on your watchlist. User pages and User talk pages work exactly the same way: if you watch a user's page, you will see changes to the page. You will not see edits that person makes elsewhere. If it is possible to "follow your edits", I don't know what it is. Thus, your accusation that I was following you through my watchlist is just silly. So stop being a jerk, and start assuming good faith. -Rrius (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stilltim still creating duplicate articles

You may want to check out this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Governors from Delaware. User:Stilltim has created a duplicate of List of Governors of Delaware. His improvements are actually quite good, but instead of using the existing article he creating an entirely separate one. I've merged his changes into the original. He was warned a couple of weeks ago for performing mass moves of Delaware list articles to non-standard names.DCmacnut<> 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about List of Governors of Delaware. The substance was focused only on reformating the governors list into a sortable table, with a few additional pieces of exposition in the lede. He also added a summary list and additional links for colonial governors. This diff shows what it looked like before I merged his content. It was simply a formating change and an article name change. He previously tried moving List of Governors of Delaware to Governors in Delaware - members, and was promptly reverted by an administrator. He made several such unexplained moves last week, and has yet to give an explanation other than "my way is better, why can't you see that?" His current explanation is that it needs to be "Governors from Delaware, because it's List of United States Senators from Delaware and List of United States Representatives from Delaware. I think we could have a reasonable debate on whether it should Governors from X, even though its gramatically incorrect because "from" would include the governor of any state who was born or grew up in Delaware. But he doesn't want to have that discussion, and wants Delaware to be separate from the other states.
I personally think he was circumventing trying to get consensus and wants to create these articles in his own image, even after being asked to stop by an admin. He's told not to move articles, so he creates duplicates. Told not to make mass changes against consensus, he creates is own private set of articles in his userspace (ordinals). The man makes good contributions, but he just thinks he owns these articles and can do whatever he wants without explanation. When we point out the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, he claims ignorance, in spite of being a long-standing editor who should know better by now. Instead, he claims editors are interferring with "his vision." It seems his goal is that once an article gets to a certain point, it should never be edited again. Even when I told him I was merging his admittedly better formated list into the original article, he took issue with it and the Afd because it's not what he wants. I think AN/I would be entirely appropriate in this case.DCmacnut<> 16:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Martinez

Close of business would mean at the end of session, not necessarily adjournment (could be a recess). In either case, the resignation is effective today, and we can update the article tomorrow. The Congressional Record will be released in the morning, and we can double check the wording. Have you heard anything about scheduling the swearing in of his successor? I would presume he gets sworn in tomorrow.DCmacnut<> 20:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom Harkin

I was just about to change my edit realising that, you preempted me, kudos haha =] Sirrontail (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I wish the Senate had the kind of live updating the House does here. For all we know, they did pass the resolution, but we won't know for sure until the next day. -Rrius (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy committee assignments

Perhaps you could have participated in the Talk:Ted Kennedy#Committee assignments discussion before making this edit. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe says no

Now that Joseph P. Kennedy II has declined to run for the US Senate, the 2010 special election is wide open (as it should be). GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by the race so far. First, I thought the Kennedys would have the grace to announce in or out faster. In such a short race, it is rude to leave everyone hanging so long, especially when you decide not to run. There's a whole week there that people could have been gathering signatures, assembling a campaign team, and raising money. With a December primary, every week counts. I'm also a little surprised that the state's representatives haven't basically decided who among them will run. There is already one in, and two more are likely. Given that, they dilute the field and make it far more likely Martha Coakley will win. C'est la vie. -Rrius (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The seat might go Republican. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd say there is close to no chance. Massachusetts is a machine state, and the Democratic machine will get out its vote. -Rrius (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the odds are heavily in their favour. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the odds would have been even smaller if Andy Card had run. I can't see Bush's Chief of Staff getting too many votes in Massachusetts. By the way, it is starting to look as though Iggy shot himself in the foot. -Rrius (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
A Republican victory just isn't in the cards. As for Iggy, he just might give us a long awaited majority government. Unfortunately for him, it'll be Conservative. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone is giving odds on Iggy putting the stopper back on the bottle. -Rrius (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It's beginning to look like Layton will save him from embarrasment. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow. -Rrius (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yep, if Layton is pleased with the Harper government's rumoured proposed EI reforms, the NDP won't support the coming non-confidence vote. Holy smokers, if one spends a week in Ottawa, he/she would go bonkers. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand right, all the NDP would have to do is sit out of the vote, right? They don't actually have to vote with the Tories, so long as the Tories outnumber the other parties, the confidence motion passes, correct? That is to say, the confidence motion doesn't need an absolute majority, but just a majority of those voting on the question. -Rrius (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the NDP need only be silent, just as the Liberals had been doing. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Layton might still be steaming from the Liberals back-stabbing of the coalition idea of last year. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably, and I doubt Iggy's recent disavowal of any coalition doesn't help, either. Hell, he may also be afraid of losing seats to the Liberals. -Rrius (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Political life is never dull in Ottawa where minority governments are concerned. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

At-large vs. District 1 discussion

Rrius, I've moved the discussion to Category:At-large United States congressional districts. If you can think of a better place, let me know.......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ordinal congresses ending March 4

Quick question about your edits changing the end of several of the congresses from March 3 to March 4 (41st Congress and 25th Congress as examples). We had a debate a while back, and since the official congressional records (biographical directory and the clerks office) show those congresses running from March 4 to March 3, we decided we would go with those dates, even though it technically leaves a 24 hour discrepancy. That's how it is officially listed, and when other editors argued otherwise it was determined to be OR to use March 4 as the end. Was there a new discussion on changing these dates? Just curious.DCmacnut<> 18:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've verified in the Congressional Globe that the sessions actually ended on March 4 for those Congresses. It is absurd to say the Congress ended on March 3, when demonstrably, it ended on March 4. -Rrius (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Senate passed a resolution in 1851 saying the Session goes from noon to noon, and it seems to have been taken as a matter of course ever after. As a result, early Congresses could arguably be listed as March 3 when there is no evidence the Congress actually ended on March 4. For the 31st and later Congresses, there is no reason to use anything other than March 4. -Rrius (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I've argued all along that the dates should be March 4 to March 4. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't care either way. I just recalled the last time we had this debate, and consensus at the time was to leave the dates as is. In spite of what the Congressional Globe or related resolutions state, other sources give the March 4 to March 3 date. I know it's illogical, but that's what the Clerk of the House uses and the Biographical Directory. If we're going to use March 4 to March 4, we need to be prepared to back up that change with specific references to the Globe, etc., since someone else is likely to come along and point to the House Clerk page or the Directory and change it back.DCmacnut<> 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I am more and more wary of using the Directory as a source. They seem to get a lot wrong, including when people served in other offices and appointment dates for current senators. It's easy to back up Globe era Congresses, but I'll actually have to find some old Congressional Records to verify the later ones. It is funny that people insist on using March 3 because one congressional source uses that date when others specifically note that from the 31st to the 72nd it was understood that it was actually March 4. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Statutorily, Congress was required to convene on March 4 every year. Do we have any information on whether there was a statutory time for Congress to end? The Senate resolution could be enough, since the Constitution prohibits one house from adjourning without the consent of the other for longer than 3 days. Not until the 20th Amendment did we have a statutory start and finish in the Constitution (other than the original December date). I'm just curious. Could help expand United States Congress.DCmacnut<> 01:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Longest living United States Senator

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Anyway, you're right; but I would propose to add the other two lists to a new page using "Earliest" instead of "Most Senior".

Star Garnet (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC), and would you mind posting on my talk page, please?

Young

the last time young got on a pushbike was in 1990. 19 years ago. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are claiming that young is a patron of this and that..have you got a citation to support that?

as in, patron..def... One that supports, protects, or champions someone or something, such as an institution, event, or cause; a sponsor or benefactor.. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? It was not my claim, and cutting and pasting does not make it so. Beyond that, what is the point of your question? It was claimed he was patron of both of those organizations, and I found cites using the word "patron" to explain his relationship to both groups. Again, what is your point? -Rrius (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say,, associated with.. would be more reflective.. or is a member of...I don't think we can stretch the imagination to patron .. can we? Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Too bad, each source calls him patron of those groups. We should call him what he is, not what you want to call him. Try actually reading the cites. You seem so concerned that they be there, but don't actually bother looking at them. -Rrius (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have seen the patron in the cites and thanks for that, have you got any citations that reveal all his good work in these fields? Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The claim made is that he is a patron of these two groups. Why the devil would anyone have to provide cites "for all his good work in these fields"? If you want to add more information about his work with the two groups, knock yourself out, but quit implying that it is somehow incumbent upon me to take up all these tasks because I moved one bit of text from point A to point B after you stupidly reverted another editor who had done the same thing, based only on your false belief that he was adding unsourced, albeit uncontroversial, information. -Rrius (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit much that you call me stupid, mistaken or by mistake are more conducive to respectful editing, any way thanks for your help in this matter. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not call you stupid, I said how you did what you did was stupid. I will withdraw the adverb if you wish (it was intemperate), but I must say I have been disappointed in your disrespectful attitude going back to beginning of our relations, and for you to act as though this is unearned and out of the blue is dishonest. While the insults to me and my editing in our previous discussions were especially insulting, the worst was when you accused me of "threatening" you when I was merely trying to give you advice on how to avoid stirring up as much contention as you do. You are an incredibly difficult person to deal with, and so you should anticipate that people will lose their tempers with you from time to time. -Rrius (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't anticipate that people will lose their tempers with me from time to time and I would like you as a wiki editor to attempt to forget previous confrontations between us and to attempt to move forward in a more conducive atmosphere, I have already asked this and it is not working out, I have kept away from articles that we have disputes over and you keep reverting my edits now on other articles, please, lets move on. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to move on, as well, but I am certainly not going to forget. Your past behaviour informs your current behaviour, and helps predict your future behaviour. I am a human being, and as such cannot intentionally forget things or keep them from affecting how I view new information. As for your not predicting losses of temper, your own past blocks for edit warring and the like make that either willful blindness or self-involved. In any event, if you stop assuming that if I touch a piece of text, then I am responsible for it and for expanding it, and if you stop deleting plausible, uncontroversial information rather than tagging it, I am sure we can get on swimmingly from here on out. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Congress license

{{PD-USGov-Congress}} is a license for files originating from Congressional sources, and {{PD-USGov}} is redundant - it is the generic license for US Federal government works. There is something wrong with having multiple licenses when just one will do. The current Congress license has been in place since December 2004, so I don't think it will be deleted anytime soon, and I can think of no rationalization for deleting it. I will continue to do what I have been doing, as many of the images in the PD-UDGov category can be given more specific licenses, and that category has been in major need of diffusion for a very long time. --Monkeybait (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Senatorial Page Proposal

What I was thinking about was transfering the two deleted lists to a new page (they never belonged on that one to begin with), and create a corresponding page to Earliest serving United States governor (which needs a makeover) for the Senate. I've been thinking of doing the same for the House, but I haven't got around to it. Star Garnet (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the page if you want a look. Star Garnet (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert Byrd infobox

What I meant in my edit summary is that it's relevant who the Vice President is, because it's relevant whom the President pro tempore serves in place of as presiding officer of the Senate. But I completely agree with you about the length of the infoboxes. JTRH (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to take out the leader, since the caucus, not the leader, is effectively responsible for who serves as PPT. I'm also tempted to remove the numbering because there is no evidence that presidents pro tempore are numbered the way presidents and speakers are. -Rrius (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Having just looked it up on senate.gov, I can categorically state that PPT's are NOT officially numbered. Go for it. JTRH (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It wouldn't even make sense given the period of rotating PPTs. If they are each only given one number, why wouldn't Byrd, Thurmond, and anyone else who served more than once. It seems like OR to me. -Rrius (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it for everyone of them with an infobox who was numbered. -Rrius (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks much cleaner. Thanks for the effort. JTRH (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a Senator until the oath of office is taken

The Senate is the gatekeeper, and no Senator-elect or Senator-designate is in office until accepted and has taken the oath of office. See Article I, Section5 of the United States Constitution:

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."

For example, Roland Burris, from the Senate Biography. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001266

" ...appointed December 31, 2008, to the United States Senate for the term ending January 3, 2011, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Barack Obama, but credentials were not in order until January 12, 2009; took the oath of office on January 15, 2009."

Seniority is determined on the date of oath of office, as Al Franken can testify. He was elected at the same time as all other elected senators, but did not become a senator until months later. Burris had a delay as well. If Burris's credentials were accepted, he would have the same seniority as all other Senators, allowing for the Senate rules that give value to service as governor or as member of Congress.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already addressed this at your page. -Rrius (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

reference organizing tool

I must have impressed that editor, but I didn't do anything miraculous. WP:FOOTNOTES now allows for list-defined references, where you put the full references under {{reflist}} as named references, and then all you need in the body of the article is a link to that ref. Limits clutter in the prose, and all of the main refs are in one central location for editing down the road. I stumbled upon it last week after the last media wiki updates.

Then the other day, I saw an editor at Barack Obama take use this same list-defined references to lump multiple references into a bulletted reference. Basically, instances where there were 3 or 4 or more citations basically discussing the same fact or point, he put them all under one named ref to, again, limit clutter. The editor that gave me the barnstar made some accusations of POV at United States Congress, and I reverted a horrid looking mess of a references about the reelection of incumbents that had deleted some important text (his argument was that House members don't serve two-year terms, because they "always get relected." When he reverted me, I restored the missing text, and cleaned up his incumbent addition to make it less overt, and did one of those "magical" group refs like I saw at Barack Obama. So, all I did was take a new wiki tool, and apply some techniques I saw another editor use. Nothing special, though by using it and making more editors aware of it may prove valuable in the future.DCmacnut<> 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

British politician articles

I would like to ask you what is the purpose your constant following me to articles and constant opposition to any of my suggestions and reverting of my edits has of any value to the wikipedia? I know you are still upset after our discussion and third opinion on the Hillary Harmen article as you said so recently but this continuation of that dispute is beyond a joke. I have asked you before to please stop this behaviour and yet you continue opposing anything I suggest, I have started to collect evidential links to the individual situations. Again I ask you one last time to please get over it and to move on. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've told you before: stop being paranoid. I have been editing UK, government, politician, royalty, nobility, and judicial articles for years. My first edit at Gordon Brown was on May 21, 2008, at 04:01 UTC, only seven months after I started editing at Wikipedia regularly. If it bothers you to work on the same articles, I'm afraid you'll have to find other interests because mine aren't going to change for you. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not just the Brown article, since our dispute at the Harman article is is at repeated articles and notification boards, all of which is negative towards me, and reverting my edits and opposing my suggestions. I am collecting detailed historical links and am requesting that the pattern of behaviour please cease. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No, but it is just British politician articles, isn't. You continually delete material based on standards that have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. You then cling to your position without ever giving any explanation as to how you arrived at your position and only rarely responding to points raised by those whose opinions are different from yours. You then expect that I will simply forget what you've been like in the past. Your paranoid belief that I am following around behind you is frankly funny to me because if I never dealt with you again, I would be content. I have even refrained from questioning edits of yours or even trying to find cites to restore information you have deleted just because I don't want to deal with you. In sum, don't flatter yourself. -Rrius (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Portrait

it was down to 30px because it kept being deleted, so in order to make it less offensive I shrank itRodolph (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Senators

For the oldest living ones, just go to List of living former United States Senators and sort the last column twice. Star Garnet (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your note. This is an oddity we have seen only a few times with AWB/MediaWiki , not sure the cause. Will pass it back to the AWB devs. Rich Farmbrough 22:28 13 September 2009 (UTC).

NY Yankees

2000 was so long ago, I hope this is the year. Here's to a 27th World title. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a dangerous thing, assuming an American likes the Yankees. I actually do; I'm a Cubs fan, but I've had a soft spot for the Yankees since childhood. That was a bit awkward when I was a White Sox fan, but I managed to hate them and like them at the same time. To explain that bit of heresy (a Sox fan becoming a Cubs fan) I grew up a Sox fan, but gave up on baseball when the strike happened. After that, some of my family, including my step-family, were Cubs fans, so I was primed to become one. I finally did during the steroidal homerun race between Sosa and McGuire. Since I hate St. Louis, the city and its teams, more than even most Chicagoans, I sort of fell into following baseball again and came back rooting for Sosa and the Cubs. -Rrius (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wowsers, are ya'll ever gonna forgive Bartman? GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think he got a raw deal. -Rrius (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Standings templates

If you're referring to the "won division" option, it's horribly ugly, IMHO. If not, could you clarify? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of prose to indicate information is not arbitrary in any way, shape, or form. This is an encyclopedia. It communicates using words. This template is an embedded list. WP:EMBED states that "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." The template does not do an adequate job of explaining itself while still being aesthetically pleasing. I am eventually attempting to take 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season through a good article nomination, as I did for 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season last year. If you view that article, you will see last year's standings, which are formatted the same way as these are currently. Making one row twice the size of the other, especially when they highlight when used on a team article, is an eyesore. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a list of teams competing in a given division during a particular season, embedded in a variety of articles. It is an embedded list, same as a navbox or a bulleted prose list. If you'll see the 2009 Major League Baseball season page, you'll see that the division champions are in prose. If it's only important enough to list in the template for several days to a week, then it's not notable, because notability is not temporary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information about possibly violating some edit war thing, yet you are doing the same thing as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, see your talk. -Rrius (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The hockey game stank, there was more hits in baseball. Anyways, would anybody agree with taking the Template discussion to talk: 2009 Major League Baseball season. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ordinal congress comments

Rrius, I've made some comments on your proposed changes. Pvmoutside (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'll check them out. -Rrius (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice explanation why you'd like to change, check my response and let me know what you think! Pvmoutside (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-

Many thanks for helping out with the List of US Senators from Wisconsin=Charles Durkee-RFD (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making all the fixes. It's a long slog working on those lists, and it's hard to get everything right. Between not catching other peoples' mistakes and introducing my own through copy-and-paste errors (and just plain negligence), I'm sure I've made plenty of mistakes, so it is a relief to know people like you are paying attention. -Rrius (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrius/Archive_5&oldid=1138904786"