User talk:Rrius/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Infoboxes

Are you sure that incumbent's go first? In the 2010 Illinois Senate election, Kirk goes first because it's in ABC order. So we need to figure out this problem now.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That is how it's been done in the past, but if you feel strongly, go ahead and revert me. I only have so much energy to expend on this, and I think I've used it all up. If that sounds curt, sorry, but I'm trying to get some disinterested editors to take a look at the recent edits at Illinois, and no one is stepping in, so I'm a bit frustrated. I should probably just go to bed because Wikipedia is giving me a headache tonight. -Rrius (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

'Vandalism'

Don't you DARE call me a vandal - Tony Blair IS a war criminal, it is a fact, and not just my own POV.

SteveMcSherry (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I dare, sir, because you know damned well that there is no reliable source verifying that he is one (as opposed to a source verifying that some people think he is). What's more, you also know that changing the honorific "The Right Honourable" to "The War Criminal" in the infobox is a disruptive edit with no legitimate value. Instead of feigning offense, why not read (or re-read) WP:NPOV, WP:Verify, and WP:Reliable sources? -Rrius (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Double election in Illinois?

I noticed you removed the mention of two U.S. Senate elections from Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010, and when I went to United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010 and the mention of the dual election is just gone. Do you know of any sources for the "short" election being cancelled? I hadn't heard anything. (On another note: I think you got attention in Talk:Illinois#Origin of State's Name finally.) --Closeapple (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who first introduced the idea, based on Illinois's statute, that there is supposed to be a special election for the rump of this term. However, there has been no sign from the state or the government that a special election will be called. At this point, acting as though there will be a special election is speculation at best. -Rrius (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion for List of British monarchs by longevity

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of British monarchs by longevity, has been proposed for a move to another title. If you are interested in the move discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2010

--NW (Talk) 22:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what sources you're using; if you've not already seen this interactive map it might help you... [1] Evercat (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been using the BBC site, but the list is far more helpful than the map because of the way the SVG is updated. Thanks, though. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on a job finished and well done. :) Evercat (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Kurykh and Leoadec worked on it, too. -Rrius (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, it'll be a Conservative minority government with Lib-Dems promising not to join Labour in any non-confidence motions. A Labour minority government with Lib-Dems support, would be an extremely difficult sell. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In the latter version, Brown would be seen as clinging (or is that clegging) to power. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What I find weird is that Cameron is seems to be saying he would rather have a coalition than a minority government. The choice for the Liberal Democrats is tough if that's true. On the one hand, there is going to be a tough economic slog for a while, and they may well want to avoid it. On the other, Lib Dems would be better positioned to present themselves as a credible governing party if they've actually helped govern. In any event, my gut say's you're right: Tory minority with, at most, a confidence-and-supply agreement. It's just weird that Cameron is saying he wants more. Is that real or a ploy? I guess only time will tell. -Rrius (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be political suicide for the Lib-Dems to back Labour. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour Party rules

If you go to Talk:Labour Party (UK) you will see that I have quoted the precise rules from the current rulebook which I downloaded this evening from the Labour Party website. If the Leader of the Labour Party resigns, the Deputy Leader becomes Leader on a pro tem basis - not 'Acting Leader', not acting Leader, but full Leader. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"On a pro tem basis" means "acting", not full. Literally, the term means "for the time", which is precisely the meaning of "acting" as used in this sense. -Rrius (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rrius. You have new messages at Tim Parenti's talk page.
Message added 02:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Home Page

User page, whatever, is very nice. May I steal some of its elements? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy to your heart's content. -Rrius (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well...

If you really think that anyone should tolerate your disruptive editing, please explain why at Talk:David Cameron.--Once-An-IP (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive about reverting your unnecessary, possibly POV-pushing, and certainly ungrammatical edit. -Rrius (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Huhne

Well, according to The Guardian at 8:41am, "The Today programme just reported that Chris Huhne will be the new energy and climate secretary." OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 08:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, the prior source just wasn't a real confirmation. -Rrius (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/ WatcherZero (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I already responded at your talk. -Rrius (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Colorado & Illinois Senate races

Are the Colorado & Illinois Senate races special elections? A anon IP user and I have been back-and-forth on 111th United States Congress about this. Please check it out.—Markles 22:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Colorado is for sure; it's statute is explicit. Illinois's appears to say the same thing (and is nearly identical to states that have held short specials), but they don't appear to be doing it. There has been no writ, no discussion of how nominations would happen, nothing. So, I'd have to think at this point that the best thing to do would be to say yes for Colorado and say nothing about Illinois. -Rrius (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The option was discussed earlier, but I think Illinois decided to drop the special election due to cost plus the campaign season would never end. As for a 'two month' special election, it's not on the official list. Flatterworld (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That talk of a special election was something different; they were talking about changing the law to hold an early election to get rid of Burris. Their reason for not doing so had more to do with the fact the Democrats in charge of state government thought they would lose the seat and prominent Black Democrats argued that doing so would be an attack on the state's most senior Black politician. I suspect that they are just misinterpreting the interplay of state and federal law. Specifically, from an AG's opinion I read, I think they mistakenly believe an appointed senator serves until the January 3 after an election. -Rrius (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Illinois House of Representatives elections, 2010

Your method is the same one I was using. Tedious, but I don't know of an alternative, unless someone wants to create a bot. Flatterworld (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a bot would be absurdly tedious to design, so we'll continue on as before. Do you want to take 69 to 93, and I'll take 94 to 118? -Rrius (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this. I'm busy with the UK MPs for now (the External links template, mostly) so whatever you have time for is good. Flatterworld (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiknights

Please be so kind as to peruse [[2]] and share your thoughts if it would be of your willingness to do so. Perhaps there is a common ground. I also live on the shores of the Great Lake known as Michigan in the land that the natives called chi-caw-go. :-)--Buster7 (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC).

Jack Straw

Fine, we can discuss your arrogant assumptions on the talk page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.57.177 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Will your poisonous attitude and manifest lack of willingness to cooperate or acknowledge that your view may not be the only one also be topics for discussion? -Rrius (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

House of Commons of Canada

Please explain how your reversion at 22:05 on 9 May 2010 of House of Commons of Canada improves the article. In particular, do you have a source for the GG representing the Foreign Office rather than the Colonial Office at the time in question? This and the other reverted edits may have been "unnecessary" (as in, technical details) but I believe that they were correct and improved the article. 82.10.111.70 (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I saw the edit backwards (i.e., I mistook what you were changing to for what you were changing it from). Sorry about that; I'll fix it. -Rrius (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate 3RR NOTE

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't reverted 3 times, but thanks anyway. -Rrius (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Rob, don't be an ass. We have both reverted twice (and you did so first and without bothering to read what was written). -Rrius (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Kagan, (talk page)

I have responded to another user, but I had originally intended to respond to your comment (before someone erased it).

During Sotomayor's nomination Senator Leahy states “What she said was, of course one’s life experience shapes who you are, but ultimately and completely — and she used those words, ‘ultimately and completely’ — as a judge you follow the law,” ... Regarding your comment, fitness to serve is one measure of a candidate, alongside being qualified, diversity on the court is often sought, or at the very least, discussed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States --Extrabatteries (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored my edit and will respond to you there. -Rrius (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Labor Party

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Chhe (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any action against him is warranted, and I've responded as such there. -Rrius (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content

Hi! I just reverted the edit you made to Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because you removed content without motivation. Please tell us why, when you remove content. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 08:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard not to find this note irritating. First, how could you possibly know whether I had a motivation. The word you should have used is "unexplained". More importantly, I did try to add an edit summary, but failed. Since you apparently looked at the edit summary, you should have wondered why it contained just the letter "m", it would have made more sense to ask me what the hell I meant instead of reverting me and leaving a note saying I had no motivation. (I mean, seriously, if I had no motivation why did I do it at all? That just makes no sense at all.) -Rrius (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Lova Falk talk 08:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, I'm sure. -Rrius (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to remove <small> tags around <ref>

I have started to discover where User:Miesianiacal has added <small> tags around <ref>. The editor doesn't seems to like this. On one article he statedlong-standing on high-traffic article; please seek consensus to remove so I added a section on Talk:Prime Minister of Canada for that purpose. You have expressed concern about this in the past an thought that your input would be beneficial there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Inline ref tags

Rrius, you say the <small> formatting around inline ref tag code makes the tag itself too small for you; something like this: [1]. In experimenting with a template another user recently started working on, I used 80% size for the inline tag, which resulted in something like this: [2]. The tag is obviously larger while still not pushing upwards the line of text above it. Without getting into any more than that, is the 80% size still too small for you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The first one is small, the second one is positively puny. -Rrius (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm baffled. Just to be clear, this - [3] - is small and this - [4] - is positively tiny? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the fourth one is significantly smaller than the third one. If all I ever had were links that size, I would constantly be missing them and probably stop trying. -Rrius (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm completely at a loss now. I hoped the <font-size:80%> would've been acceptable to you, but, while I see it as bigger, you somehow see it as smaller still than the <small> size. I don't understand at all... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to work right in Firefox, but not in Chrome. -Rrius (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Iain Duncan Smith

"The first since his predecessor, William Hague, which isn't as special." That is not correct, William Hague did lead the Conservatives into an election in 2001, Duncan Smith who became leader after the 2001 election was forced to step down in 2003 way before the 2005 election because his colleagues did not think he was good enough for him to present the party's case to the people. I think you may have gotten confuse with the fact that Hague was the first Conservative leader not to become Prime Minister since Austen Chamberlain rather than the first Conservative leader not to lead the party into an election. The fact that Duncan Smith was not Conservative Party leader at at the time of a general election is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread it; I thought it said "election victory". -Rrius (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Skype

You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. This edit in particular [3] --Rumping (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. The Skype thing was introduced in this edit. My edit merely reverted to it. -Rrius (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough - I did not spot yours[4] was a (self-)revert --Rumping (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Labour Leadership

Here is my source:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/category/inside/

--Matty1019 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoopy frood

  • What is it? (discovered for myself)
  • Have you read Gormenghast?

Kittybrewster ☎ 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A hoopy food is a really together guy (or, I suppose gal) in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I have to admit I hadn't heard of Gormenghast until now. The closest I've read is A Song of Ice and Fire. -Rrius (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2UTPombvgc Kittybrewster ☎ 11:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: TBSDY

(Continuing here per HJ) I think that may be you're problem here. You're looking at a single talkpage comment when most of the other people involved have watched a week of events that eventually led to the user being blocked, resigning his adminship "under a cloud", having his talk page deleted by an arbcom member and retiring. I think you're seeing a single tree, but there's a forest you've apparently missed.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue brought up AN/I was the talk page comment and whether it is a personal attack. That's it. I think others may be missing the tree for the forest. -Rrius (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I figured that you had an excuse, that you didn't have knowledge of the previous events. Now it appears that even knowing there's more to the story you want to cover your ears and pretend you didn't hear it. Fair enough. If you want to keep arguing, feel free. If you want to go beyond editing and take action, you may get that answer as to was it an arbcom action or not.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no question of covering ears. An issue was brought to AN/I, and I spoke up. If the editor who is alleging a personal attack feels that a past arb com action is relevant, it is for him or her to bring it up, not for editors arriving to discuss it to go off and try to find links to a discussion that may or may not be relevant. For the time being, no one has pointed to any particular arb discussion, so I have to assume that it is not necessary to be aware of any to answer the simple question of whether the particular comment in issue was a personal attack. -Rrius (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said the actual arbcom involvement was off-wiki however the notifications of results are here. Wikipedia:BN#Admin_status & User_talk:Newyorkbrad#At_this_time. That is if you are concerned about giving a more informed opinion. Here's the initial event if you have some free time. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Tbsdy_lives.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
None of that answers the question of how this is personal attack. The first discussion you link to only proves what was already so obvious from the revision history it went without saying, namely, that the remark from Newyorkbrad at the top of the page was about all revision history prior to his deletion remark. I'm trying to disengage from this idiocy rather than get further into it, so I don't think I will read the second set. While I think it is wrong both to leave the page protected and to insist on the removal of what amounts to a harmless snit, I don't have the energy to discuss the matter further with a cadre of editors who are emotionally involved from prior experience with him. I would say, in parting, that you still fail to see that if those discussion somehow make the actual comment, which was the only issue at AN/I, a personal attack, they should have been raised there. If they are not, then they are irrelevant and your expectation that others should have read them is a bit much. -Rrius (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
My only expectation is that when people realize they're opining on a subject that they only know a fraction of the story they pause and consider. Remember the point I was trying to make to you. Not was this a personal attack, but was the protection arbcom related and unwise for HJ to restore those edits.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the edits because the rationale was retarded. The editor I had reverted had already reverted on the grounds of personal attack and had been reverted on that score. HJ then reverted with unexplained support for the personal attack theory. I took issue with his conclusion, but asked him to take his opinion to the place where the discussion was taking place. I don't really see where the arbcom comes in to that or where you get that I was urging him to restore anything. -Rrius (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing the categories on Richard Goldstone. I'd accidentally copied and pasted the new text minus the categories. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was something like that, but figured I should show some uncertainty in case I missed something in all that talk page discussion, which I really didn't want to read. -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
No kidding. You didn't miss anything, I can assure you. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand one change you made

In this edit you seem to indicate that David Cameron has made 1 person a life peer, but it's unclear to me who that might mean. To which Prime Minister is the dissolution honours list credited?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a reference to the Dissolution Honours, but to Jonathan Hill, Baron Hill of Oareford, who was created a peer on the 27 and introduced in the House of Lords the same day. -Rrius (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand now. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fed

If you read the reference, the US Federal Reserve System IS PRIVATE AS DEFINED BY THE COURT. I only wanted to get the truth out there that they are privately owned and operated. Just because the prez picks a few people doesn't mean they are in any way public. If you don't want people to have the truth, fine. I won't fight you but at least write something in there that talks about the truth instead of filtering it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javalizard (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the court said, which you would know if you actually bothered to read the case. It is talking about the applicability of the Federal Tort Claims Act and even says that for some other purposes, the Reserve Banks are federal instrumentalities. Even if the case had said the INDIVIDUAL RESERVE BANKS are privately owned, that would not mean the entire Federal Reserve System is. The fact that the president appoints and the Senate confirms does in fact mean that the Board of Governors is a governmental agency. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, so please do yourself a favour and read up on this before continuing. -Rrius (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Members of the Privy Council

Hi Rius, I’ve seen your remarks on the List of Royal Members of the Privy Council. I am not aware of any new members since this list, (are there any?). The only improvement I can think of, is putting in all of their Family trees, which I have. If this is acceptable, do you think I should put each tree in the relevant section, or all at the bottom of the page? Also, do you think I should enhance the trees, (e.g. Anne of Great Britain Family Tree - see version on my User page)? I also have most of their Coats of Arms, should these be included, and where? Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What I removed was the total number of appointments to the Privy Council the Queen has made. It apparently stood at 994 a few years ago, but despite a number of new appointments, the number has not been updated since. With more than twenty appointments about to be made and zero attempts having been made to update since the article's creation, it doesn't seem reasonable to keep a running total for her. It would make more sense to just get a final total when she is no longer the Sovereign. -Rrius (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Supected ban evasion

Rrius - I've finally been provoked enough by that anon IP user who I suspect is the blocked Po' buster/PhiltyBear to file another checkuser into whether or not that individual is using an IP to evade his ban. It's at the same location as the previous two CUs: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PhilthyBear. I know you probably aren't terribly familiar with the situation, but please offer whatever opinion you have. Cheers.

PS- I haven't forgotten about the inline ref tag issue; will address that sometime soon, hopefully. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified the IP yet? -Rrius (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I tagged his talk page, yes. I looked for and didn't see a message left at the Po' buster account talk page when that user was put up for CU, other than the "suspected sock" tag on the user page, but I guess I should leave a more specific note on the anon's talk. Though, I seem to recall that he earlier admitted he never reads anything left at his talk page, anyway. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't help but think GoodDay is right about mandating people sign up. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the infobox parameter thing; I didn't realize. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any mistakes I made with the Bill Halter and Blanche Lincoln articles. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) ‎
No problem. I figured you didn't realize there was a reason the endcap things go on a separate line. -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Senators can take an Oath or Affirmation

Senators can take an Oath or Affirmation and only showing the text for the Oath is misleading All i did was include the options if a person chooses to take an affirmation as opposed to an other which is totally correct, as an affirmation is areligious.I shall now start a wider discussion if one has not already been started.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, what you did was alter the text of a quotation to fit your opinion. The text you keep changing is a quotation. By changing it, you falsely give the impression that the statute includes your words. What's more, while it is probable that those taking the affirmation do not say "So help me God", you have yet to provide a source for that proposition. It is not actually a necessary conclusion as affirmations were created for Quakers, who objected to swearing to God, but would have no problem asking for God's help. Thus, it is wholly inappropriate for you to change the text of the statute, which we are merely repeating, and it would be wrong for you to add a claim that "So help me God" is omitted unless you can provide reliable sources verifying your claim. -Rrius (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hypothetically what about an Atheist or Buddhist American taking their seat they most certianly would not say so help me god and would there for be taking the a religious affirmation as taken in courts. --Lucy-marie (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it is probable that they would not, but Wikipedia operates on verifiable information based on reliable sources. I have made a cursory of Google and of the Senate's website and found nothing helpful. As such, there I see no basis for a claim that "So help me God" is ever excluded. If you find something, that's great, but for the time being we have nothing. Even if you do find something, that won't justify making changes to the text of the oath itself. -Rrius (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't negate the fact that the text cannot just be about the oath it must be both to prevent article bias and to give the full picture of all of what is available.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does. The text needs to reflect what we can establish is true using reliable sources. It is a fact that the exact text quoted in the article is the oath or affirmation required to be taken by senators and representatives. If you cannot find verifiable evidence of how "So help me God" is handled by atheists, you can't discuss it in the article. It is as simple as that. -Rrius (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Harman

Your edit to Harriet Harman, accompanied by the assertion that solicitors and barristers are not separate professions, is simply incorrect. Please do not revert my correction of it, unless you can provide some source material (which you will not be able to) that they are the same profession. You could start your search with the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar. Regards Ironman1104 (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the definitions for "barrister" and "solicitor". While it isn't wrong to call "solicitor" a profession, it is also not wrong to call "lawyer" a profession in regards to England and Wales. England and Wales have a "divided legal profession" (note the use of the singular). I'm not going to revert you again, but you are simply wrong to state categorically that "lawyer" is not a recognised profession. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both of you but prefer Ironman. One qualifies as a solicitor (or barrister) rather than as a lawyer, notwithstanding that one is then (obviously) a lawyer. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
My initial revert was because Ironman's edit summary was factually inaccurate in that he said that "lawyer" is not a profession in E&W. That is clearly wrong, and he persists in that wrong view, but it's not worth the conversation, and the edit itself isn't inaccurate as such, so I'm not reverting. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Kittybrewster is clearly correct (thank you). Rrius equally clearly doesn't know what he is writing about, and it is as well in those circumstances that he has decided to meddle no further. Ironman1104 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are irrational and clearly didn't read what she actually wrote. I would appreciate it instead of being an ass you respected the fact that I don't want to talk about your clearly erroneous belief that there is no such profession as "lawyer" in England and Wales. Whether you do or don't, no further comments from you on this topic will remain on this talk page. Should you attempt to continue discussion, your comments will be removed without comment. -Rrius (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, looking back on the discussion, Ironman completely misrepresented me right off the bat. I said he was wrong to say "lawyer" isn't a profession in the UK, and that is what he took from it. I guess I should have predicted how he would later act. -Rrius (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rrius. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 12:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 12:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Minister for Security

Saw you recent move - actually, quite a few Ministers of State are at Minister of State for X - see Category:Current ministerial offices in the United Kingdom - but not all of them. I moved a few recently using the logic that as we have the Secretaries at Secretary of State for X (except the Home Secretary where "SoS for the Home Department" is totally archaic) we should be consistent and do the same with Ministers of State. Maybe we should open up a discussion at WP:WPUKPOL? ninety:one (reply on my talk) 14:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The name 'Minister for Security' has been used in the media and by the Government, which is also done for Minister for Europe. Specifically, when Downing Street announced the officeholders automatically members of NSC, it named the 'Minister for Security' among. They seem to be used titles in and of themselves, similar to Minister for the Civil Service, rather than as a generic [Rank] for [Portfolio]. It is often clear that the use of 'Minister for' or either 'Minister of State for' or 'Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for' is just a matter of someone at the Department's personal preference, but other times it is not. I think the Minister for Security is one of the latter. -Rrius (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, but I followed the two sources on Minister for Europe and they were a little enlightening: according to the first one, Minister for Europe is normally Minister of State-level, but was downgraded once because they had too many Ministers of State. It's also quite clear from this that both Europe and Security are now actually Minister of State-level posts. All very confusing! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

List of longest reigning British monarchs

In general, Wikipedia articles should be categorized in the most specific descriptive category, so I put this one into subcategory Category:Lists of British monarchs rather than the supercategory Category:British monarchy-related lists, which is much broader and includes heirs, descendants, titles and honours, etc. If you have no objection, I'd like to keep it only in the subcategory, together with the other lists of British monarchs. Goustien (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since your edit summary only said "category", that wasn't clear. That is why my edit summary said "not clear why this category was deleted". -Rrius (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

  • That's the template the script I've been using to grant these rights generates automatically. If you want rollback, all you need to do is ask, I'll happily turn it on for you. Courcelles (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you pop over to flaggedrevs and make an edit so I can flag you? Cheers, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 23:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Done! (I think!) -Rrius (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I've also made you an admin, so that you can test out rollback and revdel in conjunction. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 23:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. It feels weird being an Admin, even in this fakey context. -Rrius (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh, just don't do this, and you'll be fine. (Being a 'crat is weird for me, too!) {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 23:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Yet another reason I've avoided the mop and bucket. -Rrius (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Peerages yet to be gazetted

On a number of occasions I've added a section at the bottom of the page listing the people whose peerages have been announced but not their titles. Perhaps we could do so now? JRawle (Talk) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but I would appreciate if it were done in a way that would preserve the commented-out names more or less as is. If those are converted to a more reader-friendly format, it defeats the purpose of my putting them there in first place, which is to minimize the work that needs to be done once they are ennobled. -Rrius (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

reverting

Please don't edit war over such valueless content that is under discussion on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that it is valueless. Since it is verified by a reliable source and not a BLP issue, it is your responsibility to prove why it should be excluded. -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

IP's disruptive editing

It's clear that IP editor is trying to be disruptive at the Federal Reserve System article. His attempts to game the system are also pretty apparent, but since he's pushing the reversions so far, I figured it best to have consensus made explicit on the talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an overriding consensus that disruptive editing should be stopped. If he isn't the troll that I now have to assume he is, he can come to the talk page and try to convince people that the article should be changed in some way. He simply is not worthy of the bending over backward that you are doing. Give your lumbar region a break and wait to see what he does in 31 hours. -Rrius (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Roger. See ya then! BigK HeX (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, whether it's the talk page or the vandalism war room! -Rrius (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen what's he's doing at his talk page? I don't think he's all there.

Hello

Thank you for all of your hard work on the Recognition of same-sex unions in Illinois page. I hope I wasn't too much of a pain. Would you have any interest in moderating things over at the Mark Kirk page? I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I'm not sure how to handle the situation there. There are a lot of editors who are trying to make good faith contributions, but XJRfoBY is constantly undoing every edit that other editors make, as it appears he is a die-hard Mark Kirk supporter. There are no experienced editors like yourself even paying notice to that page, despite the huge amount activity there given the 2010 Senate Election. Would you consider moderating it or giving guidance? Thanks. --Denovo1 (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm surprised I'm not watching it already, but it is probably because I was so disgusted by the Democratic primary that I don't even want to think about it. Anyway, I'll pop over and have a look. -Rrius (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you have made some great revisions already. Though, it will only be a matter of time before you have a run in with XJRfoBY. I know what you mean about the primaries. I was rooting for Jacob Meister myself, but as I am such big LGBT rights supporter, I'm happy with having Alexi too. Thanks for taking the case! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denovo1 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping for Hoffman, and I think he may actually have won had the election happened in April, when they are supposed to be. Ditto the gubernatorial race; Hynes was far from perfect, but Quinn's been a disaster. If Dillard had won, it would be tempting to vote for him against Quinn—Brady, not so much -Rrius (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}}

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Jimbo question

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Question_about_naming_conventions Kittybrewster ☎ 19:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What have I done to your print size? There are numerous redlinks at Talk:List_of_honorary_British_knights_and_dames/Temp_table_version_draft Kittybrewster ☎ 08:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It was an unclosed div tag from the section above. I will do what I can there, but I've been working on Parliamentary Committees, including adding membership and creating new articles. Helping deal with Gillard taking over in Australia has been a huge distraction today (as was rooting on Team USA from my easy chair). -Rrius (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ text
  2. ^ text
  3. ^ text
  4. ^ text
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrius/Archive_9&oldid=1044478891"