User talk:Rrius

Welcome to my talk page.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page unless you tell me otherwise. You may want to Watch this page until you are responded to. If I placed a comment on your page, I have added it to my watchlist, so please reply there. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Finally, don't forget to assume good faith; I make a lot of mistakes.

Archives

Sept. 2007 to Sept. 2008 Sept. to Dec. 2008 Jan. to Feb. 2009 Feb. to Aug. 2009 Aug. to Oct. 2009 Oct. to Dec. 2009 Jan. to Feb. 2010 Feb. to May 2010 May to Jun. 2010 Jun. to Oct. 2010 Oct. to Dec. 2010 Jan. to May 2011 May to Oct. 2011 Oct. to Dec. 2011 Jan. to May 2012 May to Sept. 2012 Sept. to Dec. 2012 Jan. to Mar. 2013 Mar. to Sept. 2013 Sept. to Dec. 2013 Jan. to Dec. 2014 Jan. to Dec. 2015 Jan. 2016 to Mar. 2018 Mar. 2018 to Dec. 2020 Dec. 2020 to present Index

Thank you

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

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

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

Table standardization for federal courts

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

Barnstars

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

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

Metra origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikify & orphan baronets

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

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

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

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

Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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)