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

Page Revert

Prior to inserting yourself in a dilemna between myself and GoldRingChip, you may want to review the actual changes which I had made. If the changes are to the benefit to a viewer (other than GoldRingChip) then I see no justification in reverting it back to a page of broken links and outdated information (as assembled by GoldRingChip). In addition, my argument with GoldRingChip has absolutely nothing to do with content, rather it has to do with format. He is very stubborn in asserting that elections be listed in reverse chronological order (oldest to newest). This is not the format utilized by anyone, other than GoldRingChip (and he is unwilling to compromise on my revisions to his flawed methodology). In fact, I sought to compromise with him on several occassions on our disagreements and he was unwilling to give an inch, even after I gave him a yard. Instead he references Wikipedia rules which do not exist (other than in his own creation). It is obvious that GoldRingChip wants to have exclusive authority on the content AND format of any page dealing with congressional districts, even if it is outdated and/or inaccurate. I have no problem in working with him and taking his advise, but he has been very irrational and arrogrant up to this point. Therefore, prior to doing future reverts I would request that you consider that my edits (aka: improvements/updates) have done no harm. In fact, they have done much good. The same cannot be said for GoldRingChip's lack of contribution and cooperation up to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 February 2013‎

Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosPn (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

• Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors

• News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm

• Featured content: Slow week for featured content

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota

The bills are separate. If the House passes its bill, it will send it to the Senate. If the Senate passes its bill, it will send it to the House. In that situation, your edit would make it look like the legislature had passed a bill and had sent it to the Governor; a falsehood. Leave them separate until it is clear which bill will actually be the vehicle. -Rrius (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The bills are the SAME. The house bill and senate bill they are same exact bill so it doesn't matter when becomes the vehicle because is the same bill and the same topic. Its the same piece of legislation. A bill does get passed in both chambers and it gets send the Governor; thats how it works my friend. Its the same piece of legislation and the same topic, in the same state, in the same session. It doesn't matter where it starts or beginning because its the same BILL. Your post makes it look like they are dueling bills. Your post makes it look like theres two bills that are different. Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)