User talk:Rrius: Difference between revisions
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 7d) to User talk:Rrius/Archive 18. |
MINNESOTA |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0479 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0479 --> |
||
== 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. -[[User:Rrius|Rrius]] ([[User talk: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. |
|||
[[User:Samesexmarriage101|Samesexmarriage101]] ([[User talk:Samesexmarriage101|talk]]) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:27, 12 March 2013
![]() | Things I can do to help WikiProject U.S. Congressedit list
|
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to a viewer (other than GoldRingChip) then I see no justification in reverting it back to a page of broken links and outdated information (as assembled by GoldRingChip).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
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
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
- News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm
- Featured content: Slow week for featured content
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations
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)