Jump to content

User talk:Rrius/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Australian English

Once again you have demonstrated your ignorance of Australian English. Positions such as prime minister are not treated as "titles" in formal Australian English - unlike in American English. Please cease imposing American English conventions on Australia-related articles. Afterwriting (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a total load of nonsense and I defy you to point me to anything even resembling a reliable source that backs your contention that unlike every other form of English, Australian English does not consider the name of an office to be a title and doesn't capitalise it before a name. This is just an attempt at bullying that bears no relation to reality and will not stand up to scrutiny from other Australian editors. -Rrius (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It is also a flagrant breach by Afterwriting of WP:NPA. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
If you mean "I call bullshit", that was me. It's an Americanism meaning "I call your bluff". -Rrius (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't. I was referring to accusations of ignorance. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
That was what I thought at first, but then I remembered my edit summary and wanted to make sure no one was being falsely accused. Anyway, what an absurd contention that it isn't a title in AusEng. Does he know what a title is? And if that were really the case, why did his edit summaries to that point say it was about "encyclopedia style"? -Rrius (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Prime Minister of Australia

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of three hours, for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I've blocked you and another editor for edit-warring at Prime Minister of Australia. Given that you were both discussing the matter on the talk page I'm all the more disappointed that you both found it necessary to edit-war. In future I hope you will both seek assistance sooner. TFOWR 13:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the discussion happened second. I didn't realize I'd revered a third time, but whatever. -Rrius (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do have to admit that this feels punitive as it comes 50 minutes after the edits and after discussion was well under way. So, on top of that, it gets in the way of dispute resolution, doesn't it? -Rrius (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw more than four edits of a similar nature, by both editors, and with the most recent edits being in the past hour. That said, I acknowledge that the blocks were to protect the article from disruption (I arrived at the article by way of WP:RFPP), and if you're prepared to commit to discussion (i.e. no further reverts until there's consensus) I'd be happy to unblock-with-apologies. TFOWR 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
My last edit at the article was at 12:12 UTC; the block occurred at 13:01 UTC. I do so commit and was actively engaged in the discussion at the time of the block. -Rrius (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
On that basis I have unblocked, and apologise for being a little too hasty. TFOWR 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I still can't edit. -Rrius (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It says I'm not directly blocked so my IP is. -Rrius (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh, and I was preparing an {{unblock}}, but your edit conflicted with it. Since it made it moot, I discarded it, but in it I did say I am sorry about the fourth edit. I genuinely believed I hadn't gotten that high, probably because I was incensed at Afterwriting's essentially dismissing me as a pushy American trying to impose the American way on everyone else when I make it a point of pride not to bring Americanisms to articles that aren't Ameri-centric. -Rrius (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The only editor who should be blocked is Afterwriting for being uncivil to Rrius and AussieLegend. Good to see you have been unblocked. :) Bidgee (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Will someone who's watching this page ask TFWOR to drop in here again? -Rrius (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC) User:Rrius was also warring with me at another article. You came across as angry, I hope your block has calmed you down and allowed you to take a step back. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It was Afterwing who was making me angry (see his opening salvo above), but please don't start up with condescending commentary. As you can see above, I've been unblocked (or at least promised to be unblocked) with apologies. -Rrius (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You appear unblocked? Give it a minute or two, and if there are still problems I'll run to WP:VPT for help. Incidentally, I've offered to unblock the other editor if they commit to the same conditions (no further reverts, continue discussion). Bidgee, WP:WQA is a good port-of-call, if editors are concerned. I didn't block on WP:CIVIL grounds, and didn't even look at those issues. Off2riorob, WP:ANEW is thataway... TFOWR 13:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It says I'm Autoblocked. -Rrius (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Aye, seeing it too. I had ignored the checked "IP Block also" option when I initially blocked, and can't see an easy way to lift the IP block. One option I can see is to assign you to the "IP block exempt" group, another is to reblock-and-immediately-unblock. I'm going to yell for help at WP:VPT; apologies for this. TFOWR 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I"m hoping for anything but the sham block, because the one is mortifying enough. -Rrius (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Posted at ANI - figured that way we'll get the most attention, this could do with being fixed sooner rather than later, and it won't hurt to have people review my actions, either. TFOWR 13:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It's done. Thank you very much for getting it resolved. -Rrius (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN and the Australian

OK, thanks. I was basing my changes on both ITN and The Australian, both of which seem to have jumped the gun. I didn't catch the retraction. Thanks for the correction. DaysOfFuturePassed (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, No Problem

Sorry, I tried making the page more understandable and have a greater apperance. Thanks

RE: Prime_Minister_of_Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygopat (talk • contribs) 07:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You were trying to replace the correct infobox with an incorrect one, despite several people telling you it was the wrong one. What you would have done would not have improved appearance one whit, but would have cluttered the infobox with information that was only pertinent to Gillard and has nothing to do with the office of Prime Minister of Australia. -Rrius (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Positive law (United States Code)

I've disagreed with your AfD nomination of Positive law (United States Code). As I indicated at the AfD, the article strikes me as a relatively straightforward presentation of the distinction between the positive-law and non-positive-law titles of the Code. I can add a few additional references and probably improve some of the wording, but I don't see any basis for deletion.

On re-reading your nomination after posting my own comment, I think you may have been thrown by the article's use of the words "restricted sense". This is ironic, because I think those words were included to prevent the misinterpretation that the distinction between positive-law and non-positive-law titles is more important than it is, i.e. to say that it is only in a very limited fashion that a noncodified title does not constitute "positive law." I'd welcome your further thoughts, here or at the AfD. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the distinction is a result of having been spun out of positive law, which discusses the strict sense of enacted law versus a more philosophical range of uses. Regardless, the article proclaims that there is a particular meaning of "positive law" that arises in the context of the United States Code; that's just wrong. To the extent it is a "relatively straightforward" explanation, it is unnecessary as this is already explained at United States Code. What's more the explanation there is actually clear. -Rrius (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Mostly responded to on the AfD. But there is a specific sense in which "positive law" is a technical term that relates to the U.S. Code specifically, and refers to the enacted as opposed to unenacted titles. Links (which could be references): this official legislative drafting manual, sec. 342; this manual; this Federal Judicial Center report, and I could add others. I don't know of any other major body of legislation that has the same distinction as the U.S. Code makes between enacted/positive and unenacted/non-positive titles, so in that sense I do think we have a concept specific to the Code, though I'm open to being educated on that front. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it is not a different technical term. All law enacted by Congress is positive law. Some of the US Code is merely a restatement of positive law passed by Congress, and some has been specifically re-passed by an act of Congress. Those titles supplant what they used to restate and thereby become positive law. It is simply wrong to say to say that this is some special usage of "positive law"; it is the normal legal usage of the term being used to describe whether a given title has been enacted as positive law or not. The reason you can't think of any other "bodies of legislation" that are partially positive law and partially not is because it is highly unusual, if not unique, to have a single codification, part of which is positive law and part of which is not. That does not mean that the term is being used any differently than it is with any other law. -Rrius (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Australian PMs

Wowsers, I'm behind the times. I just discovered today, that Rudd was replaced. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I stumbled upon the story as it was developing. They are pretty ruthless there, aren't they? -Rrius (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
They sure are, he only lasted 2.5 years. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Lightmouse script

(1) Assuming that you are now using the new skin... Open/Create your vector.js page, by clicking on this link.

  • Alternatively, you can go to your user page, then append '/vector.js' to the end of the URL.
If you are still using the old skin, open/create your monobook.js page, by clicking on this link.

(2) Copy the following command onto your vector.js or monobook.js page: 

        importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Inouye Thanks

Thanks for helping keep the pro tempore speculation out of the article. I was getting close to 3RR and just got tired of reverting.DCmacnut<> 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Robert Byrd

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Senators

Can you please let it lie for a while instead of just deleting it?—Markles 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing the links from red to blue will not make it any less cluttered and ugly. If you find a better place to put the information in the table (perhaps by linking the term or putting next to the term), do so. As is, it looks terrible. -Rrius (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made this change already for a couple of states, without any complaints: Hawaii, Alaska, Mass, NY, maybe another. How about a discussion for consensus at WP:USC? Until then, can you please restore all that information I put there? Under the terms of WP:BB, I think it's appropriate to leave it there until a compelling reason comes along to remove it. The "term" column, for example, is used by several other states.—Markles 19:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
First, I didn't remove the term column, so that's irrelevant. Second, under WP:BRD, I think it is appropriate for it to stay out until consensus develops to include it. Third, I didn't see it added at the other places, which could be because of high activity at other pages I've watchlisted or because of the timing of when you did it. Regardless, I would have objected to it there. Finally, I'm happy to have the discussion wherever you like. I almost started one at the list, but decided hardly anyone watches it so it would be pointless. Before I thought more about where to go, I got distracted by list of life peerages (1997–present). -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, we'll leave it your way. Sorry I jumped the gun on the "Terms" column, it must have been hard for you to take the rest of that stuff out selectively - I thought (without my actually checking carefully) that you'd just reverted. Sorry again. Is it possible it looks good on my browser/OS/PC/skin, but looks terrible on other peoples? Here are the others- some have more information than others: List of United States Senators from Hawaii, List of United States Senators from Alaska, List of United States Senators from Arizona, List of United States Senators from West Virginia, List of United States Senators from Massachusetts, List of United States Senators from New York, List of United States Senators from New Jersey23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Illinois elections

I created Illinois Senate elections, 2010 yesterday, and changed the intro to match your change to Illinois House of Representatives elections, 2010 (I imagine the original phrase from taken straight from the Illinois Board of Elections site). I also created Illinois elections, 2010. I included the same table in both that and Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010, as there aren't a lot of other states with coverage of all the elections which I could view for comparison and/or precedent. If you have any thoughts on any of this, let me know. Flatterworld (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm guessing it'll be a week or so before I get back to this project. -Rrius (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I finished the list of incumbents and candidates in Illinois House of Representatives elections, 2010. A few incumbents have Status as 'xx' as I don't know if they retired or something else happened, as they aren't running. If you can chase those down when you have time, that would be good. Do you have any idea which races are expected to be at all close? Flatterworld (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I added links to Judgepedia and Ballotpedia to Illinois elections, 2010 (judicial positions and ballot measures, respectively). I only mention it as those might be useful links for other states. Flatterworld (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bennet's religion

Senator Bennett does not claim to be Jewish, so leave my changes as they are, do you understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.231.68 (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

MPs: Foo politicians

Hi Rrius

Just a quick note to say that I was pleased to see you reverting the edits such as this by an anon IP which changed [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour politician]] [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] politician and [[Member of Parliament]] (MP) to [[Member of Parliament]].

I had been adding making the same changes as you did whenever I encountered them, but until your edit summaries came up on my watchlist I hadn't spotted that someone was at working undoing them. I am currently doing an AWB run to apply these (and other) fixes to other MP articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're running AWB to correct it. I decided against it because the reversions were a higher priority for me than the other articles, and the IP didn't have that many edits. Also, they weren't uniform enough to prevent manual editing much of the time editing. I figured at some point I'd go through with AWB and pick up the rest, but then I saw your edit summaries popping up in my Watchlist, so I really I should have been the one dropping a note at your page! Anyway, I love when people decide we absolute must have uniformity (why is never quite clear), so they have to infect articles with incorrect decisions made elsewhere. -Rrius (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking other editors, I was attacking you Rrius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.120.11 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I am not you, you were. Instead of childishly calling people "absolute cunts" and leaving idiotic messages such as the one you just did, why don't you try being constructive? -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

BC vs CE at Canada

I have never heard that criticism of CE before, I love it, well done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ministerpräsident

Voting has started here. Kingjeff (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Second round of voting has started. Kingjeff (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

George Bush's poodle

I just assumed that it was a editor American because former US leaders still have the right to the title, and yes some people out there are not very good (even with the basics) when it comes to politics!Likelife (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm yes Gordon din't have no energy and when he did, there was allegations for abuse...I was surprised when the BBC went to China and random people knew who Gordon actually was. If din't think Americans would really care if Gordon left, most of the British people din't Likelife (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes British politics to have some dramas like the expenses on stupid things like duck houses and porn films, things like Blair saying 'yes sir' to Bush like a school child, John Prescott fighting and BNP leader getting eggs over him, to be honest I don't blame you following our politics. I cant say much on the US politics, I don't hear much on them. Likelife (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: UK constituencies move

Hey Rrius. I gave out a slight "D'oh!" when I realised that I'd forgotten the Scottish boundary changes prior to 2005...Thanks for the revert...doktorb wordsdeeds 10:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No prob. When I saw it, I assumed the a newbie had done it, but afterwards I saw it was you and was surprised you wouldn't know that. Now all makes sense. God knows I'd forget my head if it weren't attached, so I totally understand. -Rrius (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Installed

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Installed. —Markles 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

De-linking elections in infobox

Re these edits: 1, 2, and several others.

Why did you remove the linking of the dates to the elections? It's an entirely relevant link, I'm not aware of any policy or guideline deprecating this, and it 's a different issue to he deprecated linking of dates to an article on the day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is overlinking. There are already at least two links the relevant general elections on the article pages, and the reason for linking the date will not be immediately clear to the reader. The links are completely superfluous, and look odd when no other dates in the infoboxes are linked. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me to fit with WP:OVERLINK, which deprecates linking of common terms.
There are also two other links to the constituency and at least one to the party, but we rightly link those in the infobox, because the infobox is intended to be used as a quick summary, and which offers links to key related articles. The elections which placed an MP in office are fairly key events in their career. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Overlink also deals with redundant links. There is a significant difference between linking to the constituencies and the elections: with the former, the display text is obviously connected to the link; in the latter it is not. Of course they are relevant to the careers of the politicians, but they are already linked in far more obvious ways. Don't you think it odd that no other infoboxes do what you made these do? There are thousands of politician articles around Wikipedia, and the only ones with linked dates are ones with autoformatting that haven't been changed yet and the ones you recently edited. Frankly, I'm perturbed that you weren't upfront about linking instead of tacking it on to other edits and not mentioning it in your edit summary. -Rrius (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Rrius, I don't see any conceptual difference between linking [[election name|yyyy]] links in a succession box and linking the election dates in an infobox as [[election name|dd month yyyy]]. Those-posts held sections of an infobox are nearly identical on structure and content to a succession box: post held, predecessor+successor, when took/left office. The only differences are in layout and in the inclusion of full dates rather than just years, but otherwise those sections of infoboxes serve the same function, to the extent that succession boxes are often removed if the same info is duplicated in an infobox. Do you disapprove of the election-year links in a succession box? And if not, what's the difft issue raised by the same data structure in an infobox? Why is one overlinking and the other not?
I certainly didn't intend to do anything sneaky, and the reason I didn't mention it explicitly in edit summaries was that I thought it was uncontroversial. Apparently not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. —Markles 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

War infobox

I've started a discussion about this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#War infoboxes. Please add your opinions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Per this edit summary, try looking at the line I was refering to, the one under which "Leaders and Commanders" rests. Prime ministers are being listed as commanders, which is simply wrong. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, it does say "Leaders and Commanders". More to the point, it is a pointless triumph of form over substance to pretend that the kings of those countries directed their militaries rather than ministers. -Rrius (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Username

Hi. Thanks for answering my question about that username. I replied here. If you think it's necessary you can answer at my talk page (or here). The user doesn't seem to be interested on this conversation and I will respect that. Regards.--TeleS (T PT @ C G) 09:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010


Mediation request: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010

Hi,
User:Linuxrocks123 mentioned your name in a request for mediation. However, as far as I can tell, mediation has not been discussed on the article talkpage. In case you weren't aware, the mediation cabal page is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. Would you like to try dealing with the disagreement through mediation? If involved parties don't want to use the mediation cabal, I will close the case. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, either way.
Thanks,
bobrayner (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Hi Rrius

Rrius, I'm sorry I gave the impression I was calling your argument "stupid". See my latest note on "Australian federal election, 2010" - Talk page.

Regards - Cablehorn (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price talk 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Rrius, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Rrius/Sandbox/Sandbox 2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious assertions

You should stop weakly asserting this and you are experienced to know how to ask for a RFC, I dispute it and he doesn't fit the cat according to the comments I have presented tart the talk page, please take a step back from your repeated insertions and open more disputation resolutions, thanks. Off2riorob (talk)

I am not weakly asserting anything. You are requiring a higher level of proof than logic or the Project require, as usual. I have no idea why you think it is incumbent on me to start an RfC; if you want one, do it yourself. You should "take a step back" and reflect that on the fact that if A = B and B = C, then A = C. Ed Miliband doesn't believe in God and not believing in God makes you an atheist, so Ed Miliband is an atheist. I see no reason why I and others should have to "step back" from what is obvious just because you refuse to follow simple and manifest logic. Finally, it is "dispute resolution", not "disputation resolutions". -Rrius (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Anne Widdecombe

First, why assume that an edit marked as minor has been done so to deliberately mislead other editors, and not as a simple slip? Second, why do you feel the need to tell someone what they must do when two editors have disagreed with a minor addition. Third, why is being on SCD not as "terribly important" as any other media appearance? And fourth, why is your assessment of Bruno Tonioli's "humour" any more valid than mine? I'm sorry to say that I found the tone in your edit summaries rather patronising and rude. And when does the quotation of an insult become an insult? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Not even sure". Oh well, forget it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. I didn't assume it was deliberately misleading. I told you it is misleading. If you read WP:Edit summaries, you'll see that an edit should not be marked as minor when you know someone might disagree with it, which is clearly the case when you are restoring a reverted edit. You simply decided that I was accusing you of deliberate dishonesty, which is your problem, not mine.
  2. I felt the need because two editors had told you that the television show was being covered in too much detail. You clearly lack perspective on the matter, and noting that fact seemed appropriate. I should have thought my reason for "feeling the need" was obvious, but I hope this helps you.
  3. Anne Widdecombe was an MP, a Government minister, and is associated with politics. Her forays into entertainment television are interesting enough to be noted, but not important enough to knowing who she is that we have to include a dance-by-dance recounting of how terrible she is. A summary is more than sufficient.
  4. If you think Bruno's joke was hilarious, that is your business, but is not so funny, or so significant, that it simply has to be in her article. Again, her Strictly Come Dancing appearance is not a major part of why she is notable. If you think the information is so vital for Wikipedia to record somewhere, I'd suggest making sure it is in the article about the television show.
  5. I have two responses regarding how you took my edit summaries. First, I'm sorry to say edit summaries offer very little space for expressing yourself, so I tend to be curt. Second, and more importantly, I'm sorry to say I really don't care. My edit summaries were patronising and rude? Perhaps after adding the same trivial information three times, you needed some patronising rudeness. In any event, how you take things is entirely your concern, and if you've chosen to take my edit summaries as something to vent your frustrations over, I'm happy to have obliged.
  6. Your proposal on the talk page is simply unclear. I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm not going to go back through the edit summaries to figure it out. Currently, your proposal looks like an offer to add fluff, and if you don't clarify yourself, you will find it impossible to get consensus. Far better would be to write your proposed text on the talk page and invite comment. I hope you find that advice helpful, but I fear you may find it patronising and rude. -Rrius (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, you don't really care. No, I don't think anybody "needs some patronising rudeness". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You may at least be correct to the extent that patronising rudeness was not quite the prescription for you because it surely hasn't cured you. Indeed, since you are still marking substantive edits as minor, you may just be incurable. Well, in any event, I had hoped that giving you lengthy responses would at least satisfy you enough to leave me alone, but that appears to have been a misjudgement as well. I will be more blunt: unless you have something substantive to say, rather than something merely insulting or provocative, any contribution here by you will be deleted with an edit summary such as "deleting as discussed". -Rrius (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrius/Archive_10&oldid=1139292331"