User talk:Rrius/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diane Bellemare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Dutch general election, 2012

Having looked it up to re-confirm, it does appear that 'majority' and 'plurality' do not mean the same thing in non-US English. See here: "In UK constituency elections, which typically feature three or more candidates representing major parties, a plurality is sometimes referred to as a "majority" or a "relative majority" while the terms "overall majority" or "absolute majority" are used to describe the support of more than one half of votes cast." 'Plurality' would therefore be confusing to non-American readers. Perhaps it would be better to include an explanation on the election page of just what exactly is meant by a "plurality". 94.168.219.133 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

File:40th_Can_House.svg

Hi,

I'm wondering how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:40th_Can_House.svg can be modified. What program was originally used I'd like to change the seat colour for the purposes of explaining voting systems. I've opened the file in Inkscape 0.48, but the fill can't be detected or modified by inkscape.

jlam (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


No need, I figured it out. Had to dereference the objects from its original jlam (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Nomination for deletion of Template:Multimoveoptions

Template:Multimoveoptions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

maybe more accurate

Chief_Whip#United_Kingdom rather than plain Chief_Whip? Leaky Caldron 19:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Leaky Caldron 19:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Ward (judge), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Arden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

"Presidency pro tempore"

I'm fine with "office of president pro tempore," but it is actually both grammatically correct and widely accepted to use the phrase "presidency" to refer to an office whose occupant is a "president," even if followed by a modifier such as "pro tempore." Google the phrase "presidency pro tempore" if you'd like. "Ghastly" is an entirely subjective judgment on your part. JTRH (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It is grammatically correct and widely accepted to use the other form, or else there would be no such phrase as "office of president". I'm not sure you can legitimately claim your preference is "widely accepted" since it is so seldom used. "Presidency pro tempore" is so uncommon that, having searched Google as suggested, I found it only comes up 37,300 times and triggers a "did you mean president pro tempore?" By contrast, "office of president pro tempore"—not a phrase you'd expect to see used terribly often—has 693,000 hits. There is no reason to use an unfamiliar twist on a common phrase when the circumstances don't absolutely require it. As for "ghastly" being subjective, all I can say is "no shit". It is my opinion that it is ugly and should be avoided; though I think it is objective fact that it is distracting, which is less than desirable. I'm sure this has been a hugely important exchange of ideas, but was it really necessary to discuss this? If you had no problem with the edit, couldn't you have left well enough alone? -Rrius (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
It didn't say "The office of president pro tempore," it said "The president pro tempore is an office." The president pro tempore is not an office, but a person who holds an office. JTRH (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Even granting that, "presidency pro tempore" turned an awkward construction into an ugly one. -Rrius (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Disagree, but your rephrasing is fine. Peace. JTRH (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Nourse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Territorial Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

Hi Rrius

What exactly is the request here? I'm a little confused. Teammm talk
email 05:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

To delete the redirect to facilitate a move back to that title. Currently, it is impossible to move back to Maryland same-sex marriage referendum, 2012 (the title that is both understandable by readers and inline with the ", YYYY" naming convention). The only way to accomplish the move is for the blocking redirect to be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Question 6 is more recognizable for Maryland's referendum than "Maryland same-sex marriage referendum, 2012" and it has over 4300 views in two days. That's the reason I moved it a while back. It was fine when the referendum was not yet on the ballot but it now has a name that is quite well known. Similar to Washington Referendum 74 (2012). Teammm talk
email 06:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Absurd. "Question 6" could only be recognizable to Maryland voters and people who have obsessed about about SSM. The "Question 6" title violates WP:COMMONNAME and is unintelligible to a general readership. -Rrius (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
As proof, "marriage referendum" maryland gets 2,150,000 hits on Google, but "question 6" maryland gets 200,000. That is a substantial disparity. -Rrius (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Work and Pensions Select Committee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nigel Mills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

DelBene incumbency not yet?

I think it was premature to add Suzan DelBene as the incumbent in Washington's 1st congressional district; she hasn't been sworn in yet, and the election hasn't even been certified. That's why I was careful in the wording yesterday. I don't actually know when the swearing-in will happen. Can you hold on until it actually happens? David Brooks (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the oath or certification, her term started on election day. There is no doubt about the outcome, so certification won't actually matter at all; she will be seated long before it occurs, but the date of seating is irrelevant. Also because there is no doubt, there is no harm in updating the district page. If you feel strongly enough to bother about reverting, you had better use the November 6th date when you add it back because terms for House special elections start on the date of election. -Rrius (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Harriet Harman

Had you bothered to actually look at my edits properly you would seen that my edits were all either grammar and punctuation corrections or improvements. I suggest that you don't make any further false and sarcastic comments in your edit summaries. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I did look, and nothing was actually a correction. You made changes that reflected your stylistic preferences and cleaned up a bit of code, which has fuck all to do with grammar or punctuation. Changing ", who is" to ". She is" did not correct something that was wrong; it enforced your opinion of how strong of break was best between two thoughts. Removal of the comma was an improvement, but not really a correction. The next thing fixed was the way the code looked, but certainly wasn't a punctuation or grammar correction. The last thing you did was add an unnecessary "as", which isn't even close to a correction. So my comment was not false. It also wasn't sarcastic as I meant exactly what I said. If you think it was sarcastic, you may want to open your dictionary. Had I been feeling sarcastic, I would have said, "Nice corrections, that last one was great!" In any event, I suggest you think before you waste the next person's time making false and ignorant accusations. You're welcome. -Rrius (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Development Select Committee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Pritchard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

A bit complicated

Thanks for your helpful edits to Casimir Pulaski. As you can see from that article's edit history and its talk, I am the primary contributor of it, and I am in the slow but steady process of expanding this to GA. As I was doing some maintenance edits on this (standardizing new refs I have added to a LDR format I introduced there months ago and fixing a disambig), another editor whom I encountered just recently, and who strongly dislikes LDR, reverted my edits (ref fixing and disambig both). Then before I had a chance to do anything, you did your date fix edit, which I am assuming is script assisted. I am now in a difficult situation. I wanted to fix another disambig and do a little expansion, but the article refs are into too much mess for me to comfortably edit it without restoring the LDR edit; sadly, SudoGhost who never edited this article before seems ready to revert war with me over the LDR issue. Also, restoring LDR (and my disambig fix) in the easiest way for me would involve reverting your helpful edits. I am really in a bind here, I want to keep improving this article towards GA, but I don't want to revert war on my own GA candidate. Therefore I would like to ask you if you'd be willing to consider the merit of my LDR/disambig fixing edits, and a request from the primary contributor to this article (in the process of GA writing...), and revert yourself, restore my edit, and run your script again? I try to adhere to 1RR, and asking you to revert is difficult for me, but I just don't know what else to do, and either way, your edit makes undoing one's edit difficult - and I don't have the script you used for date fixing, neither. I hope I made my case for why I'd like to ask you to revert there (once only), and that it is not to help me edit war, but to allow me to improve the article towards GA. I apologize for this difficult request, and I'll understand if you chose to not edit this article. If you'd have any other suggestion or advice to offer, I'd be glad to listen to it. PS. Actually, SudoGhost just indicated the willingness to self-revert, but he also doesn't know how to do so without undoing your edits. I'll ask him to comment here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just show me where he said that, and I'll do it all myself. -Rrius (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about it Rrius, since I caused the problem I went ahead and manually fixed it. Feel free to double-check to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I'm pretty sure I was able to manually combine Piotrus's edit with yours without missing anything. - SudoGhost 05:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit is bullshit

Please keep your edit summaries civil. (See this edit.) If you want editors to agree with you, you should be polite. —GoldRingChip 01:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If I had called you a shit, I would apologize, but saying that your position was bullshit is just true. As already pointed out, the dates are subject to change by Congress (and it is fairly routinely done), not something true of other dates, despite what you said. Can Congress change the dates a particular Congress begins or ends on? No. Can it change the date a presidential term begins or ends? No, of course not. I wouldn't have been as pissed by your persistent editing to create the misleading impression that we are reasonably sure the first session will begin on January 3 and the votes will be counted January 6 if you weren't also to act like the near certainty regarding the leadership. Daniel Inouye does not face an election for PPT. There is no doubt Democrats will control the chamber, so the major source of doubt is whether he will be alive when Congress reconvenes. But that exists for all the names listed. Biden in the infobox; Obama and Biden in the "Major events" section; and all those senators, representatives and delegates that you insist on keeping on the page despite guidelines. As for the speaker, the Republicans have the majority and have elected their nominee for speaker, so he is effectively in the same boat as Inouye. Once we do know for sure when the first session will start, it make make sense to give Boehner a parenthetical "to be elected Jan. X), but this "TBD..., likely to be elected" is unnecessarily cluttered and fussy. And in light of treating as certain dates that are clearly tentative (with at least one almost certain to change), it is just weird to insist on treating the near certain PPT and Speaker as though there is a ton of doubt. -Rrius (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Just want to clear something up

"Are we having fun yet?" is the catch phrase of Zippy the Pinhead, very much not for children. It used to be pretty common for coworkers to pose that question during some particularly grueling part of their day. When I asked you that, it was meant as an inside joke, referring to our previous conversation two weeks ago, when I predicted that guys like NatGertler would show up to cause trouble. It was a way of rolling my eyes in commiseration with you. To let you know you're not alone in your frustration. That was the point of the joke, but I guess the line is more esoteric than I realized.

The hair-splitting you are dealing with over there is annoying, but if you can't have a sense of humor about these arguments then they'll just get the better of you. You and I are on the same side of the argument. I absolutely guarantee you he's not going to get his way just because you stop arguing with him. Quite the opposite, in fact. You can laugh about it, and eventually the article will find its stable state regardless of all arguments, or you can rage about it, and eventually the article will find its stable state regardless of all arguments. Since the result is the same either way, and our paychecks are the same either way, then you might as well just work on the things you enjoy. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the line is more esoteric than you thought, I've never heard of it. That doesn't mean a whole lot because my exposure to popular culture is weirdly random. For instance, I didn't see The Princess Bride until 2007 even though every American within five to seven years of my age in either direction saw the movie as child or young adult. I've also never seen that math movie with Donald Duck (or is it Daffy; I don't remember). So I think if I clicked on that link I'd still have no idea what was going on. Anyway, I realize that we are on the same side of the main argument, but not having the context you assumed I did, the "Are you having fun yet?" came across the way I explained—at least after I asked you what point you were trying to make; before that, I was completely baffled. You may as well have said, "The peas are really orange today," for all I understood. As for the rest, I edit at that talk page infrequently, so I don't have a full feeling for who the trolls, malcontents and fellow travelers are. And since Nat was trying to dress his flummery up as something reasonable and someone (Teammm?) was responding as though it was reasonable, there was sort of a last-straw reaction. I say the last straw because at the same time I had one person reverting things at a completely different article based on a surprising lack of understanding of the content and that editor's sense of ownership there (which is what made the knowledge gap surprising), and a third editor pushing a POV at a third and fourth article and disruptively editing during the discussion. All of this was happening at exactly the same time, making my patience level for ill-informed and nonsensical arguments essentially zero. -Rrius (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry for my part in adding to your stress. Hang in there, try to have some fun, and feel free to drop me a line if there's anything you need. Happy Thanksgiving! Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: Proposed political status for Puerto Rico

Hello, Rrius. You have new messages at Talk:Proposed political status for Puerto Rico.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate#New review

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate#New review. …regarding John Kerry's seniority. —GoldRingChip 04:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

US Supreme Court members

Wouldn't ya know. Somebody went & reverted my edits to all the associate justices bio infoboxes. He/she restored the confusing numbering scheme :( GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

British Columbia general election, 2011 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British Columbia general election, 2011. Since you had some involvement with the British Columbia general election, 2011 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 117Avenue (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: Template talk:Infobox officeholder / Telephone, email, and Public Information Officer

Hello, Rrius. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox officeholder.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Seniority in the United States Senate/Sandbox

Hi,

is there any particular reason you created above article in the mainspace ? Travelbird (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Seniority in the United States Senate/Sandbox

Hello Rrius,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Seniority in the United States Senate/Sandbox for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Travelbird (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rrius. You have new messages at Talk:Treasury Select Committee.
Message added 18:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Widefox; talk 18:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I watch the page, so this is unnecessary. -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: 2011 BC election redirect

thought so, thats why i crossed it off. pERHAPS MERGE some content into 2013. Althuough, for future purposes, try creating it as Next general election (like we did for isael (now confirmed in jan 2013))(Lihaas (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)).

My bad to enter that discussion, i too have been involved in international elections outside the anglo-world (havent encountered you before? guess youre in domestic elections). i crossed off my vote, so should be deleted anyhoo.(Lihaas (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)).
Ah, i was there and on the UK for a bit, mbut mostly off the english speaking world.(Lihaas (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)).

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

DeMint and the 113th

Oh, ok. Sorry about that. --Bad Graphics Ghost (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve

Please be careful with personal attacks. The IP user had previously been warned, so was blocked this time. Your comments about the IP can also be viewed as a personal attack. If you feel their behaviour is disruptive, it's better to take those comments to ANI or to RfC rather than attacking the user in the article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack, and there is no "if" or "feel" about IP's being disruptive. It is clear at this point that that person is either ignorant or a troll; saying so is a statement of what is now undeniable fact, not an insult. It has been increasingly clear over the past months, and the mutually exclusive ways the editor has used Friedman on the talk page and in the article lays bare that the editor either doesn't understand the topic or is just trying to cause trouble. If you read what I said on the talk page, rather than homing in on a few words, then you will have also read that the context was asking other editors when it will be time for an RfC. I have never started an RfC/U, and I have no intention of doing it alone. -Rrius (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The statement which crossed the line was in calling the IP "a truly ignorant fool". You can call their edits into question and ask others if it is time to request an RfC without the personal attack. Do not do it again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Except that's not what happened. I said (in the context of how the modern Fed handles our money supply), "Only a troll or truly ignorant fool would say deflation is better than modest inflation and try to base the argument on pre-industrial, gold-based money." That leaves those two possibilities and allows IP to argue that my understanding of his argument is not what he is trying to say. And it did smoke out what he truly believes: that we should be on the gold standard, not that our fiat money supply should be managed like money was when we were on the gold standard. The former is nutty, but the latter is exactly what I said was. Taking the apparent meaning of what IP has said and giving the verdict I did is not a personal attack. It is certainly nothing like the constant disruption and abuse issuing from that IP for months now. -Rrius (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Rationalize it however you wish. If you do it again, I will block you. You can then try to rationalize it to a reviewing admin in an unblock request.
Or, better yet, don't do it again. Then it becomes a non-issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not rationalizing. It's what was actually said rather than what you have decided to take it as saying. It is simply a fact that no reasonably informed person could have made the argument he appeared to be making. And he went on to clarify, in an unambiguously aggressive way, that he wasn't making that argument. So what you are telling me is that you aren't too bothered about whether something is an attack on a person or an argument because having the power means you don't have to care, and you'll leave it to other admins to sort out whether what happened was actually violation of policy or not. Good to know. -Rrius (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Not what I said - unblock requests are reviewed by other admins, who you would then need to convince.
The other person's actions are not relevant - the fact that the other person's edits may or may not have been inappropriate does not excuse your violating policy. You made a personal attack, that's all that matters under policy. If you feel I am abusing my admin authority, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't a personal attack. I attacked the credibility of the argument, not the editor. Blocking someone because you don't like the way they did it rather than because they actually attacked the person is an abuse, regardless of whether there is a backstop. So I am not accusing you of having abused your authority but of threatening to do so. Aside from saying you will think on the comment at issue in light of the actual text of the policy rather, I doubt there is anything I need to hear from you, so I would appreciate it if you left me alone. -Rrius (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Senate Seniority list

Just for the record, you and Travelbird were both a little bit right and a little bit wrong. A page like the one you created for the upcoming senate session's new seniority rankings is certainly permissible in articlespace — but it has to be titled and treated as a full standalone article, not as a subpage with the "/sandbox" suffix in the title. Accordingly, I've moved the article to the new title Seniority in the 113th United States Senate — if the intention is for the information to be merged back into the parent article once the new Congress takes office, then that title can certainly be redirected back to the main one when the time comes, but in the meantime it isn't allowed to sit in articlespace, not even temporarily, with "/sandbox" in its title. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First, the chosen title is nonsensical: there is no such thing as the "113th United States Senate". Second, it was never intended as a live article. It is a sandbox to allow for the massive amount of updating that must occur before the new Congress. It is unsourced, unfinished, and entirely unready for prime time. I don't see where you get the idea that a subpage sandbox can't exist from, it sounds as though you made it up, but if the article space was such an affront to you, why couldn't you have moved it to being a subpage of the talk page? If you want to be helpful, move it back or to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Senate seniority table sandbox. If you don't do it relatively quickly, I'll do by cut-and-paste since you seem to have left the thing unable to be moved back or anywhere else. -Rrius (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead and done a cut and paste move. The history isn't especially important, because once again, it is not an article. On January 3 it will simply be cut from whatever sandbox it is in and pasted over the existing table. So you can either merge the history if you feel the necessity, or just delete the thing. It is an article title that will never be used because, again, it is nonsensical. -Rrius (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Subpages is actually quite explicit that temporary subpages are allowed in non-article namespaces, but that "Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., Example Article/Temp in the main namespace" is a disallowed use of the functionality. Rather, every page in articlespace has to function as a complete article, subject to the same rules as all other complete articles. And if the page was "never intended as a live article", and was "unsourced, unfinished, and entirely unready for prime time", then it should never have been getting linked to from the main article Seniority in the United States Senate, either — regardless of what the intention was, and regardless of whether it was really ready to be seen as such, its presence in mainspace, as an article that was being directly linked from another article in mainspace, meant that it already was a live article that was already in prime time.
Frankly, I don't know where you get the idea that I'm just making up my own quirky little rules, because this is all straight out of standard Wikipedia process. And I'm glad you've found an alternative that works better than what I originally did, but it wasn't my responsibility to be able to read your mind, either. People are allowed to have less extensive knowledge than you do about what constitutes "sensical vs. nonsensical" naming of an article related to the United States Congress — especially given that while I may have somewhat more knowledge of American politics than the average Canadian bear, I'm still a Canadian bear who can hardly be expected to be an expert on how sessions of the US Senate are or aren't ordinated. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
First few sentences noted.
It certainly should never have been linked to. And I have trouble seeing how mind-reading is required to understand "sandbox" (I suppose you must think I linked it, but I was not aware that bit of idiocy had been done). As for coming up with a rational title, knowing that you are "still a Canadian bear who can hardly be expected to be an expert", wouldn't it have been more logical to go to the main article's talk page than just blunder in then leave a note here? No attempt to read minds is necessary when you just go to the page and ask.
In any event, will you clean up the trail of pointless pages? It's up to you whether to undo the cut-and-paste and merge history, but the old pages need to be deleted in either event. -Rrius (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Deletions done. For the record, though, you'd actually be surprised just how often people move sandbox pages into articlespace with the intention that the page is now a completed live article, but forget to actually remove the "/sandbox" suffix in the process — so the fact that "sandbox" is present in a title doesn't imply anything about the actual intention or the "correct" solution. If a page shows up on the uncategorized articles list as this one did, then my job while working with that list is to get it off the list as close to "immediately" as possible, not to leave it lingering there while waiting for clarification that may or may not actually come for several days. I made a simple judgement call, and it wasn't the right one — but that was quite easily fixed. Whether or not my initial replacement title for the page was the best possible choice is a secondary issue, because a page can be always moved again — getting a page out of the untagged uncats queue in the first place is much more important than how many steps it takes to get it to the best final destination. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Seniority in the 113th United States Senate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seniority in the 113th United States Senate 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/Seniority in the 113th United States Senate 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. —GoldRingChip 16:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

United States v. Windsor - Clarification BBC newsreport US Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage cases

Thank you for your explanation why the 2012-12-07 BBC newsreport US Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage cases is wrong regarding the Supreme Court options in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 December 2012‎ (UTC)

The word "you"

I find your comments at Talk:Treasury Select Committee to be a personal attack. I'm not sure how wise it is of you to use words like "shit" and "bloody", let alone the long rants. Please stop. Widefox; talk 11:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack? Where? And I don't particularly care whether you like naughty words. I said "MOS:Tables doesn't say shit about citation formats" and "what is so bloody difficult about...". A personal attack is an attack on you, not the use of words you don't like or pointing out that you don't understand the guidelines and templates you are attempting to use.
The only long contribution I made was long of necessity because you threw out so many templates and links. And your position on whether it is "wise" to make long contributions is frankly irrelevant to me. But I hope you are happy to have gotten that opinion off your chest.
And my last contribution isn't long, let alone a rant. But again, I'm glad you've had the chance to come here and make pointless complaints; I hope you feel better for having done it. Anyway, my contribution was far from a rant. It contained an explanation and an offer. I've told you I'll make the changes to all select committee articles once the current Parliament is dissolved (expected around April 2015). That will mean adding a few keystrokes to an already necessary edit at each article instead of a hundred or more changes all at once.
If you have a response to that offer, I'm glad to hear it. If you want to make those hundred or so changes yourself, have fun. If you just want to complain about something, I hope your above contribution will suffice. If not, I have no interest in hearing from you at all. -Rrius (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
For starters, opening with "Actually, you are quite wrong.", and "What you seem unable to understand, though I can't see how," in total using "you" 57 times when talking about a couple of references - WP:AVOIDYOU. Widefox; talk 03:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
None of that was an attack. I told you exactly the terms under which I was willing to continue this conversation. Instead of talking about the article, all you want to do is complain about the second-person pronoun. Don't bother responding because I will delete your contributions without responding. -Rrius (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Prince Charles

Really? Didn't know. William was "William of Walles" until his wedding. Sorry.--Minerva97 (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Senate committee chairs

The Democratic Caucus this afternoon "ratified" Mikulski as Chair of Appropriations. The committee has issued a press release stating that she "is" (not "will be") its first woman chair. Does her becoming chair require further action by the Senate, or does being selected by the party caucus suffice? I don't remember ever seeing a formal election on the floor, or a formal resolution being passed, making someone Majority Leader. JTRH (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Senate has to pass a resolution. For example, when Ted Kennedy died, that opened up the HELP Committee. Harkin took it over, leaving Blanche Lincoln to take Agriculture. S.Res 257 was necessary to effect the change. What the Democratic Caucus did was authorize/order the leadership to propose a similar order for Mikulski and the Appropriations Committee. -Rrius (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Original research

How do we cite some claims without using original research? —GoldRingChip 14:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What is this about? -Rrius (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, now I see what you're talking about. Claims can be OR, but not citations. -Rrius (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

John Griffith Williams

Hello. I moved Griffith Williams (Judge) to John Griffith Williams and made minor corrections. In doing so I think I have also messed up some of the persondata you inserted. My limited skills don't extend to correcting this without rv the whole thing, and re-editing, which I don't want to do. Sorry! Ironman1104 (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Brian Schatz

Why is Schatz's seniority dated December 27, 2012? Shouldn't it be his appointment date, December 26?—GoldRingChip 04:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you mean. I've been cagey about the date everywhere but 112th United States Congress, where I thought the "installation" date was supposed to mean oath. If I remembered that wrong, then it should be changed, but we may need to get proof of what is probably the case (i.e., that the certificate of appointment is dated December 26). -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
There's also the consideration that the Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii is prohibited from holding "other paid positions" (such as being a Senator). Thus, much like the case of Kristen Gillibrand a few years ago, despite being appointed on one day, they couldn't take their Senate seat until they resigned the other office. Brian Schatz's page currently says he resigned as Lt Governor on December 27, so their seems to be some confusion about that too. Also, the official Senate website has not yet listed him as being a Senator yet.Canuck89 (converse with me) 09:41, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Gillibrand was constitutionally prohibited from being a member of both houses at once. State law does not control qualification for federal office, so the state law should be of no consequence as far as the Senate is concerned. The lack of an update is wholly unpersuasive. -Rrius (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
State law controls whether he can simultaneously be Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii while holding any other office, state or federal. JTRH (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
What should his page say? I'm honestly fine with either Dec 26 or Dec 27, as long as it's consistent across every page. Should his article say the 26th then? Canuck89 (what's up?) 09:49, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, we shouldn't be quick to state either is the case. For all we know, the certificate of appointment is being signed today (the 27th) and faxed to DC. As for the resignation, there isn't actually a ref for that date; it looks like someone just assumed that since he is being sworn in tomorrow, that's when he becomes a senator, so that's also when he'll stop being lt. gov. -Rrius (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess we'll find out the dates soon enough for both offices. Canuck89 (have words with me) 09:59, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it may be some time before we get a final answer. At some point the Senate Historical Office's seniority list will be updated, but if it shows the 27th, they'll have to be questioned because they often get that wrong. -Rrius (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, now it looks like User:Therequiembellishere is using the Senate website to go and switch the dates of appointed senators from the day of their appointment to the date of their swearing in. What do you think of this? Canuck89 (chat with me) 06:29, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether you like it or not, the Senate's own page currently lists the 27th. Since they are the authority on their own rules, until they make a change, the article should list the 27th. Schatz Dates Revmqo (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The Senate Historical Office, who prepares those lists, is not necessarily expert on the rules, and we have found them to have been mistaken time and time again. The law, the Senate's past practice, and a document prepared by the Secretary of the Senate about this exact topic all contradict what the SHO researchers have done. -Rrius (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You are probably right, Rrius, but that would amount to WP:OR. We go by other people's research, not our own.—GoldRingChip 14:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Rrius, why not e-mail the Senate and ask them to confirm or clarify the date? Unless there is another creditable source that outweighs the Senate's own website, then the date is the date. Also, the article you are talking about does not address this particular situation. It refers to three cases, and the only one that comes close refers to a issue with Strom Thurmond, but the details are not the same. And the article is about pay, not actual tenure in office.Revmqo (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
@GCR: Except a report from the Secretary of the Senate is not OR. @Revmqo: E-mail already sent. -Rrius (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
If the report has the info, then cite it and we're all set.—GoldRingChip 00:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I already used it at Schatz, and it was deleted. I'm not going to worry about this now becasue I am on vacation. -Rrius (talk)

December 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Gage (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added the refs, so if you consider that edit warring (especially when you are the other "warring" party), there is a huge problem with what you're doing. -Rrius (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
No references were added when this message was posted. Gage (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I was correcting the information and assembling the references to back it up. There was no call for your rapid-fire reversion based on ignorance (despite my noting the main source in an edit summary) and an irrational reliance on a supposed source that said nothing about his becoming a senator on the 27. -Rrius (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and noting that I'd added the refs was an allusion to the fact that I had edited again after the warning. I thought that was self-evident, but silly me. -Rrius (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm and browbeating doesn't help the situation either. Next time don't remove information if you're still "assembling" references. Gage (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
What you seem to be forgetting is that the the 27th was never reffed. I initially tried to simply remove the date but you decided to jump in and "browbeat" based on your false belief that you knew what you were talking about. And sarcasm was not entirely absent from your contributions either. In other words, pot, quit calling me black. -Rrius (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrius/Archive_17&oldid=1143275326"