User talk:Rrius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Fianna Fáil. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dppowell (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did leave a note in the edit summary. The text I deleted was not a complete thought, so I deleted it. As such, I have now re-deleted it. -Rrius (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism tag was accidental--a function of the editing script I use. There are several varieties of "rollback" next to each other on a line, and I accidentally clicked the one which tags the rollback as a vandalism revert. Once you click it, there's no going back. I apologize. You'll note that I didn't use a "vandalism" warning template on your talk page.
As to my revert: "Reynolds had favoured allowing both governments" is not a "sentence fragment," as you put in your original edit summary. It's a complete sentence. The edit summary accompanying your second removal of the text raises a different concern, but still doesn't fully explain your deletion of content. If you don't think that portion of the article is written properly, try rewriting it. If you're challenging the accuracy of the information, you might place a {{fact|date=December 2007}} tag after the sentence to request a citation. If nobody produces a citation within a reasonable amount of time, you can delete the claim. In the meantime, your edit is an unexplained content deletion, and the previous version should stand. Dppowell (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I admit, "fragment" wasn't quite accurate. The sentence is incomplete and does not make sense. As I am unsure what it is supposed to mean, I cannot rewrite it or begin to question its accuracy. Rather than escalate to an edit war, I have started a section on the relevant talk page. If you know what the text is supposed to mean, please help. -Rrius (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

I'm hoping others will agree with the 21 December 2007 date. Now that I've read your responses, it makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phillips

Not a problem, no harm done. By the way, I see Peter Phillips is engaged to a Catholic; looks like Zara (who recently moved down a step, with the birth of Viscount Severn) will be moving back up again in the succession. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Windsor, Viscount Severn

I may be missing something, but I don't see anywhere in that press release any mention of styles. Can you revert your edit or provide a better reference? Chrislintott (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I much prefer your more recent edit (11.47); that makes your logic clearer to a non-expert like me. Sorry if I'd come across as offensive - your response on my talk page sounded rather narked. Chrislintott (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Chicago locator image

Here is the location of the master file with the layers: You must download the full size image to obtain the layers. In the discussion page of that image describes how I make the image. If you would like me to make it instead let me know and i'll find time in the next few days to finish it and upload it. Thanks for helping out with the chicagoland pages!! — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Area code 847 and 224

Why did you delete the communities list and some other content from Area code 847 and 224? There was nothing wrong with any of the content, and the communities list is in most area code articles. Also, why did you replace the categories with a nonexistent category? TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Right here. If this was a mistake, please tell me so it can be fixed. If not, please explain. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I've put things back to the way they were before the edit in question. My guess is this just got deleted by mistake somewhere along the line. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super Tuesday

Curious as to your edit 186216315 to Super Tuesday, marked as reverting possible vandalism.

I ask, as the only "possible vandalism" you were reverting that I can spot had already been fixed, and all the reverting did was removed some {{fact}} tags. -- g026r (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured it was just some sort of mistake, but wanted to make sure. (And yes, I was referring to Super Tuesday (2008).) -- g026r (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Super Tuesday (2008)

Your edit [1] to Super Tuesday (2008) has me puzzled. Which one of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia are no longer states? By my count, this is 24, not 23 states. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that I was reacting to someone else's edit? I don't recall how my count was different. It may have been because I couldn't see Delaware or because one contest is a convention, not a primary or caucus. In any event, it was obvious that 22 (the previous edit) was incorrect. Your second sentence above is unnecessarily nasty, but I guess I should expect no better from Wikipedia editors. -Rrius (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] de facto

That guideline only really applies to that article; is there any relevant section in the manual of style? --Golbez (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK

Not jumbled up with another participant's comments, I'm afraid. Just very poorly written. I've applied a sort of a blue pencil test. Thanks for your comment. --sony-youthpléigh 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elections talk

Please join the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008#Charts.—Markles 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments please!

Hi, I'm trying to focus the concerns in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting) but I want to be sure that we're all talking about the same problems. I've whipped up a small section at the bottom of the page that codifies what I think the MoS is trying to say. I believe you disagree with it, but I'm not sure, so that's why I whipped it up, so we're both looking at the same terminology.

Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? Maury (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

They really shouldn't be, that's not how they're set up and the majority of what I see don't have full dates. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll say MOS, but I'm not sure. They put a lot of information in such a small place that should be in specific articles instead. There's a reason that the section is "years". Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Importance Chicago Articles

If you want to help me choose Category:Top-importance Chicago articles, come comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates by June 5th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil partnership act

Rrius, I know "New Jersey is not the only place where the law has changed since 2005." However, it is the only place named in Schedule 20 that now has both DP's and CU's. Until Schedule 20 is updated, I think it's important to warn the unsuspecting reader that British law, as currently written, does not specifically refer to New Jersey civil unions as being the equivalent of UK civil partnerships.

But I'm not going to get into an edit war with you; I leave it up to your conscience and good sense. Oh and I did use the word "sic" quite correctly, to show the original verbatim wording of Schedule 20. Check your dictionary.Textorus (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like our notes crossed in the mail.  :-) A list of unions not mentioned in Schedule 20 sounds like a good idea to me. That way, we won't be misleading our readers.Textorus (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You'd think the UK would have amended Schedule 20 several times by now; I wonder if that can be done administratively by civil servants, or if an Act of Parliament is needed? Also, I wonder if any couples with the new NJ CU's have gone to the UK and demanded recognition as civil partners. Sounds like a great opportunity for an enterprising barrister to me.  :-) Textorus (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Same-sex marriage in the United States

Oh, didn't realize we had crossed paths on this one too, Rrius. Concerning the revert on this article, I noticed it had been reverted by another editor for NPOV issues; and then un-reverted; and so I glanced at the revision history and saw all these links to Sodomy, Buggery, Bible and Homosexuality, Christianity and Homosexuality, etc. So I hit the "undo" button without further thought; you know that article gets hit by right-wing POV-ers all the time.

I agree, links like Domestic Partnership in the United States and LGBT movements in the United States are appropriate for the See Also section. I still don't think Sodomy and Buggery are, unless you add a note explaining why each link is there: for the same reason that it would not be appropriate to add Copulation, Sexual Positions, Fornication, Adultery, Child Abuse, etc., to the regular Marriage article. Just the titles alone would seem to deprecate the subject of the article, if no explanation is given, see what I mean?

However, looking over the SSM article, I'm not seeing a link between the history of the gay rights movement in this country and the SSM issue; Lawrence v. Texas is not mentioned even once, which is a glaring omission I think, bearing as it does so heavily on the civil rights issue underlying SSM. Perhaps a paragraph making the causal connection early on, under the Legal Issues section, would be a good place to add some of those links, with explanation? Go for it, if you're so inclined.  :-) Textorus (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, I'll be glad to help you on the SSUUS article; I'm busy today with other things but I'll give it a lookover this weekend in your sandbox. The material at Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Federal_law is a good summary that you can probably copy-and-paste a good bit of. Also, I wrote pretty much all of the first 5 paragraphs of the main Civil union article, which other people have left alone for over a year now, so I guess those are working well. I'll get back to you in a day or so; let me know if you have some specific things you want me to work on. Textorus (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S.--Just remembered, I started a chart of all the states and their gay-related laws a good while back, but got sidetracked and haven't gotten back to it. If you want to include it in the SSUUS article, we could work on that too. Check it out at my sandbox. Textorus (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

I find it interesting that you would make a snipy remark about how I didn't comment on the talk page, when I was in the process of doing so immediately after the revert, considering you had done this exact same thing a few moment earlier (leading to my confusion and posting above). The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured you couldn't be replying to my comment yet because I had just finished. I'm sorry that I offended you. -Rrius (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from User talk:The Evil Spartan) You didn't really offend me. I get a bit snappy myself when perceive that others don't assume good faith, have a double standard, or ignore me (these are the three things that will set me off in a conversation). No worries. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(Copied from User talk:The Evil Spartan) I was assuming good faith, really. You had an earlier comment further up the talk page, so it was natural to assume that was what you meant. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential election, 2008

Hello Rrius. My major concern is how the 'previous' United States presidential election articles are done. You correct though, there certainly will be gradual changes, from now 'til November. There's gonna be alot of shifting back-and-forth of the Obama & McCain images. Ya see, upon first glance, one gets the impression that Obama is being shown as having won the election. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Guranteed, there'll be McCain leaning editors, who'll wanna switch the images & Obama leaning editors, who'll wanna switch'em back. I just felt, if we held off from adding the images, it could be avoided. I suppose though, holding off the images would become even more difficult, once the two candidates were actually nominated (in August & September, respectively). GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a plural number of editors prefer adding the McCain & Obama images (choosing not to wait 'til November). I guess they'll have to learn the hard way. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, IMHO the United States presidential election articles should includ only candidates who pick up Electoral votes (as for those who get faithless electoral votes? make mention of it, but add no images). As for the current growing squabbles on 2008? it's only gonna increase. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a possible Libertarian supporter, in the mix. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not true when you say that a Libertarian candidate has never recieved a single electoral vote. Please see the 1972 election. Thanks! Rational Renegade (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers. Sooner or later, those faithless electors show up to mix things up further. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not certain what WikiProject we could go to, to help end the growing edit wars. Perhaps (in this case), the edit wars are a good thing - they may help add weight, to the no candidates until November argument. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections; perhaps they've can help out. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like things are about to get more messy. An argument for including Ralph Nader in the Top Infobox? has begun. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feathers of HRH Prince Charles

The "PrinceS" thing provides enough keyboard hesitation to prevent my fingers typing "Princess" before I can stop them. It makes it easy for me to proofread that I typed the plural where I meant to. Would you be as irritated if I typed "replaced the growN with the growING" (in that casing) instead of "replaced the grown plant with the growing plant"? I find the former much easier to follow. YOU might be intelligent enough to ... whatever you said, but that doesn't mean that I am. As to the White Rose thing I did not even mean to imply that I was sure that DofCornwall does take precedence over DofYork. I was just trying to say that I could find another reason (time) to AGREE that a DofC&Y could use the White Rose.64.131.188.104 (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

[edit] Bolding

The discussion kind of petered out. Would you mind a visit here? Maury (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)