User talk:Rrius/Archive 12

Current members of the House of Representatives
I removed a note fragment from OH5 that was in your 1st March 4 2009 major fill of the page. Unsure, but seemed to reference his predecessor in office, but just sent to top of page. Regardless, felt I should let you know. HNY2011! 75.204.136.26 (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. All I did with that article was move the table from "Members of House of Representatives for the 111th United States Congress" or whatever the hell it was called. Whatever errors the table contained were probably made at Members of the 111th United States Congress before February 2009. -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

 * Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC Notification
Hey. I'm leaving you this message b/c you participated in a discussion which resulted in an RfC that you might be interested in taking part in. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Luciana Berger
Rrius, I see that on Luciana Berger you have reverted an IP edit with a slightly caustic edit summary. I'm not complaining about the edit summary, but I do think that it's possible that an IP editor with few contribs may not understand about the talk page.

I have left a welcome msg and an edit-warring notice for IP. May I suggest that you drop this editor a note pointing them to the discussion? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As at least three editors have removed the text in question, the editor should have realized that "discuss on the talk page" means something, and that perhaps continually putting those same edits up was not the best thing to do. -Rrius (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that a new editor would necessarily understand exactly what it means. Why not give them a pointer to the discussion? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the other thing has made me a bit cranky about other WP editors. Frankly, the content of the material gives me the impression that the edits are more about POV-pushing than trying to improve the article. That said, I should have been more aware of what was going on in my head before letting my exasperation show. -Rrius (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

About bailiffs and doors in the world
Please, do return to []. I will not be watching your talk page. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-26 17:44 (UTC)

Hi Rrius, I've read your reply (oops) and opinion, and responded to both. Kind regards. ▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-27 06:03 (UTC)

Viriditas preaches
For the record, since you removed the warnings on this talk page, you have implicitly acknowledged receiving them. However, your recent edit summaries and continued unilateral editing are not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere like Wikipedia and I would like to draw your attention to two of them:


 * It wasn't edit warring; it's a BLP, so stick your warning in your ear.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. There is no automatic BLP exemption to edit warring on BLP articles unless it can be shown that you were removing a BLP violation. However, your edits to the article show you were edit warring with User:Nothingofwater. You also wrote:


 * This is what I mean by context. You don't just list a bunch of votes because you think they make him look like an idiot or an asshole. Since you all were too lazy, I've done the work for you.

I appreciate you taking the time to edit the article and your attempt to improve it. However, in the future, please don't use the edit summaries to communicate. Please use the talk page, like I originally requested of you. Also, please keep in mind WP:CIV. You don't know what editors are trying to do unless you talk to them, and calling others lazy for not reading your mind is a personal attack. In the future, use the centralized talk page to communicate your ideas so that other editors can participate. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) As to implicit acknowledgement, duh. For good measure I explicitly acknowledged it in the first edit summary you quoted above.


 * 2) In fact, you are mistaken. There is an exception for BLP. Removing questionable content, including accurate content presented without any context, is permissible. I would refer you to WP:3RR in particular. Your own edit summary reverting me suggests that you recognized the purpose for presenting the material the way it was presented, so perhaps you can stop with the holier than thou act.


 * 3) Edit summaries are by definition a way to communicate. It is just silly to pretend they aren't. If they aren't for communication, then what are they for? My idea was capable of being expressed in the limited space available in an edit summary and did not require a full discussion. It is frankly idiotic for you to suggest that I was expecting anyone to read my mind. I said that if people wanted to include the information as evidence of his views, they needed to present that context. In the future, if you decide to take the sort of tone you decided to, you should at least attempt to fair. Otherwise, keep your advice (or whatever you think it is) to yourself.


 * 4) As to civility, I explained what my problem was, by your and Nothingofwater's edit summaries communicated nothing responsive. By the last edit summary, it was clear that you two were refusing to put in the effort to refactor the information in such a way as to address the obvious problems with it. Claims that tend to reflect poorly on the subject need to be treated carefully, so the onus was on you guys, the ones who supported inclusion, to provide that careful treatment. I believe the word "lazy" was apt. If it was not laziness, but rather a desire to present the guy as an idiot or an asshole (he probably is both after all), then I withdraw the word "lazy". I also believe that my annoyance was justified by the failure of both of you to take the action you should have instead of simply reverting. If you disagree, well, that's your prerogative.


 * 5) The fact that you didn't bother warning Nothingofwater after two reverts but did warn me after two has definitely coloured the way I've approached you. It appears to me that since you reverted to Nothingofwater's version then warned me, you were not at all a neutral party in this. Instead, it looks as though you wanted revert to your preferred version and attempt to intimidate me so I wouldn't pursue the issue further. If you had truly been the person you have tried to portray yourself as, you would have warned both parties, left the page alone, and attempted to begin a discussion on the talk page (you know, taking your own advice). You didn't, so your warning earlier and the contribution above are frankly difficult for me to take at face value. Therefore, in the future, be the ideal Wikipedia editor who takes issues to the talk page before advising others to do so. -Rrius (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you need to take a step back from all of this as you are apparently emotionally involved in the topic. I didn't warn User:Nothingofwater because they were restoring content that had been removed without explanation and without any discussion on the talk page.  Hopefully, you will use the talk page instead of the edit summary in the future to discuss your edits and the issues as you see it.  The problem here is that you seem overly concerned with editors rather than edits.  Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Complete flummery from start to finish. I am not invested in Paul Broun in the least; I was only vaguely aware of him before today, and will likely forget him tomorrow. What I am invested in is the fair presentation of material at Wikipedia, something you seem to have a devil-may-care attitude about. The only thing that has provoked an emotional response from me is your behaviour, including your one-sided foray into an edit war (warning someone for edit warring, then fighting for the other side) and your hypocritical ramblings here.


 * What's even more absurd is your claim that he was restoring content removed without explanation. I explained both times, and your dishonest attempt here to say otherwise confirms the suspicions I mentioned above. When removing questionable content from a BLP, it's a remove-first-and-discuss-later proposition. Frankly, Nothingofwater should have gone to the talk page when his reversion of one editor was reverted by another. What's more, you should say I should have gone to the talk page, but you didn't yourself, which undercuts, if nothing else, the attitude you have adopted here.


 * Finally, I was very much concerned with the edits, not the editors. I had never heard of you or Nothingofwater before this incident, and your assertion that I am somehow more concerned with you two than the content when I am the one who ended up fixing the mess you two kept restoring is bizarre. The problem here really is that you think you are better than other people, but you were wrong in the events of last evening and can't bring yourself to admit it, so you keep now making up reasons why I'm so terrible. That is your problem to be dealt with in your own space. There was absolutely no point to be served by your last contribution, and I'm not giving you another chance to make up some flaw in my character—your next contribution will be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas returns
Previously, you changed "The bill was meant to stem the sales of pornography on U.S military installations" to "He also introduced a stem the sales of pornography on U.S military installations". Your rewrite, "He also introduced a stem" obviously omitted the words "bill was meant to". I corrected your error by restoring the last good version. You then replied with an angry, rambling edit summary that made no sense whatsoever.  I think you intended to thank me for helping correct your errors, so I would like to take this opportunity to say "you are very welcome". Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Childish nonsense. I told you that you were the only thing pissing me off, yet you felt it necessary to continue to post here. I asked you to leave me alone and told you I would simply delete any further comments from you. You decided not to respect that. I removed your comment. You responded again, so I was forced to delete your comment and archive the discussion. Since that didn't keep you from childishly turning the knife again, here's a slightly different attempt: Do not post here. If you continue to do so, your posts will again be removed unread, and I will be forced to bring your harassment of me to another forum. -Rrius (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't read the history far enough down to check who was responsible for the many fact tags on the Paul Broun article, but everything that was tagged is now sourced. JTRH (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is, I assume, a separate issue, but thanks for doing it. -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Anne Jenkin
I don't think we need the Kensington redirects nor Ann Jenkins (Australian tennis player) - maybe you could db-author them. Kittybrewster &#9742;  01:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They're fairly obvious misspellings, so I don't see the point in getting rid of them. I don't know what the deal with the Australian tennis player is, but I'll leave that to you. -Rrius (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a record in terms of redirect pages?? (to Anne Jenkin, Baroness Jenkin of Kennington). Kittybrewster &#9742;  10:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt it. I don't really get your reaction—redirects from obvious misspellings or mistaken spellings are not only normal, but encouraged. If one of the redirects needs to be used for something else, it easily can be. As a bonus, the person creating the new article has enough information to decide whether a disambiguation page or hatnote is needed. -Rrius (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Senate seniority list
Hi. Bob Casey has been named chair of the Joint Economic Committee, as stated by the cited source. It's irrelevant whether the rest of the committee members have been named yet - he is now the chair of the committee, and there's no reason to remove that from the chart. The extra set of explanations I inserted (such as "Rep. indicates previous service in the House of Representatives") isn't redundant. I tried to cut down on the bulk of the chart by changing some terms to abbreviations - e.g., "Former U.S. Representative" became "Former Rep.", and I think if adequately explained at the outset, "Former" isn't even necessary. I was trying to explain the abbreviations, not duplicate the listing of the seniority factors. The previously-existing list would be sufficient if an explanation of the abbreviations were added; I think I'll take a shot at that and see what it looks like. JTRH (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. All members, including the chair, are elected by a resolution of the Senate. The source says he's "been named", but that just means it's been announced he will be chair. -Rrius (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. JTRH (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When the Senate does adopt its resolutions (there are generally two: one for each party), would you be willing to help with the update. Since most articles have already been updated, this will basically just involve reverting my reversions. I'm willing to be the one to go back and put in the proper sources. That makes sense as a one-person job because it mostly consists of writing the text for the link, then copying it over the existing one at each article. -Rrius (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be glad to. There will be a final document on the Senate Website when all committee memberships and chairs have been determined, listing all of them, and that can serve as a source for that entire part of the project. Sorry if I've seemed argumentative about this. That wasn't my intention at all. JTRH (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The resolutions themselves tend to serve as the best guide because they are the definitive seniority lists and because sometimes not all committees are updated at the same time. The only list I can think of that lists all of them is the "Committees" section of the Senate's daily calendar, but it sometimes has mistakes or isn't updated immediately. -Rrius (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the document I was thinking of. It claims to be updated through the previous day. As of last night, it has lots of blanks. JTRH (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, anyway, it's acceptable to base updating on, but it's too transitory to use as the linked source. Oh, and going back some, I don't think there's anything here you need to apologize for. You had a Senate source that appeared to say something straightforward, so your post was entirely understandable. -Rrius (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. It's been over 20 years since I worked on the Hill, and I apparently don't remember some of the details as well as I thought I did. JTRH (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! I'm guessing it's more that on the Hill the formality of passing the resolutions doesn't matter to anyone but the Secretary's staff and maybe the Leaders' staffs (and Wikipedia editors). -Rrius (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. JTRH (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * S. Res. 42 and 43 passed yesterday, and the chart's updated accordingly. I worked on some abbreviations a couple of days ago to try to cut down on the chart's bulk; those got reverted in the back-and-forth since then. I'm going to see if I can abbreviate some of the written-out terms (e.g., "Ranking Member" and "U.S. Representative") without making the chart less user-friendly. I'm not going to jump on that immediately, though. JTRH (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also: You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Portal:United States
 * 2) the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
 * 3) the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * 4) and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

best wishes to you
Hey Rrius, long tine no see, although I appreciated your saying with policy what I was trying to get across and wasn't succeeding - the noindex non-communication issue. Dude, I saw the template and wish you well in this real life issue - take it easy, regards Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks. Rotten what they're doing to GoodDay, isn't it? They may have reasonable concerns, but goodness, it feels like bullying to me. -Rrius (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rrius, I wish you well in the RL, too. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI:GoodDay
I agree with with statement about the conduct of the accusing editors. I think this is an example of astroturfing. Very sad and spiteful!! Raul17 (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Congressional resignations
Could you please provide me a reference as to why we don't list resignations as events? Also, if you want to treat the section as "Major Events" then its title needs to be updated, IMO. Frank0051 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In part because they are already dealt with twice in the course of the article. Also, resignations from the House are fairly common, so calling one major is a stretch. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, see 111th United States Congress. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, will you update the Events section to "Major Events" in order to keep uniformity? Frank0051 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uniformity with what? JTRH (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems 111th, 110th, and 109th (I didn't go back further) adopted the "Major Events" nomenclature. Frank0051 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! -Rrius (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Image caption
Per this revert: What you're doing isn't consistent with what you explained to me earlier: "Titles like 'senator', 'prime minister', and 'governor general' are not always capitalised. They are not capitalised when referring to the office generally, but are capitalised when referring to the name of the office, when used before the name of holder of the title, or when used in place of the holder's name." "United States President" is neither the name of an office, nor is it a title held by Barak Obama; even though it immediately preceeds the name of the President, the phrase refers to the office generally and, as such, the word "president" should not, according to your previous claim, be capitalised. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It absolutely consistent. "President of the United States" is a title belonging to Barack Obama. It and its shortened and variant forms are capitalised when used before his name. Simply writing "President Barack Obama" wouldn't be appropriate because it doesn't specify the country, but I am sure you would agree that the capital "P" is correct. Because of the situation, "US" or "United States" must be added. Whether you consider the addition to be an adjective modifying "President" or part of a different version of the title, the "P" should retain the capital. The only time it wouldn't is if it were "the president Barack Obama", which is like "the poet Burns" or "the philosopher Aristotle". -Rrius (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It basically is "the president Barak Obama" - as I said, the reference to the office is a general one - except that the words "United States" preceed "president" instead of "the" to signify which country Barak Obama is president of. Regardless, this debate wouldn't even need to take place if the pipe was removed and it said "President of the United States Barak Obama". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Grammatically, it is quite different, or as different as "the president Barack Obama" is from "President Barack Obama". I've changed it to "US President", which I hope you find less objectionable, with it perhaps being more readily apparent that "US" is simply an adjective describing what president he is. -Rrius (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't see it as being correct. I think you're conflating two separate expressions with quite different meanings. There's "United States president" - the general reference to the president of the United States (where "president" shouldn't be capitalised) - and there's "President Barak Obama" - the man's name preceeded by his title (where "president" should be capitalised); the caption should only use the former.
 * But again, there are other, less contentious ways to word the sentence: "...welcomes the United States president, Barak Obama...", "...welcomes the President of the United States, Barak Obama...", "...welcomes President of the United States Barak Obama..." Why not use one of those? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am conflating nothing; you are conflating what you don't know with what isn't. You are assuming that, because you weren't aware of it, no version of the title besides "President" can be used as a prefix. You are simply wrong. "US President" is perfectly correct and not at all contentious when you actually know what's up. The only reason you are contending it is wrong is because you aren't familiar with it. That is not a sufficient reason to use a more cumbersome form in a caption, which should be kept as short as possible. -Rrius (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try again. "US President" is perfectly correct as a prefix title, and the fact that you weren't aware of that doesn't make it false. You have no basis for your opposition other than the fact that you have somehow managed to go through life without seeing "US President" or "British Prime Minister" used as a title preceding the name, but that doesn't change the fact that those terms are used as titles preceding the name. In other words, though I should have thought this was clear from my previous contribution, you are trying to argue that something is not true simply because you've never seen it before. Despite your never having seen it, the thing is true. -Rrius (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ivor Richard, Baron Richard
Hi Rrius. Without wishing to appear to be quibbling over a minor matter, I do not think that those two sentences were perfectly correct. Both independent clauses in a compound sentence need to have a subject. Okay, I am quibbling over a minor matter, but I didn't want you to think that I was throwing pronouns around for the hell of it. You could always take out the commas if you want to avoid the problem entirely. I leave it in your hands.

Well, I bet that's the nerdiest thing you've read in a while! Best wishes, Fruit Flies Like a Banana (Talk) 04:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never fear quibbling over trifles, especially grammatical ones, here. I think the sentences can stand as is for either of two reasons. Either they can be taken as independent clauses with understood subjects, or they can be seen as part of a compound predicate where a comma is used to avoid confusion or add a pause for the reader's benefit. I also think there is a third one, but I won't try to make it because I don't feel like looking it up. At any rate, I tend to revert what I see as purely stylistic changes where the original wasn't wrong, basically because I think the original writer's choice should stand unless there's an especially good reason to change it. If you do want to remove those commas, though, I put the matter back in your hands.


 * BTW, I like your username; that joke always reminds me of high school. -Rrius (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would not have made the changes had I not noticed another problem with the article, so I'm more than happy to leave it be. I am a reporter by training and it was something of a reflex response - I work for a publication with a very conservative style guide that would not allow such constructions. Although I am a very recent convert to Wikipedia, I can see that your approach is very sensible and enables harmonious editing. I suppose that one of the joys of grammar is that we can fundamentally disagree and both be right. I'll try to restrain my darker impulses for the greater good. Thanks for your help!


 * Thanks! It took me ages to come up with anything at all, but I do enjoy a bad pun. I suppose that one of the pains of coming late to the party is that all the obvious names have been taken! Best wishes, Fruit Flies Like a Banana (Talk) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Darin LaHood
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Darin LaHood. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Single topic disruptive editing
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-03-06 08:25 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Cheers for the copy edit. Of course I'm British so I naturally write in that style. I have been having issue with BE v AE even though all the stuff I write is in BE some of the quotes are in AE and have been asked to change them into BE for my degree so that's why I stated that as I was unsure for wikipedia what the best pratice was. :) So thanks for sorting it out for me. KnowIG (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Service award level
 There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable. Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Duke Baronets
Please would you finish this off for me? Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  09:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this good enough? -Rrius (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

John and Alney McLean
Wanted to advise you of a discussion I started here about an issue you were involved with some time ago. Please leave comments there to keep the conversation together. Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI stuff
That 33 fellow, ya'll are having trouble with at Canadian federal election, 2011, has opened up an SPI, which includes you. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I've responded to what is one of the more bizarre things I've ever been accused of. -Rrius (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I used to just think he was a bad editor. -Rrius (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. --33rogers (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: John Ensign
Regarding your edit request at Talk:John Ensign, the page is no longer protected, so you may go ahead with your ref work there. <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wessex children NPOV
Hullo there. I have opened a new discussion about the styling of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children: here because their articles are currently in violation of the NPOV policy. Do please drop by and have your say (and feel free to pass on the word to other concerned parties!) DBD 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

BRD is allowed, but geez.
It's not easy being me, particularly around Welsh related articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, what's your opinon about National Assembly for Wales election, 2011. Should "31 seats were needed for a majority" be in its Infobox, or should it not? GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the majority notes for a purely practical purpose. When a legislature has a weird number of seats, like the US House of Reps or the Canadian House of Commons, the note is helpful because the math is somewhat awkward to do in your head, and as you try to compare where the parties need to get (before an election) or how close they ended up to a bare majority, sometimes you forget that majority number or stop trusting the number you came up with. For something like the Welsh Assembly, the numbers are so simple that it isn't worth the fight. I don't agree that pointing out the number has some political benefit by somehow endorsing majority government, so I can see an argument that for some legislatures the information just isn't necessary. I can see an argument from consistency, but I don't think consistency is so important that it is worth taking on the characters who have responded at your talk page. -Rrius (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Myself & Daicaregos tend to clash at Welsh related political articles. It was just strange this time, as my additions were factual, non-partisan & non-political without a doubt. Anyway, I'll console myself that Wales is a constituent country (i.e. non-sovereign). GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)