User talk:Rrius/Archive 13

Senate Historical Office
Since you've dealt with them before, how is the Senate Historical Office and their counterpart in the House (presumably there is one) about accepting image submissions? Recently, I've been tracking down a lot of Kentucky politician images in PD books, and I suspect many of the subjects are not illustrated in the Biographical Directory. Figure I could save them the trouble of tracking down those images and help them better illustrate the Guide if they're open to that kind of thing. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would assume they'd be grateful, but I don't know what their standards are for the images thy use. In other words, I don't know if they need an actual print of a image or if something from a book is okay. The email address is photo_historian at sec.senate.gov. Obviously, you should replace the spaced "at" with an unspaced "@". -Rrius (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ensign
Actually the senate president (which was Machin at the time) announced his resignation just before they adjourned today. Goap23 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the presiding officer announced the resignation letter had been received, but nothing in any of what he said counters what has been said by Ensign and published in the press, namely, that his resignation is effective tomorrow. -Rrius (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Today's Congressional Record reports that Ensign's resignation is effective at the close of business on May 3. JTRH (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
. --Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian election recount
It's mentioned in the post-election section Kingjeff (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally sure why you're telling me, but I assume it's because I specified what the then two recount ridings were at one point. If I'm wrong and I made a mistake somewhere, please let know. Thanks. -Rrius (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I told you this because a conversation started and I didn't think everyone realized it was already in the article. The 3rd one didn't start right away. So, it was only 2 that started right away. The judge didn't start the 3rd right away. Winnipeg North might get a recount even though it didn't fall under the requirements of an automatic recount. Kingjeff (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping it was something like that. Thank you, I did realize and read about the third and Winnipeg N there. If you are the one who expanded it from the "Judicial recounts" section, thanks for that too. -Rrius (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. It looked like it needed expansion. Kingjeff (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ordinal Congress Templates
I've created templates for both the US Senate and US House for the changes in membership outline in the ordinal congresses. I noticed that there are a various iterations under different ordinals, this will make them all consistent when the template is applied. Then if anyone would like to make changes to the outline, all they would need to do is change the template, then all would be changed simultaneously and consistently for all congresses. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Ordinal congresses.......Pvmoutside (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll check it out later just to see what's what, but I trust you the thing well. Thanks. -Rrius (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wheaton
The is an AFD underway on College Church in Wheaton.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
Elizabeth II will be the second longest reigning British monarch in over 1200 years on 12 May 2011. The length of time that the King of Thailand has reigned is not relevant, because he is not a British monarch. Reverting an edit on such a silly basis once might have been excusable, but twice shows that you're not bothering to think before hitting send. Would you be good enough to explain exactly you think that this information doesn't belong in the lead, whereas the Queen's annus horribilis in 1992 does. Rubywine (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be an ass. I said I made a mistake, and it is churlish not to leave it at that. As to why it doesn't belong in the lead, I made that clear already: the lead is already four paragraphs (see WP:Lead). Adding a fifth paragraph three times might have been excusable, but a fourth time shows that you're not bothering to think before hitting send. Would you be good explain exactly you think that Elizabeth II suddenly requires a deviation from Wikipedia standards, especially for so minor a point. -Rrius (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to your edit summary at the article, aside from the part where you declare that WP:LEAD is irrelevant, the more important fact of her eventually passing Victoria to become the longest-reigning monarch, rather than just the second, is in fact listed in the section noted. I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with moving from three to two on the list, but it is hardly one of the most important parts of her life. The annus horribilis, which you noted above, certainly does qualify as that. -Rrius (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All you've proved here is that your judgement is no better than your logic. I have nothing more to say to you. Rubywine (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it is you who has proved their judgement lacking, but I welcome your last sentence. -Rrius (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

UK Parliament Composition svg
Hi, I've reverted your update on File:Parliament2010UK.svg - this is a snapshot of the House of Commons at the time after the 2010 general election and should really remain static as such.

The File:UK Commons Current Composition.svg has been produced to reflect the dynamic changes in the composition of the House. You can update this one if you like (and the one with a key): I think it needs Gerry Adams and David Cairns removed, but McShane's suspension is included. I'll change the composition graphic in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom article infobox to the current one to match with the numbers. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it because most of the file's "What here here" items were ones that required an update; I know off hand that Parliament of the United Kingdom's infobox is another. Still another would be the composition template if I was reverted on my removal of the image being replicated in giant form at Parliament and House of Commons. -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On reading this, it occurs to me I shouldn't respond when on my way out the door. What I was trying to say was that the reason I made the change was because most of the articles that used it needed updating. What I was trying to say thereafter was that if you wanted to deploy the new file, the place to look for candidates is in the original file's "What links here" special page. In any event, I'll go ahead and upload my file to the new file and deploy it where necessary. -Rrius (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no worries! I think you've got all the instances where the files needed swapping within articles, cheers. Obviously there are a couple where it needs to be time-specific to results after the 2010 election. Zangar (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that would have the election in the name because that's how I've seen it with Canada, so that assumption probably played into my original upload as well. -Rrius (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Results of the Canadian federal election, 2011
Careful with the replacement of dashes, it can make hidden notes visible. 117Avenue (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry 'bout that. -Rrius (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

ComputerScope
I see you reverted another editor's effort, I endorse you. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive update
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

italics
I was rather hoping I might get an apology from you for your entirely false claim on my talk page that I italicised "Transport for London" in Metropolitan line. That edit dates in fact from May 2009, long before I had anything to do with the article in question. This is a fact you could have checked in the edit history, but you chose instead to jump to conclusions and throw unfounded accusations. -- Alarics (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I mistaken, but I will certainly not apologise. You have a bizarre notion that things should be italicised that aren't supposed to be, so I'm not going to feel bad for making that mistake. -Rrius (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said anything should italicised except (a) the titles of newspapers and magazines, and (b) the names of news websites that are wholly analogous thereto. Nothing I said could reasonably have given you the impression that I might have wanted to italicise "Transport for London". You should pay more attention. -- Alarics (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You think that websites should be italicised even though there is no authoritative basis for doing so, so it was entirely reasonable. Now, I am done talking to you. I have not so much as looked at your talk page since the last time I posted there. I think your position boils down the the fact that you think you get to decide websites are italicised even though MOS doesn't say so and no credible style guide says so. I believe that your position is unreasonable but that there is essentially no chance that you are going to change your mind, so I don't want to waste my time talking to you, and I would ask that you please stop posting here. -Rrius (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just look at WP:Cite news. It says the "publisher" parameter is NOT to be used for the name of the news source. You are the one who is refusing to follow the instructions. -- Alarics (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, you are creatively reading it; it says "usually" because the website will usually be the name of something that would be italicised in print, such as "The Guardian"; "BBC News" is not such a thing, nor is "guardian.co.uk". MOS controls what is and is not to be italicised, not a template. In any event, I told you I don't want to talk to you anymore, yet you have failed to respect that. Therefore, if you post here again, I shall remove your post without response. I hope you now decide to respect my wishes, but if you don't, I'll do it for you. -Rrius (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Wilson (judge)
I know it's 26 May, but barely. I assume there will be a ceremony today to "install" (or something) him, and he will only be Justice from that time. Unless there's a source for midnight? Or for 0300 BST? Good night, Sir! DBD 02:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's why I said to go ahead and revert me. My thinking was that the commission gives him the right to a seat on the court from 26 May, and we aren't likely to ref about the swearing in immediately after it happens if it is true that one does not become a justice until swearing the oath of office. But again, I'm content to yield to the objection. -Rrius (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, he's now been done according to the UKSC Press Release, in which he is mentioned as "more formally" Lord Wilson of Culworth. So, should we move his article to Nicholas Wilson, Lord Wilson or Nicholas Wilson, Lord Wilson of Culworth? DBD 11:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
I think you have a typo in your comment. I presume you didn't Google Search for "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" twice. --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! Thanks, I've changed it. -Rrius (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Harriet Harman's actual position and role
It's a furitful debate we're having and I still hold the position that she is Shadow DPM. Still I think some wone else with better understanding of the British parliament needs to come in and settle this, especially since the IPs are the ones constantly adding the position.PS: please reply here.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say I have a pretty solid understanding the UK Parliament; I follow it religiously. You have this weird hangup about the phrase "deputy leader of the government", which I've pointed out multiple times is just my way of describing Clegg's cross-governmental responsibility for policy. In the end, no greater expertise will help. A government minister or Opposition shadow minister's title is created by the Prime Minister or party leader unless the title is a creature of statute ("Lord Chancellor", "Opposition Chief Whip"). So, when it comes right down to it, the two authoritative sources on the matter are the Shadow Cabinet and Opposition front bench lists issued by Ed Miliband. Both of those call Harman "Shadow Secretary of State for International Development" and "Deputy Leader". In a battle with Harman's own site, which has decided WP:SELFPUB problems, the former win hands down. -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone in the news or in parliament ever calls Clegg the "deputy leader of the government" and again as much as he is DPM, he doesnt not take second command even if the PM is out of country. On Harman's position, it is quite clear that she has two shadow roles and as I've explained, Khan is not the key shadow of Nick Clegg; Khan shadows Ken Clarke. Personally, I don't believe in the WP:SELFPUB; clearly UK Labour places Harman and a Shadow figure to Nick Clegg, and in this case, is a Shadow Deputy Primte Minister. As i said, some one  else should come in, especially the IPs. We've both said a lot.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For, I suppose, the fifth time, I am not saying that anyone in the news or Parliament calls Clegg "deputy leader of the government". I have said over and over that it is simply my way of describing one of the two sets of his responsibilities. Namely, his responsibility for cross governmental policy. Do you doubt he has that responsibility? if you do, you shouldn't be arguing for Harman at all because that is precisely what she questions him on. In any event, it is absurd for you to note that Harman has two shadow roles, but ignore that Khan does as well. Look at the bloody list, He is Shadow Justice Secretary, Shadow Lord Chancellor, and Shadow minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform. That last bit directly mirrors what the government says about Clegg, meaning he shadows Clegg as well. It is wrong for you to say Khan shadows Clarke, therefore he doesn't shadow Clegg. Harman shadows Andrew Mitchell, therefore, by your logic, she can't be Clegg's shadow either. You say "clearly Labour places Harman as a Shadow figure to Nick Clegg." What you ignore is that Labour explicitly makes Sadiq Khan one as well. You say that "in this case, [she] is Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", but you give no proof. You do not have the right to name a Shadow Deputy Prime Minister; only Ed Miliband does, and he hasn't. How can you possibly argue that she has a title that she clearly hasn't been granted? Yes, she has been given responsibility for shadowing Clegg, which she does as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In case you hadn't noticed, Leader of the Opposition is the Shadow Cabinet equivalent of the Prime Minister, therefore Deputy Leader of the Opposition is the equivalent of the Deputy Prime Minister. Why do you feel the need to invent an office for her when she clearly already has one that fills that role?
 * Now your getting angry. If that's your way of describing Clegg, they you are in your own world be cause no one calls him deputy leader of government. You look at the debates in DPMQs; is Harman not Shadowing Clegg there or why would the speaker bloody allow her to sit inthe front bench? Be thankful I'm not the one reverting the positions. Why don't you scold the IPs? Who gives you the right to call the deputy leader of government when his performance is isn shambles?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I want an answer to this question: Do you recognise that Nick Clegg has responsibilities that extend across government? If so, then your quibbling about my description of him as being Cameron's deputy on those issues, i.e., deputy leader of the government, is pointless. If you disagree, what exactly do you think Harman is shadowing him on? To your second point, I have said repeatedly that Harman does shadow Clegg on those cross governmental issues. You do however need some information on how departmental questions work. When a department is up for questions, all its ministers are present to answer. In this case, that means Nick Clegg and Mark Harper. The Speaker determines in advance who will be allowed to ask questions, and he sets aside a few for the Official Opposition. Because Clegg has the dual role he does, Harriet Harman is one of those put forward, but so are members of the Shadow Justice team. So in DPMQs, both Harman, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and Khan, as shadow minister responsible for political and constitutional reform, and his team shadow the DPM. When Clegg makes an announcement to the Commons about political or constitutional reform or opens a second reading debate about a bill he is the minister responsible for, who speaks for the Opposition? Khan and his ministers. Your tetchy "why would the speaker bloody allow her to sit in the front bench" shows an ignorance of how these things work. Any shadow minister can question or reply to any minister from the front bench, but generally they only deal with the ministers they shadow. Indeed, as a frontbencher, Harman always speaks from the front benches, no matter what the situation. Your bit about his performance being "in shambles" is quite irrelevant to any question we are dealing with, so I won't bother to answer. To round off my responses to your questions, I did try to discuss the matter with one of the IPs before, but had absolutely no success, so I'm not going to bother now.


 * Ultimately, the question is on what basis can we call her the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. You have argued repeatedly that she shadows the DPM, therefore she is the Shadow DPM. I have pointed out repeatedly that she has never been given that title and isn't the only one who shadows the DPM. It is now time to change the focus. I can point to two authoritative sources saying she does not hold that title. You cannot point to any, but instead rely on your argument from logic. Unfortunately, your rationale fails under WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. There is a clear and unambiguous source, two actually, that say she is does not have any such title. Another reliable source demonstrates the same thing. Jack Straw's bio at the House of Commons website says he was "Acting Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" in 2010; Harman's record since the general election says this: "Acting Leader of the Opposition 2010; Deputy Leader of the Opposition 2010-; Shadow Secretary of State for International Development 2010-." There is simply no basis acceptable on Wikipedia for calling her the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. -Rrius (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Beamish oath.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Beamish oath.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Couples who both have titles
On a few of the articles where you removed the statement on the grounds that the purpose was a link to a deleted list, I have restored the statement, but without the clearly useless wikilinks. I think most readers will find this biographical fact useful and interesting, as it gives context to the social milieu of the subjects.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was always dubious, so I've edited away the "few" bit. The inability to establish it was one of the reasons the article was deleted in the first place. -Rrius (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Failed Bank assets
Thank you for your help in providing that information I do appreciate it. I'll remember to use that information when adding new bank (Hopefully not too many). TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 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) 00:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 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) 09:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Numbering in lists
New message for you at Talk:Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Thanks! BartBassist (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 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) 00:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Next New Democratic Party leadership election
To reply to this question, the user doesn't know English, so he ignores all our warnings. The problem is, most of his edits add valuable content, so he doesn't get blocked. Also, I replied to you at Template talk:Infobox leadership election. 117Avenue (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know what IP's native language is? I was thinking of using Google Translate. -Rrius (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's French. 117Avenue (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's fortunate because GT works somewhat better with French than some other languages. -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yay! He's been blocked for a month. 117Avenue (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I can put off talking about date autoformatting for a bit. -Rrius (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 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) 08:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 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) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

NDP convention
The "electoral method" section talks about the discussion about whether to retain the carve-out or not, but doesn't yet mention at all what the executive actually decided when it met to determine the rules — which is why I added a statement about the final decision. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. I know because I added it last night. It says, "The party's federal executive ruled in September 2011 that a 2006 change to the party constitution mandating one member, one vote precluded a carve out for affiliated groups.[7]" -Rrius (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They still had to decide in today's meeting whether to uphold that earlier interpretation or to reimplement the carve-out; the referenced article specifically notes their decision on that. Additionally, I'm not too clear on why, under the guise of "fix ref", you simply removed a referenced statement from the article about Julian and Topp recusing themselves from the meeting (which is something that does warrant a mention.) Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your assertion that the the council needed to do something today, do you have proof? The article said in regard to the meeting of the party executive meeting, "However, interim NDP leader Nycole Turmel told reporters that a final decision was made ahead of Friday’s federal council meeting, which will set the final rules of the leadership convention."


 * To clarify why something was deleted "under the guise" of fixing a reference, there was an edit conflict and I didn't notice that part of it. If I had, I would have mentioned it in the edit summary as I did with the other part.


 * Finally, even if, for argument's sake, you are correct about needing yet another line saying the decision was made to abandon the carve out, it should be done right with the rest of the part about the carve out, not after spending cap. -Rrius (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the article you used as proof that the council had to act says nothing of the sort. It says, "Contrary to the rules that applied in 2003, the NDP is not setting aside a specific portion of the vote for labour unions." Nothing in that says the decision was made at today's meeting, and a separate article from the same paper says it was made earlier this week. -Rrius (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Orthography
Yes, the doubling of the is a spelling error. For example:
 * I love beer and I love the beer (correct)
 * I love the the beer (wrong)

Obviously no correct the voices that speak of the The The, or the phrases:
 * the The Times
 * the The President of the United States, etc.--Eumolpo (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, will replace orthographic correction with tautological correction, it's better :D --Eumolpo (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 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) 00:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Harriet Harman
Hello. Apologies for the warning. But tell me, have you ever sought an RFC on the matter of Harman's post? Please let me know on my talk page. Also, I see you have removed the warning yourself. I came here to do that. As I'm sure you know, if everyone removed warnings from their own talk page the system would utterly fail. So that is something you really shouldn't have done. The correct action was to let me know what you thought and then wait. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

News paper search No such reference to Deputy Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition
I have searched LexisNexis(which I doubt you have access to). There is no instance (in any newspaper or academic journal) that refers to a "Deputy Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition". However, Wikipedia seems to to be open to many to debate on till the cows come home. So I'll leave it for information or disinformation to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd8511 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Harriet Harman.
You need to stop, I cannot believe you! Firstly, you went onto my user talk and deleted considerable evidence that Harman was the Shadow DPM. Secondly, I have started a discussion you have not been complicit. Thirdly, you have not got any proof. Finally, your arrogance and lack of knowledge is astounding and I will inform authoritative figures who will block you! Even some of your allies, have told you are wrong! --195.171.221.67 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I deleted nothing from your talk page. All I did was add a comment. How you could claim I deleted anything when it is still there is beyond me.


 * Second, you have not started a discussion anywhere. I started a discussion at the article's talk page which you have not bothered participating in. I also started the discussion at your talk page. If you look at your talk page's history, you'll see I created it by starting the discussion. Taken together with the first false allegation you made, I have to wonder whether you are simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia or trying to discredit me by casting aspersions. For the time I'm assuming it's the former, but time will tell.


 * Thirdly, you have been showing arrogance and a lack of any desire to participate in Wikipedia's consensus-building, opting instead to edit war. You've also declared, "It has always been SDPM you just want to ruin it!", which is both rude, in ascribing improper motives to me (you are supposed to assume good faith), and childish.


 * It's also inaccurate. When David Cameron was Leader of the Opposition, there was no Deputy Prime Minister, so there was no shadow, and the closest thing to a deputy was William Hague, who was called "Senior Member of the Shadow Cabinet" Michael Ancram was specifically listed by Michael Howard as "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", not Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Even when Deputy PM John Prescott headed the Prime Minister's department, it was shadowed by Shadow Secretaries of State. Under Iain Duncan Smith, the person shadowing Prescott was the "Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In William Hague's Shadow Cabinet, the person shadowing the Deputy PM was the "Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions". In the Shadow Cabinet of Tony Blair, John Prescott was "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", not Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, even though there was a Deputy PM: Michael Heseltine. John Smith's Shadow Cabinet also shadowed the Major ministry, and his Deputy Leader, Margaret Beckett, was also Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In sum, over the past 20 years, no permanent leader of either major party has named a "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister" when in opposition.


 * Finally, the only sources that provide direct evidence of what the only person entitled to grant Opposition titles and portfolios, Ed Miliband, say she is Deputy Leader. The infobox is not meant to record unofficial styles that the subject or the media call the article's subject by. Rather, it is supposed to record the actual titles held by virtue of election or appointment by someone entitled to elect or appoint that person to some office. As I have told you numerous times, Parliament calls her "Deputy Leader of the Opposition". I asked the House of Commons Information Office to confirm that, and they sent me an e-mail saying they had. In refusing to address why the sources that get their information directly from the only human being with the right to decide whether to call Harman "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister", you have shown an astounding level of arrogance. -Rrius (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)