User talk:Rrius/Archive 18

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

QLA/LAQ
Hi. In the spirit of openness, you should probably be aware of this. Frickeg (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cabinet nominees
Wowsers, they won't even wait until a person is nominated, see Chuck Hagel. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll laugh if he names someone else. -Rrius (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with fellow editor
There's a user, User:ANTONI20, who means well when she/he edits district pages. Information has been added, but the editor makes additional changes such as removing old information, reformatting lists to out-of-use formats, and using reverse chronological order. You can find some of our discussions on her/his and my talk pages. Please keep an eye on this editor's work as it overlaps with yours. Let's make helpful suggestions and keep this editor doing good work. It's frustrating, but maybe she/he will learn.—GoldRingChip 12:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

US speaker election
Hello, I have created a discussion about whether and how information on the election of speaker for the 113th Congress should be included on Wikipedia. As you've made edits to this subject, I wanted to bring your attention to the discussion. It can be found here. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate#Top of the List
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate. —GoldRingChip 15:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:United States congressional committees#Memberships of previous Congresses
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:United States congressional committees. —GoldRingChip 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

David Wells
Thanks for filling in the stuff you did. I hadn't updated everything yet, obviously; I started bare stubs for Beyak and Batters, and Black already had an article since he was the winner of the last Alberta senator-in-waiting election, but then I had to head out for a dinner engagement before I could actually finish the other two — but I'd already added all five of them to the Senate of Canada template and also opted to disambiguate David Wells' redlink on there as "(politician)". So I guess great minds think alike or something like that. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And just for the record, I'm probably not going to get around to either Oh or Wells tonight. I'll happily look after them later if they're still redlinks when I feel up to it, but if you've got the time and inclination then by all means feel free to go ahead with them in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Murphy (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) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Privy Council
I would contest the point that it is not a legislature - the Privy Council has a central role in passing delegated legislation. Several thousand SIs are made every year (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi), a proportion of these by Order-in-Council. While the power is derived from an Act of Parliament, it is still passing legislation which has the same primacy as those originating in the Houses of Parliament. While it is true it doesn't regularly meet en masse, it does after the death of the sovereign, and while the composition may be slightly less relevant in context of the Houses of Parliament, it is still worth noting - why would they be reported in the List of current members of the British Privy Council? --Delta Orionis (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a legislature. Some legislation is issued by the Queen at meetings of the Council and some is issued by a few members of the Council, it does not pass through the Council in any way that resembles a legislative process.
 * The meeting after a demise of the Crown is not, strictly speaking, a meeting of the Privy Council. The Accession Council includes Privy Councillors, the House of Lords, the great and good of the City of London, and Commonwealth High Commissioners.
 * It is stunning that you would say "slightly less relevant" in regards to party composition. In the House of Commons, party composition is essential to determining the government. In the House of Lords, party composition is essential to the character of legislation capable of making it through the House. In the Privy Council, party composition is completely meaningless. It isn't relevant at all.
 * Noting the numbers creates a pain in the ass for people who regularly do the job of updating the page. Not only do we have to remember to update every time someone is admitted or dies, but we have to remember to change the numbers when someone changes party affiliation (whether crossing the floor, having the whip removed, or taking up the role of Speaker or Lord Speaker). This is something that can reliably be predicted will not be updated each and every time a change happens to the article, meaning it will be inaccurate most of the time. The annoyance factor in updating it far outweighs any minor benefit to be derived.
 * Any further discussion should take place not here, but at the relevant articles' talk pages. -Rrius (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Seniority in the United States Senate
What is your source for Senatorial seniority? For the rankiungs that determine who will become chairs of committees are those of the two caucuses. A listing that disregards the caucus ranking will mislead folks. -- Dauster (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't my source, and it is already at the article, but here it is again anyway. Now, where is your source? Saying some "GPO" list says something different without bothering to provide a link is utterly unhelpful. And again, this is a list of Senate seniority, not caucus seniority; those are two different things. -Rrius (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've added a footnote to explain the variance.  I've listed my source in the footnote.  The article asserts that this list affects committee assignments, and Caucus rules determine that, so that's why the variance matters. -- Dauster (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to get snippy in your citation comments. The document that I cited is the Caucus's listing of seniority for this Congress used to make the assignments.  If you want to just continue deleting anything I contribute to the article and are happy that the article misleads folks, I guess that's your right. -- Dauster (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I couldn't stroke your ego in the few characters allowed for an edit summary. I had already made the point here that your citation was not solid enough, and your second attempt had the same problem. I would like the article to be accurate, but your addition has to be verifiable, and calling something the GPO's list of Democratic senators just isn't good enough. You have to give a citation that other human beings can use to find what you are talking about so they can verify that it exists and says what you claim it says. -Rrius (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: List of United States Secretary's of State
What you say is true, and I am sorry for my previous comments. I was wrong. Please accept my apology. 71.72.26.127 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Helping out on Wikipedia
Yes, I would be interested in helping out on Wikipedia with government related articles, but I will need your help on some things (formatting, tables, etc....), as I am still just a beginner. 71.72.26.127 (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New Account
I just want to let you know that I created a new account. My new account name is Hardcoreromancatholic. My previous account was 71.72.26.127. Please contact me at this new account only. Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Recognition of same-sex unions in Illinois
Can you review this sentence? I believe you're its author.


 * Steans and Harris filed new bills on January 9[16][n 1] She filed another marriage bill, Senate Bill 110, on January 23.[17] and 10,[18], respectively.

Something's not quite right. Is there text missing before [18]? Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the middle part was supposed to be part of the note. When I added the "|group=n}}", I put it after the wrong ref. -Rrius (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Move of Matt Ridley
Hi Rius, I'm sure your move of Matt Ridley was in good faith, but the article was already moved to that title from Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley in December. Having been the subject of an RM, the naming of the article should be considered controversial, so please start a new RM if you'd like to move it again. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference between then and now is that in December his peerage was meaningless. He has since been elected as an Conservative hereditary peer. -Rrius (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a procedural action on my part. I didn't participate in the initial discussion, and I probably wouldn't participate in a new RM either. If the circumstances have changed, this is not to discourage you from pursuing a consensus-based move. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not interested, though rigid adherence to a "consensus" based on three votes in two weeks is a bit silly. The reason for the move was stated in the edit summary, but if the quality of participation I have to deal with is someone asking about the reason for the move without bothering to look at the edit summary, I really, really don't want to bother. -Rrius (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"in Right of Canada"
Do you have a source for the non-heraldic use of the term? If so, I'll stand corrected.  Fry1989  eh? 07:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I already left a note at your page. Where in the world did you get the idea that it was restricted to heraldry? -Rrius (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be rude and presumptive, I asked a simple question in a gentile manner. Also you did not provide a source for it's use in this context.  Fry1989  eh?   07:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mine was a genuine question. As for "specific context", I gave precisely what you asked for, so I'm at a loss as to what it is you are looking for. Queen Elizabeth's role as Queen as regards Canada is denoted "in right of Canada". If the example I gave you isn't enough, you can look at any of the 2.5 million sources I mentioned at your talk page. I'm not prepared to play a game where you keep moving the goal posts. You don't seem to have a quibble with the fact that the RCN's allegiance is to the Queen, so I don't see why you have so much trouble accepting that the allegiance is to the Queen in right of Canada (as opposed to the Queen in right of the United Kingdom or Australia). -Rrius (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was genuine, you could have asked it in a less dismissive manner. I've done nothing to move any goal posts, I removed the content once, you reverted, and I came to ask for a source. WOW, how irregular of me! Btw, I came to your talk page first, two minutes before you, just pointing that out since you want to claim you "already left a note on my page".  Fry1989  eh?   19:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First, there is nothing wrong with the form of question "where in the world did you get the idea", especially when someone makes a rather specific assertion that is quite wrong. I can't imagine how you would come by that thought other than having seen something called "Her Majesty's Arms in right of Canada" and assumed that it was the only thing that could incorporate the phrase. Then, having made the assumption, you saw the phrase used elsewhere and made the assertion you did. But making the assumption and sticking to it without any thought or investigation makes no sense, so I asked the question.


 * Second, you absolutely moved the goal posts. You asked for "a source for the non-heraldic use of the term". I provided that at your talk page. Then you came back asking for "a source for it's [sic] use in this context". Since I had already provided an example of the phrase being used in a non-heraldic context and gave you the means to find 2.5 million more examples, clearly you were looking for something more. That is moving the goal posts. The army's allegiance is to the Queen. If you want a source, take a look at the oath they take. The army is not the Elizabeth's personal toy to use as she wants. It is hers in role as Canada's Queen. That role has a name "the Queen in right of Canada", as shown by the fact that when she sues or is sued and in many other contexts, that is the name used (as proved by the aforementioned 2.5 million sources).


 * Third, your time point is silly. We were obviously typing to each other at the same time. When I finished, yours was here, but despite the fact that I had already given you that message, I felt yours deserved a response. The "already" means that I had before writing my first contribution at this page already left one at yours. That, I should have thought, is obvious. Had I not said so, it would have looked bizarre to respond to your question without answering it. It is mystifying that you don't comprehend that.


 * Finally, if you have more to say about the actual content matter, please do so at the article's talk page. If you have more complaints about "dismissiveness" or more questions about things that are patently obvious or more passive-aggressive comments wherein you make yourself look put upon, I don't want to read them. Is that dismissive? Perhaps, but I don't care. -Rrius (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grant Crack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Member of Provincial Parliament (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) 11:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave
I have answered at your post.--94.65.145.7 (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:GoldRingChip#Problem with User:ANTONI20
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:GoldRingChip. —GoldRingChip 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Gareth Evans and Robert Ray


 * Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate (Australia) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Stephen Parry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Page Revert
Prior to inserting yourself in a dilemna between myself and GoldRingChip, you may want to review the actual changes which I had made. If the changes are to the benefit to a viewer (other than GoldRingChip) then I see no justification in reverting it back to a page of broken links and outdated information (as assembled by GoldRingChip). In addition, my argument with GoldRingChip has absolutely nothing to do with content, rather it has to do with format. He is very stubborn in asserting that elections be listed in reverse chronological order (oldest to newest). This is not the format utilized by anyone, other than GoldRingChip (and he is unwilling to compromise on my revisions to his flawed methodology). In fact, I sought to compromise with him on several occassions on our disagreements and he was unwilling to give an inch, even after I gave him a yard. Instead he references Wikipedia rules which do not exist (other than in his own creation). It is obvious that GoldRingChip wants to have exclusive authority on the content AND format of any page dealing with congressional districts, even if it is outdated and/or inaccurate. I have no problem in working with him and taking his advise, but he has been very irrational and arrogrant up to this point. Therefore, prior to doing future reverts I would request that you consider that my edits (aka: improvements/updates) have done no harm. In fact, they have done much good. The same cannot be said for GoldRingChip's lack of contribution and cooperation up to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)‎

Edits
First, I would advise you look at my version and compare it to the version you reverted back to. The differences are abundantly apparent. Second, I would recommend you take into consideration that much of the factual information appearing on the reverted page, minus the congressional race results prior to 2006, was provided by myself. My contribution up to this point is not the question. The real question is why GoldRingChip feels it is his sole responsibility to monitor, oversee, referee, and dictate what substance can appear on a page, as to what format it appears, and who can suppy the information. There is no general consensus, since most of the edits have come from one individual (GoldRingChip). May I suggest that you review first, then discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Recommendations
I look forward to any constructive recommendation you can provide as to how my edits have taken away from content on the pages themselves (considering that 400+ of the same pages remain outdated, with broken links, and inaccurate information). I also recommend that you provide recommendations on how to difuse the situation, since it is obviously not a one person problem. If 400+ pages with equal content are in such disastrous form and outdated, then maybe the problem lies elsewhere. Rather than policing my work, maybe you could work in updating that information as well. --ANTONI20 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You made changes, and they were challenged. The way things work here is that the old version stands until you convince people your changes are correct. So the next step is to discuss it. That is my concern. I am not going to study your changes, but if you choose to begin a discussion as I suggested, I will listen to your explanation of your proposal and how you think it is an improvement. Until then, you are just edit warring, and I will revert your disruptive editing. You said the real question is why GoldRingChip is doing as he is, but the actual question is why you are blundering in and deciding that what you want is so bloody important that it should stand until someone convinces you to change your mind. That is not how it works; in fact, it is backwards. As I said, there is a stable version of how these articles are presented. If you want a change, the correct thing to do is start a discussion in a central location. So please go do that rather than hectoring me to look at your edits and see how amazing they are. -Rrius (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 election and all that
Hi, Rrius.

I keep coming back to this statement of yours, particularly the final sentence:
 * You may wish to read the edit summary again. I said, "but your edit makes it look like we are shielding Labor." That is a far cry from saying you in fact are shielding them. Twisting my words like that is beneath you, and as someone who has defended you in the past, I think I deserve better than that.

I did apologise and change my post as soon as you drew my attention to the matter. But I can’t help feeling there was a slight over-reaction there. Making a simple error is not something that’s usually characterised as “beneath” the author. There was no intentional “twisting” of words, and certainly nothing personal or malicious about it. I deal with many, many editors in my travels, and always on the basis of the words they actually use in each case, not coloured by whatever positive or negative interactions I may have had with them in the past. I hasten to add that my relations with other editors have almost always been of the positive variety, and there are very few examples of the negative; but, as I say, it makes no difference either way. Not to me. I deal with each case on its merits, not on the personalities involved.

So, I’m not sure what kind of special consideration you were hoping you’d receive from me on the basis of having defended me in some other matter. I don’t play favourites like that. Maybe I’m misinterpreting your words here, and if so, I’d be grateful if you could set me right. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I overreacted. You came out with, 'We need to have a little talk about this series of edits.

The last straw is that I'm "shielding Labor".' I believe my reaction was fully justified. The only "special consideration" I was talking about was not assuming my words were meant as a shot at you. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do. If it's that you want me to strike that last sentence out, I will do that presently. If there is something else, let me know. -Rrius (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge your words weren't meant as a shot at me. I've already apologised for my slip of the pen and corrected my post.  So, maybe you could acknowledge there was nothing nasty behind what I wrote either, and you could withdraw the charge of deliberately twisting your words.  Cheers.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I've already struck that out. I take you at your word that your condescending tone ("We need to have a little talk") and tacit allegation that I was accusing you of bias were a by-product resulting from a misreading of my edit summary. Am I right in believing that ends the matter? -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Stray character
That is not a stray character at Talk:United States v. Windsor. It is necessary for the bot to find the explanation for the proposed move and post it at WP:RM. Please revert this change. Thanks. You can see what happened when you took it out here. Apteva (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, done, but this was a weird request. Would it not have been simpler to do it yourself? Also, I've put the explanation up on the same line so it doesn't look like a dash just hanging around for no reason. -Rrius (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not like to get into edit wars, and would rather discuss first instead of revert. In this case it would be a second revert, because I just put it there when I subst'd the template. Unfortunately the bot is not very good at telling where the discussion starts and ends and is finicky. We have a list of bot considerations at the bottom of WP:RMCI. Apteva (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if it would have been a second revert (wasn't your first "revert" simply an original edit?), it would have been a revert of an honest mistake that had nothing to do with anything that had gone before. I don't think any reasonable person would have interpreted it as edit warring. -Rrius (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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 Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosPn (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Chris Huhne
You say that the article is not a work unto itself. Indeed not: "BBC News" is italicised in news citations in thousands of WP articles, often using the "work" parameter in the "cite news" template. The publisher is the BBC; the news source ("work") is BBC News, but there is no need to say that the publisher of BBC News is the BBC, so the "publisher" parameter is left out. "BBC News" is here analogous to the name of a newspaper. If you are going to be consistent about this, you will need to change it in thousands of articles -- most of the ones I come across, in fact. -- Alarics (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BBC News is also not italicised at thousands of articles around Wikipedia, most of the ones I come across, in fact.. It is not a work. It is, if you insist on the analogy, an imprint. BBC News is not analogous to a newspaper, and the BBC News "publishes" several programmes, which are works, and things like Democracy live, an internet work. Mark Darcy's blog would also be a work with the publisher BBC News. Ditto Nick Robinson's and several others. BBC News is a division of a media outlet, not a work. -Rrius (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's just your opinion. It seems to me to be analogous with a newspaper because it is the name of the webpage that is the source of the news item. (This would logically also apply to Mark D'Arcy's blog because we usually describe the blogs of newspapers as being under the name of the newspaper concerned.) "BBC News" is indeed a division of the BBC but it is also the name of their online news service. (It used to be called "BBC News Online", and some WP articles still refer to that, but the name was shortened a few years ago.) It is illogical to make such a distinction between newspaper sources and online news sources, especially when so many of the newspaper ones are also online and it is to the online version that we are often referring. The sensible distinction, in my view, is not between printed and online sources but between items that are clearly news reports from a recognised news source (with a factual newspaper-style headline and a publication date) and those that are not actually journalism but directory-style information pages, often undated. Anyway, much the most important thing is to be consistent within any one article, and that is what I was busy doing. When I first came to this article the references to BBC News were about evenly divided between italicised and not italicised. I set about italicising all the names of news sources for consistency, provided they relate to news items (a few BBC items referenced in this article are not news items but undated web information pages, so I didn't italicise those). Your reverting the BBC ones does not seem a very helpful activity when there is clearly no common policy on this across Wikipedia and a vast number of articles following my system rather than yours. I notice that I already had this very discussion with you nearly two years ago: see this item on my talk page. It is interesting to note that, in all that time, no other editor has raised the issue with me. -- Alarics (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I love when people try to set others in their place with "that's just your opinion" and then proceed to state a contrary opinion. You can decide for yourself that "news source" equals "title of work"; I think you are wrong, and I am going to continue on as I have. Style guides call for titles of works to be italicised, BBC News is not a work, therefore I will remove italics. It is as simple as that. -Rrius (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But it *is* just your opinion that BBC News is not a work. There is no rule that says so. I have explained why you are mistaken. I too shall "continue on as I have". -- Alarics (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. That is a fact. Do you know what the word "work" means? -Rrius (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In the "cite news" template, "work" and "newspaper" are interchangeable i.e. they are actually the same parameter. They both mean the name of the news source. As I have explained, any differentiation between printed news sources and online news sources is meaningless. -- Alarics (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BBC News is an organisation that creates works, it is not a work. The fact that the parameters are the same is irrelevant since BBC News is not a newspaper and is not equivalent to one. It is a news organisation that generates stories that are published in various forms, notably its programmes (which are works) and its website. The Press Association, Associated Press, and Reuters are all also organisations that generate news but are not italicised regardless of whether the story is obtained from a third party or directly from their websites. The reason is, like BBC News, they are not works. -Rrius (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Press Association, Associated Press, and Reuters are all agencies, which have their own parameter in "cite news". In the main, they produce news which other organs that are actually news organs use. BBC News is not an agency, it is a news organ. -- Alarics (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They have their own parameter for when you use a story from another source credited to one of them. When you pull a story directly from their websites, you don't suddenly start italicising their names. -Rrius (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed I don't, but some people do. There is no rule about it. -- Alarics (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if they don't know what they are doing. Also, "BBC News" is not italicised when written about, either as an organisation or regarding its website in particular. Setting up a system where it is italicised in the special case of Wikipedia citation templates is weird. -Rrius (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bitch, bitch, bitch
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the 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 without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Stick in your ear. The article is not out of date, only the graphs are. The talk page discussion is more than sufficient for your complaint. -Rrius (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject C-SPAN?
Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -

I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.

If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?

The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):


 * Creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles and lists directly related to C-SPAN and its programming.
 * Use of C-SPAN programming in citations for various topics
 * Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles. (Doing this with respect for established guidelines at External links.) (Example: If you are interested in the submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), then having easy access to the eight hours of programming taped while a C-SPAN crew were guests on that submarine could also be of interest to you.)
 * Inclusion of (and possible further creation of) templated links such as, that will easily take article readers to a link of all C-SPAN Video Library links for the person about whom the article is about.
 * What else?

I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe (as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...

"...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics."

Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.

Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.

KConWiki (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)