User talk:Rrius/Archive 6

Curt Schilling
I don't think this discussion is getting anywhere. Would you agree to making a request for comment? Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's likely to get many hits, but if you want to do it, go to town. I have responded to your last at the talk page, including a suggestion we attempt to include him as neither a Republican or a Democrat. -Rrius (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Smith disambiguating
thanks, I'll check back tomorrow to see if all the pages have been picked up by the bot. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celestra (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I responded to the IP at the article's talk page, but have nothing to say at the AN/I that hasn't been said about the IP's behaviour. -Rrius (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Category nesting
Something's not right and I can't put my finger on it.
 * Category:United States House of Representatives elections, 2009 is a subcategory of
 * Category:Special elections to the 111th Congress, which is a subcategory of
 * Category:United States House of Representatives elections, 2010.

So the 2009 elections is a sub-sub-category of the 2010 elections. How do we fix it?—Markles 10:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to replace the odd-year House election articles with the special election articles, but it will take some effort because of the template use to generate the nav boxes in the elections by year categories. The way I see it, all odd year elections, House or Senate, are special elections, so they should just be in that category. The easiest way of handling the problem before going to bed was to just dump the 2009 category in the special election category. I'm not exactly sure how to handle the 2010 articles, but I don't see categories in the pure nesting terms you do. The way I see it, having the special elections category as a sub of 2010 sets the special elections apart from the general election articles in that category. On the other hand, I don't really care if the choice is to have the 2010 articles in both the special elections and 2010 categories. -Rrius (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Far right
Hi. I notice you have removed a source supporting the use of 'far right' in description of the League of Polish Families, along with the term itself. This was added in response to an earlier removal of the term with a declaration of its inaccuracy. My reverting in turn now would of course be pointless, and I am willing to consider that I have misunderstood the criteria to be met by a reference. The BBC article which was used states its purpose as familiarising the reader with media treatment of far right parties elsewhere in Europe than the UK; the League is the party given in the case of Poland. I imagined that this provides confirmation. Beyond this, only five countries are mentioned in the article, suggesting that the five represent good examples of such parties. The Wikipedia entry for 'Far right' itself lists the League as a party of this type, in light of which there seems no good reason to avoid the description. Would you be averse to further discussion and a possible return to the term? Another disinterested reader (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs at David Cameron. -Rrius (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your go-ahead
I appreciate your go-ahead comment. If you're wondering why I ask on the "talk page" of an article, why I put stuff in like "how come there isn't any criticism", it's to get other editors who follow an article, acquainted with me, perhaps thinking about the problem; so when the changes come, they're not caught off guard, and more accepting. I've found that posting major changes to the talk page (first) works too, and doesn't create a huge surprise, and gives other editors a chance to weigh in and own the changes, check the references, etc. And hopefully edit-wars don't result. I've kind of learned this the hard way. I took an article about a business, totally revamped it, with good references, solid stuff, NPOV, etc. But editors who had been watching the article were irked, and what ensued was a month-plus of back and forth edit-warring below the radar, and fussing over details. So it was a lot of fuss afterwards. Anyway, that's my approach, in case you were wondering. By the way, I find the caliber of Wikipedians who work on the government articles to be quite high; sharp folks like yourself, DCGeist, DCMacnut, Magidin (who has a PhD; I'm only a handyman). Too bad we don't get paid for our contributions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I take the other approach you talked about. I've gotten more and better responses saying, "I propose adding X". In any event, I'm glad of all the work you're doing to improve these articles. -Rrius (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll consider your approach in future, which is similar to mine, but streamlined. And thanks for your comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

talkback
Regarding Brown? Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * About the latest religion text? Looks fine to me. -Rrius (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, that is a good edit...This issue is regarding your addition of a citation tag, do you still dispute the comment and see it as an issue, if you don't then lets remove the tag, if you still do, please tell me exactly what your issue is and I will work to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added in public to clarify comment, it is getting better? Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. -Rrius (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The easy cites to fill in are those regarding the "moral compass" and parents as "inspiration"; it may be more difficult to find one for the fact that he doesn't say "God" or "religion" in public. I don't remember whether you had one on the talk page, but I don't find the fact that he didn't use "God" in his Church of Scotland speech adequate. There are many reasons, as I pointed out on the talk page, that have nothing to do with his religiosity. In the interim, though, I have no problem with leaving the text as is until someone can prove that negative. -Rrius (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have done a fair bit of work to keep this article at GA status I want to remove the fact tag that you have inserted, I am unsure if you are saying that you still have a problem with the text as it is now? If you can accept it then I will remove it, otherwise please let me know exactly what you require to be cited and I will either find a citation or remove the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't know how much clearer I can be. The text currently has this unreferenced sentence:

The son of a Church of Scotland minister, Brown has rarely alluded to his own religious faith in public, referring not to God and religion but to his "moral compass" and to his parents being his "inspiration".
 * The sentence can be broken down as follows:
 * The son of a Church of Scotland minister
 * Brown has rarely alluded to his own religious faith in public
 * referring not to God
 * and religion
 * but to his moral "compass"
 * and to his parents being his "inspiration"
 * Item 1 is uncontroversial, and probably needs no reference at all. Items 5 & 6 are easy to find references for, and I think you have done so already. Items 2–4 are tougher. It may not be impossible to find a reference stating that the rarely talks about his faith (Item 2), but finding a reference saying he doesn't mention God and religion will be tougher. In the meantime, there is need of citation, so the "Citation needed" tag should stay; however, it does belong at the end of the sentence, so I'll move it. -Rrius (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed God, the comment was from multiple sources and later I will look for them and replace it. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand you want to bring the article up to GA, but it is unreferenced facts, not the fact tags that stand in the way. -Rrius (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is from a cite epolitix that I am adding now...

""For me, my parents were – and their inspiration still is – my moral compass.

"The compass which has guided me through each stage of my life.

"They taught me the importance of integrity and decency, treating people fairly –and duty to others. And now the sheer joy of being a father myself – seeing young children develop grow and flourish – like for all parents, has changed my life."

I have added that citation, please have a look and remove the citation tag or let me know your remaining issues and I will work to solve them. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put fact tags right after the exact claims that now need references. I'm feeling a bit feverish, so I hope you'll forgive me if I put off dealing more with this more until tomorrow. For now, I going to keep to "mindless" edits. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at what you've done with it since your last post here: well done. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad you like it. Its unfinished but better than yesterday. Off2riorob (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. "It's unfinished but better than yesterday" could very well be Wikipedia's creed. -Rrius (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporaneous editing
I would appreciate you would extend the courtesy to allow me to complete the edits and then for you to weigh in. Editing on top of others edits risks making the text unnecessarily muddled or deleting material without due care.Odin 85th gen (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, how was I to know you weren't done. Second, I'm not inclined to wait. -Rrius (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What a pair we make. I was about to fix the citation, with a copy of the original, including the ref name, such that one could access it in the Notes. As it stands now, it doesn´t look right !Odin 85th gen (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I fixed it. The text on this computer has very small text, so I couldn't tell the difference between a "}" and a "|". -Rrius (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perpetual Union
You located a valuable reference on the constitutional basis of the Union. Kudos.Odin 85th gen (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look back at the merger discussion, you'll see I had mentioned it already; it was also at Secession in the United States. -Rrius (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. While the rewritten article is a lot shorter than I envisioned it, I think it now succeeds fairly well in bringing out the importance of the Perpetual Union as a historical or legal concept. Odin 85th gen (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Special elections to the 111th United States Congress#Summaries
You are invited to join the discussion at. —Markles 14:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC) (Using )

United Kingdom
I'm still sticking to my personal views. But, I'll continue to respect Dai's & Jack's talkpages, by using Welsh & Scottish. Also, I'll use country to describe Wales & Scotland, for their sake. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And they could be respect your opinion by not calling you liar for expressing it. I got so tired of the knee-jerk overreactions that I hardly ever come near potential nationalist v. unionist conflicts anymore. -Rrius (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs to support your accusation that GoodDay was called a liar. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs to support your accusation that GoodDay was called a liar. Daicaregos (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Calling someone "dishonest", saying they "can't be trusted", and they are "reneging" on an agreement is, to me, the same as calling them a liar. If you disagree, bully for you. The fact is, GoodDay never agreed to change his mind. He agreed to support the consensus position, which means using "country" in his edits and reverting people who remove it. It is absurd that you would expect it to mean he has to change his position or never assert it again. That you expected more is bizarre enough, that you believed more was promised boggles the mind, and that you think having different understanding reflects inferior ethics is so obviously stupid as to beggar belief. -Rrius (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the diffs you provided support your accusation that GoodDay had been called a liar. I assume you were aware of that, hence the "bully for you" comment (meaning 'that's just tough', I guess). Well, I suppose it is, but your own actions need to be highlighted here too. You took me to task for acting wrongly (in your opinion) toward GoodDay. However, your attempt to take the moral high ground is compromised by your consistent misrepresentation of the truth. The fact that you consider such action acceptable (the "bully for you" comment and what you call "standard hyperbole" i.e. exageration, i.e. not the truth, i.e. lying) leads me to suppose that it is quite common for you to misrepresent things and/or people. In fact, you have misrepresented me several times in the last few of days: In addition to your accusation that I have been "waging war at the UK articles" and that GoodDay had been called a liar, you used these diffs: (your #2 above), (your #3 above) and (your #5 above) to 'support' your contention that I was "Calling someone "dishonest", saying they "can't be trusted", and they are "reneging" on an agreement ... " - you will note that none of the remarks attributed to me in quotation marks by you are actually in those diffs. So, "dishonest" and "can't be trusted" are actually words that apply to you. I should add sneaky too - as how many people (unless they've come across you before and so, would know better) are likely to check diffs to see if they actually say what is alleged? If you have legitimate concerns about my actions, you have every right to say so. But, I ask you, please do not misrepresent me again. Daicaregos (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong. The three quotes are supported: my first supports "reneged", my third supports "can't be trusted", and my fourth supports "reneged" and "dishonest". The second and fifth both identify instance where you accuse GD of going back on his word. Moreover, where I'm from, calling someone dishonest is no different from calling him a liar, so all of them support that contention. If you see some magical distinction, good for you, but it is ridiculous. Frankly, I think you are abusive and I have little respect for you because of how you treat people on Wikipedia. For you to somehow twist "bully for you" and a description of the highly contentious discussions at the relevant talk pages as "wars" into lying is so patently absurd an argument that it is surprising anyone takes you seriously at all. You can accuse me of misrepresenting you all you want, but you accused GD of dishonesty and attributed it to, of all things, his continent of origin. You did that, and you can't make me the bad guy just because you want to. It is clear that you called GD dishonest; you actually used that word. For you to get all huffy over a meaningless distinction between dishonesty and lying is frankly laughable. Hopefully, your reaction is really latent guilt over treating GD that way, including ascribing his alleged dishonesty to his being North American, which is such an idiotic claim that is difficult to understand how you could square making it with WP:NPA. In any event, since you have accused me of dishonesty now, it seems like a habit for you, I will quote the damned diffs below so that others can decide for themselves without having to endure what you think is the arduous task of clicking a link:
 * So (correct me if I'm wrong - and I hope there is another explanation) you thought you could renege on your agreement because you might get away with it?
 * Not by sharing your misinformed views on talk pages you aren't. Or is that what north Americans call their support? (which in context reads as an accusation that he was being sneaky by going behind Dai's back to user talk pages)
 * Which, to you, means that your 'agreement' doesn't count? Nice to know you can be trusted on at least (?) three pages then.
 * You make it sound as if the only reason is because consensus is against you. That you do not care about the views of millions of people, believing it is right to suppress their legitimately held belief reflects badly on you. That you completely ignore Wikipedia's core Verifiability policy (if you would like me to provide references from reliable sources to show that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all verified as countries I will be happy to do so) calls into question whether you make a positive contribution to this project. That you should renege on your agreement (and so soon) shows you are not trustworthy. I am very disappointed in you GoodDay. I'm just glad that all North Americans are not that dishonest.
 * Obviously there must be a different moral compass in Britain to that of North America. In Britain, if we have made an agreement to support a position, we would be expected to do so. Not only where we made that agreement, but in places where we may not be discovered too. So, my apologies. I put it down to differences in culture. I shall adjust my expectations of North Americans in future.
 * Frankly, I don't give a flying fig whether you agree that calling someone dishonest is the same as calling them a liar, especially when the context is that you are accusing them of saying one thing in one place and another somewhere else. It is clear you called GD dishonest using both that word and others, it is clear from this conversation that I think that is the same thing as calling him a liar, and I have provided the diffs where you did that, so your initial question about why I said you had called GD a liar has been answered. I therefore don't see any reason for you to respond. As such, I will probably ignore whatever you write, except that I will delete any further personal attacks. -Rrius (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've mellowed somewhat on those articles. I've even eased off on the 'Biography' articles, concerning usage of 'British' as opposed to English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible impeachment of Mark Sanford
Wowsers, it's heading towards impeachment, eh? GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it'll have to wait. -Rrius (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay
Were you accusing me of waging WP:WAR here? Daicaregos (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not edit warring. It was standard hyperbole; I could just have easily called them "battles" or something else. -Rrius (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, I just got my Swine flu shot (H1N1) & I didn't squeel a bit. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Howdy Rrius. I've renegaged on my agreement (with Dai & Jack). GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you reneged by saying what you did on BW's talkpage or that you have since decided to? -Rrius (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At the Rfc at Northern Ireland, I've recently decided to support 'province'. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, after then. -Rrius (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Edward David Crippa.jpg
File:Edward David Crippa.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Edward David Crippa.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Amos Nourse.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Amos Nourse.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Congressional term dates
I undid your change to Marcia Fudge because the two refs in the article stated she was sworn in on November 19, the day after her special election. I note that you made several similar changes; the only one I actually checked out, for Jackie Speier, also appears to be contradicted by her House bio. Rather than dig through everything myself, I thought I'd check with you and see what you are basing this group of changes on? Frank |  talk  21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter when they were sworn in; the term began on the date of the special election. I said that in my edit summaries and referred people to Congressional Biography. I have reverted you at Marcia Fudge with an explicit link to her Congressional Biography page. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced yet, although the link you provided there does support what you're saying. However, it's a primary source and we have reliable sources (secondary) that say otherwise. Do you have a guideline or precedent to support this? Frank  |  talk  14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congressional Biography is a secondary source as the historical office responsible for it does not create the information. The Clerk's seniority list which says the same thing may be either depending on your definition. The United States Code, which is technically a secondary source (since it only reflects bills passed by Congress), says that their pay starts with the special election. That is the same thing as saying when their term is since no one can draw a salary as a senator or representative before becoming one. Finally, RS doesn't reject primary sources, but says they can be hard to use appropriately. The question is whether they are reliable. Tell me then, what is hard about using any of these sources? -Rrius (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more convinced, though I do question some of your conclusions. However, does that seniority list you refer to have dates, and do you have a link (or other cite) for it? Frank  |  talk  04:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't exactly address your questions about my conclusions since you state neither which conclusions nor what questions you refer to. The seniority list does have dates, and it can be found here. If you're questioning the link between salary and term, I haven't looked for a specific discussion for the House yet, but there is one for the Senate, where the statute stating when a senator's pay begins is relied upon for saying when his or her term begins. If your questions refer to something else, I don't even have a guess as to what it is. Finally, I would like to point out that I have three reason for saying that a special election winner's term begins with the election, but no one has pointed out any for saying it begins with the oath. After all, the Constitution provides that general election winners' terms begin and end at noon on January 3 of odd numbered years, even though the first day of the Congress, and thus the first possible day to be sworn in, may not be until days later. -Rrius (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seniority list looks pretty definitive to me. I think we'll have to link to it or something similar for those who are elected in special elections. Thanks! Frank  |  talk  14:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Garamendi
Until he assumed office November 5, Garamendi was not a United States Representative, he was a Representative-elect. Much like Joe Biden when he remained a Senator even though he was already Vice President-elect, he was not constitutionally required to relinquish his office as Senator until he actually became Vice President. In the letter that Garamendi wrote to Gov. Schwarzeneggar, he said he was resigning effective Nov. 5.

U.S. law does not say that Representatives assume office immediately upon election. I'm not sure where on earth you got that. Nevermore | Talk 03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarily disputing your points, but even if you watch C-SPAN footage of the swearing-in of Garamendi, Speaker Pelosi refers to Garamendi as a "Representative-elect" until he completes the oath, saying "Congratulations, you are now a member of the 111th Congress." That admittedly circumstantial evidence as well as Garamendi's resignation letter lead me to believe that a) Garamendi did not assume office as U.S. Rep until Nov. 5, and b) that he was not required to resign his office as LG until that day either. To assume that it does has far-reaching consequences for any Congressman who was elected in a special election as to their assumption of office date. Nevermore | Talk 05:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See the thread above; the PDF link to the dates of service from the Congress itself seems pretty authoritative to me. I question the conclusion that one "can't" be paid if one isn't seated yet, but they list the date of election as the date of service, regardless of the swearing in, at least for special elections. Frank  |  talk  12:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, I sure fell behind the times. I didn't know (until now) that Garamendi had become a member of the US House of Reps. Will the Lt.Gov position remain vacant 'til January 2011? GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Californians actually replace theirs. I want to say the Governor will nominate someone and both houses have to confirm, but I might be making that up. I think you're forgiven for missing the Cali situation; I can't keep track of who's doing what in Ontario. -Rrius (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning Ontario, neither can I keep up. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good. I see all these Globe and Mail articles, and it seems like everyone is running for a different job and no one likes so-and-so any more. It all seems terribly dramatic. -Rrius (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Asking for your feedback
Hi, I'm interested in your thinking about the proposed criticism suggestion of POTUS:

Talk:President of the United States/sandbox

Any thoughts or suggestions?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Owens, Quigley, Murphy
I scoured the United States code page on elections of representatives, here, presumably current as of Jan. 5. Section 8 pertains to vacancies. There is nothing in there about winners of special elections assuming office automatically. I can only assume that the House, for whatever reason, calculates seniority based on the date of the election. But until it can be proved otherwise, we should probably assume that "assumption of office" means when the Representative in question was sworn in. Nevermore | Talk 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bit irrational, given that Congressional Biography reflects terms, not seniority. It's further irrational to decide that we'll just ignore the seniority list without explanation. I have two sources supporting that the term begins at special election, and you have zero supporting commencement at oath. I am reverting you. -Rrius (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, you got me. There is something I'd like for you to help me clarify though, with the U.S.C. citation. Would that mean when the date of the election was held, regardless of when it was decided, or would it mean when the election was actually certified? Because the election in NY-20 wasn't certified until early May, but Scott Murphy was sworn in April 29, making the certification moot, seeing as Tedisco had conceded anyway. NY-23 still hasn't been certified, but Owens has already been sworn in, seeing as Hoffman conceded. So what I'm wondering is do we take it from the date of the election or certification/swearing-in? Because while you are quite adamant on the dates of Owens/Murphy/Quigley, the Chu/Garamendi dates are not the dates of the elections. Nevermore  | Talk 07:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it dates all the way back to the election. I'm not sure what would happen in the unlikely situation where Hoffman was determined to have actually prevailed. He'd file a challenge with the House, and he would win it. The statute leads me to believe that he would be entitled to a salary all the way back to election day. I'd have to guess that Owens would be allowed to keep the salary he'd have drawn by that point, but I have no idea how you would refer to the whose term was when. It would be awkward to refer to Hoffman's term as beginning November 3, so the best way to handle it might be to say it started when the House passed its declaration that he was the winner. Life would be simpler for us if they just used the swearing-in date; I suppose it's simpler for them to do it this way. -Rrius (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Any input on
The deletion page for List of oldest surviving members of the House of Representatives would be greatly appreciated.

Star Garnet (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare on Elm Street
I wonder if The Virginian or Trampus were anywhere near Elm Street, Dallas at 12.30 CET on 22 November 1963?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that this avenue has not been adequately pursued. You've got to wonder if he would have been better served by having the Lone Ranger along instead of the Secret Service. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with Tonto beside him. Actually, the best man for the job of protecting JFK in Dallas that day was Walker, Texas Ranger. He would have caught all the shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, single-handedly, with a few, well-placed karate kicks. And had he been handcuffed to Oswald the morning of the transfer, he would have kicked the gun out of Ruby's hand before the latter had a chance to fire it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or he could have shot beard whiskers out at Ruby like a porcupine. -Rrius (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And sent Ruby's derby hat flying.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlie & Cam's visits
Wowsers, I wish the Queen's kids would stay home. $2.57 million? is OTT. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep wondering if the push to get rid of male-preference primogeniture and the bar on Catholics will nudge Australia into getting rid of the monarchy altogether. I doubt New Zealand would be ready, and I'm sure Canada wouldn't, but I'm sure you'd appreciate the momentum. -Rrius (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be cheering on the Aussies, for sure. Sadly, Canada will likely be the last to abolish its monarchy (the UK will abolish there's before that happens). In my country, the average citizen (IMHO) aren't even aware of the Canadian (let alone British) monarchy. That's the monarchy's secret weapon, lack of awareness of their existance. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the longer Charles lives, the better chance you have. He's not terribly appealing, and he's loopy enough to say or do something to harden people against the monarchy. -Rrius (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Prince Charles is sexy. Beats Rod Stewart anyday.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He'll be in the old folks home, when he ascends the thrones. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He's younger than Rod the Mod.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When he puts on the crown, he'll fall down. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And you will pick him up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't, I'd be laughing too much. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about physical attractiveness; I just meant he doesn't have that certain something like William does. Harry's actually my favourite of the bunch, but I'm not sure why. -Rrius (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do you think they can rig some kind of scaffolding up so his neck doesn't have to support the crown? It would suck if he had a fall during his coronation and ended up dying of the infection. Actually, it reminds me of this guy and this egg. -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Prince William has a lot of charisma.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Larry King Live & the McCartney/Williams Seal-hunting debate
When Larry King called Newfoundland and Labrador, New Finland, I chuckled for a week. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And what do you attribute that to? His accent? His senility? His stupidity? Too many choices... -Rrius (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Senility, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, blame his senility. I can't remember the last time I watched him. I have a feeling Ross Perot was running for president at the time. I mean, a fern could ask tougher questions than he does. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I still watch LKL, when his programs are good. When he has Reality TV celebs (stuff like 'Ya think ya can dance' etc) on, then I turn away from it. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Admit it, you just like watching him decompose on camera. -Rrius (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hei, hei-hei...hei (laughing like Larry). There'll soon be nothing left but the suspenders. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always found television celebrities and stupidity to be twins joined at birth with a half brain between them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but he represents the shallow end of that pool, IMHO. So, when are we all going to go baby seal clubbing. I understand it's great fun. -Rrius (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rrius, please I ate less than an hour ago. I emphatically condemn the barbaric practice of baby seal clubbing, and it should be outlawed and the perpetrators imprisoned.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a little morbid humour. -Rrius (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I deplore cruelty to animals, and I would never wear sealskin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The cruelty aspect would bother me, too, but I have no problem with leather shoes, so I'm not sure what's going on there. At least I'd never feel conflicted about sealskin because, from what I've seen, it makes ugly clothes. -Rrius (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that I have no problem with wearing leather.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Super Dave Osborne uses Saskatchewen seal skinned bindings, when peforming his stunts. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election
No problem. :) I appreciate being asked. I'll take a look at some point on Wednesday. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have no opinion on the subject going in. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looks like the discussion was closed. Honestly, I don't quite understand the logic of the ones opposed to the move. I know that if an election was called say today that it would a minimum of what...3 weeks before the election? I don't understand waiting until January but ok. :) Once that time comes, I can make the move. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Sorry about that. I'll take another look :) --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 23:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang it. Someone beat me to it. :) --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 05:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

US Constitution article - Delaware ratification numbers
In case you missed it, I posted the following on the discussion page for the US Constitution article

Why don't you post links to those supposed online sources. You have my source, which per the Library of Congress, is the "BEST SOURCE" for this subject - the ratification of the US Constitution.71.184.177.99 (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded to you there. I think you confused Delaware and Maryland because the table always said Maryland passed it 63–11 and because you use the names of both states to refer to one supposed error. -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:WP Chicago-user
Why did you create WP Chicago-user since the project already has two such templates? Do you think we should delete it as redundant?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see them because I stopped at "Member". It doesn't make sense that the userboxes are separate from that template, so I would suggest actually putting the userboxes there instead of after the stub template. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WP Chicago-user
Template:WP Chicago-user has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rrius (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because otherwise I wouldn't have known. Thanks, Twinkle. -Rrius (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Congressional dates
Howdy Rrius. It looks like we're never gonna get all those dates fixed, those erroneous March 3 ones. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, never. The fact that it really is March 3 for the really early ones makes it impossible. People will always want consistency, even when the world is inconsistent. -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At least we tried. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian infoboxes, eh?
Howdy Rrius. In the Kim Campbell article (before I deleted), she was listed as PC leader 'until' Novemer 4, 1993 (the day she resigned as PM, to be succeeded by Chretien), but infact she continued as PC leader until resigning (that post) on Decmeber 14, 1993. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter whether party leadership is included for some or all of them, the infoboxes need some fact checking. You found that error, and I found the one on Stanfield, so there may well be more. -Rrius (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Rrius
Hello Rrius.

Thank you for your "heads-up" on the Middle Francia article page. I appreciate it very much. As well, thank you for the kind interaction on the TalkPage, you were very polite and kind to interact with.

Take care eh, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14
You are invited to join the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read this at Talk:Middle Francia?
The index of Janet L. Nelson, Politics and ritual in early medieval Europe (London: Hambledon Press, 1986) reads "Middle Kingdom, see Lotharingia". Otis C. Mirchell, Two German crowns: monarchy and empire in medieval Germany (Bristol: Wyndham Hall, 1985) refers to the "territory of Lotharingia (Lorraine), the original middle inheritance north of the Alps". In the New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 3, we read that contemporaries "did not agree on which ruler this name [Lotharingia] referred to. Some, when speaking of the 'kingdom of Lothar', intended to refer to the Emperor Lothar I and hence to Francia media, while some were alluding to his son Lothar II." It goes on to add that while historians unanimously use it in the latter sense, the term "Lotharingian axis" is sometimes a synonym for "Middle Francia". On p. 313 in the same volume it refers to "that Francia media which had now [898] become Lotharingia." I believe all of this information is found in the Lotharingia article. —Srnec (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, look back at the history. Snowded made the change saying that the consensus was to delete Middle Francia. He was wrong; I reverted. Second, that some historians use "Lotharingian axis" synonymously is irrelevant. Read the actual clause at issue: "[Lotharingia] was born of the tripartite division in 855 of the kingdom of Middle Francia." It is ridiculous to say that Lotharingia both comes from and is precisely the same thing as Middle Francia. There is an article, so the link is more appropriate than bolding to begin with, and the two terms, as is clear from the context, do not refer to the same thing. -Rrius (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that they are precisely (or even imprecisely) the same thing. —Srnec (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the article exists and that the sentence says "A comes from B", it makes more sense to link to the article than to treat the term as a synonym by making it bold. Address that point instead of quibbling over the degree to which it is argued they are synonymous. -Rrius (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It only "makes more sense to link to the article" if the article provides additional information. It does not now nor ever has (except informatio not strictly relevant and that can already be found at several other articles we could link to). And please don't accuse me of "quibbling"; let's keep our statements ad rem rather than ad hominem. —Srnec (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting that you were quibbling is not an ad hominem, and it escapes me how you could see it so. Saying that you are raising a trivial objection based on word choice rather than actually addressing a substantive point is not by any stretch of the imagination an attack on your character. So let's refrain from trumping up nonsense to for point-scoring, shall we?


 * The argument that other articles address points made at Middle Francia is irrelevant. What's more, Lotharingia didn't contain the bulk of the information at Middle Francia until you unilaterally merged the articles in an effort that short circuited an ongoing discussion&mdash;something you did more than once in this case. To this point, I have avoided calling for undoing that wrong because I simply lack enthusiasm for the task. Suffice it to say that your argument about duplication throughout the merger discussion is undercut by the fact that you caused that it in your attempt to muzzle that discussion.


 * In the end, the fact remains that the article does exist and that the two terms, especially as used in the clause at issue, are not synonyms. The question is divisible. The term should be linked, but if it weren't, it would still be inappropriate to make it bold. In other words, "Middle Francia" should be linked, but if it is not, it should be in plain Roman typeface, not boldface. -Rrius (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Very best wishes

 * Merry Yuletide to you Rrius and very best wishes to you and yours throughout 2010.
 * PS, this does not mean we may not disagree about content occasionally, ho ho ho! Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have to get on that; we've been in lockstep for sometime now. -Rrius (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well a new year, new opportunity, lockstep indeed, I had to gooogle it..hehe. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a holly jolly Christmas & a happy 2010. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) That seems more like "have a truly terrifying Christmas." Those old Christmas specials really did like to be scary, didn't they. -Rrius (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're Rankin/Bass's most popular characters. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are scary, though. -Rrius (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are also non free and require removing from talkpage, they have been removed from mine already. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't ya know it. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast, no worries..they were removed from my talk by a picture policeman otherwise I would never of realized, well at least not till the new year anyways. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At least they survived 'til Christmas. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks GoodDay.Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)