Wikipedia

User talk:Rrius/Archive 16

< User talk:Rrius
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 94.65.32.228 in topic Thanks!
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a very dull question

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit, you changed a 'cite web' template to a bare 'ref' - I wonder why. The change appears to lose some information, namely the title, publisher, and access date.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the title was "Announcement of Privy Councillors", I assumed without reading the url that it was the press release from the Prime Minister's office announcing the appointments. To replace that, I simply copied the relevant ref from List of current members of the British Privy Council. The intention was not to downgrade the ref formatting, but to update it. In any event, the link is now dead, but I'll fix it (and the formatting) once I've updated the links at the list linked to above. -Rrius (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

South Bris

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The site will be updated, and it is relevant. I've never seen anyone be so intransigent over the tiniest of by-election article peculiarities... Timeshift (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. You say the site will be updated, but have you any proof? Why exactly do you think it is so damned important to have a ref for something which isn't remotely controversial? Anyway, have it your own way, but I do tire of this tactic of yours of wearing down anyone you disagree with. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Uh, yes. The experience of many elections via the ABC. And I disagree with more edits than I involve myself in. Timeshift (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
We shall see, but at the moment it is a bad and useless ref because it doesn't support anything. As for the other, that is hardly surprising since you could hardly be expected to put so much effort into every edit you disagree with; there are only so many hours in the day. -Rrius (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
And my first logon since early this morning is at 4:40pm. Please don't exaggerate. Timeshift (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, but I will exaggerate here to my heart's content. -Rrius (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Your loss. Timeshift (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Note to self: look into how using exaggeration for rhetorical effect is a loss; I wonder if the ancients knew about this. -Rrius (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Federal Executive Council

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

You removed the link to Prime Minister of Yugoslavia with the edit summary Essentially no chance anyone will come here seeking that article. It appears they might; see the mess which is Federal executive council and Federal Executive Council (Yugoslavia) (which I was trying to clean up). RichardOSmith (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a reason for the page move/merger, but in any event it is clearly disputed, so you need to go through a proper merge discussion if you wish to continue with the plan. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you have fully seen the page histories - there was a very good reason for the move: when created, the Yugoslavia article was incorrectly capitalised as Federal executive council (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Institutions). I moved it to Federal Executive Council (Yugoslavia) as there was already a Federal Executive Council and then sorted out a dab page as it turns out there is also such a council in both Australia and Nigeria.
The Yugoslavia article is entirely unreferenced amongst other problems, but the subject is covered at Prime Minister of Yugoslavia so it seemed better to direct to there instead. This was the point at which you removed even that link from the dab page, which was supposedly the entire point of its existence.
RichardOSmith (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You keep saying that the subject is covered at Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, but you are wrong. The dab link was improper because the PM article barely mentions it. No one looking for information about the subject was going to get what they were looking for there. There is almost no overlap whatsoever. In fact, there may have been no more overlap than the mention of the year 1992 and the fact that the President of the Council was its head. If you are going to merge articles, you need to actually go to the trouble of merging articles. There certainly were problems with FEC, but some have been fixed. The article was clearly written by someone without a strong command of the English language, and therefore needs help from the rest of us—including finding some sources. If you really, really hate the article, go ahead and nominate it for deletion, but it would be far more reasonable to give people a chance to improve it. In any event, simply deleting information there without an AfD or even notifying the original editor was probably not the right way to go about it. -Rrius (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
And to be clear, I did fully see the page histories. The move from Federal executive council was of course correct, and never at issue. What I meant by "page move/merger" was the bizarre process by which you moved an article then deleted all of its text, making it a redirect to a third article instead. It was a particularly strange way to delete an article, which is in effect what you did.
Finally, to bolster what I said about the lack of coverage of FEC at at PM, here is the sum total of what is included there, aside from the list of PMs/Presidents: "The government was first headed by a Prime Minister up to 14 January 1953, when major decentralization reforms reorganized the government into the Federal Executive Council chaired by a President. Josip Broz Tito held the post from 1943 to 1963." That's it. Aside from the years 1953 and 1992 (the latter from the list), nothing beyond the bare fact that the head of the council was called the president is mentioned at the PM article. -Rrius (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The subject (I never said the content) was at the target article. You missed the main one: the opening sentence: "The Prime Minister or the President of the Federal Executive Council of Yugoslavia...". I felt that there was nothing to merge because the new article was unreferenced; directing the reader to something at least related seemed the best approach. You are getting unduly combative; the process I followed is at WP:BOLD and once disputed I did not pursue that line. Sheesh! I am stepping well away from this now. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You came here telling me I was wrong to do a thing, and I responded. Your rejoinder was that the subject was discussed at PM. It isn't. It is just barely mentioned. For future reference, the best approach is to either merge the articles, which means salvaging content, or nominating the article for deletion in the normal way. Turning an article into a redirect without copying the content is a form of deletion, and that requires consensus through WP:Articles for deletion. -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I apologise for any harm I may have caused, and have notified that I would like the deletion nomination closed. I see what you mean about the necessity of said article. See at the deletion discussion for more information… RGloucester (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Possibly unfree File:Jeremiah Howell.jpg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jeremiah Howell.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lib Dem Shadow Cabinets

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While browsing around, I noticed that there are duplicate articles for most of the LibDem frontbench teams. Example: Frontbench Team of Nick Clegg and Liberal Democrat Frontbench Team, 2007–2010. I don’t understand why this is, exactly…nevertheless, since you said you were working of Shadow Cabinet articles I thought I’d tell you. The “Frontbench Team of…” articles are linked more often, and have talk pages. The "LDFT, xxx-xxx” articles are never linked anywhere, yet their content seems more complete. To be honest, I prefer the naming scheme “Frontbench Team of So and So” over the other. I would suggest merging the two types of articles to this naming scheme, and replacing the incomplete untabled data in the "F. T. of" articles with the tables from the LDFT articles...RGloucester (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, two people decided to construct these lists within days of each other. I've merged them, which has resulted in a slightly messy state of affairs, but I'm going to have to go back and get the information for Charles Kennedy from 1999 to 2001, which shouldn't be too hard. Ashdown will be a little more difficult if only because Weekly Information Bulletins are available only for some of the years he was in office. I really wish the UK had the Australian habit of announcing the full ministry and shadow teams at the beginning of each session. -Rrius (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Angela C. Smith"

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What disambiguator, then, would you recommend? The current one is in oppositon to WP:COMMONNAME as the "name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" is Angela Smith, not "Angela C. Smith". We shouldn't be giving readers the impression that she is known by a name she is in fact never known as, just because the situation with the article's disambiguation is a bit tricky. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There isn't one I would recommend. COMMONNAME is a default rule, not the be all, end all. Any disambiguator is by necessity an exception to COMMONNAME, and in choosing the way to disambiguate, we must of necessity choose something that isn't the most common way of referring to the person. According to WP:Article titles, natural disambiguators are preferred, and in any event the disambiguator should be helpful and shouldn't be convoluted. I think "(politician born 1961)" is both unhelpful and convoluted. Initials, on the other hand, are used frequently for people who are famous for similar things (especially serving in the same legislature representing the same party). Scraping bottom, the best I can come up with Angela Smith (South Yorkshire politician), but I'm not sure that's any good either. In any event, the article has been stable at its current title for a long time (barring today), so you should probably bring it up on the talk page before making any future move. -Rrius (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dates

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

What you are doing now are tweaks. That's fine, but it causes edit conflict. It is more important to get rid of all the stuff about TV licenses and so on, than worrying about whether the sentence stands alone or is link. The FACT of the coronation is the important thing. It needs to be stated and dated (i will take on what you pointed out). Now, what to do with the Margaret stuff, which began at that time, but goes on till 1978, so it doesn't sit well in the coronation story.

Moreover, the whole section on the 50s and 60s deals with the politics fairly well, but the heading is specific to the Commonwealth, and fails to sum up the events. I think that it would be better to chop the biography into decades, which is what the Jubilee website does.

There needs to be a section on the Commonwealth, which contains the relevant stories, including the Kerr kerfuffle in full. However, the facts also need to be stated within the decades that they pertain to. At present that section in particular hops between the general and the specific. Can you possibly consider this, and think about how to achieve it, with all the major Commonwealth advances in a section that groups them, so that the more personal bio details, like the birth of Andrew and Edward can be stated as fact, not as a lead int to a sentence about opening parliament. They need to be mentioned in that context as well.

I'll wait for your reply on this.

Amandajm (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't said a word about almost anything you wrote there, and I didn't revert any of it. I agree with that Margaret paragraph being blatantly out of place, and I'm 100% sure it needs to go back anywhere, so I don't care if you do so or not. -Rrius (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
"Elizabeth looked tearful"
It has human relevance, but it is a total non-event. Had she thrown herself in front of the king's horse, it would have been an event. Someone said she "looked tearful". Another person might have said "she looked sulky". Someone else might have said "the Princess had a head cold".
But someone said she "looked tearful" and this version of a total non-event was repeated by a biographer (some biographers love the "intimate details"). That a young teenager was a little distressed at saying goodbye to her parents on a long trip is not the stuff of an encyclopaedia.
There is a description of the magnificent photo that was taken of the three Queens at the funeral of George VI. This is much more relevant. The scene of the youthful ElizabethII descending from the plane, to meet her political leaders for the first time as queen, has been both photographed and described. Either way, it is a powerful image.
But the fact that a child "looked tearful" is a ridiculous thing to add. It carries as much weight as the fact that a three-yr-old put her hands over her ears when a fly-past thundered overhead.
Do we really have to sink to that level? If what you want is sentiment, I could dig up enough to block the Thames.
Amandajm (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not a ridiculous thing at all. It adds to the reader's understanding of who this person was as a child. The point of the article is to tell the story of the life a human being, and such insights as that are important to telling that story. While the information may mean nothing to you, it may give others insight into how the child became the woman. -Rrius (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Did you read this thoroughly?
If she merely "looked tearful" then the person who described it didn't actually described that she "cried". They merely interpreted an expression that they saw on her face. Another person looking at her face might have interpreted it quite differently.
There are several quotes that describe her as a child, by people who saw, or knew her as a child. Those quotes are relevant. This one is not. Maybe she was furious at being left behind! We don't know. It is so fuzzy a description as to be meaningless.
One might as well write in a description of Princess Anne that she "looked sulky" or Princess Margaret that she "looked raddled" or Princess Beatrice that she looked ....... well, never mind. You probably get the picture.... but then, maybe not!
Amandajm (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we get relevant?
What is your take on the Commonwealth section? Split or not split. It is going to take very careful editing to sort the general biography from the spefic topic that the present heading indicates. I will no doubt make a few stuff-ups along the way.
Amandajm (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I take your point, but I disagree with you. Someone researched this, and we have a particular and poignant description of how she is said to have reacted. Someone could have described her elsewise, and might have done, but we have a properly documented quotation, and that someone other observer might have had a different view is totally irrelevant. We have a quotation from a reliable source saying that she was tearful at the farewell, which gives insight into how she was raised and why she is who she is. I don't see how you could fail to see that. Also, I never said she cried, and neither does the article. Seeing tears is more than "interpreting an expression on her face". In fact, saying she looked tearful is far more specific and gives the reader a far better basis for judging the situation than if it was merely said she looked sad. The former is a fact about her, the latter is an opinion about her. As for the Commonwealth section, I haven't looked and have no opinion. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

More banks have failed

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was listening to the radio, and the article needs updating. I'm kind of busy.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Rrius. You have new messages at Matthewrbowker's talk page.
Message added 02:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 02:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

House of Lords Reform Bill

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cheers Rrius for the mass edit :) It was very late and I was quite tired to I just did the best I could before going to bed. You've done a much better job! doktorb wordsdeeds 07:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! If I'd had to write from scratch, it wouldn't have been as good. Three cheers for collaboration! (Just don't tell the French!) -Rrius (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DOMA

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My apologies for misreading. No need to be abusive. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no abuse, merely an observation that your edit summary was difficult to understand, but that the most likely interpretation couldn't be correct. I admit I could have put an exclamation point at the end to make it clearer I didn't literally mean you would have a mental disorder if you believed my version was somehow more legalistic than yours. I also admit that I was less inclined to do so given that the reaction to my hours of massive and tedious effort fixing the citation formatting and spinning out Golinski was your edit, capitalizing something that shouldn't be capitalized per MOS and de-clarifying a phrase, and your quibbling over "BLAG" versus "the BLAG" at the talk page. I don't expect barnstars, but good grief, the least you could have done was grant my contribution at your talk page the benefit of a the doubt and assumed it was exasperated confusion rather than jumping to the conclusion I was being abusive. -Rrius (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Polls

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My bad and thanks for the heads-up. Belchfire (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Legislative Assembly of Queensland

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

There was actually a discussion about this over at WT:AUP, and as far as we could discover it was known as the Queensland Legislative Assembly, including on the website. Would you mind pointing out (maybe over in the discussion itself, to keep things together) where you've found evidence to the contrary? Frickeg (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
This definitely requires discussion rather than edit warring, in my opinion. Orderinchaos 02:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
One could have said the same thing back in June. -Rrius (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You are the only one asserting that it should be out of step with all other Australian parliaments and in defiance of sources. Orderinchaos 02:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no. There is nothing magical about the other Australian parliaments are named, and I have provided source at WT:AUP that are much better than the ones used there to support QLA. -Rrius (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, am just off the phone to the Queensland parliamentary offices, and there is genuine confusion - some of their official, current sources say one, some of their official, current sources say the other. They are going to get back to me after looking into it. (APH's style guide says QLA, but this may actually reflect the other parliaments.) Orderinchaos 02:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Have them look at the writs of election, the Letters Patent used each term that dissolve Parliament, summon Parliament, authorise commissioners to open Parliament, and authorize commissioners to administer the oath. The can also take a look at the Constitution Amendment Act 1934, section 3. I would again ask you to take a look at WT:AUP. -Rrius (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Note also WP:COMMONNAME - if an official name is not widely in use, then it is preferable to use that by which it is most known by. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." We occasionally hit this issue on other topics related to administration. Orderinchaos 02:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
By that standard, I would argue LAofQ still wins, but really, most people call it the Parliament since it is unicameral, so a true COMMONNAME action would require merger. In any event, using something other than the official name would require that other version to be significantly more common such that it was obvious it actually was more common. That is not the case here. In a situation such as this, where two versions are roughly equal in common usage, the one that is the official version, and is used far more by government, makes more sense as the one to land on. -Rrius (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Since the conversations have converged (in terms of topic), can we keep it at WT:AUP? -Rrius (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of British cabinet posts.

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Rrius. You've removed the double-stripe formatting on the lists at Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Home Secretary - but this "fussy overreaction" is now the standard format for all British cabinet positions (follow any of the links from Cameron ministry - for instance Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, or Secretary of State for Defence. We need to be consistent with the formatting. Are you going to remove the double-stripe formatting from all of them? LookLook36 (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It is an fussy overreaction, as a simple note would suffice for coalitions. What's more, it is a triple stripe, with the middle consisting of one or more tiny bullets that somehow readers are supposed to both known and be able to click on. It is preposterous. Unfortunately, reverting means sorting out the fixes to the double stripe system itself from the ones that need to be preserved, making the job a bit tedious. Therefore I have not done them all at once. -Rrius (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And another thing

You keep deleting the colour keys. If colours are being used to denote something like party affiliation, a key needs to be provided so that people know what the colours mean. LookLook36 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not when it is patently obvious what the colour denotes. Where, as when there is a Lib Dem minister in a Coalition, I have not removed them. Also, I think it was on the Chancellor list, the key was multiple pages above the first instance of a colour being used, showing just how pointless it was. -Rrius (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you two please discuss this a bit further in a calm way before further editing on these pages?. My watchlist is going crazy with all this to-and-fro editing. There must be a better way of resolving these creative differences between you? Thom2002 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't remember not being calm, so I don't know where that is coming from. -Rrius (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse anyone of lack of calmness. I just mean to say that there must be a better way for both parties to settle the differences than the current to-and-fro edits across all of the secretaries of state. Thom2002 (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I imagine the discussion we are already having fits the bill. -Rrius (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope so, and that this will be borne out in your respective edit histories! Thom2002 (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Or, as only seems to be important, your watchlist! -Rrius (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Ha ha! Hopefully your dialogue here shall resolve these issues for the harmony of Wikipedia, the order of the Universe and, most importantly, the state of my precious watchlist! ;-) Thom2002 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(Sir) John McLeay, and others

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The reason there are brackets around the Sir is because McLeay was knighted in 1962, midway through his term. He thus spent most of his term as plain John McLeay, but since he served for a period as Sir John that's included too. This is the standard way of indicating this. Frickeg (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Good to know. I thought it was a dab or something. -Rrius (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Referral to NPOV Noticeboard for review.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Rubio spouse description and expansion of information on the immigration matter has been referred to the NPOV Noticeboard for review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Request_review_of_Rubio_continuing_reversions

Prof D Meduban (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Note from a guy who believes Michele Bachmann

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Your comment on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim_Brotherhood_conspiracy_theories#NPOV_Violation violates wikipedia's civility guidelines. Please remain civil in your discussion. Korentop (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. -Rrius (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Calling other users "incompetent" or "intellectually dishonest" is a violation of wikipedia's policies. I am posting here in order to resolve the situation without elevating it. I do not mind your disagreement, but the way you are treating the the users you disagree with is what I am pointing out. --Korentop (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I called what you did incompetent, which is was. Your listing is still only half-formed. The fact that no deletion tag came up for your second tag should have been a tip off, but you chose in your edit summary to blame me instead. The fact that there is a big fat redlink in the deletion tag that you've restored should have been a tip off. The big redlink on the AfD log should have been tip off. It is not my fault you have been unable in two attempts to properly list the article for deletion.
As for "intellectually dishonest", again, I was referring to what the editor did, not what the editor is. That editor took what I said grossly out of context to try to make a point, which is intellectually dishonest. There is nothing uncivil or violative of the rules of this place in calling that sort of spade a spade. I am not doing anything to treat others poorly. If you actually look at my exchange with the IP editor, I attack shabbiness of the Shoebat source, Michele Bachmann, and the overall argument of your side. The IP editor, on the other hand, attacks me. Using naughty words to describe the steaming pile of a source we are offered is in no way an attack on you or IP, so I would thank you to stop tossing around baseless accusations of personal attacks here and in edit summaries.
Now, I would thank you to leave me alone. I have tried and failed to get you to fix the mess you made with deletion, so I see no point in discussing anything further with you anywhere but at the article's talk page or the AfD half-listing. -Rrius (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I will leave you alone...after your next violation, I will simply elevate the issue. Korentop (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There was never a first "violation" for one thing; noting that your attempts to list the article for deletion is not uncivil, it is just stating facts. And I get to pick the headings here, so don't revert me. Next time I start reverting anything you contribute at this talk page without reading it.

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

AE

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thanks for the comments at the AE. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Here's the 2 edits I made, which caused Djsasso to 'report' me: here & here. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. When you recently edited Shadow Cabinet of Mark Latham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert McClelland (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) 04:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Maggie Scott, Lady Scott

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I placed a tag on Maggie Scott, Lady Scott, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to itself.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. It seemed to me that your intention was to point the redirect to Maggie Scott (advocate), but I can find no indication that she has yet been confirmed as Lady Scott. It therefore seems we are in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL. Feel free to reply here if you have any questions about this. – Wdchk (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't really apply though, does it? Even if she does choose a different title, someone who doesn't know it might assume she chose that one. Anyway, the grounds for not having a redirect doesn't seem particularly strong. -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Shadow Cabinet

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do apologize. I wasn't aware that you had been creating those (I was wondering though, they're really cool) and was just trying to get rid of the redirects. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Gageler

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Quick work, and good. I got into Stephen Gageler about an hour later than you. Currently some doubling up on references, that will be sorted out over time. :-) - Peter Ellis - Talk 07:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Her Majesty's Government frontbench, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Heath (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) 11:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

An RfC has been opened at Talk:List of British shadow cabinets.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I’ve opened an RfC at Talk:List of British shadow cabinets that I think you might be interested in. Feel free to contribute. RGloucester (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for both your good words at my talk page and for defending me at the investigation page.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Two more comments: First of all, I want to be a free bird. You may ask Mandarax about "this IP with the congressmen". He will understand what it means and tell you about me. Secondly and most significantly, I feel very weird that I was a suspected shock-puppet of this Vintagekits guy and not of John K who did this edit [1] ten days ago...--94.65.32.228 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Presumably, Kittybrewster was intimately involved in the Vintagekits incident (whatever it was). It's probably a bit like a cardiologist always seeing a heart problem—the mind goes to what it knows. Anyway, how long ago were you dealing with Mandarax? -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Not counting anymore ;)--94.65.32.228 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To respond to the points you raised on the project page:

  • "You blocked an editor for 72 hours without warning."
    • When an IP address that is only two days old starts to make changes at over 100 pages an hour, in the time it takes for an editor to reply to a request on the talk page another 100 edits could have been made. In the time it took to ascertain whether those edits are legitimate or not it would be easy for hundreds more edits to have be made. I am not sure if you have had to clean up 100s of edits, but it takes a long time. An IP editor making that number of edits is unusual to say the least and is often a sign of a sockpuppet. I put on an initial block of 72 hours to give the project time to respond. It is always possible to have a block removed in a shorter period, and that is preferable to extending a short block.
  • IP engaged with you at his or her talk page, including giving you the link and a direct quote, but instead you delayed by asking here and at Kittybrewster's page, the latter probably wasting the most time since she clearly misunderstood what IP was supposed to have been doing
    • See my comment above. Just because a policy says something does not mean that it is widely followed. The fact that 100 of pages were being changed, suggested that it may not have been accurate and that it was better to check that it was still the consensus. There was no time lost by asking Kittybrewster anything as I did not ask her any questions. Nor did I post anything to her talk page.
  • "Now you've got an SPI going based on nothing. Is that just an attempt to save face or is there actually some genuine connection to Vintagekits you aren't sharing with the rest of the class?"
    • I do not know if there is a link to Vintagekits but it has been suggested and it does not harm to check. I do not have any reason to "save face". -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. In the few minutes it would take to determine whether the editor was going to respond to a post at his or her talk page, you're talking in the realm of six edits. It does not take an hour to figure that out. That fact that it was around 100 edits in an hour, instead of many more, should have been the first tip off that this was not an automated process. As regards policy, are you listening to yourself? You blocked IP, determined that IP's edits comported with what the WikiProject said, but then decided that he should remain blocked while you determined whether what the WikiProject said was still policy? That's bonkers. Twice over, in fact. It is unreasonable to take issue with someone for bringing pages into compliance with a policy when you know nothing about the policy. It is doubly so to keep someone blocked when simply asking the person to desist and take it to the WikiProject talk page would have more than sufficed. IP was utterly reasonable and gave you no reason to assume he or she would act like an asshole if you went down that route. Finally, "it has been suggested" is a cop-out. If Kittybrewster had a reason for making the connection, she could have started an SPI setting out that reason. For you to start one with no actual rationale is damned close to an abuse of process. Or maybe you have a point, let's check: I suspect if I asked you if you are a terrorist, you would say no, terrorism is evil. But then, a terrorist might well say something like that. So if someone said you should be checked out to see if you are a terrorist, it wouldn't hurt to investigate you. Do you see the point? We don't investigate people without some valid reason. Kittybrewster saying he should be checked against Vintagekits without a hint of a basis in fact is not a valid reason. Also, the fact that IP sat waiting three hours for you to answer him or her instead of trying to appeal the block shows a sufficient lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures that makes your starting the SPI almost exclusively on the basis of an unexpected familiarity with Wikipedia perplexing. I wish like hell you had the character to apologize for some or all of your failures today or at least to admit you overreacted in blocking, in keeping IP blocked, and in starting a baseless SPI, but it looks like that is just another Wiki-wish that will not be fulfilled. -Rrius (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

SOME COMMENTS:

The truth is, that my brother, whom I don't live with, has an account. In fact I've used sometimes but non often and as I am a sort of a technophobic (yes!), each time I tried to use those gadgets I fainted and so, I did it manually all the times.

I'd like to say that PBS was some sort of "prosecuting attorney" when he started the investigation instead of Kittybrewster who was the "plaintiff".

Does anyone know why did A. B. add at my page this template?

And, you must also learn (did I say this before?) that I had already been bored of the project when I was blocked... --94.65.32.228 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrius/Archive_16&oldid=1138275142"