![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Once again you have demonstrated your ignorance of Australian English. Positions such as prime minister are not treated as "titles" in formal Australian English - unlike in American English. Please cease imposing American English conventions on Australia-related articles. Afterwriting ( talk) 11:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. I've blocked you and another editor for edit-warring at Prime Minister of Australia. Given that you were both discussing the matter on the talk page I'm all the more disappointed that you both found it necessary to edit-war. In future I hope you will both seek assistance sooner. TFOWR 13:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I do have to admit that this feels punitive as it comes 50 minutes after the edits and after discussion was well under way. So, on top of that, it gets in the way of dispute resolution, doesn't it? - Rrius ( talk) 13:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Will someone who's watching this page ask TFWOR to drop in here again? - Rrius ( talk) 13:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC) User:Rrius was also warring with me at another article. You came across as angry, I hope your block has calmed you down and allowed you to take a step back. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I was basing my changes on both ITN and The Australian, both of which seem to have jumped the gun. I didn't catch the retraction. Thanks for the correction. DaysOfFuturePassed ( talk) 19:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried making the page more understandable and have a greater apperance. Thanks
RE: Prime_Minister_of_Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygopat ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've disagreed with your AfD nomination of Positive law (United States Code). As I indicated at the AfD, the article strikes me as a relatively straightforward presentation of the distinction between the positive-law and non-positive-law titles of the Code. I can add a few additional references and probably improve some of the wording, but I don't see any basis for deletion.
On re-reading your nomination after posting my own comment, I think you may have been thrown by the article's use of the words "restricted sense". This is ironic, because I think those words were included to prevent the misinterpretation that the distinction between positive-law and non-positive-law titles is more important than it is, i.e. to say that it is only in a very limited fashion that a noncodified title does not constitute "positive law." I'd welcome your further thoughts, here or at the AfD. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, I'm behind the times. I just discovered today, that Rudd was replaced. GoodDay ( talk) 21:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) Assuming that you are now using the new skin... Open/Create your vector.js page, by clicking on this link.
(2) Copy the following command onto your vector.js or monobook.js page:
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping keep the pro tempore speculation out of the article. I was getting close to 3RR and just got tired of reverting. DCmacnut <> 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 28 June 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Robert Byrd, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please let it lie for a while instead of just deleting it?— Markles 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I created Illinois Senate elections, 2010 yesterday, and changed the intro to match your change to Illinois House of Representatives elections, 2010 (I imagine the original phrase from taken straight from the Illinois Board of Elections site). I also created Illinois elections, 2010. I included the same table in both that and Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010, as there aren't a lot of other states with coverage of all the elections which I could view for comparison and/or precedent. If you have any thoughts on any of this, let me know. Flatterworld ( talk) 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Senator Bennett does not claim to be Jewish, so leave my changes as they are, do you understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.231.68 ( talk) 02:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rrius
Just a quick note to say that I was pleased to see you reverting the edits such as
this by an anon IP which changed [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour politician]]
[[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] politician
and [[Member of Parliament]] (MP)
to [[Member of Parliament]]
.
I had been adding making the same changes as you did whenever I encountered them, but until your edit summaries came up on my watchlist I hadn't spotted that someone was at working undoing them. I am currently doing an AWB run to apply these (and other) fixes to other MP articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't attacking other editors, I was attacking you Rrius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.120.11 ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never heard that criticism of CE before, I love it, well done. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Voting has started here. Kingjeff ( talk) 03:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Second round of voting has started. Kingjeff ( talk) 14:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I just assumed that it was a editor American because former US leaders still have the right to the title, and yes some people out there are not very good (even with the basics) when it comes to politics! Likelife ( talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey Rrius. I gave out a slight "D'oh!" when I realised that I'd forgotten the Scottish boundary changes prior to 2005...Thanks for the revert... doktorb words deeds 10:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Installed. — Markles 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Re these edits: 1, 2, and several others.
Why did you remove the linking of the dates to the elections? It's an entirely relevant link, I'm not aware of any policy or guideline deprecating this, and it 's a different issue to he deprecated linking of dates to an article on the day. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. — Markles 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I've started a discussion about this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#War infoboxes. Please add your opinions. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Per this edit summary, try looking at the line I was refering to, the one under which "Leaders and Commanders" rests. Prime ministers are being listed as commanders, which is simply wrong. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for answering my question about that username. I replied here. If you think it's necessary you can answer at my talk page (or here). The user doesn't seem to be interested on this conversation and I will respect that. Regards.-- TeleS ( T PT @ C G) 09:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
User:Linuxrocks123 mentioned your name in a request for mediation. However, as far as I can tell, mediation has not been discussed on the article talkpage. In case you weren't aware, the mediation cabal page is at
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. Would you like to try dealing with the disagreement through mediation? If involved parties don't want to use the mediation cabal, I will close the case. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, either way.
Thanks,
bobrayner (
talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Rrius, I'm sorry I gave the impression I was calling your argument "stupid". See my latest note on "Australian federal election, 2010" - Talk page.
Regards - Cablehorn ( talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.
Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. -- Michael C. Price talk 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Rrius, thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Rrius/Sandbox/Sandbox 2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You should stop weakly asserting this and you are experienced to know how to ask for a RFC, I dispute it and he doesn't fit the cat according to the comments I have presented tart the talk page, please take a step back from your repeated insertions and open more disputation resolutions, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk)
First, why assume that an edit marked as minor has been done so to deliberately mislead other editors, and not as a simple slip? Second, why do you feel the need to tell someone what they must do when two editors have disagreed with a minor addition. Third, why is being on SCD not as "terribly important" as any other media appearance? And fourth, why is your assessment of Bruno Tonioli's "humour" any more valid than mine? I'm sorry to say that I found the tone in your edit summaries rather patronising and rude. And when does the quotation of an insult become an insult? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Once again you have demonstrated your ignorance of Australian English. Positions such as prime minister are not treated as "titles" in formal Australian English - unlike in American English. Please cease imposing American English conventions on Australia-related articles. Afterwriting ( talk) 11:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. I've blocked you and another editor for edit-warring at Prime Minister of Australia. Given that you were both discussing the matter on the talk page I'm all the more disappointed that you both found it necessary to edit-war. In future I hope you will both seek assistance sooner. TFOWR 13:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I do have to admit that this feels punitive as it comes 50 minutes after the edits and after discussion was well under way. So, on top of that, it gets in the way of dispute resolution, doesn't it? - Rrius ( talk) 13:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Will someone who's watching this page ask TFWOR to drop in here again? - Rrius ( talk) 13:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC) User:Rrius was also warring with me at another article. You came across as angry, I hope your block has calmed you down and allowed you to take a step back. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I was basing my changes on both ITN and The Australian, both of which seem to have jumped the gun. I didn't catch the retraction. Thanks for the correction. DaysOfFuturePassed ( talk) 19:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried making the page more understandable and have a greater apperance. Thanks
RE: Prime_Minister_of_Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygopat ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've disagreed with your AfD nomination of Positive law (United States Code). As I indicated at the AfD, the article strikes me as a relatively straightforward presentation of the distinction between the positive-law and non-positive-law titles of the Code. I can add a few additional references and probably improve some of the wording, but I don't see any basis for deletion.
On re-reading your nomination after posting my own comment, I think you may have been thrown by the article's use of the words "restricted sense". This is ironic, because I think those words were included to prevent the misinterpretation that the distinction between positive-law and non-positive-law titles is more important than it is, i.e. to say that it is only in a very limited fashion that a noncodified title does not constitute "positive law." I'd welcome your further thoughts, here or at the AfD. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Wowsers, I'm behind the times. I just discovered today, that Rudd was replaced. GoodDay ( talk) 21:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) Assuming that you are now using the new skin... Open/Create your vector.js page, by clicking on this link.
(2) Copy the following command onto your vector.js or monobook.js page:
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping keep the pro tempore speculation out of the article. I was getting close to 3RR and just got tired of reverting. DCmacnut <> 16:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On 28 June 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Robert Byrd, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please let it lie for a while instead of just deleting it?— Markles 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I created Illinois Senate elections, 2010 yesterday, and changed the intro to match your change to Illinois House of Representatives elections, 2010 (I imagine the original phrase from taken straight from the Illinois Board of Elections site). I also created Illinois elections, 2010. I included the same table in both that and Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010, as there aren't a lot of other states with coverage of all the elections which I could view for comparison and/or precedent. If you have any thoughts on any of this, let me know. Flatterworld ( talk) 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Senator Bennett does not claim to be Jewish, so leave my changes as they are, do you understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.231.68 ( talk) 02:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rrius
Just a quick note to say that I was pleased to see you reverting the edits such as
this by an anon IP which changed [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour politician]]
[[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] politician
and [[Member of Parliament]] (MP)
to [[Member of Parliament]]
.
I had been adding making the same changes as you did whenever I encountered them, but until your edit summaries came up on my watchlist I hadn't spotted that someone was at working undoing them. I am currently doing an AWB run to apply these (and other) fixes to other MP articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't attacking other editors, I was attacking you Rrius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.120.11 ( talk) 20:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never heard that criticism of CE before, I love it, well done. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Voting has started here. Kingjeff ( talk) 03:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Second round of voting has started. Kingjeff ( talk) 14:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I just assumed that it was a editor American because former US leaders still have the right to the title, and yes some people out there are not very good (even with the basics) when it comes to politics! Likelife ( talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey Rrius. I gave out a slight "D'oh!" when I realised that I'd forgotten the Scottish boundary changes prior to 2005...Thanks for the revert... doktorb words deeds 10:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Installed. — Markles 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Re these edits: 1, 2, and several others.
Why did you remove the linking of the dates to the elections? It's an entirely relevant link, I'm not aware of any policy or guideline deprecating this, and it 's a different issue to he deprecated linking of dates to an article on the day. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. — Markles 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I've started a discussion about this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#War infoboxes. Please add your opinions. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Per this edit summary, try looking at the line I was refering to, the one under which "Leaders and Commanders" rests. Prime ministers are being listed as commanders, which is simply wrong. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for answering my question about that username. I replied here. If you think it's necessary you can answer at my talk page (or here). The user doesn't seem to be interested on this conversation and I will respect that. Regards.-- TeleS ( T PT @ C G) 09:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
User:Linuxrocks123 mentioned your name in a request for mediation. However, as far as I can tell, mediation has not been discussed on the article talkpage. In case you weren't aware, the mediation cabal page is at
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. Would you like to try dealing with the disagreement through mediation? If involved parties don't want to use the mediation cabal, I will close the case. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, either way.
Thanks,
bobrayner (
talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Rrius, I'm sorry I gave the impression I was calling your argument "stupid". See my latest note on "Australian federal election, 2010" - Talk page.
Regards - Cablehorn ( talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.
Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. -- Michael C. Price talk 10:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Rrius, thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Rrius/Sandbox/Sandbox 2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You should stop weakly asserting this and you are experienced to know how to ask for a RFC, I dispute it and he doesn't fit the cat according to the comments I have presented tart the talk page, please take a step back from your repeated insertions and open more disputation resolutions, thanks. Off2riorob ( talk)
First, why assume that an edit marked as minor has been done so to deliberately mislead other editors, and not as a simple slip? Second, why do you feel the need to tell someone what they must do when two editors have disagreed with a minor addition. Third, why is being on SCD not as "terribly important" as any other media appearance? And fourth, why is your assessment of Bruno Tonioli's "humour" any more valid than mine? I'm sorry to say that I found the tone in your edit summaries rather patronising and rude. And when does the quotation of an insult become an insult? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |