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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

In this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tony_Blair&diff=271386903&oldid=271372132

you removed sourced mentions of Blair being considered dishonest by some. However you left sourced statements of him being considered charismatic by some. Why did you do that??

Double standards....whatever you consider my opinions to be, you shouldn't delete any of my edits just because I added them

Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer assuming good faith on your behalf Jandrews23jandrews23 ( talk) 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the talk page, I am not the only one who sees your edits as absurdly POV. Please take your discussion there as I will no longer respond to you here. - Rrius ( talk) 20:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Jonathan Roberts List of United States Representatives from Massachusetts List of United States Representatives from California Samuel Meredith 102nd United States Congress African Peoples Union Thomas Newton, Jr. 82nd United States Congress Cuban-American lobby Republican Governors Association Louis Wade Sullivan 100th United States Congress Missouri Territory Multi-speed Europe Abner Lacock Christopher Dodd Azie Taylor Morton Matt Whitaker Ransom Nathan H. Miller

Cleanup United States House of Representatives Page Robert C. Smith Sam Brownback Merge List of United States Presidents by date of birth List of United States Presidents by longevity Annapolis Convention (1786) Add Sources Global politics Johnny Isakson Incorporated town Wikify Thomas Todd Reconstruction Act Tanika Sarkar Expand George P. Shultz David Vitter History of the United States Senate

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 15:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still with you on the Dec. 31. I was just trying to find a way to address the controversy and reach compromise, and Jan. 12 seemed logical. The term of a senator phamphlet you've circulated is very clear. 2 USC 36 is not just about salaries, as some editors claim, but ultimately sets when terms start. I think a lot of editors focused on a January date have having a hard time getting their head wrapped around how he could be a senator when he wasn't actually in the Senate, and they are letting their POV over the very public controversy over his delay in being seated color their edits. Appointments are starting to make my head hurt.

This all would be made so much easier if we would agree to use the date of the oath for when terms start. But then we won't be confirming to federal law, so that makes it's own set of problems. DCmacnut <> 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There would be some intellectually honest basis for using the oath date in the infobox because it says "assuming office" rather than "term began". That's just vague enough to allow it. We could see problems arise where the infoboxes are inconsistent with various lists around Wikipedia, though. The lists of senators from states often refer to when the term began, so we'd need to address that, as well. - Rrius ( talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's beginning to look like Burris' Senate tenure will be short. GoodDay ( talk) 20:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rrius ( talk) 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A buddy of mine, has passed away. GoodDay ( talk) 20:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to get in edit wars, so if you disagree with me I'm not going to argue. J. D. Hayworth certainly deserves a mention in United States Senate election in Arizona, 2010, but I removed his name, because on Your World with Neil Cavuto, Cavuto said some polls had him behind by 25-30, and Hayworth said he probably wouldn’t run, because he can trust McCain after McCain voted against the Stimulus Bill. I know that doesn’t mean he definitely won’t run, but I don’t think he needs a mention. - Rockyobody ( talk) 02:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think his poll numbers are especially meaningful this early. In any event, if you can find something supporting the Cavuto statement, I'd say the information should be updated. I don't know that removal is warranted, though. - Rrius ( talk) 03:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Meet me at the talk page.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Already there. - Rrius ( talk) 05:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I imagine you are lurking on this one. Please chime in on the talk page. We do not want further reversion on the article in the last 18 hours before this hits the main page via WP:TFA.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 06:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd wandered off. - Rrius ( talk) 06:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"restored template deleted without explanation" - this generic template was replaced with {{ FAQ}} which is better suited for the talk page now it has one. See [1] and documentation at {{ Round in circles}} which recommends using the FAQ template over it. There is no need for a ton of templates at the top of the page - it gets in the way. / wangi ( talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ template is actually more generic as it does not explain why the FAQ exists, while the old one did that while providing a link to the FAQ. In any event, your edit summary, as I said, had no explanation. Noting the discussion you are alluding to now (or, better, linking to it) would have been the right course of action. - Rrius ( talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

{{ Round in circles}} doesn't link to the FAQ, it links to FAQ, which doesn't really help anyone much. Effort had been put into Talk:Scotland/FAQ and it wasn't being presented to the user. The talk page is overloaded with beige boxes at the top - duplicating the list of archives doesn't help this; it just adds more clutter that get in the way of the discussion, which is the purpose of the page. / wangi ( talk) 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken on the FAQ, I still maintain you could have provided a better edit summary. I disagree with you on the archive. The answer is to remove {{ talkheader}} or change it to make archives optional. The archive list in that template is not visible enough on a page like Talk:Scotland, which (I agree) has far too many banners. - Rrius ( talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, many people have their accounts set up to not show that template. It appears to be the most hated template on Wikipedia; it's on its fourth or fifth nomination for deletion. - Rrius ( talk) 00:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

for the London Gazette! D B D 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A pat on the back for you sir! We did it! Huzzah! Very uni-busy right now, but remind me to do a copyedit sweep soonish. Cheers and congrats! D B D 01:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I kept wanting to stop, but I kept telling myself, "Oh, this section is short, just finish it". Well, it's finished. Good work, you did most of it.- Rrius ( talk) 01:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I was reverting a whole load of vandalism from a single user and in this case didn't check for subsequent edits. My sincere apologies. Bazj ( talk) 12:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the updated official chronological listing of senators? It looks like they corrected the document to have seniorities starting on January 3, rather than previous versions which had some senators seniority start upon taking the oath. It also firmly places Burris as 96th in seniority as of January 12. DCmacnut <> 18:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw the Burris part, but not the January 3 part. That's good, because there was no rhyme or reason to the other way. - Rrius ( talk) 18:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to incite an argument; I'm just curious, but how is that not a spelling error (in the Kathleen Sebelius article). Does that rule not apply to names; like I said I'm just curious. Lighthead ^þ 03:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sebelius" is not plural. As a general rule, whether singular possessive nouns take just an apostrophe or apostrophe-s depends on whether the second "s" is pronounced. It is more common to pronounce the second "s" for names such as Sebelius, and is certainly not incorrect. As such, "Sebelius's" is perfectly correct. - Rrius ( talk) 04:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you changed back the end of term dates for Senators who end their at the normal expiration times. I agree modern terms end at noon on January 3rd, but everything I've been reading (and seeing) is the normal end date for the terms from 1789-1933 is March 3rd at end of day, and not March 4. I know it's a small point, but we should be consistent. You have any references for noon on March 4?

Also, I do show Theodore Foster was a Pro-Administration Senator in his first term. Do you have evidence otherwise? Pvmoutside ( talk) 15:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. The March 3/4 issue was somewhat murky very early on, but from relatively early on, by practice, terms were held to end at noon on March 4. The Biographical directory and Chronological List of Senators are simply wrong on this point. That the former can be wrong is proved by the occasional reference to people being appointed or elected to "the term ending January 2" and by numerous errors that have been found by Wikipedia editors. This practice was later formalized by a resolution of both houses. Among other Senate sources for the fact that terms ended at noon on March 4th, see this brochure.

For the other thing, making all the distinctions you are between Pro-Administration and different kinds of D-Rs isn't terribly useful for the lists of senators, especially since "Pro-Administration" isn't a real party label, but a post hoc way of talking about early legislators. If you are going to insist on making those distinctions, at least let me know where you are doing it so I can fix the colour shading. - Rrius ( talk) 19:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting daft. I was rather enjoying the intellectual conversation until people started posting pages full of impertinent comments. I can't even find my own posts or the replies below the avalanche of crap that each one brings. Any chance we coul continue it here or would it fall victim to the same fate? HJMitchell You rang? 11:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I was ready to be done with it, but I let Foo's insulting crap get to me. I am certainly not going to host any part of that here. - Rrius ( talk) 11:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If ya thought the Coleman campaign was stubborn before? watch how deep they dig in their heels, now that Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter joined the Democrats. GoodDay ( talk) 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I keep picturing Coleman & Franken trying to squeeze into the Senate chair simultaneously. GoodDay ( talk) 15:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, but I just got on here. Not sure about whether this should go at 111th Congress or not. Basically, there is currently a vacancy on the GOP side of every committee Specter serves. He's technically in limbo as far as membership on the Democratic side. It will take negotiations with Reid and McConnell to determine how to put him on the D side. For example, ratios are already set, so they can't add Specter to any committee without either adding a Republican or removing a Democrat. Increasing the ratio will require a new organizing resolution, and I've read that Reid may push that if he can't get an agreement with the Republicans. The current ratio assumes 58-42 Democratic majority, and he argues that it's now 60-40 (with Franken), so a new resolution is in order (one that he may be able to break a filibuster with). We shall only see. That doesn't mean that Specter can't sit in on committee hearings with the Dems until his formal reassignment is, well, formalized.

They also moved Specter's desk today over to the Democratis side. Between Leahy and Dodd, 2nd row. He's the 8th most senior Democrat now. DCmacnut <> 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

He'll probably wait until Franken is seated, but you never know. The other thing that throws for a loop is that CNN and everyone were reporting (particularly last night during the press conference) his as a Democrat, but he's not able to change his voter registration in Pennsylvania until sometime in May. So technically he's a registered Republican who is a Democrat. Proves that party labels are subject to however the Senators determine them.

I also looked at the Party Switching list. Looks good. Fixed a couple of the Independent shading and added Strom Thurmond.However, do you think we should hange the party shading for the Silver Republicans to Party shading/Silver, since they were more aligned with the Silver view than the Republican view. I know the fact none of the assignment changes seems to indicate more of an "independent" view, but that's minor since since party identification as it relates to committee assignments really didn't materialize until early in the 20th Century. Prior to that, people were assigned to committees regardless of party. Just a thought.r

Thank you for your assistance in correcting the numbering of U.S. Secretaries of Health and Human Services. Following your edits to the aforementioned article, I have corrected the InfoBoxes in the articles of HHS Secretaries Richard Schweiker, Margaret Heckler, Otis R. Bowen, Louis Wade Sullivan, Donna Shalala, Tommy Thompson, Mike Leavitt, and Kathleen Sebelius, however, I am not sure how to update the article InfoBox on Patricia Roberts Harris who was serving the post when the title changed, without completly bungling the formatting. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 07:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll tinker with Ms. Harris's infobox. Thanks for taking care of the others; I didn't even think of it. - Rrius ( talk) 07:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another issue we may need to address relating to this matter is the two separate templates for Secretaries who served from 1953 to 1979 ( Template:USSecHEW), and the other one for Secretaries who have served since 1979 ( Template:USSecHHS). The question being should the two templates be merged? -- TommyBoy ( talk) 09:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what you think of this attempt. - Rrius ( talk) 21:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That will work perfectly. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 06:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

16:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56th United States Congress - summary. Thank you. — Markles 02:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Following up on our discussion regarding the Patricia Roberts Harris article, I just looked at the article again, and it appears that the dates of her tenure as HEW/HHS Secretary listed in the InfoBox are inconsistant with with the text of the article, and I was wondering if you could double-check them. In addition, on the issue of fixing the InfoBox, while your fix was a start, we might want to separate her service as HEW Secretary and as HHS Secretary. For example, create one Infobox section that lists her service as HEW Secretary starting with the date of her swearing-in and ending with the date on which the post was renamed, and then create another section that lists her service as HHS Secretary starting with the date the post was renamed and ending with the date she resigned. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to leave message on my Talk page, or let me know that you have replied here. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 20:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK,I'LL look into that, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.145.120 ( talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for fixing the InfoBox in the Patricia Roberts Harris article again. It looks much better. Secondly, thank you for coming up with a solution to the question I raised at Talk:United States Cabinet regarding the UN Ambassador's status as a "former Cabinet officer". -- TommyBoy ( talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Edited the VPOTUS intro... Stayed as neutral and concise as I could given our opposing views. Also, the article probably needs a whole section devoted to this. Please make any tweaks think are both neutral and necessary. Thanks. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes myself. - Rrius ( talk) 02:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

After the wikilink I added, I'm good. *big thumbs up* Fair choice of changing delegating to assigning. I can roll with that. Additionally, I know I'm rather stubborn, so apologies for that. It's just how I am. No excuse, I know. I'll keep working at it. I think we'd both have been better off from the beginning if we had agreed to disagree, and do what we are doing now. (I'm usually not one to back down when challanged.) Anywho, I think it's awesome we could find some common ground and to facilitate both views/arguments. Wikipedia can only improve when we do that. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 03:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For once we agree completely. I should have just backed away when I said I would, but being called stupid and having my honesty questioned are hot buttons for me. Anyway, we will have to figure out how to deal with each other at the beginning of a conflict. I'm not sure exactly what form that should take, but presumably taking a step back at the beginning and allowing for the possibility that the other person is right is something we could both stand to do.

For all the trouble, it is noteworthy that the lead is far better now than it was. Compare:

“

The Vice President of the United States [1] and President of the Senate is the holder of a public office in the United States of America created by the United States Constitution. The Vice President is one of only two elected members of the Executive Branch [2] (the other being the President of the United States) and is the first person in the presidential line of succession, becoming the new President of the United States upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president. While the Vice President is now widely viewed as a member of the executive branch of the federal government, the United States Constitution does not specifically assign the office to any one branch, so scholars dispute whether it belongs to the executive, legislative, or both. [3] [4] [5] [6] The modern view of the Vice President as a member of the executive is due in part to the delegation by the President and Congress of executive duties to the Vice President. [7]

”

to:

“

The Vice President of the United States [8] is the holder of a public office created by the United States Constitution. The Vice President, together with the President of the United States, is indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College to a four-year term. The primary role specified by the Constitution for the Vice President is President of the Senate. Additionally, the Vice President is the first person in the presidential line of succession, ascending to the presidency upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President. By virtue of the Vice President's role as President of the Senate, he or she is the nominal head of the United States Senate. In that capacity, the Vice President is allowed to vote in the Senate, but only when necessary to break a tied vote. Additionally, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College. While the Vice President's only constitutionally prescribed functions, aside from presidential succession, relate to his role as President of the Senate, the office is now widely viewed as a member of the executive branch of the federal government. The U.S. Constitution does not expressly assign the office to any one branch, causing scholars to dispute whether it belongs to the executive branch, the legislative branch, or both. [3] [9] [5] [10] The modern view of the Vice President as a member of the executive is due in part to the assignment by the President and Congress of executive duties to the Vice President. [3] [5]

”

- Rrius ( talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an RFC on Stilltim Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Stilltim

Just so you know, New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009, an article that you made a number of edits to, was recently rated as a good article. Thanks for helping out on the production of this article. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What I've been doing (consistently) is listing date sworn/affirmed when these appear in the online PCO archives, writing "App." before those for which only the date of appointment are available there, and leaving it as year only when it's before the archives. What do you think? D B D 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is why "App. " appears before "12 June 2009" D B D 21:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's cool. I'm not trawling the London Gazette for dates of swearing from before 2005 D B D 22:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rrius/Archive 4,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{ anchors}} in Wikipedia ( example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{ User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman  ^talk/ _WP:Hornbook 19:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to keep tabs on the article and unconstructive edits. I think some mention of direct election versus legislature election is warranted, but not to the detail that the other editor wants. I've tried to AGF as well, but I sense some underlying agenda trying to make it sound like direct population election of senators is some how worse than it was under state legislature election. All of the comments about state sovereignty and states rights and over representation for small states has always been code for old senate staffers like me use by individuals who believe that small states shouldn't be able to block legislation that the large states want, whether it be health care reform, global warming legislation, or what have you. It's long been a battle by those who don't understand that the Senate was designed first and foremost by the founding fathers to be a "cooling off" place to give more attention to the knee jerk populist reactions of the House. Some think Congress should respond to the majority rules, but in the Senate things move a lot slower. DCmacnut <> 23:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It is frankly silly to press for the Senate to apportioned by population. It should be disproportionate or abolished. What is the point of two identical chambers? - Rrius ( talk) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand you thought wp:rfc was premature, but I didn't see User:Gorillasapiens backing down, which is why I suggested it on the talk page. He had already violated wp:3rr and was ignoring everything you and other users had to say-- Work permit ( talk) 04:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think his recalcitrance is enough. The fact that this is the weekend, and more people will start to look at this on Monday is part of my thinking, but it really is only a few days in, and there has been little discussion. The point of outside voices evades me where Gorrillasapiens is not really trying to engage on the talk page. If it works, though, more to the good. - Rrius ( talk) 05:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Turns out he's been blocked for two weeks. I warned him on his talk page but didn't report him. I suppose another editor or admin must have picked it up. Seems as if he was edit waring on another article at the same time. Probably the right outcome, I just didn't want to escalate it that far-- Work permit ( talk) 06:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is for the best. I think he really needs to read WP:POV and take the time to actually read what others have written. He is convinced there was a consensus in favour of his version, but that is not what I read when I look at the talk page and edit summaries. While he needs to read policy, I think the punishment is too severe and may just agitate him unnecessarily. I have seen much worse, and, in my experience, it would have been more effective for an disinterested admin (I'm not saying this one wasn't) to warn him and point him to the relevant policies. - Rrius ( talk) 06:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

wp:3rr is a bright line. When I gave my third opinion and reverted his edit, he reverted it back. There was no other editor that agreed with him but himself. I violated my own rule of not reverting more then once and reverted it again, with the comment "You've already violated 3RR by your revert". He then reverted again, with the comment "no 3rr have been officially raised , restoring deleted content". Whatever that means. I just left a tag on his talk page and moved on. He continued the next day to violate wp:3rr in this article, and exhibited same behavior at Same-sex marriage in Maine, where he got reported. He had in the past had a 24h block for violating wp:3rr. I don't think of it as punishment, but as a time for him to reflect. -- Work permit ( talk) 07:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As Rrius already knows, my first goal is always incorporation rather than deletion. I was the editor that first started tweaking his contributions so they could be included somehow. They actually are included, just not in the style and format he wants. At first he seemed to agree with leaving the changes alone, but then proceeded to add back superfluous original research and POV pushing on states rights. When I told him citing the constitution and federalist papers wasn't enough, that he needed contemporary sources backing up the synthesis he proposed, he accused me of calling the Constitution irrelevant. That actually rubs me the wrong way since I actually took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" when I worked for the Senate. That seemed to get him to back off the personal attacks, but he still kept at it. Even proposing the detailed information was more appropriate at History of the United States Senate didn't seem to get me anywhere.

I'm neutral on whether the block is needed, but now on his talk page he's accusing other editors of being homophobic in their treatment of him. Given that his contributions have by and large been disruptive to the encyclopedia, I can't say I would be sad to seem him go. If he's truly engaged in sockpuppetry bying using an IP address now, that's an entirely different matter. DCmacnut <> 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comments to User_talk:Markles on this issue at at User_talk:Hallesister. This editor has started adding verbatim the text of what he/she claims are letters to constituents on Sherrod Brown and Steve LaTourette's articles. Myself and another editor have reverted the edits and warned him on his talk page. On one hand, letters from a congressman describing his views could be indicicative of his or her position on an issue, but to me it fails the verifiability standard since we do not have access to the original letter to verify its authenticity. However, this would be a primary source, and we'd need more than one source to back up the statements. Even if the letters could be verified, posting them verbatim is not proper Wikipedia format.

I have reverted these edits, warned the user on his talk page and proposed a compromise on his talk page as long as the information can be verified as authentic, suplemented with secondary sources, and rewritten as prose. I've reverted him three times already today, so plan on reverting him again otherwise I will violate WP:3RR. I think the addition of this information constitutes vandalism, but I don't want to risk it. Either way, the user will be in violation of 3RR if he reverts me. Could you weigh in on this please, or am I off base here? DCmacnut <> 17:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I always make sure if I revert another editors additions that I am available to discuss the reverts with them, I would like to discuss your comments about my edits on the Harman talk page. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I find that to revert and go is actually a bit disruptive. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Are you ok? That edit is hours old. consensus consensus, I have resited your reverts in an attemt to avoid an edit war and a report over this twaddle and sillyness. Your edit is silly almost too silly to revert as it is your not mine and every time I look at it I can have a free laugh. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A feminist is a feminist. Adding strong is silly. I talk to girls...are you a feninist...yes I am..they don't say..oh yes I am a strong feminist. Absolute sillyness. and pointy. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

That is your opinion. I have known people who would call themselves "sort of" feminists and others who (men and women) would call themselves "rabid feminists". Feminism is not a binary state. You can be in favour of a pay equity and a general sense of equality on one end, or employment quotas, women-only short lists, and any number of woman-oriented issues. You can also more or less buy into the full panoply of feminist ideals, but not be terribly committed to the cause. Someone who is very active in supporting women's issues is almost certainly a "strong feminist". Also, it is flat wrong to say "a feminist is a feminist". What feminism means at all can vary according to generation or society. For instance, in 1990s Eastern Europe, feminism meant having the choice not to work or serve in the government. You are acting based on a simplistic view of the issue and in doing so ignoring reliable sources. - Rrius ( talk) 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

what rubbish. sort of feminist, is this a joke or some attempt to start an edit war with me? and you go on...it's in the cite...it's in the cite.... rubbish. what is your issue here, be honest with me, why are you talking this twaddle? Off2riorob ( talk) 00:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you unable to assume good faith. I am telling you the truth of my life experience. The last time I looked, reporting that one's experience is vastly different from another's is not edit warring. As for my insistence about "it's in the cite", Wikipedia is about presenting information that is verified by reliable sources. The information at issue is verified by reliable sources. The current version, to try to assuage your issues, excessively dwells on the fact that the information present is based on press reports. Your general objection at Talk:Harriet Harman to using media reports, though, makes it clear that your objections cannot be assuaged short of calling the media a bunch of right-wingers who make things up. The fact is, press reports are used in Wikipedia extensively, and there is no reason not to use the ones at issue. - Rrius ( talk) 00:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

here is what you have created...you have 2 citations from the daily mail and one from the telegraph to support this tiny worthless comment that she has a nickname, which I actually though to remove as they are inherantly negative, but I left it in as it in as it is not overly negative and quite well known....

According to some press accounts, Harman holds strong feminist views that have made her unpopular with some, especially male, Labour colleagues. ^{[11] [12]} Some have nicknamed her Harriet Harperson, a nickname that is attributed to her detractors. ^[11]

and here is my simple clear neutral comment....look at it and see how simple it is and there it is , undisputable and neutral, I am proud of my edit.

Due to Harman's views on sexual equality, she has aquired the nickname,'Harriet Harperson'. ^[13]

Okay, first, there is no cite to the Telegraph. The second cite is to the Guardian. Second, there is one repeated cite to the Daily Mail. Third, the nickname connotes antipathy, and as such removing any reference to why takes away from the value of the article. Fourth, the text as I've written is not negative toward Harman. It is just as easy to take it as negative toward the men who were petty enough to create the nickname. It does not impugn her views, but merely states that she holds them strongly. In addition, it states that press reports tell us that her views alienate from some colleagues and that apparently they have chosen that nickname. Where you get that such a passage is negative toward Ms. Harman is beyond me. Unlike you, I actually like her, though not some of her views. As such, I have no desire to score political points off of her or cast her down. I do want to help make an encyclopedia article that explains who she is. Your sterile edit simply bypasses important context and is, as a result, inferior to my edit. Your implication that my version is disputable is nonsense. It says that news reports say X, then presents two reports from different sources saying X. As a result it is indisputable.

Finally, please stop being nasty. Referring to another's work "rubbish", "useless", "absolute pointy rubbish" is uncalled for. - Rrius ( talk) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at your edit and tell me I am wrong. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying your edit is indisputible, I am saying it is silly and pointy, for reasons that only you know. At least it is amusing. I will leave it there and every time I see it I will be amused and remember you. Off2riorob ( talk) 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is becoming difficult to assume good faith. In any event, the discussion is copied to Talk:Harriet Harman, which is where a discussion of the topic belongs.. If you want to begin actually discussing the matter, go ahead and do so there. I will not respond to you here again on this topic, so if you think taking the discussion to my talk page is a good way to be insulting away from prying eyes, have fun. Realize, though, that it will be a one-way conversation, and one that is still available for all to see. - Rrius ( talk) 01:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

lets get a third opinion on which is the better version.

no, I did attempt to revert my edit but you beat me too it, I am going to ask for a third opinion. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Rrius ( talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Its on the talk, I have left it neutral and simple. I would prefer not to have to bother discussing it anymore, I am sure there is already enough discussion there for any one to read. Just leave it there and let someone mosey along and comment. yea? Off2riorob ( talk) 19:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rrius, there has been a comment clearly in favour of my comment and I would like to end this simple dispute and insert my comment. There are now other issues I would like to discuss about the current state of the article. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

One comment does not a consensus make. I require more than that. - Rrius ( talk) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How many do you want, we are not looking for consensus over this tiny sentence. we are looking for a third opinion which is more than enough. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your last comment is not very conducive to simple editing, excessive pointy drawn out discussion over this sentence is, in my opinion, detrimental to the wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Serious question: why are you unable to avoid being insulting? Also, it is unusual for a discussion between two people to end because a third person comes in and agrees with one of them. That is silly. I don't know what being "conducive to simple editing" means. The goal of Wikipedia is to create the best encyclopedia possible, not to simplify editing. As far as what is beneficial to the project, I have justified my versions repeatedly. You have been insulting and, when you have actually made points directed at the language, you have as often as not addressed problems that had been cured by subsequent edits. Therefore I won't be lectured by you on what is good for the project, so don't bother trying. - Rrius ( talk) 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are exagerating my comments. I will wait some more time. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Exaggerating how, precisely? In addition to blaming me for a continuing disagreement for which you are equally responsible, you have called my work "absolute pointy rubbish" and been insulting toward me personally. Perhaps you should go back and review your talk page comments here and at Talk:Harriet Harman and your edit summaries at Harriet Harman before telling me I am exaggerating. The sort of incivility you have continually shown is what drives people away from Wikipedia. Since you cannot control your impulse to insult, do not leave messages on my talk page again. I am perfectly willing to be civil with you in the article and article talk spaces, but I will not engage with you here anymore. Any further messages will simply be removed from this page. - Rrius ( talk) 23:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole "inequality" and "VP is a member" debate seems to have died down since the bloks on Gorillasapiens and her sockpuppet. Wanted to bring to your attention this editorial from the Washington Post this morning. It makes all of the same argument she did about inequality with the smaller states running over the larger "popular will" in slowing down health care reform and global warming legislation. I've always suspected that that was Gorillasapiens ulimate reason for pushing these edits - making the POV argument that the Senate is stopping popular legislation. I'm not advocating for including this in the article. As an opinion piece, it's not a reliable source. But wanted to make you aware of it in case someone tries to start editing the article to include this argument again. DCmacnut <> 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw that late last night/early this morning and laughed. I actually found it through a blog post. - Rrius ( talk) 17:51, 10 August 2009 (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.