User talk:Rrius: Difference between revisions

Things I can do to help WikiProject U.S. Congressedit list Ongoing: Upload [please add links to the senate rules for each of these committees.] Ongoing: Upload new district maps and incorporate them into articles (November 19, 2013) Ongoing: Apply {{US Congress party summary}} on all Congresses (February 20, 2018) Ongoing: Create edit notices for all articles. (February 15, 2010)

Welcome to my talk page.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page unless you tell me otherwise. You may want to Watch this page until you are responded to. If I placed a comment on your page, I have added it to my watchlist, so please reply there. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Finally, don't forget to assume good faith; I make a lot of mistakes.

Archives

Sept. 2007 to Sept. 2008 Sept. to Dec. 2008 Jan. to Feb. 2009 Feb. to Aug. 2009 Aug. to Oct. 2009 Oct. to Dec. 2009 Jan. to Feb. 2010 Feb. to May 2010 May to Jun. 2010 Jun. to Oct. 2010 Oct. to Dec. 2010 Jan. to May 2011 May to Oct. 2011 Oct. to Dec. 2011 Jan. to May 2012 May to Sept. 2012 Sept. to Dec. 2012 Jan. to Mar. 2013 Mar. to Sept. 2013 Sept. to Dec. 2013 Jan. to Dec. 2014 Jan. to Dec. 2015 Jan. 2016 to Mar. 2018 Mar. 2018 to Dec. 2020 Dec. 2020 to present Index

Here's how it works:

• <ref>, as you know, is a custom tag that can take a group argument and a name argument, then contains the actual reference, then a closing tag, </ref>.
• {{#tag}} is a 'magic word' used to invoke custom tags. So when you do {{#tag:ref}}, it's invoking an instance of <ref> without actually typing <ref>. This is required because you cannot nest <ref> tags, but when you call the other one with {{#tag:ref}}, that limitation is bypassed.
• And having a template-like format, arguments are separated by bars. The first argument is the content of the ref (what goes between the <ref></ref> tags in a normal ref), and the further arguments are the ones that would go inside the <ref> tag itself, like group, name, etc.
• So, a fully functional one might look like this: {{#tag:ref|This is the text of a footnote.<ref name='boggs'>Boggs and Callahan, pp. 14-16</ref>|group='N'|name='testref'}}
• If you didn't have to use {{#tag}}, the above would look like... <ref group='N' name='testref'>This is the text of a footnote.<ref name='boggs'>Boggs and Callahan, pp. 14-16</ref></ref>
• So if I'm reading your question correctly, to use a single footnote twice, you would run it normally the first time, like so: {{#tag:ref|This note will appear under both Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger<ref>And this is the reference!</ref>|group='N'|name='bothpeople'}}, and then for the second instance of it, you would simply do "<ref group='N' name='bothpeople'>"; you only have to cheat the syntax on the first instance. You would want to give the inner ref a name as well, as I think it would be duplicated in the reflist later on.

Does this help? :) --Golbez (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Rrius. Just curious, isn't the deadline for Maldonado's comfirmation approaching? GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzeneggar & the state assembly have been in a legal battle since Feb 11. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that that nomination is dead, but that Schwarzenegger renominated him, so now the clock will run out in May. -Rrius (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely that Schwarzenegger isn't going to fight the battle on whether it's dead, leaving it dead in fact regardless of whether it is in law. -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wowsers, what a mess. PS: NY Gov Paterson, won't seek a full-term afterall. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York, California, and Illinois are competing for the gold medal in dysfunctional politics. Competitors are judged on bizarre political situations and magnitude of results. I think Illinois is winning, though. One governor is in jail, another is on the way. The Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor had to withdraw for being, well, whatever the hell he is after a primary that saw incredibly low turnout and an awful lot of establishment winners (especially considering the need for reform). In terms of results, Illinois has a deficit almost as big as California's, but a third of the population and nominal GDP. California is definitely giving Illinois a run for its money, and could take the gold if they end up needing a bail out. New York is flashy, what with its sex scandals, Senate coups, and absolute lack of leadership from the Governor, but ultimately they seem to be doing okay. My prediction:

• Gold: Illinois
• Silver: California
• Bronze: New York

-Rrius (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina is the only other state really even trying: they didn't impeach their governor at least in part because they were afraid of handing power to their lieutenant governor, but they clearly aren't at the same level as the other three states. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giggle giggle, things are very boring in the Canadian provincial & territorial governments. It's a shame. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have interesting federal politics. As long as you have Stephen Harper as PM, things will always be interesting. -Rrius (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I should have said is that nothing in the text refers to the event in the image. Additionally, those particular protestors appear to be the inevitable youths trying to involve themselves in something they don't understand, and which really isn't foremostly their problem in Greece. Their sort can be found anywhere and are better left for MTV to cover. Thus the image isn't even showing a proper protest, and just makes the Greek people look properly terrible. This is not what Wikipedia is for.

I've all but let your section on corrective policies go (with a good tag), but that image is very likely to be reported and removed again and again, and by many people. DinDraithou (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you mean by "they". But that picture is undeniably just of local youth or rabble, and in a city in Greece only. Plus the original poster added it under Controversy with the fairly obvious intention of associating some of the sentiment referred to in the article with the behavior of the rabble in question. This person has since returned from two or three IPs but is claiming to be three different people. DinDraithou (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've checked and the uploader has given no author. Permission may be doubtful. Source is a website in Greek. DinDraithou (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m at loss for words to describe the clearly unconstructive (to use a polite word!) behaviour of DinDraithou: first he kept on vandalizing (“bye bye yet another time”) the paragraph on “Corrective Policies” without which the article would be meaningless….; and now he’s making up faux copyright issues (User Yion has established picture is under 3.0 CC) to justify his erasing a pertinent picture- perfectly illustrative of the content of the article in general & of the paragraph in question... => I’m not an expert with WP protocols: is he allowed to erase the picture definitively after a week, even though there’s no copyright infringement here? Moorehaus (talk)

I am far too busy to get involved in extended discussion over this issue, perhaps six months ago but these days I am much more focused on larger issues and leave the minor ones to take care of themselves. Personally I like my women to be strong and independent. I rarely look at that article these days, the edit I removed yesterday took out..Harriet Harman's nickname in Parliament and the British press is "Harriet Harperson", due to her outspoken views on feminism, which are sometimes interpretted as a sexist or anti-male... thats a bit strong isn't it, anti male. Its good that your watching it as it does seem to attract such additions, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about that edit, though. I only noticed the guy on the talk page complaining that the word "feminist" had disappeared again. I didn't bother looking at that edit, but looked at where the article had been recently. Looking through the edits, it became clear that some months ago, I had been reverted from "feminist", that RoadWarrior had re-instated it, and that you had reverted him again. There is nothing wrong with the word "feminist", and it bothers me that you seem to assume I must be anti-woman. As I've told you before, I'm a feminist (even men can be feminist). As a result, your problems with the word are both mystifying and frustrating. -Rrius (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]