User talk:Rrius/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

4–5 Sep 2013 Morgan (multi)

Where did you get the numbers from? According to WB/PB, "Morgan has a poll of 4937 respondents conducted by SMS, online and live interview phone polling which has Labor at just 31.5%, with the Coalition on 44%, the Greens on 10.5% and the Palmer United Party on 6.5%. This pans out to 53.5-46.5 on respondent-allocated preferences, but to 54.5-45.5 on the previous election preferences method used by Nielsen and Newspoll". Timeshift (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I definitely got the primaries from their site. I may have misread the date and TPP, they may have been amended/updated after I added it, or I may have gotten them elsewhere. Not sure which. Either way, I've fixed it. -Rrius (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The TPP value is what they had at the site earlier. For my own reasons, I have been keeping track of the difference between Morgan's respondent TPP and 2010 flow TPP, and when I marked it down directly from their site (not from anything I'd written), it was .5, now it is 1. Perhaps there was an issue with the rounding or a typo. -Rrius (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leader of the Government in the Senate (Australia), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Reid and Gareth Evans (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) 11:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leader of the Government in the Senate (Australia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Minister in charge of Territories]] (from 1934)</small>}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Minister for Justice (Australia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{-}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of High Court judges of England and Wales may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[Nicholas Green (judge)|Nicholas Green]] 1 October 2013; Queen's Bench)<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/judicial-appointments/judicial-170913-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Minister for Defence (Australia)

I'm very sorry to tell you this, but your recent changes to Minister for Defence (Australia) are riddled with errors, and show that there are big gaps in your knowledge and understanding of Australian political history and the history of the Australian Department of Defence.

Given the amount of effort you've put into it, it's a real shame. Unfortunately, it's bedtime here I don't have time to explain. May I humbly suggest you revert your changes and discuss the matters on the talk page? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Merging defunct posts into the post now responsible for its functions is just what happens with Australian ministerial posts. And it is a good idea. This way, the goal of showing all ministers who have had responsibility in an area is achieved. Also, the posts don't get lost as orphaned pages no one will look at. And that's not a just a question of viewership. If one of these posts again becomes active, it will be right there for whomever is doing the updating to see. So there is no reason to revert the addition of the other tables. There was certainly no reason to revert my edits making the old articles, made redundant by the inclusion of their information at Minister for Defence (Australia), into to redirects.
I've looked at your edits and still have no idea what you are on about in terms of "riddled with errors" and my supposed "gaps" in "understanding of Australian political history". Restoring the poor excuse for a table (with its terrible coding) just because I had not yet fixed some of the other tables was silly and pointless. I have now fixed the other tables as well, bring them all into conformity with all other articles using the stripped-down presentation. Switching the dates from the left to the right did not in any way change the information being presented, so it could not have contributed to "riddling" the article with factual errors. There were two coding errors, but I doubt that is what you meant by "riddled". So, I still have no idea what inaccuracies I'm supposed to have introduced. Your first edit dealt with the junior ministers. Before I edited, it said,
There have also been ministers responsible for defence materiel at different times. From 1939 to 1974 they were called Minister of Supply or similar. The current Minister for Defence Materiel is the Honourable Mike Kelly AM MP.
There have also been ministers responsible for defence personnel for most of the period since 1987. The current Minister for Defence Science and Personnel is the Honourable Warren Snowdon MP.
Note the lack of citations. After I was finished merging articles, it said, "There have also been ministers responsible for defence materiel at different times. From 1939 to 1974 they were called Minister of Supply or similar. No such minister was appointed in 2013. In addition, ministers responsible for defence personnel were appointed for most of the period from 1987 to 2013." As you can see, all I did was remove the individuals and note the change in 2013. And your snarky edit summary about not letting supporting references get in the way sweeping generalizations was nothing to do with me. I didn't make any changes to the text of the section lead under "Ministers for Defence", leaving me further confused about this messy, error-riddled job I'm supposed to have done.
Overall, I did a job yesterday that I should be thanked, not scolded, for. The articles needed to be merged, so I merged them. Sure, the lead needed work, but it needed work before I ever touched the article. I hope the attacking, reproachful style you started off with was just a product of your irritation at finding something not perfect, and that from here forward we can work together on making the text of the article the best it can be. I will not back off the merger. When posts get merged, articles get merged. That is what has happened to this point with Australian portfolio articles, so that is what I did with these article. -Rrius (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. You're a paragon of virtue and butter wouldn't melt in your mouth. Yes, you know everything about everything, and nobody else knows anything about anything. I repeat: Have you ever heard of the word consensus? (Your behaviour suggests otherwise.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW: I'm not interested in becoming a member of your fan club. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any reason for such aggressive posts as those Pdfpdf has made above. I'd personally prefer keeping the articles on the historic ministries separate given that they were significant roles, but it's a valid topic for discussion, and throwing insults around and making empty threats such as those above and in the edit summary here (I'm not sure where the consensus for the other version was reached...) really isn't helpful. I'd suggest discussing this at Talk:Minister for Defence (Australia). Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have reversed the mergers because I have no time or patience for dealing with Pdfpdf's attitude. What I don't understand is this bizarre attachment to the shitty coding style previously in use and to having the dates on the left. He keeps saying I am introducing errors of some sort, but the information doesn't change at all. The only thing that changes is that the dates move to the right, where they are for all other ministerial articles, and party labels are shared across rows with "rowspan", as they are, again, across all other articles. I have asked Pdfpdf to explain what errors he is talking about, but all I get is ad hominems. My preference would be to simply revert Pdfpdf's silly table preference, but if Nick-D or others can't make him see sense, I'll wait until I roll out the style used at Attorney-General for Australia and most other articles to the rest. -Rrius (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I really like the table at the AGs article. I've just tweaked it so that it's sortable, which seems a desirable feature for this kind of list. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the non-working sorting yesterday. The help for tables isn't very useful, and I couldn't figure out a way to reinstate this in a way which actually works. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I've worked enough with tables that it should have just occurred to me that it wouldn't work, but really I was excited to try it and then disappointed it didn't work. -Rrius (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have continued discussion about edits to the Minister for Defence page at the Talk page for the Minister for Defence. Rangasyd (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

FYI?

FYI? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Solved/resolved by User:Rangasyd‎. Sorry to bother you. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Official Opposition frontbench may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | [[Lisa Nandy

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for Canadian parliament seating plans

Hi Rrius,

I took the liberty of fixing the empty seats' fuzzy outlines on the seating plans you made for the Canadian senate and house. In order to do that, I simply changed this line: 

<rect id="empty" width="15" height="13" style="fill: rgb(255, 255, 255); stroke: rgb(0, 0, 0); stroke-width: 1;"/>

to: 

<g id="empty">
	<rect width="17" height="15" fill="black"/>
	<rect x="1" y="1" width="15" height="13" fill="white"/>
</g>

Similarly, for independent seats affiliated with a party, I wrote: 

<g id="indlib">
	<rect width="17" height="15" fill="#F08080"/>
	<rect x="2" y="2" width="13" height="11" fill="#CFCFCF"/>
</g>

I find it makes the images look better when viewed at their native size. I hope this can help.

Cheers, Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'll overwrite my most recent version on my computer so I don't overwrite your changes (it looks like I did that once already). -Rrius (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrius/Archive_20&oldid=1168307670"