Hi, welcome to my talk page! Please note this is an archive of discussions, the current talk page is at User talk:Talrias. Please do not edit this page.

Archived messages

A belated thank you[edit]

A belated thank you for taking things over at WP:UKCOTW when I went AWOL earlier this year. I still haven't returned to it fully - things still a bit stressy in life - but you're great for stepping in and not letting the project die. Feel free to add this to your user page... -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your kind words and I'm glad that the UK COTW is gradually coming back to life! I have listed your award to me on User:Talrias/Awards. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Hi Chris,

it's been quite a while since we last spoke, and even longer since I last visited Wikipedia. Anyway, I just wanted to check in and say hi, and congrats on your position as an Admin. How is everything going with Atter? I have long since lost the link. Please send me an email so we can get back in touch. --Zeerus (E T C WFD) 20:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your congratulations! I've emailed you. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vfd Changes[edit]

I removed your addition not because I necessarily disagree with it (although I do), but because there is a running discussion on exactly that point both at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion and WP:AN/I apart from on the original on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. Since there's such a lot of talking going on, to add it (and then re-add it) seems a little premature. Another editor has now softened your addition some. Do join in the various debates. -Splash 23:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, I will have a look over the pages you have mentioned and see if I have anything to contribute. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UKCOTW[edit]

Woah, sorry about that. I haven't stopped by the UKCOTW page in a while, and seeing that the date for selecting a new one had passed, and with all the dead/dying collaborations I've seen recently, I assumed it had been forgotten. That and I didn't get enough sleep last night :) Luckily of course I was wrong, and History of the Orkney Islands is coming along really well. Thanks for fixing my mess up. the wub "?/!" 10:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly understandable, I only noticed as I have {{UKCOTW article}} on my watchlist. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was really my fault, I had forgot to change the date (and yes, I have you watched Talrias ;) -- Joolz 11:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should I be flattered or thinking about leaving? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe both ;) -- Joolz 11:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six Counties[edit]

"Northern Ireland is the official name for the region, and so it should be used by Wikipedia." It is used by Wikipedia, and its use to describe the region in question far exceeds that of any other term. I don't believe it should be used exclusively, and I use alternate terms where I feel they are appropriate. Lapsed Pacifist 12:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name Six Counties should only be used when discussing names used by republican and/or unionist groups - if it is used in other circumstances it is likely to be point-of-view. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree it's likely, though it is certainly possible. Nor do I agree its use should be restricted to a discussion on terminology. Lapsed Pacifist 13:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cases I have noticed you using it, such as on Sinn Fein, are largely an attempt to push a pro-Republican PoV onto the article. The article should say that Sinn Fein call Northern Ireland "Six Counties", but the name of the region is Northern Ireland - so this should be used in addresses. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I acknowledge the popularity of both, I can't agree either with your characterisation of my edits or your argument. I believe the term is used in addresses, otherwise Sinn Féin would lose a lot of mail from people who write to the address they see on the website. Lapsed Pacifist 15:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the relevance of the Irish postal system has to do with this. Using the term Six Counties when not quoting Republican views, or a discussion of terminology in Northern Ireland, is quite unlikely to be NPOV. Wikipedia policy is to use official names. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have done. But not slavishly. Lapsed Pacifist 18:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for using official names in the future; if you are going to reply on this talk page please indent your replies appropriately. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I left a message asking you to stop inserting Irish-nationalist POV into articles 4 days ago. Since then, at least another 3 people have mentioned, on your talk page, that they think you are inserting Irish-nationalist POV into an article. For this reason, I am blocking you for 24 hours. Please do not continue with these types of edits after your block expires."

If I believed my edits inserted "Irish nationalist POV", I wouldn't continue with them. I'm happy to discuss any of my edits, at any time. I find it difficult, though, to refute a blanket accusation like the above. I'm interested in your characterisation of my edit on the Eamon de Valera page. My understanding of the debate that de Valera initiated in Sinn Féin was that they should end their opposition to the Free State constitution, which would have meant (the way I see it) that there wouldn't then be any point in not taking the Oath of Allegiance to that constitution. The Oath of Fidelity to the King, though, would still have been a stumbling block. If this argument is already familiar to you, and I'm missing something, forgive me. The fact that some others (no matter how shrill) share your opinion, doesn't in my view justify summary blocks. It's just not cricket, old chap. Lapsed Pacifist 12:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible that you did not realise your comments were POV. I am sure that I have intentionally favoured one side of a dispute - this probably is due to my upbringing and education. Presumably you have been brought up to call what some people refer to as "Northern Ireland", the Six Counties. The problem is, Six Counties is a term used by a specific group of people. The official name of the region, by law, is Northern Ireland. Regardless of your personal views on the matter, it is our duty to describe in a neutral fashion. As the name of the region is clearly disputed, and I believe both sides have valid views on the situation, it is Wikipedia's policy on naming conventions to use official names, and if there is no official name, to use the most commonly-used name. The region is under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, and it is called Northern Ireland by them. However, even if the region was not under UK jurisdiction, the name "Northern Ireland" is more recognised than "Six Counties". If you asked someone who was ignorant of both names to guess their location on a world map, the phrase Northern Ireland would allow someone a much better estimate of where it is than Six Counties.

The debate over the name is not up to Wikipedians discussing it on Wikipedia. It's up to the politicians and ultimately the public. Our personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant on Wikipedia. We should follow the naming conventions. You have changed Northern Ireland to Six Counties a number of times, and have been reverted on all of them. As you continued to do this, I blocked you.

Please remember I am not saying that mentioning that Sinn Fein refer to the region as Six Counties is irrelevant. I have recently added a note to Sinn Fein about the name dispute. Your thoughts on this short paragraph are appreciated Talrias (t | e | c) 23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was'nt clear. You made a reference in your edit summary to your "talk page guidelines". I presumed you meant the notes at the top of the page, and I could'nt understand what you were referring to. I still consider it bad form to blank comments. Perhaps you might now address my last entry. Lapsed Pacifist 22:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I of course now will address your comments (I have replied above). Thankyou for indenting them. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is a step in the right direction, yet I still feel the address as given on the website should be good enough. I included the official term in brackets. Your new edit is similar to one I made at Crossmaglen, where I wrote that "six counties" is the most common name for the region in the town. It was quickly reverted. Sinn Féin's spokesperson for the six counties in Dáil Éireann (the Dublin parliament), Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, is referred to by them as just that. When I added that to his page, it was reverted. Similarly when I quote politicians using the term, it is reverted. I don't mean to bore you, but I hope this explains why I can be somewhat bullish on the subject. At least one of the people you referred to on my talk page when justifying the block was complaining about another matter, apart from this particular dispute (although related), which is why I mentioned it being difficult to refute a blanket charge. Lapsed Pacifist 00:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are not boring me, on the contrary I am quite interested in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the peace process there. I can't think of a situation where a direct quote should be altered. Do you have examples of these I could look at? Possibly as a compromise a footnote could be added mentioning the name dispute, or a sentence after the quote (e.g. "Six Counties is a name used by Irish republicans to refer to Northern Ireland.") On the other hand, I don't think your edit summaries (e.g. "rv POV-pushing"), nor revert-warring are helping (and are indeed the reason why I blocked you). If someone reverts you if you insert the name it may be better to leave a note on the talk page and ask the person who reverted to discuss it.

Have a look at the change I made to Sinn Fein concerning the address. I am creating a new article called Northern Ireland naming dispute which could be a helpful link to add into pages related to this. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy with that edit, and I agree footnotes or qualifications are a good idea. The new article is a great idea, the section dealing with terminology on the Northern Ireland page at the moment leaves a lot to be desired. As regards quotes, I think I made a reference to "six-county parliament" (Parliament of Northern Ireland) on the Gerry Adams page, and another quote from a famous speech by Jack Lynch somewhere else, I can't remember where right now. I have less-than-amicable histories with many of the users reverting my edits (who also have strong views on the topic), so an "honest broker" would be refreshing. Thanks, Lapsed Pacifist 01:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would show a large amount of good faith if you invited the people who you have had "histories" with to work with you (and me) in creating the naming dispute article - I would be very happy if you did that and I think it would be an excellent first step to mending broken fences. If you can find diffs to the direct quotes, both where you added them and where they were changed, I'll gladly look through it. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm logging off now, but I'll get back to you with the diffs.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

Lapsed Pacifist 11:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britsh MPs[edit]

Hello Chris, I ran the query you requested at meta:Requests_for_queries on the database dump from 2005-06-23 and copied the result to User:Talrias/British MPs. I hope it will be useful for you despite data's age of two month. --SirJective 21:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I have sorted the few which had not been done since that date. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AEJ Collins[edit]

Hi thanks for the note - well done us! What are you doing after Clifton - how were the A levels?

Brookie

I got what I wanted - I'm off to Manchester University now! Talrias (t | e | c) 19:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - to study what? My wife went there - so many journeys there at weekends! Brookie

I'm going to study Life Sciences. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Northern Ireland naming dispute, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Wikimeet: London 11 September[edit]

You expressed a desire on the Wikipedia:Meetup/London page to attend the 11 September meet, but inidcated that you wouldn't know until nearer the time whether you would be able to or not. This is just a friendly reminder, nearer the time, to see whether you are likely to be attending. Thryduulf 12:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll be busy preparing for university. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

premature RFA close[edit]

Thanks for the catch. I also checked on IRC, and they told me it had just been opened. Next time I check "history" first! Uncle Ed 01:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

RfA: DoKuDan[edit]

~~You recently deleted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DoKuDan, saying it was a fake admin request. Why was it fake? — JIP | Talk 16:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wait, scratch that. Looking at the history of the RfA and DoKuDan's talk page, I see that DoKuDan wrote the entire thing himself, even the comments by other people. Sheesh, he had me fooled. Thanks for spotting it! — JIP | Talk 16:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at my explanation on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton College article vandalism[edit]

Hi Chris - Brookie here - as an admin - can you block for a while the idiot who keeps vandalising the CC article? The curate's egg 06:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't (at least not for any long-lasting duration). The IP address is an AOL one, which means it is used by hundreds of users. This means the person blocked is likely to not be blocked due to them getting a different IP address, and someone else would be blocked instead. I can do 15 minute blocks. I will protect the page if necessary. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see - thanks - he seems to have got bored in the last day or so - and has perhaps gone onto something more useful! :) The curate's egg 06:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nom[edit]

Thanks. I figured I did it wrong, but I still don't understand where it's supposed to go. I put it right where the instructions said to put it. Zoe 19:44, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nominations go on the WP:RFA page. I agree the transcluded intro page is somewhat confusing too. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joolz's RFA[edit]

So uh, thanks for nominating and supporting me :) It was very much appreciated :D -- Joolz 11:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brookie here[edit]

Hi Chris - someone has nominated me for admin - scary! Please feel free to vote! Kind regards The curate's egg 13:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris - nomination closes tonight!....

Mr. Godfather[edit]

Darklordfoxx Media LIVES!!! The PHP project you helped me with a long time ago (remember? SQL Date != PHP date) is now up, along with some other [insert funny word here]s that I made. Check it out at this page. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD[edit]

I'm starting a new process to get rid of unwanted votes. --SPUI (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need - votes can just be removed on sight. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently discussions can too, or the new process's creation would not have been reverted. --SPUI (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest using another page to create the proposal then, as people visiting Wikipedia:Votes for deletion are probably looking for the article deletion system (and don't forget there are lots of subpages which could be confusing). Talrias (t | e | c) 22:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Being Gone[edit]

Well, I guess I've just been sort of dilligent ;) I was coincidentally browsing your talk page when you left me a message because I noticed you had posted on my site... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EU DGs[edit]

Here I am. It didn't take me long :) Like any newbie I have a thousand questions, but I think that I sort out most of them through the tutorials. One thing though: How should I name each DG? The full official name with a EU prefix? To be 100% strict it would be "European Union Commission Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities"... a bit long. I was going to go for "EU DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities". Any comments?

--Drdan 19:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I didn't reply sooner. I suggest just "Directorate-General for whatever", leaving out "European Union Commission". The fact it is part of the EU Commission should be established in the opening sentence however. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:arbcom elections[edit]

Hey, I'm just curious as to why you have withdrawn from the Arbitration Committee elections. Why have you stood down? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

because I now feel that I am unsuitable for candidacy and it seems that a good chunk of the community feels the same way so I'm not going to even waste people's time by going up for arbcom. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Note[edit]

You removed a section form Template:Note with the comment "this is going to add a interwiki link on every page." Although I didn't add that section I tried out if your comment is accurate and this is not the case. The section is not included, which is the whole point of it as far as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasten (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 October 2005

I was going by the comment raised on {{ref}} which mentioned this problem. By the way, when adding that comment to my talk page you marked it as a minor edit - a minor edit is typically a correction of a spelling error; please don't mark things as minor edits unless they actually are. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

block link[edit]

Replied on my talk page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EUCOTW[edit]

This is the current European Union collaboration. Please help improve it to featured article standard!

I've created the banner {{EUCnow}}, as displayed above, but am not sure where to list it on the EU collaboration page. I've also added it to the Eurobarometer article.

United Kingdom General Election 2005[edit]

Agreed, the comment on George Galloway's acceptance speech is somewhat PoV. However, the speech was noteworthy in a way that means making no comment is also PoV! I cannot recall the details, but the customary thanks to the Returning Officer, the police and other candidates were not all present. This may or may not have been "ungracious", but is certainly unusual, possibly unprecedented.--ARAJ 11:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a report in a newspaper or website which says his speech was ungracious? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1622265,00.html has "stunningly graceless". Will that do?--ARAJ 15:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion piece by a Tory politician (and it says subject to a legal complaint). I think we should do better than that! Talrias (t | e | c) 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not reliant on published sources, as I heard the speech live. In the aftermath of the General Election, the commentators no doubt had other things to talk about. For what it's worth, here is a transcript: http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/transcripts/galloway_6may2005.html. Also, to be fair to Mr Portillo, who left parliament in order to pursue a media career, perhaps you should refer to him as a "former politician (and respected political pundit)"?--ARAJ 11:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think an interpretation of the meaning of Galloway's speech would qualify as original research. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would, but that is not the issue: we are not discussing the meaning. My original question remains whether saying nothing about the acceptance speech is a neutral point of view. My contention is that it is not. Deleting all reference seems equivalent to me to describing the speech as "unremarkable". Perhaps we should move this debate to the Discussion for the edited page?--ARAJ 20:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worthy of inclusion, but writing about it is likely to be contentious so we need to cite a source when referring to it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Talrias/Archive 2005-10-26

Archives