User talk:Talrias/Archive 2006-03-25

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.

Archives

Archives are made of completed discussions, at least a week old, on the date the archive is made. They are created by simply copying and pasting the text into the archive page; the discussion history is therefore on the main talk page. The listing in bold is the one you're viewing now!

• Archive 2005-07-09
• Archive 2005-08-14
• Archive 2005-10-26
• Archive 2005-12-12
• Archive 2006-01-18
• Archive 2006-03-25
• Archive 2006-04-14
• Current discussion

Archived messages

Template:Message

Thanks for changing the color!  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I was trying to distinguish it from the "you have new messages" colour theme because I kept on getting excited when I saw that orange box. The letdown after realising I don't have new messages was just terrible. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Kind of the same kind of letdown I get when I go out to the mailbox and find it empty.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My RFC

Hi Talrias. I respect your right to bring an RFC on me, and for others to comment as well. Aside from my request for more formality in the proceedings, I have nothing to say that would be productive. Thank you for taking time in this matter. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page (continuing the discussion there is fine - I have added your talk page to my watchlist). Talrias (t | e | c) 00:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipals

Just to let you know I've added you to the list. -- Francs2000 02:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm honoured. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe's edit summary

I know I'm probably not the one to answer your question about Freestylefrappe's edit summary at Jtkiefer's RFB but see:

WP:AN/I#Immidiate_attention_needed:_User:Freestylefrappe_and_User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson.

to see why he responded like that. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 22:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thankyou! Talrias (t | e | c) 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

COTW

I reverted your removal on COTW cus I'm pretty sure redlinks are allowed to be COTW's. Read carefully on the guidelines you'll see this is true. Thanks, --Urthogie 10:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you read the page properly. The nomination *link* is red; i.e., there is no nomination. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah my mistake(very tired). Sorry bout that. As a second thought, have you told the guy to read how to post a cotw?--Urthogie 10:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Would you consider reverting your readdition? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Devs hate Godmode light diff

Sure. This diff popped out in my head immediately (which is from Rob Church, if you look at the contribs closely). I'll post it up immediately in visible places to let users know when it is up. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see the text he said in the diff, but I can't find it in the actual revision of that page (and I've used search). How strange! Talrias (t | e | c) 21:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aidan Work

I have indefinitely blocked Aidan Work from editing Wikipedia. A review of his behaviour this month alone shows that it is way beyond the bounds of acceptability. He could have been blocked for any number of reasons, but inciting hatred through advocating homosexuals on top of all his other outrageous behaviour was one step too far.

PS: best of luck with the exams. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I do agree his general behaviour was pretty unacceptable. Perhaps rather than an indefinite block we could block him for a year. If he comes back and continues to behave in the same way, we could just reblock for another year. Thanks for the well-wishes, Talrias (t | e | c) 12:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, not intentional

I honestly don't know how posting my comments led to others disappearing. Perhaps we were leaving messages at the same time? Anyway, very sorry about that. --Sojambi Pinola 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem! Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Confirming

Hey, there. I'm an admin on en Wikipedia :) —Wayward ^Talk 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Me too :) --Commander Keane 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

<noinclude></noinclude>

Is there anywhere in Wikipedia where there is a complete description of how <noinclude></noinclude> are supposed to work? Thanks. ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 05:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know. Try asking on WP:VP. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Polls

When polling about a page, please state clearly at the top of the page what you're actually polling about (rather than starting with common objections, because people won't know what the objections are objecting against yet). Also, in general, one should decide what to ask before polling for it. Most dissenters here aren't in fact objecting to the proposal, but confused about the implications. Just trying to clear that up, and Locke has already improved it a lot, it seems. Radiant_>|< 19:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you were trying to do, but you did it in a rather unhelpful way. For example, you added "it is rather unclear to me at this point how people are proposing to do this" and "Please replace this paragraph with a summary of the proposal" at the top of the page. This clearly doesn't improve the proposal; a more helpful thing to do would have been to mention on the proposal's talk page the things you found confusing and someone would have explained it to you on the talk page and updated the proposal accordingly. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RFR poll

I removed my vote because after doing some additional research I realized that I wasn't really sure about it. I hope it is fine for me to do so. --Missmarple 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I was just curious as to the reason. Thanks for explaining. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

phpBB external links

Hi, Talrias. I noticed that you discussed the subject of listing unofficial sites as external links on the phpBB article. Another dispute has come up over a link to phpbbhacks.com, and I'd appreciate it if you could come join the discussion there. Thanks! æle ✆ 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering when I'd be asked! Ah well, I suppose I better go and say something. There, said something! Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Éamon de Valera

Where's your evidence that his name is Eamon? Both official and unofficial sources record it as Éamon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Gringo (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 January 2006

The BBC for one call him Eamon. [1]. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The BBC, for one, is not Irish, so invoking some improbable authority of a foreign media organisation on the correct name of an Irish leader is rather strange. The article is about a person's real name. His real name in state documents is Éamon, not Eamon. Therefore, and regardless of your evident prejudices, that form should be used.El Gringo 01:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, a quick search on RTÉ, the Irish public broadcaster, turned out that they use "Eamon", without the accent, as well[2]. And I'd be grateful if you didn't accuse of me of having "evident prejucidices" without at least the courtesy of mentioning what they are (I'm not sure any of my evident prejucides cover the usage of accents in Irish language names. People who push on the bus, maybe.). Talrias (t | e | c) 08:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bot

I've finished the bot after some discussion. It's running in #pgk-test still and only you require help at time of writing.

What it will do is check the page every 3 minutes, add and remove from it's list and appropriate then list upto 15 (parameterisable) in order of entry to the list (down to the 3 minute granularity). That way it won't get too far out of hand. Freakofnurture has a copy of the code. As previously discussed it relies on pywikipedia, twisted and twisted.words. I'll be around on and off tomorrow since I need to do what I should have done today... --pgk^(talk) 23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice job. Thanks a lot, pgk. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

haiku

I left you a haiku, just incase you didnt see it :)--Ali K 13:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Talrias (t | e | c) 15:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Two to wheel war?

True, but also sometimes there's one admin wheeling against the consensus. Radiant_>|< 20:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Still takes two to wheel war! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to go wheel war with myself just to prove you wrong. Muahahahah! Radiant_>|< 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's still two. Two personalities, perhaps. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Who, us? Radiant_>|< 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the other one. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that would be me. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly mistaken. You're confusing me for me. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going mad, I think I should block myself! ;) Talrias (t | e | c) 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 48 hours for impersonating yourself, and being a sockpuppet of yourself. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked myself, because I was acting in good faith when I tried to pass myself off as me. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Get off my talk page, the pair of me. You. Uh. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there am currently at least four of me. =] Talrias (t | e | c) 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My request for help

Why did you remove my template- contrary to instructions- when I have not in fact received any help that I know of, not even my most basic question answered! StrangerInParadise 16:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because two people have responded to your comments on your talk page, and are waiting for your reply to them. Having the template on your page is now unnecessary as two people are busy helping you out. :) I'd be grateful if you removed it again. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I might add that we're discussing it on IRC. Feel free to join us on the #wikipedia-bootcamp channel, or use this page if you don't have an IRC client installed. Bjelleklang - talk 16:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Oops, did I mess up? I think I misread the nomination; normally when a link turns blue and there's a bunch of "overturns" it means it already has been. I think in this case, you'd have a mandate to carry out the move you requested. Apologies. -Splash^talk 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that; I'd be grateful if you could carry out the proper actions as you are a regular DRV closer it seems. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You wanted a category move, right? You just recategorize each article (manually) and then copy the old category page's content over to the new. If the old category is then redundant, it can be deleted immediately. -Splash^talk 23:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there are bots which automatically do this all for you; I am not sure how those bots are told to perform the correct action. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, if you like you can use {{category redirect|NewCategory}}. I forget the bot's name, but it'll then move things around for you at 3 minutes past the next hour. You can delete the cat once it's done. In this small-scale case, it's probably quicker for you to do it manually. I don't think the bot copies the category page's contents across, but I could be wrong on that. -Splash^talk 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. There's no real hurry so I'll just flag it for the bot to do. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 00:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RFR poll (II)

Thanks for your comments, but as it stands I'll leave my vote as is. If someone is trusted enough to get the rollback fuctions, they are trusted enough to be an admin. That's my ultimate opinion These tools shouldn't be split up. If someone fails at RFA, it's because they have not earned the trust of the community. I don't see why we should trust people with part of the admin tool box who we are not prepared to trust with the full box. Further, have you considered that the same thing that you detail on my talk page as having happened to RFA will eventually happen to RFR? Steve block talk 14:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have considered it, and I believe it unlikely - calling the procedure requests for rollback leaves very little room for scope-creep as has happened with adminship (cf. unwatched pages, admin IRC channels, etc.). The policy for usage of rollback leaves very little room for interpretation - you can't use rollback in a content dispute for "the good of the encyclopaedia" while admins are allowed to, and do delete/undelete pages for "the good of the encyclopaedia". Rollback is a shortcut for an action any user can take, which is why I don't really see it as an admin tool. It's a trusted editor tool, if anything. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But all admin tools are trusted editor tools, because an admin is simply an editor who has earned the community's trust. Steve block talk 14:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting to draw a distinction between a shortcut for an action which any editor can take, and an action which only an exclusive group of editors can take. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And I was attempting to show the flaw in that agument, namely that it isn't an action any editor can take, since the proposal isn't to give it to all editors, but that it is one we should give to trusted editors, which, by definition, is what admins are. Steve block talk 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

However, there are editors who are trustworthy yet the community has chosen not to grant them adminship, or they do not want to be admins, or any other myriad of reasons. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there are editors who are not trusted by the community. You can't be trusted if you're not granted adminship. And if people don't want to be admins, then they don't get to use the tools. I can think of one noteable editor who refused adminship for ages and it never bothered him. Why should anyone not want to be an admin but want the admin tools? That's a bit like not wanting to celebrate Christmas but expecting the presents. As to the myriad of other reasons, since you can't list them, I can't debate them, so that's a bit of a pointless statement. I'd argue, though, that this argument is rather circular. Can we just agree to disagree? I respect your opinion, I just believe we already have a suitable system in place. You don't. Steve block talk 14:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I hope you understand why I believe the way I do over this. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Space western

I see that Category:Western science fiction has made it through DRV, which is fine, but Category:Western science fiction is not the same as Category:Space western, which you deleted with no discussion. Please do not do that again. --Kbdank71 14:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was being bold to remove overcategorisation. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFR vote

I suspect that was a form letter, as I never said that "adminship is no big deal". It is a big deal, which is why only a few people get it. I just don't think we need to complicate things by creating another user level, with its own request page, etc., when its abilities can be perfectly duplicated by one of several scripts available. "I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you" Like I said, a form letter. Don't assume that everyone who disagrees with you shares the same reasons. I just don't think we need to complicate processes and userlevels any further. --Golbez 14:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I must have misintepreted you when you said "No level required between user and admin.", then. My apologies. Perhaps you could read the replies to common objections section where it explains why the scripts available are not sufficient. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RFR vote

Hi Talrias. Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view. My greatest fear about adding an extra process to determine which non-admin contributors can be granted rollback, is that it will put an additional barrier between adminship, and those who deserve it. As you noted it, the "standards for adminship have become higher"; the way I see it is that we are drifting away from the "adminship should be no big deal" ideal with an increasing speed. Candidates are now asked to be exceptionally prolific, experienced editors with a perfectly clean record, when in fact all sufficiently experienced and good contributors should have adminship. I'm quite aware that there is no way to reverse this process, and that the standards at WP:RFA will only become ever tighter if anything. However, what I would hate to see is good RFA candidates being routinely told to "ask for rollback first", and "work with that and wait a few months"; I feel that can only make things worse. Phils 15:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Phils, for explaining. I'm afraid I have no solutions to making RFA less of a big deal. That's why I proposed this RFR policy - while it won't change the nature of RFA, it will help Wikipedia as it will give more people the ability to swiftly remove vandalism. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Deathphoenix's RFR vote

I never said that adminship is "no big deal". I think now, times have changed from when Jimbo said that, so I would certainly never say that admiship is no big deal. I know your message was mos likely a form letter, but you should really look at what people actually wrote before you unilaterally paint them with the "no big deal" brush.

That said, I am against adding a further level of red tape: adminship comes as a package. If you can't be trusted with the entire adminship, you can't be trusted with the rollback tool. As for thoes who don't want to apply to be an admin, if you want the rollback tool, you should apply for adminship. There is a reason why rollback is limited to admins, and adding another level of usership is unnecessary bureacracy.

I don't think I'm going to convince you, and you won't be able to convince me, so let's just agree to disagree on this point, okay? :-) --Deathphoenix 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement that "[s]omeone trustworthy enough to get rollback privileges should also be trustworthy enough for adminship." My apologies for your misinterpretation. However, I don't see why you think that rollback is a part of the adminship package when it is just a quick way to revert (which any user can do). What is the reason that rollback is limited to admins? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Because admins would presumably know when an edit deserves an edit summary and when it doesn't. I was a non-admin for over a year, and I got by with the three-click revert. --Deathphoenix 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, I however respectfully disagree with you. I hope you can understand why I believe the way I do. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 19:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. The great thing about opinions is that everyone is entitled to one. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Your vote on the RFR poll

OK Talrias...you convinced me :) After reading what you had to say about the issue, I found that you are right. Thanks. LordViD 21:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LordViD, I'm glad to have your support. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Politics quiz

I think I've worked out the answers to your politics quiz. Are the answers: [snip]? Σμυρραυινκχεστερ^{(υσερ), (Ταλκ)} 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct! Great job finding them all out - how many did you look up and how many did you know? I've removed the answers but anyone interested in checking for themselves (or cheating) can look through the history. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew Q2 and 4, but looked up the rest in Wikipedia. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job on finding them. People who have done the quiz had the most problem with the third question. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The welcome template

Hi Talrias. Thank you for joining the discussion at template talk:welcome. Actually, if I may suggest, this is the approach you should have taken earlier, before you even added the links there, and before you readded the links today. You see, all of us are administrators, and of course can modify that page at our liking. But that is not the right approach to things; the correct approach is to discuss things. Such a discussion has been going at template talk:welcome for the last week, caused by your original edit, and again, I am happy you are finally joining that. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I originally added a minor link, yes, but it was Danny who really changed the template (in this edit). In fact, we've had some great success with the {{helpme}} template - it's clearly being used due to its presence in the welcome message and I think it would be a big mistake to remove it. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, Danny moved your contribution up. I am sure you guys are having a cool project, and the consensus seems clear about keeping {{helpme}} in. The bootcamp is the big issue, and I would have appreciated more talk and less use of admin powers when making the case for that. Anyway, there is a lively discussion at template talk:welcome (note I moved down your comment over there), and all of us being well-meaning people, we will end up with some kind of solution.  :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

RFR

Yes, I am voting against voting. It is entirely unclear to me why the straw poll suddenly requires "official closure" and such; I've asked on its talk page and not received an answer. If you wanted this poll to display consensus for acting upon a certain proposal, then it has failed, and I would object to using it on that grounds. If you are going to use this poll as the base for yet further discussion (which doesn't require official closure of the poll, by the awy), and use opposing comments to form some process that most people agree upon (and please don't ask for a vote on that one) I'd happily agree. But basically the metaprocess for creating a RFR process has become nearly as confusing as the initial Deletion Reform metadiscussions. It is getting tied up in bureaucracy, and I object to that. >Radiant< 19:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The metaprocess for creating an RFR process has become confusing? I really have no idea what you are talking about. The procedure by which rollback would be granted has remained the same throughout the entire history of the proposal. The debate has been on specifics. Hardly confusing. There is little bureaucracy. Could you provide some more specific details, rather than generalised complaints, so I can better understand what you are getting at? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, never mind. I'd say just go for it, it's been discussed for too long and most people point in the same direction. Btw sorry about that template page, I had misread the date and I found it weird that the talk page didn't exist. >Radiant< 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Radiant, that's fine then. Rob Church is developing a system where bureaucrats can grant/revoke this, and there's clearly enough support to do a trial run. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing the user pages of people with whom you are in conflict

If you assert that my use of rollback was improper, then you should not have used it yourself. It is impolite to delete content from other people's user pages, especially when they are taking a break from conflict. You really should not be editing the user pages of people with whom you are in conflict. Guettarda 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't use rollback in the first place. It is of course impolite (and more than that!) to accuse someone of being a neo-Nazi. And I don't believe I'm in conflict with anyone at the moment. I see you've reverted *again*, this is what the discussion button is for, not discussing only when your preferred version is on the page. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - you rolled back and then scolded me. If you want to scold people for "improper" use of rollback, you should retain the moral high ground. If you want to scold people about reverting instead of discussing, you should discuss before you rollback. And if you want someone to remove something from their userpage, you can ask. As for conflict - just because you've stopped attacking Slim & co. doesn't mean you aren't in conflict with them. Kicking someone when they are down is never acceptable. Acting wronged when I undid the wrong you did is childish, as is complaining about the things you yourself as doing. If reverting first and talking second is wrong, then it's just as wrong for you as it is for me. If using rollback is wrong, then it's just as wrong for you as it is for me - worse, because your alteration of El_C's userpage was out of line.

if you consider my actions wrong, then your doing the same thing is doubly wrong, since I at least have the excuse that I didn't see my actions as wrong. You are intentionally doing things you think are wrong. Unlike my actions, your actions are inexcusible by your own code of behaviour. Guettarda 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that my removal of that text from El_C's user page was out of line, and evidently we'll have to agree to disagree on that issue. Perhaps you could address why you (repeatedly) readded the text to the page? Just as a reminder, the text asserted that someone was a Nazi. There are only a few worse insults than that. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why is your user page protected? Unprotect your userpage so that random people can delete content from it, and then maybe you'd have half a leg on which to stand. Guettarda 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not, as evidenced by the addition of a number of haiku from non-admins (such as Ali K and Lord Voldemort). And in fact this latest edit by an anonymous user, which is rather worrisome (!) And of course this doesn't explain your actions. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Or using rollback on non-vandalism edits. [3] FeloniousMonk 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The reversion of an non-vandalism edit without providing an edit summary (or using admin rollback), or explaining an edit, is considered vandalism. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. Where did you ever get that idea? And you know, I seem to remember not using the rollback button and leaving an edit summary. And guess what? I did: [4] As for why, that's why I left an edit summary, I suppose. FeloniousMonk 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, that particular comment was meant for Guettarda. I have moved it appropriately. I didn't suggest that you had used the rollback privilege on your talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that you are guilty of intentional vandalism? I disagree with that assessment - please point me to the policy page that says so. Obviously you feel that to be the case though, so you are admitting that you are guilty of vandalism Maybe a block for vandalism is in order. Guettarda 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a diff to where I reverted a non-vandalism edit without providing an edit summary or explaining an edit? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You used rollback on my non-vandalism rollback of your alteration of El_C's page - the original edit of which was pretty close to vandalism, since you were altering the content of the user page of a person with whom you were in conflict. Reverting your attempt to kick your opponent when he was down was absolutely not vandalism under any definition of the term - in fact, by your definition it was an acceptable use of rollback. Guettarda 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, you'll really have to explain to me how removing an allegation that Igor Alexander is the Nazi Alex Linder is vandalism. The question was originally "Was the Wikipedia Review forum founded by the Nazi Alex Linder (forum Admin Igor Alexander)?" The question makes assumptions that have to be correct for the question to be valid. So it makes the statement that those assumptions are valid. In this case, the assumption is that Alex Linder is Igor Alexander, and that Igor Alexander/Alex Linder is a Nazi. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

By your definition (not mine)your action was vandalism. (BTW - I am still waiting for the policy or guideline upon which your opinion is based). My revert of your edit was obviously not vandalism - you should not be editing the user page of someone you are in conflict with, and inasmuch as you choose to protect your user page, you have no justification to edit anyone's user page. By your definition, your "abuse" of rollback was vandalism. If you choose some arbitrary standards you should at the very least apply them to yourself. Guettarda 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that I am repeating myself here. My user page is not protected. My actions were (obviously) not covered under my "definition" of vandalism. I apply all my standards to myself. I don't see how this conversation can continue when you keep making incorrect statements despite my correction of them. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So I am imagining that "unprotect" tab there? Interesting. As for the second part - don't be ridiculous. You used rollback on a non-vandalism edit and then scolded me about having done the same (when your usage was far more egregious than mine). You then scolded Dunc others for the same thing. There is no way that this can be interpreted as anything other than failing to apply your own standards. You edited the page to your prefered version before talking, and then scolded me for doing the same. Once again, your failed to apply your own standards. I am not the one making incorrect statements - you are the one denying things that are patently obvious. Guettarda 12:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, if my user page is protected, please explain these edits: [5], [6], [7], [8]. As I have said, I used rollback on your edit since you reverted my initial edit (which indeed had an edit summary), without explanation. You didn't even have the courtesy to provide an edit summary. You definitely didn't mention it on my talk page that you had reverted my initial edit. I'm still waiting for you to explain why you used rollback on my initial edit, and why you didn't explain (in any shape or form) why you did so. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could simply have said "no, it's not protected, it's just protected against moves", like sannse pointed out to me, and I would have said, "sorry, my mistake". Simple enough. I was wrong. As for the other stuff - you can admit that you were wrong with regards to scolding other people for using rollback when you did the same, and you could admit that you were wrong to edit El_C's user page when you were in conflict with him and to pretty much start dismantling his legacy before the ink on his farewell was dry - or not, as you please. I don't care if you can't admit that you were wrong. I don't care if you feel you need to get the last word on everything. I just hope that the point gets through that:

• you should not be scolding people about doing the things you are yourself doing, because it makes you look silly;
• you should not be editing the user pages of people you are in conflict (like El_C now and Slim in the past) because it promotes ill-will and makes you look like a troublemaker; and
• if you want to do something that will piss off a large number of people you should choose a time when the community is not already traumatised like it is right now.

I do hope that some of that gets through your hostility. If you still need to win the argument, feel free to add another notch to your belt. I really couldn't care less. Guettarda 18:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I will of course take your comments under advisement. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

About ko:사용자:Talrias

Hi. I'm a sysop of the Korean wikipedia. I see this message. Is it true that this account is an imposter account of yours? -- ChongDae 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The message you linked to was indeed written by me. It does seem that the account is an impostor. What kind of edits has the person been making? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Stealing your Userpage Theme

I did steal your userpage theme; I copied your formatting. I simply removed the bit about the font, but I still have the box around everything. Yeltensic42 don't panic 23:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, no harm done. Yeltensic42 don't panic 18:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Brookie here

Hi Chris, Brookie here - just checking that you're studying hard and not drinking! :) Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Talk!) 20:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If only, I'm ill at the moment. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope you're better now! Was at Clifton at the weekend to show it to my boys - pissed down the whole time we were there! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Talk!) 14:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your boys too? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I had to go down there on business and so the family came for a weekend - and I thought I'd show them the school - I'd love to send them there but two lots of boarding fees is too much and we live too far away for them to be dayboys! Hope you're well over your cold now. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the boarding fees especially are expensive enough (and for two kids too, I think you get a slight discount on the second child). I was a day pupil, and I had a scholarship - if I didn't have the scholarship my family wouldn't have been able to afford the full fees for me. I'm not surprised it rained in Bristol when you were there. I'd be surprised if it didn't! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

User page award

Congratulations, Talrias/Archive 2006-03-25! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

• Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
• Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
• Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
• General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

Banez 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered, and I'm glad someone likes it. I'm sure there's some tough competition however. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

odd edit summary

Hi Talrias, on the Sinn Fein article you remark in an edit summary: "this is historically untrue, the MPs elected to the HoC of NI were responsible for opting out". This strikes me as a bit weird, as the House of Commons of Northern Ireland was set up in the first place to provide a unionist mini-state - it was the British government who decided on its creation. Obviously once it was created in a particular region of the country that had a solid unionist majority, it did indeed maintain a secessionist position - but that's a strange point in time to use as a reference point. Palmiro | Talk 13:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right, but your edit changed the text to "The Irish people did not have a vote on partition, and as such Sinn Féin tend not to use the term "northern Ireland" as they view the partition as democratically incorrect." This is rather hazy language as the Irish people had their elected MPs (pretty much all of them Sinn Fein in the south, and unionist in the north). It was a legitimate democratically action (gerrymandering is unfortunately legitimate, as is bad policymaking), and the Irish people did have a vote on it - through the concepts of representative democracy. The wording is generally hazy and the previous wording is much more precise. It could, however, be expanded to provide a bit more background for the division of Ireland. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not my edit, anyway! But the previous version correctly represented the Sinn Fein point of view, which is surely what's relevant at this particular point; your change removes their argument, and replaces it with what strikes me as a rather tendentious version - not that I think you were being deliberately tendentious, far from it. After all, the six counties did not individually choose to remain in the UK; the UK created a parliament for those six counties, which then made the decision; the establishment of those six counties as a separate entity was a decision made by the UK government and it is certainly true that the people of Ireland as a whole had no real choice in the matter (should they have had? that's another question and bound to arise and be contested in any case of secession) and that Sinn Fein regard this as an undemocratic act and a historic injustice. Palmiro | Talk 19:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look at the history. I meant BBX's edit. Due to the rather specific details one must use when describing the region, I've changed it to link to two relevant articles on the issue. Going into the precise details will result in a lot of text given over to the history of Northern Ireland which, while of course relevant to Sinn Fein, is not as important as the other aspects of the article. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

style (dates and numbers)

I respect your reversion of my sentences, but why? The existing text seems so weak. The existing text seems to be used by some editors/administrators to justify doing nothing to make use of the guidelines either on new articles or in editing existing articles. Thanks Hmains 21:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed your changes because it's not necessary to say "please follow the guidelines". That's what guidelines are. We need to be cautious about adding more and more text to pages such as this as it gets overly wordy and becomes instruction creep. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

IRC

Hi there, as an admin, is it possible for you to grant me access to the admin irc channel? Thanks Banez 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you need to drop me a message on IRC - my nick is 'Talrias'. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned subst by tawkerbot

I noticed that after the fact, someone on IRC mentioned that it needed subst'ing, and I trusted them (being a long time user/admin) and went ahead and grabbed the linked list and set the bot to run. I got your message earlier but my local ISP crashed preventing me from accessing the server that the bot runs on. Thankfully Omegatron noticed something wasn't right and used the only tool to stop it, the block. Again, sorry if I caused any trouble, I've been working on tightning up the steps needed before the bot runs and I guess I just found another procedure that I need to fix. Tawker 00:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFR

I was noticing that you created the RFR page, and I would love to support the project. I am unaware of the best way to do that currently. There doesn't seem to be much progress on the discussion page, and I can't tell if this proposal is dead, going through a major change, or getting ready for testing. What can I do right now to support the proposal?--Measure 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Measure, the best thing you can do is put your comments on the straw poll and weigh in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges#General comments on the poll and how to proceed. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been reading there and trying to help but uh, It's not clear to me what step in the process we're at. Is a test coming, or do we need to re-work the policy some more? --Measure 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The developers are creating the software required to make the ability to grant/revoke the rollback privilege. I would like a test for the proposal when the software is developed - see the discussion at the bottom of the talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Manchester

I seem to recall that you live in Manchester, so I thought this reminiscence might amuse you. [9]. --Tony Sidaway 12:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, that's awesome! I haven't had the chance to sample the.... delicacies of Owens Park yet. Though from the sounds of things that's probably for the best. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 16:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking your name in vain...

...over at Wikipedia: Village pump (policy) under 4.7 (Bobblewik's "Formal request for help"). Seriously I would like to know some substantive arguments in favour of keeping square brackets around each and every occurrence of a year. Or is Bobblewik's offence something else? Stroika 14:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a combination, but more "something else" than not. I've replied in that section. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Bobblewik

Hi Chris. As Bobblewik has, for the time being, promised not to make any more such edits, I have unblocked him, as blocks are preventative, not punitive. I hope this is OK. Cheers, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Drops Of Light

You deleted the protected page last week. Was your intent to allow it to be recreated, or just to get rid of the notice after being protected for so long? I missed your edit summary and deleted it again, after it was recreated yet again. If you'd like to see it go to AFD again, that's fine and I'll be happy to undelete and nominate it; if your intent was that it not be created again, I'll leave the deletedpage notice. Ral315 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The latter. Just to clean out some of the protected pages. If it's being recreated, {{deletedpage}} can just be slapped right back on it. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Have a great day, with all the traditional trimmings of curry and beer :) -- sannse (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, have a lovely day. violet/riga (t) 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm wishes. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Talrias! Somebody else beat me to it, but the wishes are the same and I might be able to claim I remembered first! :) --Durin 18:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Talrias. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style

Juszt letting you know I've usefied User:Talrias/Manual of Style (browsing methods) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you do that? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well because experience has taught me that no matter how obvious you make the joke someone will always take a parody at face value. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)