User talk:Talrias: Difference between revisions

Hi, welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to drop me comments about my contributions to Wikipedia. Critical messages are most appreciated.

Notes

• If you are coming here because I left a message on your talk page, please reply there! I add people's talk pages to my watchlist after I leave a comment, so I will see any replies you make. I only remove the page from my watchlist a week or so after the discussion has ended.
• I will reply to your comments on this page only, unless you request otherwise (so you may wish to add it to your own watchlist after adding your comments). I may leave a note on your talk page informing you I have replied.
• Please remember to sign your comments.

Add a new comment!

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.

• Archive 2005-07-09
• Archive 2005-08-14
• Archive 2005-10-26
• Archive 2005-12-12

Current messages

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritus Intus Alit

This might interest you! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2009/10

Hi Talrias - thanks for the verify tag. The figures came from another user who had credited Electoral Calculus; I'd created the table from his figures but deleted the source by accident. I agree the graph was awful, I created it in a rush, I'll have to go back and try again I think!! doktorb 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You can save Excel graphs as .gifs - save the chart as a .html file, open the HTML file up in a browser and you can save upload the image displayed. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

☻Welcome to Wikinews☺

Welcome to wikinews. I hope you decide to stay. To see the full welcome goto n:template:hello. Happy editing. Bawolff 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou, however my earliest contribution to Wikinews was back in May (which isn't too long after your first contribution). Talrias (t | e | c) 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Eire/ Éire

Thanks for education re corrections in articles as opposed to comments/discussions. I get it. So for me I would want to correct the 2 Eire instances in the Eamon de Valera article. A similar issue comes up concerning the use of United Kingdom as opposed to the correct trem United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland when referring to the pre-1922 period and Ireland's membership of same.

BTW, I started to add this to your Discussion page but hope I reverted to your correct last version. If not sorry.

(ww2censor talk 03:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

That's absolutely right! Don't worry, I've fixed your mistaken addition to my talk page archives. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sinn Fein

I agree! The Northern Ireland political parties is a subcategory of Political parties in the United Kingdom. Therefore all the political parties of Northern Ireland (and of England, Scotland and Wales, too) are also political parties in the United Kingdom.

Thank you!--Palomar 08:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's my reasoning. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection of {{unsigned}}

Howdy—I was just wondering about this. Is pre-emptive protection O.K. these days? I know that the {{test}} templates are, but I didn't think that there were others (and those have been vandalised, rather than it being a pre-emptive thing). I didn't see any comments about the protection on the talk page and was just wondering what your thinking was. Blackcap (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I protected it because widely used templates like {{unsigned}} are used on literally thousands of pages. If a malicious user decides to change the template, it's going to require each page which includes it to be recached, and then recached again when the vandalism is reverted. This obviously causes a problem for the various servers. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

O.K., thanks. Blackcap (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Karmafist

i've looked around, but i haven't seen where the elections are held. also it seemed like they were somehow canceled or postponed or changed in some way. i haven't been able to decode the wikispeak. seriously, Talrias, there is at present (and it will only get worse if the leadership - Jimbo + whomever - don't act soon about it) a crisis of credibility at Wikipedia. and i don't mean the stuff we're hearing on the news John Seigenthaler, etc. that stuff is par for the course. i would expect things like that to happen (and eventually get corrected). the crisis of credibility is that a bunch of young (college-aged or thereabouts) and self-satisfied wikiheads have been inadequately vetted (or maybe the vetting was as good as one could expect) and vested with adminship when they are too immature to take on the responsibility and do it responsibly. these are nasty kids who have let the power of adminship go to their heads to the extent that they don't believe the civility rules apply to them. they are naked hypocrites who act as trolls and harrass editors and accuse anyone who confronts them about it as being trolls and for harrassment. they demand respect, but they do not offer any. WP will necessarily lose a lot of talent if the cops here treat them so badly. it will become a real crisis, but i believe it has already come to that point. regards. r b-j 03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To keep this simple, I've replied on Jimbo Wales' talk page, which is on my watchlist so I'll see any replies you make there. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik and date delinking

I saw your comment on User_talk:Bobblewik's page, and thought you might want to add your feedback to Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Bot_permission_please.3F. He is requesting bot permission to unlink the years in articles. I'm ambivalent about year delinking in general, but there are some specific cases that I'm against. Neier 22:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

AEJ Collins

Hi, according to the Manual of style, the years should not be linked unless they convey any specific information. Tintin 03:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That part of the manual of style is by no means fixed policy, in fact loads of people don't agree with it. As it's being discussed at the moment, it's best to leave articles as they previously were as a courtesy until the community comes to a consensus on what to do. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is this being discussed at the moment? At Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context, the only topics that have been discussed in the last month are: (1) whether the component parts of an article's title should be linked in the opening sentence, (2) Why the word potato is linked from the page, and (3) Whether "Only make" or "Make only" is a better title for the page. As far as I can tell, the issue of linking dates hasn't been discussed since February 2004, which strongly implies consensus has been reached on the issue. --Angr (t·c) 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia talk:Bots#Bot permission please?. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

POV edits

At Northern Ireland naming dispute; care to elaborate?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I was completely mistaken in my reversion. My apologies. I'm also sorry I didn't get around to answering your question sooner, and indeed I would have reverted myself shortly. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries. Feel free to give the self-flagellation a miss!

Lapsed Pacifist 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I should probably kick the habit soonish. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 20:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sci.psychology.psychotherapy

Why did you protect Sci.psychology.psychotherapy? It's full of original research and npov, and the article is only tangentially about the usenet group. It even has a blatantly self-referential first section name to the effect of, "This article has verifiable research". Pfeh. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Because there was a revert-war in progress. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a revert war between anons and registered users. It might have more sense to semi-protect the page. The anons are the kooks who are trying to insert their blatant kookery POV. The registered users are the ones who are trying to carve down the article to something sensible on the topic of the newsgroup it is named after. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but see m:The Wrong Version. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 19:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• This page is protected in an effort to maintain the bad reporting and to extend bias and propaganda. I doubt anything discussed here will result in any major improvements to this rag of an article because the administrator(s) are hopelessly POV. They impose martial law because they are unwilling to admit that their position is weak. We can argue about the situation forever, but there is no doubt in my mind that unless you agree with the major contributors of this rag you will never get appeasement.

I accuse you of being biased and having deliberately protected THE WRONG PAGE. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 19:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully admit my heinous crime and I will self-flagellate shortly. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dates

Yes, it's annoying when people stick their noses into situations they know nothing about, isn't it? But don't worry, I'm not engaged in WP:POINT. I saw you remove that section from the MoS, even though it has a lot of support, and so I reverted that and a few of your reverts of Bobblewik. I'm not sure why you say he shouldn't be doing it with a bot. He is following the MoS, that section has been there for awhile, it's widely accepted to the best of my knowledge, and he probably has permission to use the bot. So I will be doing it again. If you object, please discuss it on the MoS talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He hasn't got bot permission, actually, otherwise you would see it on Wikipedia:Bots. In fact, you've contributed to the discussion about getting permission to use it and as you may have seen there is opposition there. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he's using it without permission, then of course he shouldn't be. I'm afraid I know almost nothing about how permission is granted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to revert your rollbacks of my edits then? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 15:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

edit summaries

Please make your edit summaries completely accurate. This one was not because of the multiple changes you made. I'd also suggest to only make major changes, especially removals, after announcing your intent on the talk page and Village pump. -- Netoholic @ 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with the edit? There weren't any removals of anything but commented-out code. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I've removed the personal attacks again, per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, and I'd appreciate it if you would not restore them. Your behavior is very surprising for an admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't do something "per" a disputed guideline. And even if it were policy, it's not up to you to interpret that they are "personal attacks" - which they are not - since you are involved in the discussion. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

They are very much personal attacks, which is why you made them, and any user is allowed to remove personal attacks made against them. More importantly, your behavior is completely inappropriate for an admin. Getting involved in wheel wars, and revert warring to retain personal attacks? Shame on you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It takes two to revert war. What aspect of my behaviour in particular are you unhappy with? And I would suggest you examine your own attitude before criticising others. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've nicked your user page theme from Mindspillage, hope you don't mind

Dear Talrias: In an amusingly round-about way, I've nicked (and hacked to death) User:Mindspillage's user page theme, which she in turn nicked from you. I do hope you don't mind; thanks for designing it in the first place! :-) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I insist you remove it at once! Of course you're most welcome to use it and glad you like it. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry belated xmas

You deserve better. How about a nice glass of lemonade? Spum 17:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree and I would love a nice refreshing Sprite. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik

Believe it or not, I think he's doing it manually. At least the first sentence of User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser, which seems to be used by other people, not just him, is "This is not a bot..." Or did am I missing something? Dmcdevit·t 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bobblewik. Someone else has raised a similar point; hopefully my answer to him satisfactorily answers your concerns. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Tirben

Good point -- Francs2000 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering we have no shops I'm impressed you could buy one. Then again, since we have no electricity either the postcard would be quite accurate if you got it. ;) Talrias (t | e | c) 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I bought it from Cut-Me-Own-Throat Dibbler, who miraculouly appears in any location where there's some money to be made. I don't recommend the rat-on-a-stick, mind... -- Francs2000 02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement and attempt to have it passed as a law in Tirben ASAP. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I say, what steps need to be taken for me to aquire genuine Tirbenian citizenship? What officials require the least bribing? Banes 06:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to our citizenship legislation, all you need to do to become a Tirbenian citizen is register on the forums. Immigration has never been so easy. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic! No red tape! I will look into that shortly...(happy New Year, by the way.) Banes 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

That was fast. :) Coffee 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My finger's always on the pulse. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

haiku

If you read the haiku article that you linked to, you would find that modern English-language haiku is not the syllable-counting exercise that most people are familar with (usually from grade school English classes), nor is it the joke "haiku" represented by spam haiku, redneck haiku and haiku error messages. Instead, haiku should be 17 syllables or less, almost always have a kigo (or season word), and usually have a kireji (or cutting word). "Cold fog" is a winter kigo, and the singing mockingbird is a spring kigo. The m dash and the ellipsis are the kireji (i.e. a strong pause or syntactic break in the text—usually something stronger a poetic caesura). ^BlankVerse 05:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed COTWs

I apoligize. It's fixed now, but thanks for letting me know by the way.SoothingR 15:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Bobblewik block

Talrias, I have to ask you to stop blocking Bobblewik. You've blocked him twice despite being deeply involved in the content dispute: not just involved but possibly the main advocate of the other "side." I wouldn't mind you blocking a bot (whether you're involved or not) if it has no permission or might be causing damage, but you are leading the opposition to unlinking years, and you've revert warred over the MoS regarding that issue, which means it's inappropriate for you to block the user you're opposing. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Perhaps you could put a note on AN/I instead and ask another admin to block if you feel one is warranted. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read Wikipedia:Blocking policy too, which states "it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin, rather than unblocking yourself". Talrias (t | e | c) 02:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree with that part of the policy (though you clearly do not, given your previous actions), but where there is such an obvious violation of the policy, it would be absurd to let the block stand. Note that I have no opinion as to whether he ought to be blocked and if someone uninvolved reblocks, I won't interfere, but I am requesting that you not be the one to do it in the future over this particular issue, because in blocking you are gaining the upper hand in a content dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What previous actions? And despite your agreement with it, you didn't follow it here. Also, could you explain how I'm gaining the upper hand in any "content dispute"? This is a policy disagreement, for one thing, and there are other people who agree with Bobblewik on this issue (such as yourself) who have been involving themselves more in the discussion than he has. My block was not to "gain the upper hand" (which doesn't seem to presume much good faith in my actions) but was a forceful way of stopping his edits since he's previously ignored requests to do so given the opposition to both the section of the MOS in question and the applicability of using a bot to do so. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Haiku

...I'm glad it meets your standards. Good one on my talk page too :). Banes 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll on years of birth/death

Hi, you may want to participate in the poll at Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) # "Should the year of birth/year of death be linked in biographies?" -- User:Docu

Thanks for letting me know; I've voted. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your request for clarification of reasons

I've pretty much said it all on my talk page. Let me know if you have any further questions (I figured you are just copy and pasting to all arbitrators and didn't actually read the discussion on my talk page yet) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Sorry for not checking first, I'll read it now and get back to you. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think some serious mistakes were made but the fire storm that resulted is lesson enough. I really am just amused by userboxes, think they are fun and provide a vehicle for folks to hook up here regarding common interests. I don't wholely support factions, but regard them as inevitable and would not punish those naive enough to organize openly. Obviously userboxes are not the place for fair use images, Fair use is mostly educational purpose and userboxes are mostly play. I support play. Fred Bauder 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The fire storm that resulted is lesson enough. The administrators involved need to have the grace to back down and apologize. Whatever you may think, those three are some of our best people. Fred Bauder 23:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your comments - and I don't disagree over their worth as editors. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Enough

Talrias, thank you for restoring that material to the talk page. I have no idea how it happened and can only assume it was some kind of server glitch, because all I did was leave a message using the button the top of the page, rather than editing the whole page. As for the images, the painting has been released for promotional purposes, so it isn't covered by the normal fair-use terms, and the field of flowers is in the process of having a free license granted. But trying to cause a problem here looks vindictive, so I am requesting that you have no further contact with me. You caused a lot of trouble and bad feeling over the Marsden situation, undoing a block not once, but twice, a block that was important to the community as evidenced by Jimbo himself extending it. You caused a further problem over the date linking, making personal attacks on me on a talk page and engaging in a revert war when I tried to remove them. You then blocked the main party in that content dispute, even though you were not only directly involved in the dispute, but were in fact the instigator of it. Now you're trying to deplete my user page of images, even though you are elsewhere supporting someone who is trying to keep fair-use images on user pages. It is too much. Please don't respond to this. I really would very much prefer no further contact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is so full of lies I have to respond in order that someone else reading this page doesn't get the wrong impression. Firstly, I could never have known that about the two images. Regardless of the nature of their current status, the fact is, they are fair use images and are not permitted. I quote: "[a]ll other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum". I must insist you remove them.

I have already given my reasoning for the Marsden situation, and set up an RFC, and I invited you to comment. You can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Talrias. I did not "undo" the block, which would imply that he was completely unblocked; I actually shortened it to a period of 2 weeks, he was still blocked.

I was not the "main instigator" of the date linking, and I blocked him in accordance with the blocking policy for bots. I made my actions clear at all times when doing this; and a later request for you to review the situation resulted in full agreement from everyone who commented that my actions were fully appropriate.

My comments were not "personal attacks", I reject that definition of them. You initially removed my comments, clarifying them as personal attacks, an action which is not supported by any policy. It was you who caused the revert war by editing my comments.

I assume you are referring to Karmafist. I do support in general his actions on Wikipedia, but I disagree with his actions regarding fair use images. I have in fact clarified my position on this only recently, as you can see in this post to the mailing list.

So, to sum it up, your comment above is so full of lies, misinformation and patent nonsense it is difficult for me to understand them. In the spirit of good faith, I must only assume you are ignorant, not malicious. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you are calling me a liar, ignorant, and you have vandalized my user page. Your earlier comments were most certainly personal attacks. I mean this, Talrias. Leave me alone. Rightly or wrongly, I feel you are now harassing me. I have nothing to do with the current fair-use debate and have no wish to be involved in it. Your involvement in the Marsden situation is over, thanks to Jimbo. And I was only briefly involved in the debate over numbers. There is therefore no need for us to have further contact, and I am asking you most sincerely to respect that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You just said I vandalised your user page, when I actually removed fair use images - after asking you to remove them twice - which is forbidden by our policy on this. I don't find that a particularly truthful comment. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)