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.
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.
Current 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)
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. -- Francs 02:08, 15 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 (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)
haiku
I left you a haiku, just incase you didnt see it :)--Ali K 13:47, 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)
- It's still two. Two personalities, perhaps. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 21:31, 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. -Splashtalk 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)
- 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. -Splashtalk 00:03, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)