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

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/05/06/29b

Template standardisation phase 2

I've just started a brief framework idea about how to organise template standardisation for article templates. Since you contributed about the talk page template standardisation I thought you might have some good suggestions on how we can progress. It'd be good if you could drop by the talk page and pass comment. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Violetriga/inprogress before I suggest any vote/competition structure. I'm very much interested in your view. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

poetry & copyright

Copyright expires 70 years after the author's death. See Wikipedia:copyrights. Sir Henry Newbolt died in 1938, which means you'll have to wait until January 1 2009 for it to become public domain.

It's a well known poem, you can write an article about it, include a few quotations and how it is relevant, but you shouldn't copy the whole thing, as that isn't covered by fair use. Dunc|☺ 1 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

I see, thankyou for the explanation. I didn't originally add the poem to the article, so perhaps you could inform the person who added it so they can create an article on it, or you could create an article yourself :) Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 1 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Actually, copyrights based on the author's date of death apply, in the US only to worlks published after 1977. See List of countries' copyright length for more detail. This work may well be PD uder US law, depending on exzctly when it was published, and whether the inital copyright was renewed. DES 8 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Rfa

Good luck! :) A curate's egg 3 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

Thankyou, and thankyou for your supporting vote. Talrias (t | e | c) 3 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

"Discussion and feedback" do not work for me. Sorry. Grace Note 4 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean there. Are you referring to me talking about my RfA on your talk page, or what I wrote in my comment there about the proposal I wrote? Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

The discussion and feedback are from the admin. You are suggesting an admins' club. Basically, admins would promote whom they approve of with no dissent from others. It's not a very wiki thing to do and what I like about Wikipedia is that it is (was, could be) a wiki. I'm not willing to bicker with you over this. I find candidates for adminship who bicker over opposition annoying -- effectively, we would be discussing your proposal, which I don't want to do. If I did, I would have commented on the proposal talkpage. BTW, I think more or less uncontrolled inclusionism -- in every sense -- is the correct route to a comprehensive encyclopaedia. I don't see any reason that our aim should be limited to creating a new Britannica. Rather, the sky is the limit. Inclusion is important in the community too. Your proposal would, I think, serve to increase the exclusivism of adminship. It has progressed from being no big deal to being a very big deal. Grace Note 4 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not correct, regarding the admins' club. All users are involved in the discussion process. The mentoring admin would provide feedback about the actions the potential admin took. The discussion and consensus-building would absolutely still occur and should be the key part of the bureaucrat's decision about promoting or not promoting. My proposal would absolutely not make being an admin more exclusive, it would have completely the opposite effect, resulting in more admins (I am confused as to why you think it would make it more exclusive). As I stated in the proposal text, itself, "[it] would make it thought less of as a status symbol and more of as a means to an end - keeping Wikipedia's wheels turning."

Regards to uncontrolled inclusionism, I have removed this from the page as I haven't had a chance to explain it in more detail yet. I urge you to wait for me to flesh out my argument before judging me on my inclusionist/deletionist credentials, as it's a sticky topic and I think I should explain my arguments more clearly first. Thanks for discussing this with me, Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Akwid move

Thanks. FWIW, I am an admin, and when I tried, I couldn't move it! -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 16:57 (UTC)

Guess it needed my special touch then. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 4 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Your RfA

I did see that a while ago, but I had no time to comment (i was working :P), and I though violet/riga summed it up nicely so I didn't think of it later. However, as arguments with Everyking tend to be amusing, why the hell not :D gkhan July 4, 2005 19:47 (UTC)

There. I hope that'll shut him up :P gkhan July 4, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Template:Current

Hiya, I reverted your edits there since the ID/class change means it isn't center-aligned. I'm not sure how to fix this so if you can keep it center aligned and fiddle with the ID/class tags that would be fantastic.

The wording, however, has been agreed on the talk page, so I would be grateful if you discussed any changes there. :) Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 8 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

I am rather disappointed you just reverted back to your previous edit, when absolutely everyone thinks it should be center-aligned. Could you explain why you just reverted, rather than fixing it? Talrias (t | e | c) 8 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

On Template talk:Current, there is no talk or agreement about centering the text. None. The word "center" doesn't even appear on that page. I really don't care, but don't assert something that isn't true. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)

Did you really just revert back my last edit? Did you even check it out, because I left the fucking thing centered. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Is Template:POV centered for you? (note, all the examples I am giving are centered in my view) -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Nope. Talrias (t | e | c) 8 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)

Check now. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Yes, it is centered now. Talrias (t | e | c) 8 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're an administrator! Work hard, be good, and have fun; for details see the administrators' reading list and the administrators' how-to guide. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 9 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)

That's excellent! Congrats. violet/riga (t) 9 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) July 9, 2005 15:27 (UTC)

Congrats. -- JamesTeterenko 9 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Well done! -- Joolz 20:10, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dis-ambiguation

Check out the section in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) that I wrote towards the bottom regarding big dis-ambiguation pages without the suffix to clarify the meaning. What are your responses?? Georgia guy 20:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote on Talrias' RFA

Hiya - thanks for your supporting vote. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 9 July 2005 13:09 (UTC

You're welcome! -- Rmrfstar 00:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy change

Yes, thanks, I'd be interested in seeing a new one when you come up with it. And again, congratulations. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking on COTW

I normally delete the subpage on COTW and copy it on removed page. For some reason last few of them kept showing wrongly after i saved the pages. hence i had to do them over again. This seems to have blanked the subpages. kaal 06:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are easy to archive - it's just one of the reasons subpages are used. The text which includes the subpage, e.g. {{Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week/pagename}}, should just be removed from one page and pasted into the other; no deletion of text is necessary. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 10:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Are ya an admin yet? Whats the vote tally :P Redwolf24 09:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am - the tally was 30/4/0. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Talrias - thanks for your vote. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 10:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expansion

Could you please take a look at the above template, it is currently the subject of a revert war where both sides are at the 3RR limit. ~~~~ 13:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luíza Possi

Hello! I edited her name in the article. Thank You. Diotti 03:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musicians of Bangladesh

You removed my move request for this category saying that it was not the best way to as for a category move. So, I was wondering if you put the move request wherever the best place is or if you are going to tell me where the best place is. Cheers. gren 12:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category moves are done simply by editing the articles and updating the category with the replacement one. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, and {{cfr}}. 12:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

E-mail from EasyTimeline developer

Hi Nicholas,

It is a documented limitation. From syntax page:

" Valid dateformats are: dd/mm/yyyy

Dates are interpreted as day/month/year Note: this format is only allowed for dates starting from 01/01/1800 "

This is a design limit caused by the rendering package Ploticus, that EasyTimeline uses. Ploticus was designed in the first place for scientific plots and not for timelines. So the Ploticus author made a simple design decision, to store dates in a default internal format. Almost every computer language has an internal date/time format that converts a date/time with seconds precision to a floating point value, and arbitrary defines the initial date/time represented as value 0.0. In Ploticus this is 1/1/1800.

Unfortunately, I don't see a workaround and don't expect it will get priority from Ploticus author either. Your main option is to use DateFormat yyyy and forget about exact dates.

Cheers, Erik

Boothy is evading his block

Boothy evaded his block as 63.70.62.84. I blocked that address till the 18th. WhisperToMe 22:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Thanks for letting me know. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JacksonBrown

Thank you for blocking that troll. I award you a vandal whacking stick. Good work! -- Essjay · Talk 10:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, I put it on my user page! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have my full support in removing/reverting pointless additions like that, wherever they are.

LOL, how can I compete with the vandal whacking stick? Thanks for the comment, I just figured I would be polite, even if he's a troll, I don't like editing user pages. <>Who ?¿? 10:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I was the first to receive that stick. Anywho, TALRIAS I SEE YOU'RE AN ADMIN!!!! Congrats!!!!!! I bestow upon you my highest award. Redwolf24 11:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it has ascended to my user page. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd your stick go. <_< >_> Redwolf24 11:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's also ascended to my user page! Talrias (t | e | c) 11:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, on the main page. Redwolf24 11:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

interlanguage links (german monarchs)

I moved them to List of Holy Roman Emperors if the link means Holy Roman Emperor in their respective languages. If they mean German kings/emperors I let them stay (I dont know about the Chinese one, so I wont move it).--Countakeshi 12:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Brown

Protection seems a little OTT. His latest styling didn't actually break the page - in that it was possible to edit without manually amending the URL. He isn't really doing any harm as such. Anyway I unprotected the talk page so that non admins can talk to him if they want. I'll take responsibility for keeping an eye on him. If he does cause any trouble I'll protect the page myself. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in your hands then. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 12:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

Thanks for all the help on WP:RM - I've been unable to keep up with it recently, so your help is very much appreciated. I usually remove the {{move}} tag and replace it (below the relevant vote/discussion) with {{moved}} or {{notmoved}} to try and keep the tagging up-to-date, but I know there are loads out there that are basically orphaned so its not a huge problem. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 20:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erk, there's specific templates! Do you subst those in or not? After WP:RM is done I'm going to gradually go through the category for requested moves. It's no problem - it's one of the things I said I'd do in my RfA. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was very happy to see that in your RfA - I wasn't going to support you otherwise! j/k ;) The category certainly needs sorting out as there are loads of articles in there where the user has just added the tag and not listed it on WP:RM. I always used to just transclude the templates but have recently been substing them - I would think it's better for the server, and, due to their location in the talk page, probably would be changed from simple text to anything else. Thanks again. violet/riga (t) 20:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've just been doing normal messages but it doesn't seem to matter one way or the other. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 20:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay

I have nominated Essjay for admin. Please support or at least comment. Redwolf24 13:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cantus

Great job handling that. -- Netoholic @ 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I agree with you that what looks to be the third(!) ArbComm ruling is rather light. I'm trying to persuade some of them who use IRC to extend his 1RR rule to all pages. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out two new Cantus sockpuppets - まみぶ & Дмитрий. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are blocked for a week. Thanks for letting me know. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets created in bad faith (to avoid blocks and edit war) and anonymous proxy IP address should be blocked indefinitely. Otherwise, thanks. -- Netoholic @ 17:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello old friend

Essjay nominated me for Admin. Vote me in (or not) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redwolf24 Redwolf24 01:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred form for title of Directives articles

I have opened a Request for Comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union on consistent titling - your comments there would be welcome. --Red King 09:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Another London Wikimeet

Heya,

We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...

James F. (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Website link

Hey there.

Just to let you know (if you didn't already) the link to your website doesn't appear to work from within your user page. On my IE6 it takes me to the file download dialog box (trying to save file "talrias" from "talrias.net"). I can access the site via the URL no problem, it just appears to be the link on that page. Perhaps MediaWiki is treating it as a ".net" file because there isn't a "www." on the front, but the site doesn't have "www." on it. Just thoughr I'd let you know. violet/riga (t) 23:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, it works for me in Mozilla Firefox (and Internet Explorer too, both clicking it from my user page and typing it in. I'll have a tamper - thanks for the heads up! Talrias (t | e | c) 23:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to standardize template layout. {{merge}} and assorted related templates were given a uniform look and feel. I believe this one is close enough (also a meta-action stuck on the article page according to wikipedia process) so I figured the same layout would be appropriate. Now all it needs is an icon. R adiant _>|< 14:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the move template should be on the article page (rather than the talk page) - whereabouts does it say this is the case? Talrias (t | e | c) 14:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Lifeisunfair (talk · contribs), I personally find it confusing to duplicate discussion across numerous talk pages, so I am replying on Radiant's talk page to your comments. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves introduction

I suggest that if you want to change the introcution to the WP:RM page you argue you position first on the Talk page. A lot of effort has gone into the page layout. As you will have seen I have moved your intoduction of a new template into the section dealing with what to do on the talk page of the page to be moved which is the more logical place to put it. If you can get a consensus on the talk page that it should go in the introductory paragraph I will be pleased to give way on this point. Philip Baird Shearer 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the fact you have removed my good faith edits (again) and ignored the Wikipedia:be bold principle, when I have clarified the introduction to ensure that incorrect listings are not made. You have simply removed my changes, saying I "need consensus", rather than taking them on their merits. Do you disagree with the wording, or do you disagree with me not finding consensus before changing it? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback Feature

Thanks for letting me know about the proposal. I commented on its talk page in favor. And congrats on Adminship... something I wish I had the confidence to apply, but I doubt with my participation/contributions are up to the scrutiny of others. Anyhow, Have a great day! …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 18:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and congratulations. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 18:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I have a question or two for you. Concerning "Godmode Light", Did it operate successfully for you? If so, might I inquire as to your OS type/version and Java type/version (MS or SUN)? There's now a short discussion on my talk page concerning its operation (or lack thereof) …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 20:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. It operated successfully for me, yes, but bear in mind I was using it before the software upgrade. I am using Windows XP and Mozilla Firefox. The script uses JavaScript, not Java, so it doesn't matter what Java engine I am using, or in fact whether I have it installed or not. I believe the person who created the script is aware of the problem, and is working on fixing it so it works once again currently. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CapitalMove

You wrote: that link won't work concerning [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]]. I would be very interested to know why you believe it will not work. It seems to function as intended and I have seen this format on many other pages including Template:Merge. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the template goes on a talk page (as it should) it will end up as, for example: Wikipedia talk talk:Dog biscuits - i.e., there word "talk" is doubled. {{Merge}} is not a talk page template so works correctly. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there is no need for a link since the reader is already on the talk page. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I removed it! Talrias (t | e | c) 19:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understood. Your explanation above that the template is for talk pages is more clear than saying the link won't work. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the CapitalMove template shouldn't just stay on the talk page when there are objections until consensus is reached. Would the presence of the template mean an administrator would not check for objections? DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the CapitalMove template is that it is used for deliberately uncontroversial moves. As I'm likely to end up handling it, I of course will be checking for objections. The template goes on the talk page so when going to the talk page on the way to move it, any objections would be spotted anyway. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation on Internet forum

No problem. Happy editing. —Lowellian (talk) 02:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sheep vote

Did you even read CSD#6? How the hell Wikipedia:Sheep vote qualifies as "Short article that serves no purpose but to disparage their subject"??? CSD#6 is for blunt attacks, VfD is for "subtle" ones. Grue 19:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It disparages the subject quite clearly. Since you refuse to accept this is nothing but an attack page (not on one group of people but two!) I will go through the motions of VfD but I am thoroughly disappointed you do not recognise it as an attack page, and worse, wish to keep it. What benefit does this page have at all? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :)

Hi AI,

First of all, thanks for your contributions so far to Wikipedia! Getting involved in discussions about Wikipedia is probably the second most important thing at Wikipedia, the first of course being contributing to the actual articles. Wikipedia is based around discussion and consensus, and it's important to listen and respond to other's comments, whether or not you disagree with them. I've frequently made a mistake and someone else has corrected it for me, occasionally leaving me a hostile note (just check my talk page and archives for some examples).

Because of this, it's important not to simply remove other's comments, but to take them into consideration. Consider the meaning behind the message, rather than the actual words. Just because a message is hostile does not mean they do not have a good point. It's far better to deliver a comment in a friendly tone rather than a hostile one, but unfortunately people comment in a hostile tone. It just happens.

So please consider this a friendly request to leave comments which other's make, and reply to them, rather than removing them because you feel they are personal attacks. They may be - but be the better man, and deal with the meaning behind the hostility. You'll look so much better when other people are reading it they are more likely to support your position.

Please take this into consideration, Talrias (t | e | c) 02:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your appreciation, Talrias. In addition to studying relevant policies and guidelines and also involving myself in discussion on the subject, I have taken your opinions into consideration:

I agree that it's important to respond to others comments, but there are no justified reasons to compell someone to communicate in every situation.
I agree that it's important not to simply remove other's comments, but to take them into consideration. However, after consideration, if a statement qualify as personal attacks, the offending words or phrases can be simply removed and ignored. Only the civil portions of a comment should be responded to. If a user has a good point to make about content, then why interject personal attacks?
I disagree with your idea that "It just happens."
In the future, I suggest that you please refer others to policy with citations instead of just offering opinions. Of course your opinions could be valuable in relevant policy talk pages.

Aloha --AI 00:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COTW

I do not believe anybody else than the nominatopr can remove a COTW whose vote didn't exclude it. Both articles you removed were valid when nominated, which is, AFAIK, all that matter on COTW. Not only that, but you also generate a serious problem nopw that there are no clear winners anymore.

Inappropriate candidates are usually cleared by themselves. Circeus 17:18, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guidelines saying that only the nominator can remove their nominated COTW from the listing. That would probably lead to the listing having hundreds of articles on it! The chosen COTW is intended to be a stub or non-existent article, this might not be explicitly stated but I think it's clear that they should be. That's the entire point of COTW! I'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RH Reverts

I didnt see the links at the bottom that you changed. Those were not meant to be reverted, sorry. This Yodacows guy needs to be watched. He vandalized the page both yesterday and is doing ti again today. -Husnock 18:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching it! Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Talrias/Archive 2005-08-14

Archives