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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

☻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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive/2#Bot permission please?. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits

At Northern Ireland naming dispute; care to elaborate?

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merry belated xmas

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tirben

Good point -- Francs 2000 02:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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... -- Francs 2000

02:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

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

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

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). ^Blank ^Verse 05:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed COTWs

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good Haiku

...I'm glad it meets your standards. Good one on my talk page too :). Ban e s 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Talrias (and sv), I didn't realize there was such an ongoing spat between you two. I just want to say that I have had good correspondence with both of you, and that I wish you would both assume more good faith of one another -- and stop doing things to tweak the other's nose :-) Be kinder in your language... +sj + 05:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit the user pages of editors in good standing you have a tense relationship with — use common sense. El_C 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just worried about fair use images being misused in user/template namespace. Wikipedia is a great project and we should limit our use of fair use images as much as possible. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When these worries extend to editors you are in conflict with (and hopefuly, their number are small in the scope of these efforts on your part), have someone else look into it and have them undertake any actual edits to the user page. El_C 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in conflict with anyone. Could you expand on your reasoning please? Talrias (t | e | c) 15:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[Y]our comment above is so full of lies, misinformation and patent nonsense it is difficult for me to understand them [sic.]", et cetera. El_C 15:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't answered my question. In fact, I don't understand the relevance of this quote. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its (implied) relevance is its inflamatory tone ("lies" as opposed to errors of fact, etc.), which is suggestive of conflict. You have unblocked (and moreover, participated in a wheel war therefrom) a disruptive user which has targetted SV, especially. Then you, of all people, go on to scrutanize her user page and to edit it against her wishes. This appears vindictive, and I challenge, reflects poorly on you. As mentioned, next time, have someone else attend to it — use common sense. El_C 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could read the comments above rather than just assuming I'm attacking SlimVirgin. Your comment above contains "errors of fact" I have demonstrated are errors in this very talk page section. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It comes across as rather presumptuous of you to assume I did not read it, or to claim I said "attacks" anywhere.I, therefore, advise you to read more closely and request that you respond more directly to my comment. El_C 16:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to your comment when it is factually correct. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a tautology, I'm afraid. El_C 16:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I await your clarifications eagerly. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not identified errors of fact in my comment, yet you seem to expect that I adhere to some generalized, abstract standard which you deem "factually correct." El_C 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not unblock Marsden. You claimed I did. That is the "error of fact" as you have termed it - there is nothing abstract or generalised about it. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant substantially reduced it to a few weeks, thanks for the correction. With that qualification out of the way,I await your response eagerly. El_C 16:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for it. I think you're mistaken in targetting me here. I haven't once made an inaccurate comment about SlimVirgin, and while my comments may have been slightly acerbic it is not me who has been accusing the other of a large number of deeds I did not commit. I'm grateful that you have the good decency to accept a correction; however all my attempts to make sure SlimVirgin is using the facts rather than incorrect information have failed miserably. If anything, the recent acerbic nature of my comments is due to her casual disregard for all of my attempts to communicate with her, which I feel is quite rude considering I promptly respond to all talk page comments, regardless of who they are from. I haven't removed any of her messages from my talk page, I haven't edited any of her messages, and I've replied to all of them. I might not have replied in a friendly manner in all of them, but SlimVirgin cannot make a similar statement in honesty. She has previously edited my comments, she has removed my messages from her talk page - using the admin rollback feature, I might add, which is intended for vandalism - and she has ignored some of them too. I really think you are asking the wrong person here to explain themselves. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. As mentioned, just by virtue of your, in my opinion highly misinformed, actions with regards to Marsden, I would have expected you not to undertake any direct action which would appear as a provocation of SV. But you did just that — you edited her userpage against her expressed wishes. El_C 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I have apologised to SlimVirgin for removing the images. Could you address some of the points I have raised just above? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following your continued failure to actually address my own points, I honestly do not see what productive use it would serve for me to expand beyond stating, conversely, that I "respectfully disagree with your opinion," and that I'm sorry we were not able to establish a more communicable dialogue. El_C 17:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all your points; if I haven't please could you repeat them as I have missed them. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've edited your comment to add that you apologized to her for the image removal, I am willing to address your points. Please be more specific, though. In answer to your question, you simply said you disagree, not accounting for why that is so. El_C 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that my actions were misinformed, but because I understand people disagree with how I acted, I have opened an RFC where you are quite welcome to offer comments on the situation. The RFC has not been open for very long, but all of the comments left so far support my actions, as do many comments left elsewhere about this issue. I hope that clarifies it for you. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening an RfC against yourself is very noble and all, but it is invariably posteriori. I was the first administrator to block Marsden, and yet I don't recall you ever seeking my input regarding Snowspinner's block upon challenging it. I, myself, would have done so if the roles were reversed (that is, I would have contacted all admins involved in blocking him, on their talk pages, individually — perhaps my standards as per communicability are too high, though). As for most people on the RfC supporting your actions, that's questionable. And I strongly feel that if it ends up doing so, it would be because people opt to remain uninformed, as you seem to be. El_C 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean "after the event" by "posteriori". No, I didn't seek your input, I involved myself in the discussion on the admin's noticeboard, which a number of people were already discussing. I am not "opt[ing] to remain uninformed" either. I am responding to all of your comments, and I would be grateful if you could address my points like you said you would earlier. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a posteriori (a typo). You are not responding (nor seeking clarifications) substantively, I find. You are, however, expending quite a few words on nuances, telling me that you are responding and are open to responding, or "on the edge of [my] seat", and so on. In answer to your querry, again, I need to know what you wish for me to respond to, specifically. Please organize your thoughts in a cohesive and concise fashion toward that end. El_C 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not continue this conversation. I keep on going over the same points, I dislike your characterisation of my comments and I find some of your remarks patronising. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate you feel this way and that it has come to that, and regretfuly, these types of remarks only further underscore my concerns. Thanks for reading. El_C 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "concerns" were so vague and your comments patronising which made it difficult for me to respond to your satisfaction - which I was trying hard to do, despite your claims to the contrary. If you can put your comments together in a more straightforward way, I would be willing to carry on this conversation. The way it is currently going, I am not. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to that characterization, and I will not engage in a discussion in which you exclusively set the tone. That is not my idea of dialogue. El_C 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your exception is noted; nevertheless my invitation for you to rephrase or reiterate your concerns/comments in a more straightforward way so I can respond to them clearly is still there. I've tried to respond to your comments above, but evidently not to your satisfaction, so I've requested for you to write them in a more straightforward way. That is not me "exclusively set[ting] the tone". That is me trying to understand what position you are coming from. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, asked you to rephrase what you wish me to address in a more concise, less ambiguouos manner, which is why, regretfuly, I am increasingly getting the impression you seek to win rhetorical gains rather than engage in constructive dialogue. What strikes me, is that at no time did you ask me why I thought you were uninformed about Marsden (and, arguably, I have been one of the most involved admins in watching over his edits from the very beginning). This is what I meant by your failure to seek more substantive clarifications. But if you are merely interested in having an RfC which depicts you as acting in good faith, well, that also (regretfuly) is your prerogative. El_C 23:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it simple. What do you think I did wrong, and what do you think I should have done instead, and what should I do to avoid the situation arising in the future? That's the question I am asking in my RFC. I think it's an important and useful question. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not keep it oversimplistic, though, as per the more substantive clarifications I speak of above. But in answer to your question, as I mentioned, "I would have contacted all admins involved in blocking him, on their talk pages, individually." I have close to 10,000 articles on my watchlist, so I am not able to keep up with every notice on WP:ANI. I would have liked to have been made privy to your concerns before you implemented changes to the block duration. El_C 23:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interpreting that to mean that you would like to be informed of any unblocking of anyone you have ever blocked. As I have mentioned earlier, I did not unblock him, and there is no guideline or policy which requires me to start a discussion, notify anyone, or post on the admins' noticeboard when changing a block duration. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only those users wherein my block summary reads something along the lines of " vicious and mean-spirited attacks. Shows no remorse or willingness to stop." Yes, we've already gone through the didn't unblock bit. El_C 01:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen: Excuse me for butting in, but I have been reading this discourse here on this talk page, and it does strike me that there is a certain amount of animosity between the two of you that does not need to exist. The issue, as I see it, was a comparatively trivial one; Talrias reduced the length of a block that El C set without informing El C of the change. Talrias didn't remove the block, merely instead reducing it to a reasonable length; yes, I think perhaps it might have helped if Talrias had left you a message informing you of this after he had done so, but nobody needs to ask permission to do anything on Wikipedia in the course of performing ordinary administrative duties. We have a culture of "Be bold" here on Wikipedia, which applies equally well to both admin actions and to editing. I think that to be honest further discussion on this does not appear to be yielding any productive results. If I may, might I make the following suggestions?

El C: I am assuming the issue which you take exception to is specifically Talrias' changing of the Marsden block duration without informing you first. As far as I'm aware, there's precedent on Wikipedia to ask before removing blocks, but not before anything else, and Talrias didn't remove it. The issue is now a fait accomplis, and there is no active issue which is reliant upon the debate between you right now (at least as I see it). As a consequence, would you please enumerate exactly what it is you wish Talrias to either say, do or become aware of? If you have neither to say, then I would strongly advise calling this debate to a halt.
Talrias: Do you take objection to a possibility of agreeing to tell El C in the future should you ever make changes to his blocks? If so, then I think this matter could be adequately brought to a halt, since that would satisfy El C's contention that you overrode his judgement. Do you have any outstanding issues with El C which require airing? If you promise to El C to agree to tell him about any changes to his blocks in the future, and there are no further issues, then I think you could come to a mutual agreement that this issue has been sufficiently fleshed out.

I do hope the following is of some use to you. If you need any further assistance relating to dispute resolution, or indeed regarding anything else on Wikipedia, please do feel free to contact me or ask for assistance down at the Mediation Cabal. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nicholas, what actually happned (block log), is after weeks of disruptive behaviour including but not limited to personal attacks, I finally blocked Marsden — he personally attacked me immediately after I asked him to cease personally attacking others. It became a big deal on WP:ANI because people thought I was involved in editorial dispute with him, but I wasn't, I agreed with most of his changes to the content. He did try to fabricate that this wasn't a the case, by citing myself reverting his "Occupied Territories (Israeli)," but that was at the stage where he had spinf-off article and was linking it everywhere, replacing the preexisting article at the time, which I later renamed as Israeli-occupied territories (borrowing Britanica's title), which he ended supporting as the more suitable title/article —after I explained to him that "Occupied Territories (Palestinian)" is the counterpart to the name being confusing. Regadless, as an aside, I note that it's rather ironic that it would take such an impetus to (finally) get the word occupied in the title (!). The actual events leading to his block, took place on Zepharam Stark's Arbitration workshop (Fred, who was present, supported my block). After my block, subsequent blocks followed rapidly. Now, the point of all this, is not only that "vicious and mean-spirited attacks. Shows no remorse or willingness to stop" is a strong block edit summary, but that, with the exception of Jayjg and SlimVirgin who I feel I am more or less at par with, I feel I have the most experience with Marsden out of all the editors who have blocked or ~~unblocked~~ reduced his block (in addition to us three, blocking admins: Dmcdevit, Raul654, FeloniousMonk, Snowspinner, and Jimbo Wales; and reducing the block: Talrias and Rd232). As I said, I wish I would have been made privy to it (the inherently uncessary wheel war, and so on). We gotta keep coherent and fall back on other people's experience and work. This does not seem to have been followed through thoroughly enough, causing needless conflict, which I maintain (by virtue of my experience and information) was misinformed. And remains so, the self-initiated RfC notwithstanding. Because it deals with whether Talrias acted in goodfaith, which I never questioned. But it dosen't address whether he made mistakes in judgment in failing to investiagte propperly prior to acting. He writes on the RfC, for example, that "especially since Marsden's talk page has hardly any reasoning for the block," but I know that a few of my own edits are buried (blanked) in his talk page's revision history (some archived). Then we have the issue of SlimVirgin, who was subjected the most (Jayjg is close) to Marsden's abuse, having to face the person who wheel warred in having Marsden's block reduced (again, without the benefit of due investigation, which users in good standing should expect), removing an image from her user page for being fair use — him, of all people (!). I'm not certain I'm able to communicate that coherently, though, without having my narrative either becoming vague, or my points lost in the verbosity. Thank you for taking the time. Regards, El_C 08:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules

Yes, that's it! Thank you. +sj + 05:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tirben

Can you give me some details as to what plans are for this? I'm interested, but uninformed about it. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 07:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really any plans as such, it's just to see if we can make a functioning country. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how can non-IRC-using would-be-citizens participate? —Nightstallion (?) 15:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any of it is done on IRC, most of the participation is on the forums. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfC

According to the rules, it needs to be certified by two. Due to the nature of the RfC, it's doubtful it will be since it's self brought. What to do? I can certify it if you'd like, but it's really out of process to do so. --Durin 13:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've waived that requirement, seeing as it's filed by me and about me. I think following the rules in this case (which presumably were written without imagining things like this would occur) would be pointless. It's a valid RFC. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. However, there may be other admins who will delete it on sight after 48 hours and lack of two certifiers. That's what my concern is. --Durin 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll just explain to them that I have no problems with it existing. It should be clear anyway. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges

I've placed a request for rollback on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges. I just thought you might want to know since you were the one who suggested such a splendid idea. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 17:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy yet, and there is no technical support for granting you this permission at the moment, so unfortunately it's not possible for your request to be carried out at the current time. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request that we get some, as I really would favor having this for watching a vindictive IP, and I'd rather perfer not to become admin (at the Moment) to do so. This is a excellent idea, can we reconsider..? -MegamanZero|Talk 20:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're preaching to the converted, MegamanZero, I've been asking them for ages to implement this feature. There are two related bugs open on bugzilla, 3317 and 3801. Perhaps you could "vote" for the bug and add a comment to it asking for the feature to be implemented. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, call me Zero, now that we're aqainted. Regarding your suggestion, I'll take a little trip over there and put in my twopence. -MegamanZero|Talk 13:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Some arguments aren't worth winning. I believe you acted in good faith about the Marsden block, but I also believe that you made a mistake. It would reflect much better on you if you just let it go - right or wrong, it isn't worth winning. Slim is not just one of our best editors, she is one of our best admins. I wouldn't do the things she does simply because I can't be bothered to deal with the consequences of dealing with troublemakers. At the same time, it has sapped a lot of her good humour and patience. I think you're a good guy and have good intentions. Please try cutting her some slack. She's doing great work for the project, at considerable personal cost.

Obviously you deserve the assumption of good faith as well, but most of us would rather not have to choose a side. Everyone who wants to improve Wikipedia is on the same side, though we tend to forget this. I would suggest that one should only edit another user's page to remove copyvios if they have refused to act. Posting a friendly note on her talk page would have been seen by almost as many eyes as would posting it at AN/I, and would have generated a small fraction of the bad feeling. Guettarda

RFAR rejection

I've summarized my reasoning next to my vote on the RFAR page. Hope this helps. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining it so succintly. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 18:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xerocs block

Gentle suggestion; the block on Xerocs was out of line. His changing of Ral315's page to say that Ral315 supports him was out of line, but he should have at least been warned before he was blocked. --Durin 21:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've left a note on his talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Micronation

There's actually another one here, it's Benskonia. It consists of my bedrooms and my Wikipedia userspace, and has a human population of 1 (it also has a few non-human citizens who vote and participate in government, but the constitution calls for human citizens (ie myself) to do that on their behalf (in other words it's a government of 1 elected by a population of 1)). Care to become a dual citizen? Yeltensic42.618 ambition makes you look pretty ugly 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to become part of Tirben? You've obviously given your constitution a lot of thought so your comments and possibly even a constitution proposal of your own would not go amiss at all! Talrias (t | e | c) 23:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds good. I'll also grant all of Tirben's citizens Benskonian citizenship if they want. (Or, we could merge the two, or something. But if they remain seperate nations, everyone could be dual citizens of both.) Have you contacted Atlantium? Yeltensic42.618 ambition makes you look pretty ugly 02:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we haven't contacted any other micronations yet. We've only just chosen our flag! We don't have a constitution yet either, and since we need some kind of head of state/foreign minister to approach other nations and formally recognise each other, it's a bit premature at the moment. If you want to get involved, it'll have to be as a regular citizen until we sort our act out, adopt a constitution, create some offices and then we can do some diplomacy. One has to operate within the law... ;) Talrias (t | e | c) 02:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't either (except for Tirben). Does Tirben claim any territory with anyone living there? (eg any of its citizen's homes (sorry if it's mentioned somewhere and I overlooked it)). If it does (as opposed to being entirely online) then under international law it qualifies as a legitimate nation (as set forth by the Montevideo Convention of 1933, it merely needs claimed territory with a permanent population (so it can't be a public place you hang out at or anything like that, you have to live there), a government, and the ability to interact with other governments; it specificly mentions that it isn't necessary to be recognized by other nations or the U.N.) Yeltensic42.618 ambition makes you look pretty ugly 04:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage

I can't see what you've done that's different. Is it supposed to blink or something? -- Francs 2000 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved: according to Blink tag MSIE does not support the tag, either in HTML or CSS. That would appear to be the case. -- Francs 2000

01:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a shame, that means you won't be able to see it in all it's flickering glory (!) Do you use IRC at all? Talrias (t | e | c) 01:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to though I don't tend to if I can help it. Also if you're asking for now it's 2am here and I have to be up in the morning! -- Francs 2000

01:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, on a Saturday? Then no, I wasn't specifically talking about now. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 02:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take Davyd (my husband) to the opticians to pick up his new glasses that I'm paying for! -- Francs 2000

02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's more important, being able to see properly, or talking to me on IRC? :) If you can drop by sometime, that'd be great, otherwise, no biggy. :)

So you made a huge flickering banner that made me want to gouge my eyes out? j/k. Although I don't see any practical use for the blink tag. —Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right! I just felt that since he had it in nice big text, and the sentence was kind of 2000ish web style, it deserved a blink tag. Probably needs some animated gifs for completeness, but I think that's up to him. It's just a bit of harmless fun. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 13:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arbcom elections page

As I said in my edit summary, we shouldn't remove Jimbo's statement, which he added himself; also, the rules were stated very clearly as is. There's no need to dumb them down; those were the agreed rules, and having the specifics in bullet point format is very beneficial. I've broken down the section, though, to distinguish between Jimbo's statement and the community's decision. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you also removed my change to the category, my removal of unrelated links and tidying of the "community" decision section, including the removal of one bulletpoint which conflicts with Jimbo's instructions. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I undid some of that - I just reverted, instead of removing. I'll be more careful in the future; feel free to add the category change and other changes back in. However, I would prefer if Jimbo's statement stays, and the current rules stay pretty much as-is. They're already pretty clear, and we shouldn't be making significant wording changes to them at this point. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer if you did it, since you know which bits you'd like to keep. :) Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 01:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOO!

I was going to bring an RfC against myself for April Fools' 2006, but you did one in all seriousness. No fair, and touché —Ilyan e p (Talk) 04:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

I'm just nipping out for five minutes but you're still online when I get back I'll see if you're about in IRC -- Francs 2000 16:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a chat window with you on IRC... -- Francs 2000

16:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom vote

As you requested on IRC I am reminding you that you said you'd clarify why you voted oppose on my arbcom nom. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep vote

I did indeed close it along with a few others, and ran into a problem with one of those other debates, at which point I decided it was late and I was going to bed. I left a message at the administrator's noticeboard for someone to tidy up after me. It appears nobody did. I apologise for my own actions, and find myself somewhat disappointed in the rest of my fellow admins. Still, no harm done. Steve block talk 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you closing AFD nominations but not actually deleting if that's the decision in the AFD? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I just posted? I was intending to delete them, but I had problems with one of the other debates which took a while to sort out, at which point I decided to call it a night, it being one o'clock in the morning. The deletion process can take quite a while and my understanding has always been that it doesn't have to happen instantaneously. If I am in error, please point me to a page which outlines that a page must be deleted the second it has been closed. Once again I apologise for any inconvenience this problem has caused you, and hope you can accept the basic facts of the matter and understand there was no ill intention. Steve block talk 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't understand the point in closing the debate, if the required action is not going to be peformed. Isn't it simpler to just leave it open and do it all at once, properly? Closing the debate is just that, closing it. Deleting the page if that's what the decision is seems to me to be part of the closing process. I don't see why that really needs to be outlined in policy, it seems obvious to me. I just find this separation of the discussion from the actual page strange. I don't often close AFD/MFD/etc. debates, but when I do, that's what I've always done. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't seem to be communicating myself very well. Once again I apologise for my actions. I was simply extremely tired and decided to go to bed. Since you agree there is nothing in policy, and since it has appeared to me to be common practise for deletions not to happen the instance a page is deleted, I did not see that the passing of perhaps 12 hours would be of a particular problem to anyone. I have noted debates on WP:CFD pass a number of days from closing to deletion, and it was upon these instances I based my thinking, when deciding to retire. I would also hasten to point out that there was never any intention for the delete not being performed.

Addressing your point regarding the closing of the debate, in actuality when you close the debate you are merely refusing others the opportunity from enjoying the debate. There is, to my mind, no real onus to perform the actions detailed immediately, so long as the debate has been called and the decision is announced. You will find elections and other debates follow this practise, where a decision will be made but actual executive transfers or actions will be made some time after the closure of a debate. It is also worth bearing in mind that wikipedia is never likely to be finished, and I ask again if my actions caused any harm? I'm also unclear as to what you mean by your comment I just find this separation of the discussion from the actual page strange, could you elucidate further?

I will however attempt to further clarify my actions in this instance: the problem I had was that somebody had already deleted another page under discussion but not closed the mfd, which caused me a mild problem, which led to me deciding to retire for the night. I am having trouble understanding which part of my explanation is causing you difficulty, but am wondering if the answer lies in the fact that you're working practice obviously differs from mine, I tend to tackle two or three closes at the same time, and perhaps this is where the confusion arises? It seems clear to me this is nothing more than a difference of opinion, and I hope you can re-inforce that opinion. I once again apologise and ask you for your understanding. Have I suitable clarified my actions to the point where you can understand how the occurrence to which you object came to happen, and does that alleviate any concern you may have regarding the occurrence? Steve block talk 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to apologise or pay reparations or anything, please don't misunderstand me. My message was initially because I saw you had closed a debate as a delete, and had not actually deleted it. At first I thought you had forgotten it, then following your reply I realised you knew about it, but for some reason just had not deleted it at the time. I'm just trying to understand that reasoning. I don't have any particular opinion on the issue, it's just different to how I would have done it - closing one at a time, deleting the page if necessary, then moving on to the next nomination. My second comment was due to me not knowing how you perform MFD debate closures, but you just explained that now. That is why I was wondering why the other MFD was in any way related. Now it's done, it's all fine - I was just trying to work out why you did it this way because it was strange to me. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise once again, this time for my inability to communicate my actions better so as to have avoided the long drawn out mess this conversation became. I am glad that you can now acknowledge my actions, and thank you for your understanding and patience in this matter. Steve block talk 14:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note, it is not an afd but rather an mfd. Steve block talk 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs 2000

22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Fein/I.R.A. is a fascist organisation.

Sinn Féin/I.R.A. are definitely fascists, given the fact that they have been engaging in Britanniphobic terrorism & anti-Protestant genocide since 1916. I have been in touch with people in Ulster who have informed me that large parts of places such as Londonderry have been 'ethnically cleansed' of their Protestant populations.The same situation applies to the Protestant minority in the Republic of Ireland. In 1910, 10% of Ireland's population was Protestant, now there is a 3% Protestant population in Ireland today. Where did most of them go? To Great Britain & to the various Dominions of the British Commonwealth such as Canada & New Zealand. - (Aidan Work 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have any sources which call Sinn Fein fascists? Talrias (t | e | c) 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Gerry Adams' speeches do have an extremely strong fascist overtone, which is not surprising, given the fact that he is a subhuman racist who is Hell-bound along woth Pope Benedict XVI, the Nazi Pope of Rome anyway. - (Aidan Work 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So, no sources then? Talrias (t | e | c) 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need sources, as Gerry Adams' bigoted views are common knowledge anyway. Besides, Paisleyites like me do not trust republicans anyway. - (Aidan Work 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. If you have no sources, it can't go in the article. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your vote on my arbcom nom

Hi, I saw you voted oppose due to my candidacy statement and/or my answers to the questions presented.. I think you have a fair comment, and I have expanded on my replies to questions already given as well as adding more info into my candidacy statement and answered some new questions. I would be grateful if you could re-read my questions page. If you have any additional questions or inquiries please add them to that page or ask me on my talk page and I will answer them as soon as I possibly can. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku

Glad you liked it. I saw an empty space and it just didn't look right. So, knowing I can't write haiku well I attempted to make it fit at least.

However, looking at your user page spawned some of my own interest. I saw Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges and it made me act on something I've been thinking about for a while. I an doubtful it will go anywhere but I created Wikipedia:Limited administrators. With all of the talks of wheel wars it just seemed like a good idea to let admins have a certain period of not being able to be too confrontational while still being able to help out with vandalism and cleanups, etc. Tell me what you think sometime. gren グレン 13:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mistress Selina Kyle block

Hi. I would like you to take a look at the block on MSK. She has been a big proponent in making rogue administrators more accountable, especially User:SlimVirgin and User:Kelly Martin and suffered many short term bans because of it, most of which were undone by other administrators. After a campaign from these 2 to get her banned for "disruption", she finally was permabanned today. I think that MSK's work on Wikipedia has been incredible, and I am sure that if there was any kind of vote, the vast majority of Wikipedians would support MSK being reinstated. Indeed, the vast majority would support her being made an administrator here, if not an arbitrator. I'm sure she'd get in if she were nominated to Arb Com. Please can you have a look at the block. As you are an administrator who has proven to be fair, I urge you to look at the case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't feel I can review this block in a fair and impartial manner due to my past history with one of the people mentioned above. Thanks for your vote of confidence in my abilities as an adminstrator. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean for you to undo them, just to look at them... But that's up to you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already looked at them, but I do not wish to pass judgment on the worthiness of the block for the reasons I mentioned previously. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed heading

Talrias, why did you remove the sub-heading on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? The section contains a statement by Doc, three questions by Doc, and attempts by others to answer his questions. Your criticism of SlimVirgin was starting to derail the thread. I didn't want to remove your comments or move them to talk, but I wanted to keep together all discussion about answering Doc's questions. I personally think your comments were inappropriate, but that's not why I created a sub-heading. I'm just trying to keep the discussion organized. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were at the bottom of the talk section, and my comments were relevant to the discussion. I don't feel the heading was necessary. Do you use IRC? I'd like to talk to you more about this. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Slim Virgin

My hope in Wikipedia was EATEN BY A BEAR!

Fortunately, you renewed some of it with your words on the Admin Noticeboard. She's been through alot lately from total dicks, and I knew that you weren't one of them. Thank you. I have an idea for an alternative image in some of those userboxes I was going to try and get permission for. I think i'm on the verge of just doing that. I talked to my lawyer friend today, and she gave me the name of a good person to contact in regards to intellectual rights in regards to userboxes. I'm still going to ask, but i'm not sure whether it'll just be academic or not -- it all depends if people are willing to allow dialogue to return to this place like you did with Slim. If we can acheieve that, we can achieve anything. karmafist 03:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Archived messages

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritus Intus Alit

United Kingdom general election, 2009/10

☻Welcome to Wikinews☺

Eire/ Éire

Sinn Fein

Protection of {{unsigned}}

Re: Karmafist

Bobblewik and date delinking

AEJ Collins

POV edits

Sci.psychology.psychotherapy

Dates

edit summaries

Personal attacks

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

Merry belated xmas

Bobblewik

Tirben

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

haiku

Removed COTWs

Bobblewik block

Good Haiku

Poll on years of birth/death

Your request for clarification of reasons

Enough

Rules

Tirben

Your RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges

AGF

RFAR rejection

Xerocs block

Wikipedia Micronation

My userpage

Re: Arbcom elections page

NOO!

Chat

arbcom vote

Sheep vote

Thank you

Sinn Fein/I.R.A. is a fascist organisation.

your vote on my arbcom nom

Haiku

User:Mistress Selina Kyle block

Removed heading

Re: Slim Virgin