User talk:Talrias/Archive 2005-07-09

Hi, welcome to my talk page! Please note this is an archive of discussions, the current talk page is at User talk:Talrias. Please do not edit this page.

Archives

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

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

Archived messages

Clifton College

Brookie 17:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) Greetings - see someone else interested in Clifton - are you an old boy? I am - left in 1979.

Nope, I'm still at Clifton. :) I'm in my final year. Talrias 17:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AEJ Collins

Brookie 18:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Hi there - good re-write; I've made a couple of small alterations. One q - where did you get the info re the date of his marriage/wife's maiden name?

I've added this as an external link to the article[1]. Talrias 19:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Brookie 20:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Thanks

Brookie 07:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) Can you tell me how you add on site edit:

• Tables (as you did on the Collins site)
• The summary contents table (as in Collins)

Thanks - I'm still trying to learn all this tecky stuff!

Hi, I used m:Help:Table and Wikipedia:How to use tables extensively, and copied from existing tables such as in Comparison of instant messengers, and changed the data I put in the table. I'm not sure what you mean by the summary contents table. If you mean the table of contents, if you use headings this gets added automatically. Hope this helps! Talrias 10:54, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Brookie 17:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) I've added to FAC to see how we get on!

Brookie 11:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) If you have access to a digital camera, can you get a photo of the scorecard from the pavillion to add to the AEJ Collins page?

I'll see what I can do. This won't be for at least 2 weeks, unfortunately (I'm going away). Talrias 21:38, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article - AEJ Collins

Brookie\^talk - The Collins piece has now been promoted to a featured article! Thanks for your help and kind regards. --Brookie 08:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

A small thank you for your help on the Collins project. Well done and thank you Brookie\^talk 19:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much appreciated (you've done a more than fantastic job with it)! I've stuck the image on my main user page. Talrias 23:58, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

Hi I just noted that you don't seem to have voted yet on whether AEJ Collins should be a featured article on WP:FAC. Also, if I guess right that you're a cricket fan, if you have the time, I'd be grateful if you'd look at Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883) and let me have your comments/support.

May I also invite you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket, a forum for cricket-loving Wikipedians everywhere? Kind regards, jguk 15:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not particularly interested in cricket (though I do watch the odd ODI occasionally). My interest in AEJ Collins is mainly due to us both attending the same school. Sorry (and good luck with the Cricket Wikiproject)! :) Talrias 15:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

UK COTW

Great work in rehashing the page, I'm gonna consider this weeks nominations :D --PopUpPirate 21:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wolfowitz Vandalism

Thanks for your valient efforts to stop vandalism to the Paul Wolfowitz page. I'm almost sorry now that I asked for it to be unblocked. I thought the vandals had gotten bored and moved on. It's too bad that those opposed to Wolfowitz can't just add legitimate criticisms, instead of resorting to obscenity. If you want the page blocked again, we would all understand. --jacobolus (t) 02:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think there is a need to protect it again - it's the item next to go on the main page news section, and the potential benefit of a positive edit vs. a vandalism attack is greater than having it protected. Talrias | talk 02:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Cliff Richard

Hey,

Thanks for the explanation about the Cliff Richard page. As suggested, I've created a user account. Cheers,

captainmax

Transcluding signatures

I noticed that your signature includes a template. Just wanted to let you know that this is not recommended. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 00:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's been changed. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Status templates

Your background color isn't exactly my favorite, but I like the borders you used. Have you linked them from violetriga's page? Mgm|^(talk) 20:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are right at the bottom. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UK election

Thanks Talrias - I realised that something was screwy after I did it - it looks better as a stand alone article anyway. rgds ChrisUK 22:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Talk page for further comments.......ChrisUK 22:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Open Source Forums

Hi Talrias, I saw the message you posted on my user page. Thanks for the invite and I'll try to contribute as much as possible. I have a comment about the open source forum project you are working on. I can help with the HTML and CSS part of that if you want. My web design company currently has a PHP developer working for us, so maybe he can help contribute to the intenral workings of the forums. leave me a message on my talk page, or you can join my forums and send me an email from there --Zeerus 19:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Internet Forum

Talrias, While I appreciate your concern for removing spam from the Wikipedia, I feel that you made one mistake here. The site listed with the words "Benefits of a forum" was not spam as you apparently thought. It was not a forum in itself. Rather, it was an article about the benefits a forum brings to a website. Do you think this is irrelevant? I look forward to your reply. Thanks. Soph 15:08, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for removing it as spam - I obviously didn't give it enough attention, and it is definitely not a spam addition. However, I disagree that it should be added to the article - it is just a short editorial article on forums, and I don't think it has much encyclopediac value. Advantages that a forum offers should probably be mentioned in the article. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering your low opinion of the linked site (Benefits of a forum). I'm a bit confused about other parts of your response, though. Here are some issues:

Editorials are mainly based on opinions. This article, on the other hand, contains information largely gleaned from common marketing research. Even if it were editorial in nature, I would imagine that a page with opinions on the issue would be helpful in letting a person discover more about the topic.

After you said it didn't have encyclopedic content, you suggested adding the information from the article to the Wiki. Those are conflicting views. If an article's information shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, then it may make it a possible candidate for inclusion in the External Links instead. Wouldn't you agree?

I look forward to your response.

Soph 03:06, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to readd it. I won't remove it - but I suggest you write why you have included the link on the article's talk page as others might remove it for similar reasons to me. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, perhaps you could include some of the more encylopediae information into the article and add the link as a reference? This would be far more satisfactory and of great benefit to the article. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that shortly. Hapy Wikiing! Soph 13:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll

Just thought I would drop you a line to let you know that I implemented the images fixes that you recommended. You were absolutely right, and I think that the changes brought about a big improvement. – ClockworkSoul 05:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You haven't changed your vote over, so I just wanted to drop you a line to ask whether these changes resolved the issue you raised? – ClockworkSoul 22:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Nice job! Talrias (t | e | c) 22:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! If you get the chance, though, would you mind updating your vote to "support"? :) – ClockworkSoul 02:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's already a support vote. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hate to press the issue, but your vote for ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll is still listed as a "conditional vote". Were you perhaps thinking of Tick ToC? – ClockworkSoul 17:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being silly here, but isn't it already a support vote, since you've done a great job in fixing what I suggested? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Probably... I was just hoping that you would move up to "support" so that the results would be easier to interpret. Poor Violet already has enough to read. :) – ClockworkSoul 19:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Aha, now I see. Thanks for explaining it. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. – ClockworkSoul 19:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for helping sort out the table in United Kingdom general election, 2005, it was looking a bit of a mess in Firefox, but it's fine now. Qwghlm 13:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

My new coffee roll

I love it, thanks! By the way, what do you think about what I did to Jimbo's user page? – ClockworkSoul 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good improvement - I prefer the top bit to the white on black bit as it was previously. By the way, your userpage is a bit too wide for an 1024x768 resolution - I have to scroll to see it all. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Your count

I'm over it now, but I presume you are going to apologise to User:Grunt, User:JosephBarillari, User:JDG, User:JYolkowski and User:Mattfast1 for disenfranchising them? Noisy | Talk 16:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't disenfranchise them as I included their vote(s), but I just didn't include them in the list of voters. It has been updated. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. Wouldn't it just have been easier to amend the three or four figures that were different in the table that I produced? This is a wiki, after all.  ;-) Noisy | Talk 17:29, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, maybe. :) I think I did it again because someone said you misunderstood approval voting, but since I now get (pretty much) the same results as you I wonder why the original comment was made. Ah well, seeing as we independently got to the same total at the end, that just verifies our counts! Talrias (t | e | c) 19:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your note. I think I have now sorted the standard template style stuff. If you could check Template:Peerreview for me, and tell me if it works or not, the style argument can be implemented and the template removed. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it still has a white background. Maybe hyphens are invalid characters too - one word is by far preferable. Ignore that - yes, this works. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleared your cache? I was just writing to suggest that... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 16:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did a force-refresh. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi - sorry, should have left a note before on Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation before and have done so now - I was following Raul, who reverted fac and facfailed: they new classes do not work for me using the classic skin. See Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation for more details. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories

If it's the main article, it should be listed as an asterisk, so that it shows up at the beginning of the list of articles in the category. This is how it has always been done. --brian0918™ 16:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

An article with a space appears before an article with an asterisk in the category listing; and there is also no "heading" for the article. This is far more preferable, and looks better as well. If using an asterisk is how it's always been done, then I suggest it's time for a change! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Clifton College Register

Hi Brookie here - see you've posted a notice on this page - can you address what you're worried about there? There's a limited amount more that can be said I would have thought. :) Brookie: A collector of little brown things 19:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Clifton College Register. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Me again - how is it messy and disorganised? It seems logical and organised to me - what are your suggestions? Any help with tables would be good. It would be easy to over engineer what is a simple article about a relatively obscure thing. :) Brookie: A collector of little brown things 10:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

big-boards.com

Hi,

I'm the owner for this site and just wanted to thank you for the nice words here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Internet_forum#Big_Boards_link_Redux

I would have loved the site recognized as useful enough to be feaatured there, but well, apparently some people didn't agree with you ;).

Anyway, I'm glad you like the site. Cheers, --Quenting 12:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hiya Quenting, thanks for the kind words. If you make a useful improvement to your site, it may be worthy of addition to the article, not only in my eyes but in the eyes of other contributors also. Please let me know! Also, I encourage you to help out with the web forum article; your knowledge will be useful. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit new to this whole wiki thing so it might take me a while, but i'd definitely like to get started on it on this topic, since I've been (obviously) observing and confronted to a whole lot of forums, and there's many things to say about them that are not said yet in that article. I need to get a clue about that syntax first though :D. --Quenting 15:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How to edit a page is a useful article. If you need help, please just drop me a message. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tides of Blood

HI Talrias, I've protected Tides of Blood to stop User:ScrewedThePooch continually reverting. Let me know if you'd like to start editing it again, and I'll unprotect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! How long do you think you'll keep it protected for? If I have changes, I'll just work on them in my user space. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 10:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Warcraft categories

Hiya Major.T, I've just readded category:Warcraft to a few articles you removed it from. This is because the article you removed it from is the "key" article in a category, e.g. there is a category "races in Warcraft" and an article "races in Warcraft". The article should be in both the category "races in Warcraft" and "Warcraft". Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 21:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, thats fine.--Major.T 21:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am working towards consistency in the categories because the main category listed some sub-category articles but not others. It doesn't make sense that some sub-category articles are listed in Category:warcraft when others, such as characters, monsters, races, etc, are not listed in the main category. Some articles I can understand.--Major.T 21:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Are you also going to work on the text in the articles, because help in this would be gladly appreciated! Talrias (t | e | c) 21:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I doubt it as I haven't played Warcraft in about a year. I may fix innacuracies if I see any. My interest in these articles and categories is mainly for historical reasons. I plan to focus on Day of Defeat:source and Guild Wars later this year.--Major.T 21:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, how often do categories refresh? Do you know? Thanks.--Major.T 21:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categories are dynamically generated; updates should appear instantly. If they aren't, check WP:cache or try hitting ctrl-f5 on IE or ctrl-r on Firefox.

Advice for creating categories, since you're doing lots of it: just add the articles to the category (e.g. just stick [[Category:something]] at the bottom of the article). Talrias (t | e | c) 21:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I just realized categories can't be moves, so I put Category:Warcraft Items up for speedy deletion and just created Category:Warcraft items. I think World of Warcraft should also have similar sub-categories but there aren't any articles for them that I know of, yet.--Major.T 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leaving categories as redlinks if you haven't got a description of them is far preferable to creating a blank page, by the way. Also, be wary of over-categorisation; a category with just a few articles within it is probably not that helpful. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 21:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree but I predict that eventually these categories will fill up because of the nature and popularity of World of Warcraft. However, I doubt Wikipedia wants to be a catalog for these games.--Major.T 21:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, in fact I recently had a discussion with someone who started creating articles on invidual spells in Warcraft III. Wikibooks is a more appropriate place for strategy guides. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps most of these articles should be moved to Wikibooks and deleted from Wikipedia. That would be my suggestion, but I have never used Wikibooks.--Major.T 00:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UK related article

I noticed there was no article on the Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II and I really think Wikipedia should have something on this. Would you be willing to contribute if I start it? Mike H 20:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too hot on the Royal Family but I guess I could make some contributions. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk page. I've now finished so you can go in and fix up things. Mike H 18:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me - I can't spot any improvements to be made at this time. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I was on a roll, I created Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II. I'm an American, so if I phrased events in American English, could you kindly edit them for me? Mike H 04:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think I've got them all, it was just those funny commas in quotes which you Americans use. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 10:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry?

I didn't realize it said add new nominations to the top of the list. This makes very little sense, when all the other nominations are in reverse order. I'll not do that again.

I haven't done anything with the template format. I changed expiry dates (one said July 21?????) However, the expiry date does need to be added to the section title in order that it be reflected in the Table of Contents. This makes searching for the latest nominees as well as removing the article. Maybe you need to be asking someone else that particular question ℬastique▼^talk 17:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see, it was your decision to remove the date from the article header. I cannot understand why you decided this, but I will continue to add the end date to the article header. You should add this back to your template. ℬastique▼^talk 17:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me start off by applauding your efforts. I have no wish to undermine what you have done. It may make more sense to add new ones to the top; but if you want to institute that, you really should go in and reverse-order the entire list. To me, the list is disordered if forward-going nominees start it off and then backward-going nominees continue.

Also, you must realize that there are a number of people who visit this page regularly. I had no idea there were new instructions, and once you left me message, I felt there was no adequate explanation to explain the new formats. I believe that when changes like this that are made on a page so frequented by so many people, discussion must take place beforehand, not unilateral decisions. ℬastique▼^talk 17:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've replied on the WP:COTWS talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template submission

I did use the template when I submitted it but after I edited it then it changed to the regular format. Secondly, why didn't you simply fix it??? Falphin 23:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't fix it for you because it involves the creation of a new page, and this would make it appear like I was nominating an article on your behalf (which I think would be impolite). Talrias (t | e | c) 23:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did forget to create the page first before using the template sorry. Falphin 23:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to apologise. I should be the one apologising since I removed your submission. I hope you can see why I chose not to submit it correctly for you. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Current edit war

Hi. Please discuss your changes with User:Cantus on Template Talk:Current rather than simply reverting each other's edits. Thanks. --Doradus 12:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have made every effort to engage with Cantus regarding the template, however he has ignored all my efforts to do so. Rather than jumping in with your own conclusions and condemning both of us, please look at the entire situation. Looking at Cantus' talk page will reveal two comments by me attempting to resolve the situation, to no avail. I find it rather disappointing that you would rush to criticise like you have done. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offence intended. There was nothing rushed nor critical about my comment, and I stand by it. I saw your attempt to contact him, and I commend you for that, but the onus is on you to explain your actions in the article's talk page. Potentially controvercial edits to any article should be discussed on that article's own talk page for the benefit of all editors. --Doradus 17:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I still am not convinced you have looked at the template's history. My initial edit was the minor one. It was Cantus who made the large change. My changes were minor style changes to keep the template functional. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So say that on the article's talk page. That's all I'm asking for. I never claimed you did anything wrong; only that you didn't explain yourself on the article's talk page. The article's history can't justify an edit war; you must do that yourself. Otherwise people like me have a hard time distinguishing people like you from people like Cantus. --Doradus 19:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you were saying earlier. I've gone ahead with your sensible suggestion. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

typos in adminship reform post

Hi - There are some typos in User:Talrias/Adminship_reform I suspect you really want to attend to. Specifically, the line that currently begins I am attempting to demean those admins ... is pretty clearly missing the word not (unless it isn't missing, I suppose you could mean it as written). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for spotting that, haha. I've fixed it. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 18:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)