User talk:Talrias/Archive 2005-12-12

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

Trying to get a hold of me

I'll see if I can drop by the IRC channel tomorrow night. By the way, I recently redesigned my webpage; check it out. Valid XHTML,CSS,Section 508, and WCAG triple-A.

Albino Blacksheep's design is pretty nice, isn't it! Still, looks good. Talrias (t | e | c) 06:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, very nice. Which is why I used his live redesign to help me redesign my webpage. Thanks :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Here You Go

For Revitalizing My Political Career, please accept my ravenous and deadly pet bear. It's an American thing;-) Karmafist 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting (!), I've added it to my awards page! Good luck and look forward to speaking to you soon, Talrias (t | e | c) 22:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rfap

Is there any reason for the removal of the boilerplate colours from Template:Rfap? The colours help to identify a closed nom. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the opening of the box because it was rarely closed, which meant when a series of RFAs were displayed, one after the other, the width of the page shrank each time and the boxes were nested. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Lazy bureaucrats! But the visual nature allowed a voter to immediately ascertain if the nom was closed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you understood what I was trying to explain there! I'm not sure I see the need for the templates, to be honest. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 14:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep pushing colab of the week?

Hi, why do you de-promote very other colaboration that seeks some visibility? I mean, colab of the week is important so are the others. I personaly think maintenance colab is far more important that week colab. Why? Simply week colab works on 1 article while maintenance - on hundreds (if given enough visibility). Take for example wikification rounds when people (mostly newbies) wikified about 500 articles in a week! I love maintenance colab and I want to see its template on the portal. However, I don't push it. If community decides - no templates for no colabs - let it be no templates. If it decides to promote one colab - let it be. There are many things in life I don't like. But I ask you not to be so one sided and remove all colabs except week's. It's not fair and it's POV. I kindly ask you to put it back. Renata3 20:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The collaboration of the week is the main collaboration and so deserves due prominence. Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view is applicable to articles only. The maintenance collaboration, along with all collaborations is listed on the Community Portal, along with the current project the collaborations are each working on - they have not been removed. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think AID and COTW are almost equal. Who decided that COTW is the most important? And POV applies to the whole wiki world whereever you are. Wouldn't be it funny to batlle POV on articles but allow it on the second most important page on WP? I suggest we have a vote. Let the people decide. 'cause I see you don't hear my arguments. Renata3 22:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a template like the COTW one, but if there is, or you'd like to create it, I am in full support of adding it to the Community Portal. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, AID needs a template. What's wrong with maintenance colab? Renata3 22:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, it's not a major collaboration. Discussion about whether the maintenance collaboration should be taking placeon the Community Portal talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry for the personal remark. I just got too agitated for the moment. Could we continue the discussion/debate? We need to make it work, and that is the most important thing right now. Renata3 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

Is there some discussion that I missed that concluded that a warning like this was necessary? I believe in WP:BOLD, but barring some sort of discussion I think unilaterally adding a warning to such a highly visible page is not at all appropriate.

As such, I've reverted, but feel free to revert back if there's some sort of consensus I missed. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's necessary (in some form or another) because of exactly the reason given in the message - personally identifiable information is stored and associated publically with anonymous contributors' edits, and there is no place (other than the privacy policy) where a contributor is told about this. Under EU law it is probably illegal to publish personally identifiable information on the web without permission; while the Foundation is likely not subject to EU law it does not mean that we should ignore the sensible reasons behind the EU privacy laws and inform contributors ourselves how contributing to Wikipedia of this fact. Talrias (t | e | c) 07:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you bring this up at the legal issues mailing list, juriwiki-l, or on the Village Pump, or on the Admin Watchboard, before changing the edit page? I don't have a problem with changing it so much as a problem with changing it unilaterally. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I brought it up on the Foundation list, the general Wikipedia list and the English language Wikipedia list, after discussing it on IRC for some time beforehand. After some further discussion on IRC I added the text to the page.Talrias (t | e | c) 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might be a good idea to discuss it somewhere on the Wiki before making a change like that, but if there was disussion on the lists about this and that's what they decided, I won't revert again. Sorry I came on so strong; I looked through all the places I could think of on the Wiki and didn't see anything (and this is coming on the heels of people playing with the Monobooks without talking to anyone). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

29 October 2005 New Delhi bombings

Thanks for contribution at 29 October 2005 New Delhi bombings. - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail.

I didn't really contribute anything, but you're welcome. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of AID template

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal#Maintenance_COTW for why I added the default AID template to the community portal. I don't think "to not use bright colors" is as important as to "not inform people that there is an important collaboration going on". The problem is, if we create an AID template that looks like the COTW one, it won't be noticed enough. Not allowing the default template on the community portal page ruins the entire point of the Article Improvement Drive, the AID is there to improve articles, but if nobody knows about the current collaboration going on, the article won't get improved. It is also not a question of which collaboration is the most important, they are all equal, because the whole goal is to get articles to featured standard. The maintenance collaboration should also have a more prominent feature on the community portal (like it used to, before this new design came in...) because it is very important, the cleanup and wikify backlogs are going to continue growing if nobody knows there is a collaboration on to fix those articles, and thats a bad thing, because we want more great articles, not the number of bad articles to continue rising. — Wackymacs 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

People are informed that the article improvement drive exists on the Community Portal, as it is listed on the page, along with the current AID collaboration. If you want to create a new template, similar to that of {{cpcotw}}, and add that to the Community Portal, I have no objection.

The argument that the maintenance collaboration is 'more important' than other collaborations is flawed. One could argue, for example, that there are hardly any articles covering the European Union and the ones that do exist are not very complete, therefore the European Union collaboration deserves due prominence. All the collaborations are important; unfortunately there is not enough room to provide a full description for all of them. Sticking to how it is presented currently, in alphabetical order and listing the current collaboration, is in my opinion the best solution in the meantime. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

Your input would be welcomed

It's just an idea at the moment, but I'd welcome the input from a few people regarding my thoughts for an article rating competition. It would be great if you could take a look - feel free to edit any part of it and comment on the talk page. If you don't have time then no worries. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 10:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

comments

OK Electionworld 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Voluntary Wikipedia Questionnaire

Hi Talrias,

My name is Oliver Metz. I am a student at Brent International School, Manila, an International school located in the Philippines. I am doing my last year of school (12th Grade) and I am writing a research paper (about 4000 words) on Wikipedia in ITGS (Information Technology in a Global Society). Of 10 randomly picked people you have been chosen as one. If you are willing and have the time to answer a few questions I would be grateful if you could fill out a short questionnaire of 6 questions.

Some Information about my essay:

My essay topic is about the freedom to collaborate and the usage of the Internet as a tool to do so. I will analyze topics such as Altruism versus Egoism as well as the Product Wikipedia itself.

My Thesis Statement: The Internet is not only a medium for communication, information and marketing but also a place for altruism, collaboration and cooperation. Wikipedia is the product of a voluntary collaborative effort that defies commonly held beliefs about human nature.

If you have any further questions or requests you would like to pose before filling out the questionnaire I'd gladly answer them.

you can write to: taklung@gmx.net (I check this e-mail address regularly)

Questionnaire:

Please answer the following questions by either inserting the answers or sending them to me via e-mail. (*are not necessarily required).

Name*: Age*: Nationality*:

1. How long have you been contributing to Wikipedia?

2. Have you or are you planning to donate money to the Wikipedia cause?

3. When you first heard of Wikipedia and the concepts it is based on, what did you think about it and did you believe it could work? What do you think now?

4. Why do you think people contribute to Wikipedia? With it being voluntary what interests do/did you follow when contributing to Wikipedia?

5. Do you think that Wikipedia appeals to Altruism? If yes, do you think such a thing can exist in our society in which greed and consumption apparently drive the world?

6. What do you think makes Wikipedia most beneficial to society?

Further comments*:

With kind regards,

Oliver Metz --TakLung 23:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Haiku?

I have to say haiku isn't my strong point poetically, but here you are [...] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been spirited away to User:Talrias. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 00:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

EU DG Naming Conventions

Hi, Talrias! Some of us have been wondering if the European Commission jurisdiction should be specified as part of the article titles for the EU DG series of articles. We've been naming some of the newer articles accordingly. I had started a discussion to that effect at Talk:Directorate-General#Naming Conventions. Your contribution to that discussion would be appreciated! Thanks, LiniShu 11:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! :) --LiniShu 05:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

DG Template

I think that the best division of the DGs is: Internal policy, External policy, and Services. Just like on the European Commission article. This highlights that the Services are not policy-making and that not all External policy DGs are primarily dealing with relations - though they are policy-making. Template:eu-directorates-general --Drdan 11:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I put in the labels from the Europa website (the link at the bottom of the template). No objections if you change it. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Swing Riots

Can you elaborate why the Swing Riots article was flagged as a stub? Regards Oldfarm 12:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, a stub is basically a brief description of the event, at most a few paragraphs long. It typically doesn't have any sections (such as analysis of why the event happened, build up to the event, and consequences). Swing Riots is a long stub, but it by no means could be considered a full article. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Durin RfC comment

Thanks for your comment on my RfC. I have modified my preliminary statement appropriately. If you find other shortcomings with my statement, please feel free to note them either on the RfC or on my talk page. Thank you, --Durin 15:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a problem. An amicable solution for both sides (in any request for comment) is not just good for the two sides, but Wikipedia as a whole. I don't believe that second-guessing others helps in dispute resolution. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Internet forum

I feel that although it is the largest Internet forum, Gaia Online is not a proper depiction to be displayed on Wikipedia. Gaia Online is much different than your traditional forum of yore, and If one were to be informed on an Internet forum, It would be preferred that it not be such a silly thing as Gaia Online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snafuu (talk • contribs) 07:11, 14 November 2005

Gaia Online looks similar to a normal phpBB forum. I don't understand your argument; are you saying that you think Gaia Online is silly so you don't want a picture of it? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Consider my phpBB forum, LINK REMOVED, it looks much like any other phpBB forum. Gaia Online, however, is a "role-playing" forum, which in their case the whole point of the site is to post-whore until you get enough points for your silly little avatar clothes. Seriously, this site makes all forums look bad. --Snafuu 15:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That maybe so, but I'm not sure that's a valid reason to remove the image. Try discussing it on talk:internet forum and see what other people think. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind welcome. While the jury is still out regarding my medical condition, I have indeed returned to my beloved Wikipedia. :) – ClockworkSoul 13:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've never been active on IRC, but I've been considering making it a habit to spend more time there when I get the chance. – ClockworkSoul 15:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

SAID

Summary of Article Improvement Drive article. Thanks for your interest.--File Éireann 00:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you object if it was renamed to template:aid-summary (just to make it clearer)? Talrias (t | e | c) 13:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I shall have no objection - go right ahead!--File Éireann 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Workingmans Barnstar

Here's a workingman's barnstar for all your hard work on COTW.--File Éireann 22:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it's very much appreciated. I've added it to my awards page. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes to COTW

I notice you removed the changes I made to COTW, adding the number of votes each article had to the heading. Personally, Ithink they were useful, they were based on the Article Improvement Drive. It allows you to tell at a glance from the contents box how well any article is doing (a sort of league table). I was sad to see it go. Have a look at how it works on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive and see if you can change your mind.--File Éireann 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it could be useful, however the COTW used to have them in the past and frequently they were out-of-date and incorrect, which was confusing. It also has the problem that linking directly to a nomination on the page (using an anchor) will break when the title of the section is updated. I think the potential problems outway the usefulness it would give. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Community portal

The message was on a talk page for weeks and nobody even commented on it. I send you personal message twice - no response. So what I am supposed to do? Scream in the middle of nowhere hoping for somebody to hear??? I am getting seriously frustrated.

It was you idea to develop such templates to every "main" colab. Here - it is developed. Can we leave the "new" version to see what comments it receives (if any), because I can put "War and Peace" on talk page, but I am afraid for no responces once again. Deal? Renata3 19:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason I didn't respond was that your comments were accompanied by personal comments. I wouldn't say that the maintenance was a "main" collab, given its relatively recent introduction. It's also unlike most of the other collaborations in that it works on more than one article rather than just a single one over a period of time. I'm glad that you're interested in the collaboration and are promoting it so much but I don't think it deserves a prominent place on the CP. I suggest you start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Community Portal, and if people agree that it's a good idea to change the page again to include it, so be it. I will object to including it, but I won't remove it if there's consensus to include it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologized, and I can apologize once again. IT WAS EXTREMELY STUPID ON MY PART. But that is not a reason to put me into "radio silence" or "ignore list" or to revert my edits.

Redisign was more than a month ago. Most people must have forgotten about it by now. Also, as you can fairly easily see, the talk page does not get too much traffic. So it's unlikely that "consensus" will be reached.

My proposal: change the portal and wait for reactions (I seriously doubt that anybody will be mortified by it). Because otherwise, it's gonna sit there for another two weeks without any comments. Where is the be bold gone? Renata3 20:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't you put you on any ignore list (and I wouldn't want to). I just wasn't aware you'd said anything new on the issue - if you have I've missed it and I apologise! I think you'd be suprised how many people look at the community portal and would discuss it on the talk page if you just mentioned it there. I don't think there's any hurry to change it either - there's no deadline we have to complete Wikipedia by. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is a deadline to delete {{MaintenanceCOTW}}. And without attention the whole colab is dying. And the whole issue is dragging for more than a month now. And backlogs are growing (FYI, more than 1% of WP articles are tagged just for clean up). So, yeah, there is no hurry. There is just one stupid me who wants to clean up those backlogs, because I am too deeply in love with WP. (and officialy - today it is the first I have cried for it) Renata3 20:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You might have more luck in attracting people's attention if you put the most important part of the maintenance stuff in the "to do" section. Try the village pump for other suggestions on how to get people involved in maintenance. I just don't think a collaboration is the best way to organise it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why you don't like colab format? What's wrong with it? Renata3 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The collaboration format seems to work best when there's a group of people working together on a single thing (which is collaboration), rather than a group of people working on different things (which is just spread labour). You may of course disagree. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping me to nominate a collaboration, I really appreciated it. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and I still have a lot to learn --TBC 22:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. If you have any other questions please don't hesitate to ask. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

rollback privs edit

oops, my mistake I mistook it for request for checkuer privileges page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Eamon de Valera

Was wondering of you could temporarly lift the lock restricition on the article Eamon de Valera, i need to switch out the infobox. Just let me know when you do or or when you are on or something and i'll let you know when i am done, that way it can only be open for a short amount of time. Or how ever you want to do it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's unprotected for now. I won't reprotect it after you're done, but if vandalism starts up again I protect it again. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

reply

It only removed it because the key was empty, what is the point in an empty key? it is a pywikibot, so I assume that is what is meant to happen, otherwise I'll let the people who develop it know. thanks Martin 12:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at the category listing. It puts the article first in the list. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not only can I read, but I can also take offence at rude comments, my bot can't so doesnt mind being called "silly". Surely the key should have a * to list it with the other "list of..." articles? Martin 13:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What rude comments are you talking about? The key should be a space, " ", which orders it first. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edit summary "some people can't read so I'm emphasising this." was rude, but it doesnt matter. Why do the lists in that category have the key "*" but the said article has the key " ", sorry to go on about this. Martin 17:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't directed at you (specifically). My apologies if you found it rude - that wasn't my intention. It's not a problem discussing the sort keys in the field! The key " " appears above the key "*" when used, and the general idea is to put the article which the category is "about" first in the list. Lists of things relevant to the article (such as lists of people who have been Prime Minister" does not really belong in the category (which is of people who have been PM), so it is given another key, which is "*". I found that quite confusing when reading through it, so if you want me to (attempt to) clarify, please just ask! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense now, thanks Talrias. Martin 17:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

How's college?

Brookie here - how's college going? :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 19:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Brookie! University is great, not only the course but the social life too. I'm glad I'm here! Thanks for asking, I hope you and your family are good too. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you're enjoying yourself - all my family are well thank-you. Have a beer for me - as I know students occasionally partake of such stuff! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would never dream of imbibing such a beverage! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 17:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well if you won't - I will! :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 17:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't want anything to happen to your liver so I guess I'll have to then. It's for your sake! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Eamon de Valera - category sorting

Hi. You've changed the category entries to use the lowercase 'de Valera' for category sorting. There is now a section in Category:Irish politicians etc for lowercase 'd' at the end of the list, with only one entry - Eamon de Valera. Meanwhile, Sile de Valera and Vivion de Valera are listed under section 'D'. I don't see any reason to separate out 'D' and 'd' in category content listings. It does not appear to be common practice. On WP:CG there is no reference to case-sensitive category sorting, but under 'Requirements and Usage' it does say "Categorization ... should help users find the information they are looking for as quickly as possible". To me, that means grouping Eamon de Valera with all others whose names begin with 'D' or 'd'. If you agree, can you undo your changes.-Rye1967 03:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware that the categories differentiated between lowercase and uppercase. I've changed it back to 'D'. Thanks for letting me know. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

was/were on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 30

Hello, Talrias. I was the careless one who wrote that sentence wrong, so I fixed my own mistake there. I am not sure what policy you were referring to in your edit summary here. Could you elaborate a bit, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 13:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

See National varieties of English, which says use the spelling by the first contributor in a non country-specific article. The initial spelling used was "were", so it should be kept at "were". If you agree with the MoS, could you revert your change? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 17:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It was "were" because when I first wrote that sentence in 2004, the subject of the sentence was "Soviet forces". I forgot to change "were" to "was" when I changed "Soviet forces" (plural) to "the Red Army" (singular, at least to me) last week. I am not sure how the MoS would apply when I correct my own mistake. Policies aside, would "were" actually go better with "The Red Army" ? -- PFHLai 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would - I consider an army to be a plural entity (in the same way as a herd is plural), as it's a bunch of people. I'd use were here in the same way I'd use were when saying "The team were getting ready for the match", for example. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Really ? So what I thought was a mistake turns out to be correct ? Wish I make these mistakes more often in exams ..... Thanks, Talrias. I've changed it to 'were' on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/November 30. -- PFHLai 18:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, well, it depends where you are from. I believe Americans actually use 'was' (which seems a bit dehumanising to me), but it's probably a matter of personal preference. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

My native language is Chinese, and I'm hoping to improve my English through my participation in English Wikipedia. My preferences shouldn't count. Learning proper English is difficult here in Canada, as both British English and American English are used. I get confused sometimes by all the "rebels" and "royalists" around me. (Thankfully, they don't pick on each other like Wikipedians do.) For something on the MainPage, I should take the advice of a native speaker, who has a much better chance of being correct than I do. Thanks for your help, Talrias. I have to go to class now. Nice chatting with you. Take care. -- PFHLai 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help in future with any questions about (British) English you have. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your request for sources

Hello Talrias:

The source of the comments is US Supreme Court case law. You can find details on the source through the website of the US Supreme Court or searching for the case submitted in any search engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstamendment (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 December 2005

In that case, could you cite the case? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom question

Talrias --

Thanks for your response to my question. I'm replying here because at this point my comments are not so much germane to your candidacy and whether people should support you, but rather to the situation you are likely to face if you are appointed to ArbCom.

My concern is really with independence, so your comments about taking advice from others were, to be honest, the sort of things that I was worried about. In an ideal world, getting background information from another arbitrator would be an excellent thing to do; in this world, however, the result of that might be effectively to give a biased arbitrator a second vote in a decision.

Wikipedia is faced with a sort of Tragedy of the commons. It has become a widely used resource, and this makes it very inviting to people who want to twist the facts available to the general population in order to support a particular agenda. It might even, eventually, make sense for organizations hoping to promote agendas to employ people to participate in Wikipedia toward that end. It would be very difficult for the volunteer effort that Wikipedia relies upon for objective editing to counter such efforts.

I don't know that anyone is currently employed to enforce a bias on Wikipedia, but there are people, including people currently on the ArbCom, whom I consider polemicists. I think, unfortunately, that a good arbitrator would have to be prepared to be very skeptical of the "background" information his associates provide him -- probably informally, in most cases -- on matters with which he has little familiarity. Much of the world, you are likely to find, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere in life, runs on mutual back-scratching (I hope that's not an American-specific idiom). But this isn't a good way to produce unbiased, quality results.

Anyway, thanks for your response to my question and good luck on your ArbCom candidacy. From the very little that I've looked at your participation here, you look like you could be a good addition.

Marsden 02:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify what I mean - I will ask for advice, and consider it if given; but I won't ever take it as gospel. My decisions will be my own! Thanks for your comments and good wishes. Talrias (t | e | c)

User:Clinkophonist

This user has requested a move regarding the article Biblical inerrancy. That's fine, of course, but he has insisted that the "move" template remain on the article, rather than the talk page. I moved it to the talk page, but Clinkophonist moved it back. I read his own talk page and saw that you have been discussing this with him. If possible, could you visit Biblical inerrancy and share your insights as an administrator? Thanks...KHM03 12:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've already told him that editor templates belong on talk pages, so I've gone ahead and moved the template to the talk page. It's been policy that editor templates belong on talk pages for a very long time now. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. KHM03 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I stink at haiku

But I tried some nonetheless
They weren't very good

If you don't want them
On your user page at all,
Simply remove them

I'll see you later
Somewhere around the wiki
I, Lord Voldemort.
19:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Awesome. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind word

I'm stuck writing in haiku

And it's all your fault.

I left this message

On the Fifth of December

Two Thousand and Five

Somebody please help

I don't want to write this way

Anymore, LV.

20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you have to figure out how to work the timestamp into your haiku! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

At Twenty hours

And Twenty-seven minutes

(UTC, of course),

I left a message

With the timestamp included

In this darn haiku.

Signed, Lord Voldemort

Who often signs as LV

With a green Dark Mark.

Hmm, the first line has only four syllables (well, I pronounce it as a single syllable). You'll have to do a better job than that! ;) Talrias (t | e | c) 20:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's pronounced "Ow-ers".

You only get one stanza

In this last haiku.

It's been fun. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, if only I was in a more creative mood then I would be replying in haikus of my own. I'll have to draw you something instead! Thanks LV (btw are you on IRC at all)? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That's okay... did you notice my edit summaries as well? I guess I was just in that mood today. As to IRC, no I don't really do that whole "IRC-thang". Why do you ask? I saw you mention it to Durin as well. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's because you're in biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig trouble! Nah, I'd just like to talk to you. :) Oh, and nice job in the edit summaries too. Didn't notice them - thanks for telling me. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response; an emergency came up yesterday, and I had to high-tail it outta here. I'm around if you still would like to talk. You can email me if you want it off WP. Or my talk page is always open. If you don't need to talk, then just ignore this last little message. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The haikus above

Show much thought from Voldemort

But you respond plain

You should at least try

To write dirty limerick

Or copy paste one

(spotted the haikus and my creative urges took over) violet/riga (t) 20:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have writer's block

I can't count syllables well

And I'm rubbish. Soz.

:) Talrias (t | e | c) 21:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

Hi. My change was to the far more common form "license" for the verb. So you know, I am British. When licence is a noun, it has a c. When it is a verb, it has an s. The verb with a c is technically correct, but is far less common and the s version is generally preferred. I shan't revert yet, but I probably shall tomorrow if it isn't already changed. [[Sam Korn]] 00:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop provoking conflict by pushing apredominantly unaccepted version of the verb form. Read what the British-based Oxford has to say:

"Do not confuse licence with license. Licence is a noun which means 'a permit to do something' (a driving licence), whereas license is a verb meaning 'give a permit to someone: allow something' (the loggers are licensed to cut mahogany trees). In American English, both the noun and the verb are spelled license."

This is the accepted spelling of the VERB FORM in both the UK and US. Nowhere is the accepted spelling of the verb form spelled LICENCE. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 13:47

Please don't mark edits as minor when they are quite clearly major, and please don't use excessive markup text. I've replied on MediaWiki talk:Copyrightwarning. There was no need to write an extra (shouty) message here; discussion about pages in specific belongs on their individual talk pages. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Britain / UK

While I can see the idea behind your page move, I don't think it's useful. Please have a look at my note at Talk:History of socialism in the United Kingdom and comment. Thanks, Warofdreams talk 17:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)