User talk:Talrias/Archive 2006-04-14

Hi. My bot (YurikBot) for some unknown reason started loosing login cookies (perhaps something on the server, as no bot changes were made). Apparently only about 10 edits per incident are made without login, and bot starts editing ok again. If you see it running amok, please only block for 15 min - this way the bot will stop and i will force-login it. Thanks. --Yurik 10:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should modify your bot to ensure that it is not editing without being logged in. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Talrias,

I don't understand why you removed {{lowercase}} from the various redirects to omega-consistent theory. They are quite necessary; the uppercase Ω is quite wrong in context. I have no real objection to the addition of {{r from alternate spelling}} but the lowercase template really needs to stay.

(Oh, BTW, #redirect works just as well as #REDIRECT; there's no need to change those.) --Trovatore 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because that template is for articles, not redirects. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly what it was principally designed for, no argument there. But it still serves a useful purpose in redirects. It documents the fact that the intended name has the lowercase character; that's good to know if, say, the article is moved to the name of the redirect. It adds the redirect to the appropriate maintenance category, and it ought to be there, in case the technical restriction is ever lifted (I don't see that it ever made sense for Greek characters). And it's useful to anyone looking at the redirect itself; without it, such a person might be misled into thinking "Ω-consistent theory" is what's being discussed (note that there's a logic called Ω-logic, with the uppercase, and being "consistent" with respect to that logic is quite another thing entirely). --Trovatore 18:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed it because I was looking through the category and saw lots of articles with similar titles, and I was trying to clean it up a bit, by removing redirects. After all, the redirects clearly show that the article is not in fact on that page, but on the one it's redirecting to. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that these redirects need to be in a maintenance category. I wouldn't object to a new category and a new template specifically for them, say Category:Redirects with lowercase initial characters (which should be a subcat of Category:Article titles with lowercase initial letters, and something like {{r lowercase}}. --Trovatore 19:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds like a sensible suggestion. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages#Should there be an "R lowercase" template?. --Trovatore 04:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stole User:Mindspillage's user page layout, without even asking, and apparently she stole it from you, so I also stole it from you, so thank you! ZoFreX 17:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Talrias, I've unblocked Quadell because there seemed to be no basis in policy for the block, and also because he's one of our most responsible admins, and therefore it seemed inappropriate (and was arguably a content dispute). I strongly dislike undoing other admins' blocks and very rarely do it, because it comes across as disrespectful, so I want to assure you that no disrespect was intended at all. I was just saddened to see yet another block incurred over what I see as a relatively trivial issue, though I accept there are strong feelings on both sides about it. All the more reason we need to try to hammer out a compromise, and I will try to help with that if I can. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the issue up on WP:AN/I, Talrais. That was the right thing to do. I'm more than willing to talk this over with you in a non-confrontational way. I know this is a sensitive subject; would you be willing to try mediation with me? All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's Talrias. :) What kind of mediation do you propose? I am of course entirely happy with discussing this issue. What I am not happy about are people "enforcing" the manual of style when they are aware of disagreement on the issue - which to me suggests that an appropriate direction to take would be to talk it over further. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I mean Talrias. Sorry. Just call me Qaddle and we'll be even. :)

Here's why I brought up mediation: I would like you to agree to not block me for making changes like this. You don't seem inclined to agree to this. You, I presume, would like me to agree to not delink dates, and I'm not willing to agree to that. So we may be stuck. Actually, how about I just ask you upfront? Will you agree to not block me for making changes such as the one I linked above? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be appreciated here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarah. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, we've been friends for a good while now, and I highly respect your opinion, but I don't think you took the correct course of action with this situation. Even if he was aware of previous bans under similar, if not identical, circumstances, you still should have given him a warning prior to blocking him. I'm not an admin, and have no say over what goes, nor do I want this to harm our friendship in any way, but I just felt the need to chime in on this. Hopefully everything is resolved soon, until then I'll be watching this. --Zeerus (ETC) 20:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to blame you for Quadell choosing to leave, because you didn't have a way of knowing that your block (as wrong as it may have been) would lead to this, but others might. --Cyde Weys 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you claiming they are going to happen in december 2006?Geni 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are supposed to be yearly, Dec. 2004, Dec. 2005 (which was delayed), so presumably the next one will be Dec. 2006. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yearly would mean jan 2007. By shifting back to december you shorten the terms of those arbcom members elected for a year by at least a month (more in reality since you have to hold the election at the start of december).Geni 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, they are supposed to be annually, and even if the elections were delayed earlier this year that is no reason they should be delayed again this year. I think we should aim for December as our target. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

annually= once a year. We've already had one this year.Geni 20:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your note on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#User:Gnome (Bot) requesting trial run and evential bot flag permission or is it just a comment? Sorry if I can't tell the deference.Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plese respond on my talk page or on WP:BRFA

Greetings, Talrias. I have proposed a remedy to the date unpleasantness, and it can be found here. Your input is requested. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Quadell. I have responded! Talrias (t | e | c) 19:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are {{coor title dms}} and the other related templates broken in skins other than Monobook? The CSS was recently adopted into Monobook.css, which should have fixed the brokenness that existed before. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says on the template page that it does not work in non-Monobook skins. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works, and the text is merely outdated. Thanks, I'll change them back. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate the comments and feedback that you left me. In addition, I would appreciate if you let me know why or what you feel that I don't understand about the requests for rollback proposal; I would love to know if you feel that I am "missing something" about the proposal or have handled something not to the best of my ability. I also hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose reason on the requests for rollback privileges poll was "Also, if all it takes is to convince a bureaucrat that you won't abuse the rollback (easily done, since it's quite easy to assume good faith), how do we know vandals won't get the rollback?". If the proposal was implemented, you would be involved in both granting the rollback privilege to applicants and revoking it from people who misuse it. Unfortunately I can't support someone to take on responsibilities which would be intimately linked to the proposal if they have misunderstood it as you have. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user has replied - see User talk:Linkspamremover for details. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 05:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you turned Unitary System into a redirect to Unitary state, after which an anonymous user undid your change. Twice. I originally noticed the new Unitary System article and thought it was just an accidental duplicate, so I suggested a merge, as routine housekeeping. After your first merge, I added a "disputed merge" tag. The anonymous editor not only pulled the redirect, he just removed the "disputed merge" tag.

I'm not sure what's going on over there now, but I think there's some point of view issue. Both articles are about the same subject, but with different points of view, and someone feels strongly about this. Since you did the redirect, are you willing to try to straighten this out? You do mediation. I'm just doing housekeeping here. Thanks. --John Nagle 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've posted on his/her talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. BobbleWik has now signed all four points, as have I. I was wondering if you would reconsider signing point four? If not, could you give a reason? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have signed point four. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad! You are to be commended, sir. I look forward to working productively with you in the future. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I misread the situation. Sorry about that. On retrospect, a link would have been sufficient. --Go for it! 22:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's ok. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started an RFC on User:Go for it! Your input and additions would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Go_for_it!. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiddity (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 April 2006

Oops(unsigned), my bad, sorry, was 3am here ;) -Quiddity 10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the Community Portal's design was changed, with the edit comment saying that consensus was reached. After reading the discussion, it doesn't seem like any consensus was reached. I started a discussion on the Community Portal talk page — J3ff 16:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've grouped these three discussions as they are all about the Community Portal. To keep it brief: I've decided I don't really care about the CP design any more, I've taken the page and all pages related to it off my watchlist and I'm not interested in getting involved in any discussion about it from this point on. I, of course, reserve the right to go back on this statement. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 21:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful when editing templates! When you change the code or params of a template everything may look fine on that page, but it may have broken some or all of the pages that it is currently included in. If you need a template to do something new, create a new template, don't canibalise an existing template, as you did with {{UKCOTW article}}! Joe D (t) 00:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all fixed now. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Talrias, knowing that I was probably the cause that PorthosBot was blocked in the first place, may I ask you to unblock PorthosBot/Zirland/84.244.80.3 (see also User talk:Zirland#Blocked)

In the mean while I think communication with Zirland (the bot operator) has been established satisfactorily, as shown from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:bots#PorthosBot, but Zirland can't accomplish the discussed recommendations, unless unblocked (including the unblock of his IP).

Zirland also promised not to use the PorthosBot account any more before this account is de-flagged, and the proper trial period can be started as requested at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#Zirland_.3D_PorthosBot.

Tx, and sorry for the inconvenience. --Francis Schonken 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I need an invite to join this irc channel? Steve block talk 19:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your confirmation, as requested. Apologies, I'm new to this irc thing, I only installed yesterday during the wipe out. Steve block talk 20:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Access granted! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 20:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if I could get access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel, I seem to always miss you on irc :) Anyway, my nick is the same there, but I can verify myself however you would like :) - cohesion^t 06:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]