User talk:Zaruthustra/Archive2

Mod?

this idea has hited me in the past. But i think that i still aint ready to upgrade to a higher level. I am lurking in the arbitration page now, that i consider some kind of pre-mod stage. Perhaps in the near future, when i grew some maturity working in the arbitration, i will try it. --hagnat ^talk 04:46, 3 April 2006 (BST)

Sup zar.

Could you please take a look at the Amazing vs. Gankbus case and help in there ? Things are getting uglier every day, and i believe the only way to put an end to it is a mod steeping in and rulling things you do this or i ban you, n3wb --hagnat ^talk 03:59, 4 April 2006 (BST)

I agree this is getting out of hand, GANKBUS has posted a false speculation on their page and Amazing is responding by constantly changing it, it is turning into an edit war.--The General 11:37, 4 April 2006 (BST)

he. Support my power grab!^TM --hagnat ^talk 04:27, 4 April 2006 (BST)

---

Strike Breakers

It says to contact you, so how do I join?--The General 11:33, 4 April 2006 (BST)

---

Hurr

View the Arbitration page much? -- Amazing 23:55, 5 April 2006 (BST)

As a Moderator, I really do expect you to do something about this or at least weigh in either way. It came with your voluntary position, y'know? Plus I see you're online and on the Arbitration talk page, so I can see you're available. -- Amazing 00:05, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Oh mans! I wonder who sneakily put your name on the Arbitrator list. That crook. AUGH he got other Mods, too! ... Man what a fiend, he must be found and banned. -- Amazing 02:59, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Oh, dude - actually I think it's been resolved pretty much. Happened between my contacting you and a bit earlier, y'dig? -- Amazing 03:28, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Sure, sure. We all know you're actually just too busy cooking the Wiki books for millions of dollars. -- Amazing 03:34, 6 April 2006 (BST)

---

Vandal banning

PQN is going on a mass vandalism spree. We need some mod help.--The General 11:24, 7 April 2006 (BST)

It seems like banning that sad excuse for a human being didn't work. PQN 2 went on a massive Vandalising spree a few hours ago. Everything got reverted,.. but if he keeps coming back doing that under new nicks it might get very stale over time. Is there something like an IP ban?--Vykos 13:43, 8 April 2006 (BST)

You're the bloody bomb. I saw you get him just as I saw him start. You rock. --Grand Wiki Empress Mia, The Radiant Seraph ^(SOTSS) 04:19, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Note to self...revert signature.

---

Hmm

The deletion page clearly says "page"s. If images are included then chalk it up to a mistake. The page also says Mods may delete things without going through the community in some cases, so I guess I'm pretty much in the clear on it anyway. In the future I'll use speedy deletions. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 23:51, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Well, I've been an artist on the 'net long enough to have come across the issue many times. Actually, the minute you 'release' something, te copyright belongs to you unless you say otherwise. The only exception would be if there was a notation on the Wiki specifically saying all uploads are agreed to be Public Domain. Now, there may very well be one hidden in some corner I haven't looked - but I highly doubt it. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:03, 8 April 2006 (BST)

---

Re: Misconduct

Are we in agreement that Amazing has commited a misconduct? -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:02, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing being offended personally and deleting material that he didn't have the right to for deletion? No matter how he tries to save his ass through Corporate Swings and Copyright regulations,.. he's wrong. That's even besides the fact he crossed the line by breaking certain UD Wiki Mod rules. I ain't a Mod but I can be sure of the fact Amazing crossed the line.--Vykos 22:42, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Woooo, flags

someone just copied 'your' idea to add its own flag to its own user page. See Vykos.

Anyway, i created a 'flagbox' so people could easily create national templates for their own coutnry... i think i will create a page for that... --hagnat ^{t • w} 02:24, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Yes,.. I ripped that idea and even mentioned Zaru made me do it in my edit. What's the prob? --Vykos 02:34, 9 April 2006 (BST)

not a problem Vykos. I am actually happy that someone else made it :) --hagnat ^{t • w} 02:42, 9 April 2006 (BST)

It's a golden idea, and I feel kinda amazed nobody else came up with that template a long time ago. More users should show their nationalaty. ;)--Vykos 02:46, 9 April 2006 (BST)

We'll have to whip hagnat more to get him to come up with these ideas faster. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:50, 9 April 2006 (BST)

*SLASH! ->Whips Hagnat* Any other bright ideas we seem to be oblivious for? ;) --Vykos 02:58, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Kyaaaaa. Erm... eh... what.. about... a movie section ?! Yeah. movies about zombies and stuff... this is something i am thinking about for weeks but havent released it yet... what you guys think about it ? --hagnat ^{t • w} 03:03, 9 April 2006 (BST)

heheh, A Zed Movie Database? There are so many Zed Flicks,.. Good, Bad and far beyond Ugly. My obsession with Zed Flicks brought me to this game. (well, actually Kevan's Zed Infestation script did) Creating a Zed Flick database on UD seems like a good idea. You could add reviews, extrenal links and more.. Damn you Hagnat! ;) --Vykos 03:11, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Huh

Killed me? Duh I dont remember...someone did PK me but I dont remember who and anyway LCD is under attack by griefers so...dont worry man no problems. I am used to it :) Johnny Rico 17:23, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Protections

Considering the actions of that vandal and his tendancy to move around the main page it was suggested that someone protect the page. Perhaps you should take a look, and maybe act upon it. --Grim s 17:40, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Conserning the Punk Class

I personally like the idea, hell, I'd play it. And even though I am a bit of a punk myself, I'd think it'd be more suiting if it were "Gang Member" or "Biker"--William Raker 20:37, 10 April 2006 (BST)

Re: Barnstar

Dammit! I was going to make one of them up for you! -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 01:09, 11 April 2006 (BST)

PQN

*checks stopwatch* It's a new record! --Lucero Capell 06:02, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Still not fast enough to stop him though. This is getting old, even for somebody with as much time on their hands as I do. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 12 April 2006 (BST)

All I can say is thank god for large papers that keep me chained to my computer. Wait a second...--Zaruthustra-Mod 06:06, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Regardless, that's pretty damn fast. If you didn't already have the Editor's Barnstar, I'd give it to you. And papers do have an odd way of doing that, don't they? --Lucero Capell 06:08, 12 April 2006 (BST)

He. That is the good part of being active on a irc channel. With at least 50 people in a channel, at least one or two is reading the wiki and can warn me when something needs attention. You should try it too --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:19, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Yes Zar. Joooooiiiiiiinnnnn Uuuuuuusssssssss. --Sirens^{T RR} 04:20, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Multiple Floor Barricades

The last suggestion was yes, every floor could be EHB, but a zombie could walk up to the top floor without having to bash all the floors before that.

But this suggestion seems to imply stacked barricades, which I don't know if that's what he meant, but I don't know if I like THAT idea much. The zombie would have a nice fun time trying to find meat like that. BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 14:58, 12 April 2006 (BST)

He DID say that it would only be on building with "jump out window" options. Do malls have that? BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 15:05, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Hey, it's happened to me before. And I'm not complaining that much, my zombie likes seeing that lovely level 1 meat XD
I actually think he means any building you can jump from as a matter of fact BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 15:09, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Not every Building you can jump out off,.. It would be a bit too much, I said a limited number of 'towers'in a suburb.. Possibly 1 or 2--Vykos 15:12, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks

In an effort to difuse some of the negative crap currently making its way through the Wiki, I'd just like to say thank you for the efforts you put into editing and maintaining the Wiki. We may or may not agree on any given policy or procedure, but your time and effort is still appreciated. Conndraka 17:45, 12 April 2006 (BST)

erm, i think i am abusing the template thing

i just created a template for my signature... i think i am starting to abuse the template thing creating templates that shouldnt... this seemed a good idea, since everytime i change my signature (in the template) it would change it in all pages i signed... and it would help unclutter those same pages from wiki code from my own signature...

little problem: if people start using this, we will see zounds of templates listed on the "Templates used on this page:" thingy below the edit box.

So. Help me friend... am i abbusing the system or can i go on with this ? --hagnat ^{t • w} 04:23, 13 April 2006 (BST)

after some debate in the #rrf ircchannel, i strongly believe that this kind of templates should be forbidden. There is several ways this could be exploited by vandals and bad faith users. This, anyway, doesnt drop me out of the 'abusing the template thing' situation. --hagnat ^{t • w} 04:42, 13 April 2006 (BST)

No you cant. By using this template thing you have this advantages:

1. you could easily call your template, using a {{YourSignatureTemplate}} call. This helps unclutter the same page from wikicodes like [[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]-<font size=-3>[[Moderation|Mod]]</font>... it would be just {{UserZaru}}
2. you decide to change your signature, you change it in every pages you have signed. Say i become a mod, and i wish all pages i signed in the past now start showing a ^mod tag. With the template i would just edit it and all pages would be automaticaly modified. Without, it would be impossible.

--hagnat ^{t • w} 05:06, 13 April 2006 (BST)

• reasons why signature templates should be banned

any user can edit the template, and all your signatures around the wiki would read shitcock and people will just not understand why.

this adds new templates to the templates listing below the edit box.

a vandal can create a signature for himself, and inside that signature he adds zounds of porn links to an insivisible <div> tag. All pages that vandal sign will be linked to porn sites, rating them up, lowering the quality of service of the wiki.

Drama Llama

I have to copy that... Its just that darn Good. Conndraka 05:09, 13 April 2006 (BST)

I'll make a template. Just put {{DramaLlama}} where you want it. Give me a bit to rig it up. --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:10, 13 April 2006 (BST)

The Lady Justice Image

GOMG R U SURE ITS NOT COPYWRITED!? Oh wait, that wasn't what I was going to ask. Would it be alright if I switched the Lady Justice image out from the Bureaucrat template to the Moderator template (or maybe even the Arbitrator template)? It just seems more fitting in those two positions, plus, it's not going to get used much as it is ;-). --Lucero Capell 15:30, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Suuure.

Prettified'd! --Lucero Capell 20:24, 13 April 2006 (BST)

About Legend X's talk page

I'm not trying to start a fight, but i was wondering if outright deleting a comment i made on his talk page is good form? It was neither insulting nor anything else, you can check it out if you want. I don't want to put it back or anything, but seriously i wonder why he deletes anything i post without reason.--Denzel Washington 17:18, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Ok nevermind, LibrarianBrent took care about it.--Denzel Washington 18:05, 13 April 2006 (BST)

I don't think this has any reason to involve a Mod. Deleting things on your own talk page that you might find too critical, sarcastic, insulting is free game in my opinion, but it ain't good form. Sticking your head in the sand is always bad. In the past I warned people that were vandalising other pages and these comments got almost insta-deleted. It might be considered bad sportmanship, but that's about it.--Vykos 18:16, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah i actually wasn't looking for a ban, but for advice. But it's resolved.--Denzel Washington 18:25, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Mr Aushvitz

I have taken the matter to the Arbitration page rather than the vandal banning page, as the case is far better suited to that pages purpose than the vandal page, and there is a precident there for banning troublesome users from specific pages for a time (Amazing from the Vandal banning page). Since you said you would take care of it, you have been requested as the arbitrator. --Grim s 19:26, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Neglected passed suggestions rule change

Check here The satirical and humorous suggestions act passed, but was not added to the rules. --Grim s 09:03, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Hopefully because it was retarded. Why would Kevan wade through suggestions when we've set up a neat little peer reviewed suggestions area for him? Not only that, but everyone's going haywire about freedom of speech on this Locational language policy...Double standards, anyone? --Mia K ^(sotss) 03:37, 17 April 2006 (BST)

vacation

farewell and good speed, friend. --hagnat ^{t • w} 03:25, 17 April 2006 (BST)

hurray for general lee :D --hagnat ^{t • w} 03:25, 17 April 2006 (BST)

DUUUUUNNN LEEAVE ME!!! --Mia K ^(sotss) 03:28, 17 April 2006 (BST) ^{(On a more serious note, have fun.)}

Looks like i'm just about the only moderator here, now that your on vacation.--The General ^{W! Mod} 18:36, 18 April 2006 (BST)

hey

while you still are here... take a look at this and leave your opinion on that matter :) --hagnat ^{t • w} 22:51, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Moderation

I'm trying for modship (all the cool kids are doing it), care to give your opinion about me and my suitabilaty as soon as you get back from vacation? -- Vista 13:38, 19 April 2006 (BST)

amazing arbitration

Well, zar, I'll take a look, but I doubt me arbitrating an Amazing case would look good, he took me to that page once a while ago, he's convinced I'm prejudiced against him...--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:28, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Proposal

As per the conversation on the talk page of the petition to ban the user Amazing, said user has agreed to cease and desist all trolling, baiting and flaming actions provided that the exact same standards be applied to but not limited those he has taken arbitration cases against concerning his person. I have agreed to examine and report all such incidents that would apply to the above and submit them to two unbiased mods for their approval on the pain of banishment if any involved party find me flagrantly abusing such a position towards a bias of any concerned party. The abuse would be determined by aformentioned mods or a predominance of the evidence. I ask for the approval and the enforcement of the agreement should all concerned parties agree to the terms. --Prosperina 05:55 23 April 2006 (BST)

Moderation Warning

Warned for deleting Amazing's post to quell his points. Being disliked != being a lower social class. --LibrarianBrent 04:23, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Watch yourself.

"Deleting other arguments is not tantamount to making your own."

Oh? Look again, it was an edit conflict. Watch your bias, there, assuming it was on purpose when it was a clear edit problem. -- Amazing 04:24, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Watch yourself.

"Deleting other arguments is not tantamount to making your own."

Oh? Look again, it was an edit conflict. Watch your bias, there, assuming it was on purpose when it was a clear edit problem.

You just vandalized my multiple posts instead of re-adding the one mistakenly lost post. -- Amazing 04:24, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Ridleybank Reclamation Forces

Mr Z. Being on holiday and all, I'm not sure if you're aware of the 5th of November campaign. As a summary, it's a push to gather supporters and then storm Ridleybank on the 5th of Nov in an attempt to take it back. Codename V, the mind behind all this has also rabited on about it being a symbol of survivour strength ala Caiger. ANYWAY, i'm letting you know about this because there may be a resurgence in your Reclamation Forces and should you want to take back the helm, you could be instrumental in organising the growing force. From what I understand, this V fellow doesn't intend to organise any sort of strikes, he's just pointing us in the right direction. Perhaps you can be the general to his war drum? I mean, it would seem a shame to waste all the effort you put into creating the page for your RRF... Just a thought, Rip purr 02:18, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Attempt to find resolution and common ground

Because of the near perfect split on the discussion of Language an Offensive Users I created a page where maybe we can find an acceptable solution. If not, well at least I tried. Page can be found Moderation/Locational Language/Interaction I took on the mantle of responsible party so that even the MODs can state thier ideas and opinions. Conndraka 19:05, 22 April 2006 (BST)

• For future reference Kevan never joins policy discussions, he leaves it up to users. He'll probly just say something like "I trust you guys to figure it out". --Zaruthustra-Mod 19:22, 22 April 2006 (BST)
  • I included him just to make sure all the bases were covered. I posted the message to to all the MODs I have seen active in the last couple of months, and I sure don't want to come across as stepping on anyones toes. Conndraka 19:25, 22 April 2006 (BST)

---

Harassment

For all the alleged abuse of power, moderators don't really have much. No policies against trolling or harassment exist (despite amazings protestations), or we could have acted on this before. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:41, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Being a neutral party on the Amazing issue, and attempting to make worthwhile contributions to the wiki (with my comments on suggestions and discussion of issues on the talk page), I'd be more than happy to be on any sort of 'user council' to sit down with mods to write up a harassment policy and clearly define what is and is not harassment. -Wyndallin 03:49, 23 April 2006 (BST)

I'd also volunteer for such a 'council'. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 03:51, 23 April 2006 (BST)

We're currently working on the proposal about harassment, Zar, and we're wondering if you'd do us the honour of providing us with your own, personal definition. -Wyndallin 05:06, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Can we quote you on that? -Wyndallin 05:43, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Hey Zaru. Check out the finished draft here. Leave your feedback on either his talk page or mine. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 13:32, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Contradictory Instructions

Here, it says "Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote." But in the next section, it says, "Only moderators may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the moderator that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a moderator may remove a strikeout." So, obviously, a regular user isn't allowed to strike out a vote with no reasoning behind it. Seems silly to me. What do you think? -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 20:51, 25 April 2006 (BST)

With Regards To Vandal Banning Discussion

I was about to go screamingly off-topic with something I had a question about, specifically relating to your opinion about the moderator position and why I believe it is incorrect. You said, and I paraphrase, that "In short, a Moderator is to be treated as a normal user, with all the rights and responsibilities therein." I personally disagree.

A Moderator has abilities and implied authority that goes beyond the normal scope of user-dom. The tools given to them are far more (potentionally) disruptive then, say, blanking a wiki page or using unwarrented crude language: the ability to not only clear a page but also make it unlikely to be replaced through the deletion key; the ability to not only stifle discussion by invalidating another users talk through your edits but to ban the user from the wiki itself.

Because of the fearsome ability of these tools it should be understood that a moderator has imposed upon him a mantle of trust; his election by the community is an expression of the community's attitudes and prejudices itself moreso than the personallity of the user promoted.

Therefore, it is because of this title and prestidge that is given to him that a moderator should become MORE than a simple user, as he is, to quote myself, an expression of the wiki community at large. A moderator should not be considered passive or passionate- only correct, every single time he decides to speak and every time he decides not to speak. If a moderator becomes such an errant, inefficeint force as to disrupt the discussion, that moderator deligitimizes not only the moderation team but the wiki itself.

So I ask that you not only sharpen your skills as a moderator but to change the philosphy in which you hold yourself. It is one thing to be given power and use it; it is another to deserve it.

Thank you for reading, Karlsbad 08:41, 1 May 2006 (BST)

(Discussion reposted to the originating page-Kb)

Well, its not really my opinion, its the guidelines. Moderation simply implies trust and not authority, and is usually handed out to anybody on a wiki who wants it and has a consistent record of not being an idiot. That’s why mods can do virtually nothing unilaterally. All our powers go through votes first or at have to be posted up for transparency. So we aren't actually doing things, the community is, in theory we're only supposed to be tools. Unlike wikipedia we ended up going halfway, so users are more and more frequently looking to the mods to act as god-kings and police their behavior. This is, in my opinion, a bad thing. --Zaruthustra-Mod 09:01, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Well, as a wiki is in a constant and ever-shifting flux of quantum web-physics, I don't think that we should hold the past methods as the be-all-end-all state of being. And furthermore, the current state is that a vote of a moderator is respected, as it should be, as they are supported by the wiki-community. The lack of an opaque ivory tower of mod-dom is not what I want changed; I simply would rather there be a state of responsibility and acceptance its meaning; a "thin line-break" of common sense and common decency that is taken up by those who have above the common amount of self control and judgement. And as long as a vote by a moderator has, in effect, more implied weight than a user with no edits to their name, I will continue to argue my position. --Karlsbad 09:08, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Mods have a responsibility not to abuse their powers and thats it. Their behavior is almost always a moot point. In Grim's case I think he was out of line since he was basically threatening to use mod powers even if he didn't, but he was just trying to uphold the law of the wiki as he sees it. Thats why we discuss. His being coarse and rather vulgur doesn't have much to do with it. We knew that when we elected him, he never really promised he'd change in that regard. It hasn't effected his modship, although he does seem to be teetering on the edge of a precipace sometimes. I just brought it up because some-people-who-shall-remain-nameless love to scream harassment whenever they don't get along with people, mods especially. The only time mod behavior can be cited is when they used their power in bad faith, or are trying to use the threat of mod power to stop other people from making their will manifest. Other than that ya just have to ignore them or get along. --Zaruthustra-Mod 09:19, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Of course, but the moderation actions are commonly only credibly challanged or supported in response to wiki users that have a history of valid opinions, most usually the moderation staff. Look how long the "Ban Amazing" petition langished in a state of vapid and venomous lack of veracity until someone called Mia on it¹. And ofcourse, because of the nature of the moderation vouching process, it should be understood that the moderation staff should be the MOST valid opinions on a subject, because they are understood to have the most trust of the wiki. Without that, there is no reason to be given powers, as their experience in using them gives them the most insight about them, and therefore their voice should cut through the din of wiki detrius naturally. It is only when it seems that the detrius seems to be spewing from the mouths of moderation when I begin to doubt the nature of the current state. --Karlsbad 09:34, 1 May 2006 (BST)
¹Yes, I'm using an example of myself. I, strangly enough, happen to believe that it is a correct use of the power of words and seems to be a pertinent, considering the ultimate effects.

Thing is, Karlsbad, I don't want to be part of a ruling aristocracy. That way lies major issues. Try reading Meatball's treatment of the subject for why I think this is a bad thing. Any form of internet aristocracy does a few interesting things, and the most important one, I think, is that disempowering users by actively supporting an aristocracy of power makes users far less likely to actually take the mantle of maintaining the community. It's considered that since they don't have the power, then they have none of the responsibility.

See, what I'd like to foster on this wiki is an attitude of responsibility and power among all users. It's a simple thing - all users have most of the abilities required to maintain the wiki, as such, wiki users should be maintaining the wiki. What the Moderators have is merely a slightly improved set of abilities, and even then, we try to ensure that users do have access to Moderator abilities, through the Moderator services pages. It's indirect, but probably the best we can do based on what's really feasible. But the idea is to ensure that users are empowered, and once they're empowered, to encourage them to help make a better wiki.

User:Odd Starter/On Moderation, Drama and Harassment is a page with an essay of my thoughts on this subject, if you're interested. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 14:30, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I like the article, and I find that I agree with most of the basic concepts; The nature of a wiki is to provide power to every user, moderators are but the First Citizens of the wiki, etc etc basic reading comprehension. It is imposible under the current, working system that I agree with to treat Moderators as completely seperate and powerful beings, as their are multiple layers of checks and balances. It is more that I ask that moderators act as if possess something worth having. It is one thing to know that Great Power Comes Great Responsibility, it is another to act like you Deserve either of them. You say in your article that the moderation cadre is "...regular users, just like you, but with a few abilities that we're expected to use for the good of the wiki. Or, at least, we should be."
And I am not saying that moderators should be perfect, but that they should be deserving of the respect moderation naturally entails. A moderator's vote will always remain a strong force on decisions that are important to the wiki, as it is understood that he has been entrusted by the admin (Kevan) with his important powers because of the user's personal ability. A moderator should not act as this gives him more ability than others; the position should only ask that, especially when dealing with people-we-prefer-not-to-name, that they do not act like somehow they are not supposed to be moderators at that momement. I would prefer that a moderator decide to speak without nasty discourse, but even without that, I would prefer that a moderator would act like he deserves to be trusted as often as possible.
--Karlsbad 19:55, 1 May 2006 (BST)