User talk:Islander/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

The Scott Mills Show Peer Review

Hi.

Could you please take a moment to review The Scott Mills Show. I have been working on it for quite a bit and just need someone to review it and give their opinions.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this entirely 'cause of some trouble with another user retracting comments on this page. I certainly will, but not tonight - I'm dropping :P. First thing tomorrow (read: sometime tomorrow afternoon), definitely ;). _TalkIslander 23:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Here's my problem though. I know about the subject quite well but I'm not too good at making any of the stuff read well. Would you be able to help out, please? --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've added more references for The Scott Mills Show and expanded the lead. Still needs a copyedit though. TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly try and take a look at some point, but I'm fairly busy... can't see it being before the weekend... _TalkIslander 08:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Foot

Sorry, I realize I should have written it out in the summary, but there is a certain pagemove vandal (actually an organized group of people) that lately has been focusing on moving body parts). Since foot is unlikely to ever need to be moved, I figured I'd cut them off at the pass. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: AFD close

Hi! Yes, I'm sure you exist in some form or another; however, you haven't been covered by multiple sources. :P Anyway, the editor who filed the AFD did so on the basis of it not being made yet, when (thanks to the sources so graciously provided by yourself) we have established that the ride does in fact exist. That invalidates the whole deletion argument. As for the 'promotional billboard' claim, I saw no signs of advertising and nobody else brought any concerns up so I just used my discretion on that one. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 08:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

vandalism on the LHC page

Hi, do you think that the current level of vandalism on the LHC page warrants semi-protection? Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, missed that. Semi-protected for two weeks ;). _TalkIslander 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought such requests had to go though the Wikipedia:RFPP. Correct me if I am wrong. 78.148.117.175 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong :). WP:RFPP is the standard channel down which to go, but any sysop can protect an article if it needs it, and is within policy, without going through that process. _TalkIslander 19:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe...

Maybe you should get your facts right, and cite where and how I am using personal attacks instead of just using default templates. I don't really get what you're saying. Thanks! 78.148.117.175 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That default template was the closest applicable template I could find. You may want to take a look at WP:SOCK as well, specifically WP:GHBH, as it's quite clear that you're abnormally 'clued up' on the foibles of Wikipedia, which would suggest (nothing more) that you're an established user who is logging out to make these edit comments. _TalkIslander 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

John E. Pike again

hi islander, i'm back, check out the bio. the washington post piece tends to go to notability, anyone who gets compared to Edwin Land is notable to me, but i went overboard on the press clippings to make the point very clear. cheers Pohick2 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

iPod touch

What? Sorry but you don't think swapping out a section of content for the words "fagg... bitch" is vandalism? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

rollback request

Hi. Could you give me rollback? I like fighting vandals (I find it meditative). It would really increase my vandal fighting efficiency. Thanks --Bucephalus (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you have asked four admins at once is enough for me to back off, and question why you're in such a rush to get it. For that reason, I'm not confident enough to give you rollback. I'll leave the other admins to make up their own minds. _TalkIslander 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Oh how I miss Strange Days. :( »—Mikay—talk—contribs→ 18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

CSDs

If you have the time, please see User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive8#Joy_Castro and User_talk:Gwen_Gale#RE:_Joy_Castro and let me know what you think, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but the following deletion summary is not appropriate:

"A7, and A3 also highly relevant here. Discussion on Gwen Gale's talk page fizzled out over a week ago *without* consensus - don't wait until the deleting admin isn't watching and then act against them behind their back, please"[1]

As you well know, I notified Gwen of this action (you know this because she sent you the link above) so please do not claim that I did this behind her back. As for consensus, there does not need to be agreement before an admin action is reversed, there only needs to be consultation. You have failed to consult me here before reversing my action, whereas you can see I discussed this extensively with Gwen (we didn't agree, but that is a different issue). I have raised very valid concerns regarding whether these fall under A7, and speedy deletions should only occur if it is not contentious. Please undelete these articles. TigerShark (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

TigarShark, you have wheel warred and had no consensus for your actions, which is very highly untowards. Islander, I didn't mean to drag you into anything, please feel free to do as you like, which might be nothing at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would really ask you to be careful about your use of words. Accusing me of wheel warring is not productive, when I consulted you extensively. If I had just reverted you, then yes that would have been wheel warring. TigerShark (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You have wheel warred, which is not allowed. Please revert your actions now. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, you obviously are not going to stop accusing me of wheel warring so, just out of interest, how would you describe Islander's redeletion of the articles (done without any discussion - just the deletion summaries)? TigerShark (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to talk about until you revert your actions. This is my last post on Islander's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you can't impose restrictions or pre-conditions on when you are prepared to discuss these issues. If you say that my actions were wheel warring, then how do you classify Islander's? TigerShark (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, should have known that I'd come back and find an entire debate on my talk page. TigerShark: first, check out all the timestamps of the relevant actions - when you do, you'll see that I re-deleted the relevant articles before this thread on my talk page even existed, so although I checked your log, and Gwen's talk page archive, I made the unfortunate error of somehow missing your most recent thread on Gwen's current talk page. Secondly, I don't think you're wheel-warring, yet. Nor am I: my edits were just reverting back to the last version that was only disagreed with by you. Think of it in terms of common-or-garden edit warring: one editor (the original editor who proposed the speedy deletion) proposes something, a second editor (Gwen) agrees. You disagree and revert, but then a third editor (me) points out that you lack consensus, and re-reverts. The third editor is clearly not edit-warring. Now, at this moment in time, neither are you, but if you continue to revert, you are, except of course we're talking about admin actions, so edit-warring becomes wheel-warring. Bottom line: please don't recreate these articles again, because at least two admins agree on their current status. If you disagree, go through WP:DRV - the standard channel that you should have gone down from the start. _TalkIslander 22:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You were aware of the original discussion on Gwen's talk page, because both you and I referenced it in our edit summaries. You took it upon yourself to revert my actions without discussion, and the only notification being the deletion summary. Why do you consider that because you are a third party to the original discussion that your actions were not wheel warring? TigerShark (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No doubt you have read the original discussion, including the question of whether we should go to AFD or DRV. Rather than telling me to go to DRV, perhaps you can give your input on why we should do that rather than AFD. Please also clarify why my concerns do not mean that we should err on the side of caution and not speedy these articles, regardless of whether there are two of you and one of me. TigerShark (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[2] TigerShark (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated. _TalkIslander 15:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

LHC article under constant attack

Hi,

could you please have another look at the history of the LHC article? I think it needs protection again. Thanks, Ptrslv72 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, though the level of vandalism isn't great right now, I don't think we're yet back to a level that warrents protection. Close, though, and I'll keep a careful eye on it, ready to protect if it gets any worse ;). _TalkIslander 09:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the vandalism has slowed down a bit in the last couple of days. We've had much more activity last week. To tell the truth, this article and "Safety of LHC" are the only ones that I keep an eye on, therefore I don't really know what is to be considered an acceptable level of vandalism. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, zero vandalism is an acceptable level of vandalism - we're more looking for tolerable levels of vandalism :P. I've got my eye on both of those articles :). _TalkIslander 23:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editnotice

Just create a new user talk subpage at User talk:Islander/Editnotice, and that's it. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 23:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops!

Ahh, you're right about the Snicket siblings move...I must've been having an off day! Artichoke-Boy (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Islander. I just wanted to say thanks for the improvement that you made to the wording of the "Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)" article and also a BIG THANKS for having fun with the edit summary. Your wording was better and I wish I had thought of it when I was taking out the anon IP's wording. On top of that you edit summary took the wording of the one that I had used in an attempt to have a little fun and kept that levity going. Wikidrama happens so often that it sometimes feels like the "Have fun" idea that we get in our "welcome to wikipedia message" has disappeared so thanks again on both counts. Cheers and continued happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

A Wiki colleague of mine has suggested I apply for Wikipedia:Rollback. Whilst chasing vandals is not a hobby of mine, I do regularly revert rubbish I come across, particularly on my watchlist pages. I believe this facility will quicken this process for me - so would be obliged if you could consider me. I have around three years experience on Wiki, and I think I have amassed around 13,000 edits (probably some better than others) mainly in the many realms of pop / rock music. Many thanks, and no offence if you do not think I am suitable !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why not :). Your edit history (as far as I've looked) seems sound, you've certainly got the experience - rollback granted. Be sure to read through WP:ROLLBACK, and use the tool responsibly. _TalkIslander 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blanking one's own talk pages is not vandalism

WP talk page guidelines clearly state: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users." So please stop harassing the dynamic IP 12.76.xx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.143 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please watch which terms you use - I'm harassing no one. That aside, I appologise - I've clearly made a mistake here, and for that I'm sorry. I'm getting to grips with a new editing tool, and that's clearly caused me some problems. _TalkIslander 20:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyme

I'm taking it on myself to find out what exactly is going on with Everyme. I've worked with him quite well in the past year or so (mostly as Dorftrottel prior to a rename), and he and I seem to "get" each other. I'm not surprised by a block on his log, (neither is he I surmise), but I must admit, I'm extremely surprised that the block is indefinite. I'd like to act as a mediator betwix you, MBisanz, everyme, and whomever else wants to jump in, but I'd like to do it away from the drama boards that seem to merely stir up irreleverent (that's a combo of irrelevent and irreverent) shit. I'm kind of in the dark with the whole thing, I've been on break for the better part of the last two months, but I can commit to at least checking in and seeing if there is a reasonable way that E-me can go back about his business, dignity intact, as well as e-one else doing the same. From my early perusal into the situation, it seems like things got out of control from both sides. Any willingness to begin a discussion amongst long-time editors? My goal is to see Everyme unblocked. Keeper ǀ 76 03:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

With you as a mediator, I am very happy to discuss this issue with you, MBisanz and Everyme. _TalkIslander 09:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that you aren't watching, but I just posted a proposal at User talk:Everyme. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 02:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A very acceptable proposal. I do think User:Ryulong should be made aware with a chance for comments if he wished, as he placed a 3 month block before your indef. Though I believe he would accept as well. Grsz¹¹ 16:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Myst Online: Uru Live

Perhaps if you actually looked at my edits, you would see that I was removing duplicate information. It's nice of you to invoke WP:BRD after you revert to your revision; it's also nice of you to once again stand in the way of constructive edits even after I'm playing your game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

An IP you blocked earlier

FYI, I noticed you blocked Special:Contributions/68.156.159.10 a week ago for spamming a link to a book. They are back at it again—with the same link on other articles. I've reverted, but that's about all I can do. Priyanath ^talk 16:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

this revert: my edits implemented ParserFunctions to only display the CSD criteria relevant to the particular namespace were displayed, so if they had functioned correctly the article criteria would, for instance, only be visible in the mainspace. Did you revert because this didn't work? If so, can you describe where/how the errors occurred? If not, don't you think it would be a good idea to hide invalid options like this? Happy‑melon 19:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, i see what you're trying to do now at least. I don't think it worked, otherwise I wouldn't have resorted to reverting the deletereason-dropdown page: I wanted to delete Talk:Wham Island cinemas per CSD G8, but didn't see the option available. If I made a mistake, please feel free to revert my revert, though out of curiosity, what is the problem with having the full list all the time? I actually found it quite useful - always getting the same options makes it easier to learn what's where. If particular admins are using invalid criteria, surely they should be 'dealt with' separately? Just my 2p ;). _TalkIslander 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just restored the new dropdown and recreated/redeleted the article, and G8 was right there in front of me; it's actually (being one of the "general" criteria) the only options that are always available. Maybe you had a corrupt cache or something? I have previously tried to add the whole list but been reverted; they made the point that having a full list of all 40-some criteria produced an excessively long dropdown list, which I suppose is a legitimate concern. So the previous list actually wasn't a "complete" list, just a set of the more popular options. Happy‑melon 21:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Playdays

From the BBC Catalogue (ID LCHX052A): "Today the playbus stops at Four Elms,Kent where Sam Patch meets a spider,a snail & a frog.Story 'King Greenfingers-The Lost Crown',told by Derek GRIFFITHS." Another example "Playbus stops today at the Patch Stop at Scotlandwell,Tayside where Sam Patch meets some lambs & helps to make a wormery." (ID LCHX039B). Majorly ^talk 01:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you point to a link? The BBC catalogue has been offline for many months, and still is judging by my two links... That aside, that text doesn't state anything about 'Sam Patch' being a puppet, and not, say, an actor. It still concerns me somewhat that while "Playdays" returns ~72,000 Google hits, "Playdays Peggy" ~1,000 and "Playdays "Peggy Patch"" ~500, "Playdays "Sam Patch"" returns nothing. I know Google isn't the be-all-and-end-all, but it's good for a rough indication... Thanks for getting in touch, though :) _TalkIslander 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, many of the "Playdays" hits were toy shops :P. "Playdays BBC" returns ~33,000 hits, though... _TalkIslander 02:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no public sites. I'm using the BBC Motion Gallery site, which requires registration. I know it's unreliable, but see this post on digital spy. I doubt they'd make it up. Majorly ^talk 08:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, well that digital spy post is better than nothing. Although it's not a reliable source, it should probably be used as a reference, along with the BBC Catalogue (and a note that it's not publically available) untill and unless something better can be found. _TalkIslander 12:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris Dane Owens

Wow, on the Chris Dane Owens page, you reverted to a correct copy - how did you know that the page hadn't been written by Owens himself (I know for a fact that it wasn't), but I was impressed. And thanks! --Interdigital (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that it hadn't - all I knew was that a disclaimer wasn't appropriate. _TalkIslander 15:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'thanks', though ;) _TalkIslander 15:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Template protections

I take it you are not familiar with the Nazi grudge vandal that has been discussed at AN and AN/I for the past week? When he bounces to a new open proxy, he often enjoys going back and re-vandalizing the same templates he hit from previous IPs. Hense why J.delanoy and I protected all six of the templates he hit this time. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The AN/I threads get archived pretty quickly once they are tagged {{resolved}}, however if you search for "nazi" on AN, you will find a treasure trove of messages from highly confused people. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who (revival)

I mean there is lots of information on the main page and its hard to find things on the revived series as it is slipped in here and there. This article is ONLY on the revived series. Also you should try to see the potential of this article as it will create a faster way of people finding what they need on it or even just to see whats going on with the 'current series not just the classic. Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

and since I blocked account creation on the IP address, what a surprise! No more SPA's. perhaps it's past their bedtime? --Rodhullandemu 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was fun. Nice to see a whole farm of socks on an outing... so much for the snow closure :P. _TalkIslander 00:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Recordings of The IT Crowd

Why did you say it was illegal for that person to have recorded a TV show for his own viewing and wasn't intending to distribute it (from the IT Crowd talk page). Looks like you need to swot up on this kind of thing. I guess you also think it's illegal to have DVR or VCR's, amirite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.11.109 (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I misread the initial post - I thought that Audacitor was offering to distribute them, which would have been illegal. _TalkIslander 13:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to your concerns

I have responded at length to your concerns at my talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Everyme

I am notifying you of the above as it concerns an editor you had blocked who seems to be yet again evading a block by using at least two IPs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Islander,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested Editor Assistance

I've requested assistance on dealing with external links on the audience response topic. Links to Polleverywhere.com and votepedia.com are spam. We both know they can not be justified.

Longcall911 (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)longcall911

Propused deletion?

Can you explain why you have added this tag to three articles i created? i posted on talk 6 months ago about people opnion no one responded, the article itself was confusing the way it was because ther eis two version of the same show but are slightly different to each other, also the episode liss where making the article become large so i serpate them out to there own pages.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well why didn't you add a split template to the article? Very few people are going to keep an eye on the talk page of a TV series like that, but more people would see the split template. You've kinda answered your own question as to why they shouldn't be split, anyhow: "ther eis two version of the same show" - yes, it's the same show, and the differences definitely don't warrent their own articles. Neither do the episode lists - they're not notable enough for their own articles, and can happily sit where they are. They look big because information is seriously lacking in the rest of the article. All that aside, you didn't even move the articles to correct headings, per the manual of style. _TalkIslander 12:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyme

Hey Islander, I didn't mean to leave you out of the loop - I went to DGG's talkpage because he had asked me a question regarding everyme on my talkpage and I completely neglected to bring your attention to it as protecting admin. It was an honest oversight. I researched the situation abit, and after this discussion, it seems that lifting the sysop page protection of User talk:Everyme might be the route to go at this time. (not lifting the indef block, just giving Everyme the ability to edit his talkpage in the event that he'd like to request an unblock in the near or distant future. If you have a minute, take a read through the discussion on DGG's talk and let me know what you think? I'm honestly not sure why I keep on "defending" Everyme, except I know him to be a valuable contributor though gruff around the edges. In advance I thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Keeper | 76 03:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't have a huge amount of free time at the moment. Glancing over the discussion, I don't object to unprotecting the page, so long as we get some sort of assurance from Everyme that he won't do it again. Feel free to unprotect it, but please keep an eye on the page and the situation, and seriously, could we have no more second chances? _TalkIslander 11:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: List of BBC children's television programmes

Don't know if you're still watching List of BBC children's television programmes, but have just noticed our anon IP friend 24.190.152.194, who usually deletes the same CBBC programme links & adds the usual non-CBBC links, returned on 3rd December 2008. I noticed you had blocked that IP for 24hrs back in September and things quietened down a bit. (Although that might have had something to do with protecting the page.) I'm hoping (probably misguidedly) that these edits ([3], [4], [5], [6]) were an isolated case and I've since reverted them. I was tempted to add a warning on the IP's talk page, but it hasn't done any good in the past and probably might just encourage more of the same behaviour. Cheers! Snowy 1973 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. I'll keep an eye on it. _TalkIslander 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why delete my page

You really had to spoil my page. that's a big insult I demand you to create all of the pages on Outnumbered that I wrote. That took alot of effort. Put them back now!--Ratzo (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of effort? Don't make me laugh. _TalkIslander 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

template blanking

A total mistake - I thought I was deleting a mistaken edit to a different article. Not sure how it happened and if you haven't fixed it yet I will! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking - with me, craziness is always a possibility ;) Anyway, thanks for fixing my goof. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)