User talk:Islander/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 4 |

Archive 5

| Archive 6 →

Deletion of PublicAffairs

Couldn't you have at least opened a discussion so the pros and cons could be weighed? I created that article because another editor wanted it created to include on a disambig page. The article was linked to from two other articles, if I remember right. Seems a bit arrogant that you just delete work someone else has done in a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia. --RenniePet (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, which states "Criteria for speedy deletion specify the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion". In particular read A7: "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". This article, as I stated in my deletion comment, was about a company, yet the article didn't indicate in any way why the subject was important or significant. _Talk Islander 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, I had read all that before I posted the above. What I'm saying is that your doing it that way is not conducive to anyone's desire to improve Wikipedia. I put a certain amount of work into creating that article. If I had been informed directly or indirectly that it wasn't good enough I would probably have tried to improve it. Instead I just accidently discover that it's been deleted without any warning. How would you feel in that situation? --RenniePet (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd feel irritated, as I did when my first article was deleted 'cause it didn't meet CSDA7. However, the policies are clearly laid out. It is normal, when an article is nominated for CSD (which, incidently, yours was - I only found it because another editor nominated it for speedy), for the original author to be notified. I am sorry that you weren't in this case, but unfortunatly notification is not a necessity for speedy deletion. Regarding your question about conductivity; have you ever looked at Special:Newpages? The ammount of rubbish that falls into that list is scary. For every potentially good article, there are 100 articles that are either pure vandalism, advertising, or articles about people/groups/companies that just aren't notable. I'm sorry, but if you wish your article to 'live', ensure that it is fully referenced before you upload it. Regards, _Talk Islander 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One last try - is it possible to get the article undeleted if I promise to expand the article during the next couple of days? Then it can be evaluated again.

PublicAffairs Books has published over 200 books. Among the authors are Chris Hedges, George Soros, Wesley Clark, Kenneth Starr and Boris Yeltsin. This is not some little fly-by-night vanity press. See here: http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/prevpub.html --RenniePet (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the entire text of the article, just before deletion:

'''PublicAffairs''' (or PublicAffairs Books) is a small American book publisher located in New York City. From their web site:

:"PublicAffairs proudly publishes books by today’s top journalists, historians, and policymakers, in the fields of current affairs, politics, history, and biography."

PublicAffairs is a member of the Perseus Books Group.


==External links==
* [http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/ Company web site]

[[Category:Book publishing companies of the United States]]
{{publish-company-stub}}

There you go. I'd suggest you develop it in your userspace before starting it again, at which point it can be created without reason to speedy delete :). _Talk Islander 02:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --RenniePet (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've recreated the page. Hope it's OK this time. --RenniePet (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Much, much better. See, that article now asserts it's importance - it has some impressive claims, which, importantly, are backed up by sources, so it definitely no longer qualifies for speedy deletion. If you have any other questions/requests etc., please feel free to ask :). _Talk Islander 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

CITV Channel

Sorry about sending it and not previewing it first, I'll remember next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onshore (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

THORPE PARK

Resolved. Have discussed this matter privately with both users involved. Users now seem to understand what they were doing wrong. _Talk Islander 23:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

THORPE PARK is the new name for Thorpe Park. The new name has been confirmed at www.thorpepark.co.uk and in the marketing area.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.21.14 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The website confirms nothing of the sort. Please re-check your facts, and stop with the disruptive editing. _Talk Islander 00:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bloody page at ThorpePARK website! THORPE PARK is the new name! Find me one place on the site where it is called Thorpe Park, instead of THORPE PARK. New logo is here, capatilized : http://cdn.lastminute.com/dbimagecache/335581730.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.21.14 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. The website's title doesn't count, as websites often have titles in all caps. The logo a) is not a good reference, as logo's are often stylised, and b) has dropped caps anyway, so doesn't really show full caps like you're saying. Take a look at the press room - all mentions of Thorpe Park are with standard capitalisation. Case closed. _Talk Islander 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey just reading that page, THORPE PARK has changed for example: Download the THORPE PARK Map Get the latest THORPE PARK news and offers to your inbox Want to tell someone about THORPE PARK? Send this site onto them

Also including on other sister websites like the annual pass site:

Alton Towers ResortFrom 9th to 24th February or from 15th March
Madame TussaudsFrom 9th February
Warwick CastleFrom 9th February
THORPE PARKFrom 16th February
London EyeFrom 16th February
Chessington World of Adventures & ZooFrom 10th March 11-3pm (park opens 15th Mar)
LEGOLAND® Windsor

Thanks to whoever did that :)

That's just the design of the website - it highlight's the name of the park. Equally, in your list above Legoland Windsor is in caps, but the name of the park uses standard capitalisation. _Talk Islander 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I work for the park, this information is true, all promotion forms from "THORPE PARK" and from Chessington have THORPE PARK capitalised, the TP name is changed to THORPE PARK on all promotional material, website and internal forms and documents, inclduing mine and other contracts.

There was no need to warn me, I didn't attack you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.21.14 (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Next person (sexy boy) Accept it mate, your wrong. Leave it to the professionals next time!" - that's what your warning's for. As for working for the park, a) you can't actually proove that, but more importantly b) even if you could, it's irrelevant. Whilst the press office continue to refer to it as Thorpe Park, Thorpe Park it is. Regardless to all that, even if the park had decided to place 'THORPE PARK' on all promo material, the article would still refer to 'Thorpe Park', as per the Manual of Style: "Only the first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case". _Talk Islander 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No offence or anything but your arguing with people who work/visit the place very regularly, sorry but they are right and i dont see why your arguing against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.18.210 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll find that the edited THORPE PARK logo is actually the new one displayed on the webite, 365tickets.co.uk, and lastminute.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 February 2008

I know. I had to revert your edit to include it to revert the edits to capitalise the name - I was in the process of replacing your version when you wrongly moved the page to 'THORPE PARK'. Please see MOS:TM, specifically the section that states "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":". _Talk Islander 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Add me on msn then; dj_ego[at]infing[dot]co[dot]uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't add random people to my MSN. Please discuss this issue right here, on my talk page, on the Thorpe Park talk page, or on your talk page. Also, please learn to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. _Talk Islander 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That shows that you are obviously hiding something. And no, i don't want to sign my name with three tildes, ebcuase if I do i look like a retard, and there is no need to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, it shows that I don't hand out my contact details to people I randomly meet on the net. Most would call that sensible, but hey ho. As for the four tidles, you're right, you donb't have to do it - just means that sinebot will do it for you ;). _Talk Islander 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is perhaps against my better judgement, but I've added you to an old MSN adress of mine that I'd forgotten about, and no longer use (until tonight). I've done that for one reason, mainly - I don;t want you to be blocked. I suspect that the IPs I've already blocked are yours, but I would hate to block your user account, 'cause taking a look over at thorpeparkmania shows me that you're actually a reasonable chap, and not the brash fool that you're coming across as on Wiki. Either discuss it with me over MSN, on this talk page, on your talk page, on the Thorpe Park talk page, or via email (click 'Email this user', in the toolbox on the left of the screen). Five ways in which to contact me and sort this out - don't continue reverting :/. _Talk Islander 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Very very very very very very late but..... well done on getting the mop! I've been looking through your userpage history, and I appreciate your mention of my situation, little things like that make you love this place a little more. :) Regards, Rudget . 15:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been meaning to thank you for co-noming me, but completely forgot, so here's an equally belated thank you :P. It was a lovely co-nom, and I really am very grateful. I am also very, very glad that you returned to the project - Wikipedia needs more editors like you ;). Catch ya 'round! _Talk Islander 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross Posting and Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities

Thank you for your message.

I made 5 posts, not all the same, but with the purpose of trying to get a bit of interest in the project with people that are not from the USA. Interestingly, only 1 has decided to contribute anything, and that was on the guidelines as a whole. There was no malice of intent to

I think you're taking things a bit too seriously here. I'm interested in the guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities to be fair and representative of all different further education systems. I freely admit, that in my opinion the guidelines as written are biased to the American model of further education, and fail to meet the needs of the other systems.

I also freely admit, that my interest in the project was initially stirred by the mass-marking of students' union and student activities articles for deletion, due to the very strict application of the then draft, and still not finalised guidelines, most of which were done by yourself between 3-9 December 2007.

I'm gonna post this on the talk page as well. Feel free to message me about this or Physics, something we to appear to have in common. TorstenGuise (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I accept that there was no malice involved in it, and on the face of it what you did was fine, i.e. letting people know that this debate was going on. However, take a look at WP:CANVASS - for such an act not to be canvassing, the messages have to be neutral. A message stating "Such-and-such a discussion is taking place over here, I'd appreciate your input" is fine; a message stating "Such-and-such a discussion is going on here, I think this is a really good/bad idea, and wonder if you'd see if you agree" is canvassing. You're pre-tainting a persons view, before they've even taken a look at the debate, and that's wrong, and that's what the guideline tries to guard against. I'm sorry if you don't think it's a serious matter, but to be frank when deducing community concensus, it is. I hope you see where I'm coming from. I'll reply on the Wikiproject page in due course. Again, thanks for your reply ;). _Talk Islander 21:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

I'm having a lot of trouble decrypting your recent message. Is there a code I'm missing? Some hidden motive? --Pete (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Still having trouble understanding. I highlighted a phrase you mightnot have noticed. As for preferences, pfffht! Most Wikipedia users are readers, with no accounts, no user names and certainly no preferences. --Pete (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardly pointless. We're writing this thing for our many readers, not the few editors, surely? As for civility, you're the one wasting my time telling me stuff I already know. That's why I wondered if nthere was some subtext. Apparently not. See WP:DATE. --Pete (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale template on Image:BBC Three in box.png

I feel that there was a need for the additional of this logo for BBC Three to Wikipedia as I felt that the two logos were different. The main identity of BBC Three's logo is seen without the logo, however the logo appears on the bbc.co.uk network. There is also a difference as this logo is not seen a lot on television, where most of the channel's viewers are sourced.

If there is a reason why this template should not be removed before the date at which this image is scheduled to be removed then please reply to this message via this talk page.

Thank You

Mathieu Houz 20:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The logo you have uploaded is near-identical to the logo already in use, which is the channel's basic logo. Your logo is a variation of that, whereas the logo in use is the actual logo. Both cannot be used; this is against the fair use policy, thus the obvious choice is the original logo. Appologies for this response being so clumsy - it is near midnight, and I'm tired - if things still aren't clear, ask again, and I'll try and explain when I'm slightly more alert ;). Please don't remove the tags in the meantime. _Talk Islander 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I now understand why it has breached the fair use policy, but i am unsure still as to why it should be deleted. It is a logo that is a variant, but is also widely used by the owner of the domain, the BBC. Sorry to have troubled you at a repsonse so late in the evening, but i appreciate your concern. ALso, I was thinking of only deleting the tag as a last minute resort. Dankeschön
Mathieu Houz 19:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly if it breaches fair use, it has to be deleted, as it infringes copyright. Fair use allows a normally copyrighted picture to be uploaded, so if it doesn't qualify for fair use, it remains a copyright violation, and must be deleted. Sorry :(. As for posting late at night, don't worry - if it had irritated me, I wouldn't have replied ;). _Talk Islander 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I now understand the full matter, and I hope that I have not troubled you in this topic. I appreciate your concern, and I will take no further action. :)
Dankeschön
Mathieu Houz 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Self Storage - Edits reversed to image title

The image shown is of a building known as SpaceMax Storage on Zonolite Road in Atlanta. The image was taken without knowledge or permission, why is it that when I attempt to give the subtitle the correct and exact name, it causes a problem?

I can understand if I were editing the entire self storage section to seem to soap box the business, the "references" section at the bottom with DIRECT LINKS to their websites have more of an "advertising" effect than me changing the name of the picture to the reflect the CORRECT name of the facility shown.

All I desire to do is give the image the correct name to give credit to the facility itself, I have not attempted to add a direct link to the company website or any other information other than stating the correct name of the image's facility. RazorShard 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding the name of that company to the picture's caption is advertising - it's giving the company undue weight. There is no need to "give credit to the facility" - it's a building, plain and simple. By that logic, it's actually not particularly needed on that article, so if you object so much to it being used without "credit", remove it. _Talk Islander 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's idiocy. In no way does that logic reflect your comment, and my problem is not that the image is used, my problem is its deemed advertising to give it the correct title while the direct links to businesses at the bottom are not seen as advertising and allowed to be there. With "your" logic I can link thousands of items on that website which would bring them to any number of websites as long as I do not use the name of them on the site.

So while I can show images of things, the moment I label that thing as its name, it becomes a problem. Thus a picture of a prize winning goat is acceptable, but once I say 'owned by [insert name of insert state]' it becomes an issue? I'll leave the article itself untouched, but little did I know that trying to give credit to a place I store at and recognized would cause advertising problems when others have direct links, thus advertising, six inches below the page. RazorShard 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those links were pretty much advertising - they were being used as referenced for a non-notable fact. Didn't notice them, but the same applies to them, hence have removed them. As for "my logic", you seemed to have come to a great many more conclusions than I did - re-read what I posted. I said nothing about external links. You insist on using the term "give credit" - for what? Having their building photographed? It's not as if it's a copyrighted picture - if it were, it wouldn't be allowed. The author of the picture has released it on a public license, thus no 'credit' is needed. If you store with this company, or even work for them, you might want to take a look at the conflict of interest pages, as they'd apply here. _Talk Islander 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

probation

Hi Islander, thanks for your message. I am aware of the 'probation' mentioned in the template at the top of that page and the extensive discussions there - and elsewhere. As it happens, I have raised some concerns about that very template here after failing to find an appropriate forum. I have also questioned whether the article is 'reasonably related' and have chosen to follow the consensus reached by uninvolved editors, I linked this in the edit summary. Regards, cygnis insignis 17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that you added my name to a list, please remove it. Thank you. cygnis insignis 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is reasonably related, because there is edit warring regarding Homeopathy. As for the list, your name is on there purely to state that you have been informed of the probation - nothing more, nothing less. I won't remove it, but feel free to remove it yourself. Anyone who edits that page is automatically considered to be on notice, so won't matter that your name is removed. _Talk Islander 18:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Then that is what I will do. I notice one reverter is only on one side of the list, and another has already been warned - do you intend to act on that also? cygnis insignis 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're saying - I have added another reverted who should probably have been added, but am unsure as to who else you are refering to. If you think someone else should be made aware of the prohibition, go ahead and let them know. As for your edit summary, as I said, it's not a blacklist, merely a list showing who has been notified. _Talk Islander 18:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm getting a bit muddled by this business. The editor in question, in naming his/her opponents on that list can be said to be aware of the probation, so they do not need notifying. My edits were discussed on the talk page; inclusion in the article would seem to have reached another consensus, even by the reverters own criteria for inclusion. cygnis insignis 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole fiasco is getting a little beyond the joke now. The edit waring in that article has re-started, and I'll be protecting it again if it continues much more. _Talk Islander 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work here

Please note that the heading was dripping with sarcasm. There's no consensus when the anti-science POV warriors are incapable of understanding such wikipedia ideals such as WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY. I know you're an all-powerful and probably just this side of perfect admin. But maybe just maybe you could have spent a couple of nanoseconds wondering why there was no consensus? Maybe because a few anti-science POV warriors are disruptive? You couldn't possibly block them for a couple of days? Here's a fine suggestion: How about leading rather than relying on your vast powers as an admin? Is that so difficult? Have a fine day. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you for your kind and helpful comments ;). It strikes me that this battle consists of a number of different sides: you have those that are determined to include references to homeopathy, and how amazing it is - we can both agree that they're not in the right, and need to take a long had look at WP:NPOV. You have those, like yourself, who wish to ban every single mention of homeopathy from the article, no matter how neutral and well sourced it is - I'm of the opinion that they're possibly not much better than the first category. Finally, you have those that wish to include a single glancing comment on the subject, that is both neutral and well referenced - personally, I think they're heading along the right lines. You state that there are some disruptive anti-science POV warriors - agreed. However, with all due respect, your behaviour is just as disruptive, and you're in no less of a position for banning than they are. Before you taint me with the anti-science brush, bear in mind that I'm a student studying Physics. Now, just over an hour ago I received an email from a very disgruntled editor who's on the verge of leaving Wiki for good. (S)he is of the opinion that homeopathy is completely quack. However, (s)he realises that a neutral, glancing comment that's well referenced would probably be a good idea. However, the disruption and animosity caused from this whole situation has practically driven him/her away. That is what I want to avoid most of all. (if this user is reading this, I will reply in time). You're right, those on the talk page are right, consensus likely won't be reached, not so long as editors like yourself are unwilling to compromise. That's a huge shame. That doesn't mean the article shouldn't be protected - edit warring is disruptive, and won't be tollerated. _Talk Islander 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See this edit from OrangeMarlin [1]. He has removed a significant portion of an article detailing various medicinal uses of rue claiming that no sources support this use. Here are a few sources [2], see the extensive references. He has also added a claim taken from an article on homeopathy impact on morphine intake following knee surgery [3] and extended that claim to all the other uses listed in the rue article, even though it is clear from the rue article (and the drugs.com source) that many of these uses are not homeopathic uses at all. One humorous aspect of this is that we can now consider the notion of a placebo insect repellent! 200.133.15.2 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback & Patrol

Hi Islander,

I am writing to ask if it would be possible to get hold of the rollback and patrol tools here on Wikipedia. I use the tools extensively on the English Wikibooks where I am an administrator under the name Reece (something which can be verified if necessary). I keep reaching for these buttons but they are not available for me here. What do you think? Would it be possible for me to get hold of these tools?

Regards

Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Urbane, thanks for your request. Looking at your contributions, you're actually not that active on Wikipedia, and looking at what contributions you have, I don't really see a particular need for you to have the tools. It's not like you've been reverting manually a lot. Sorry :(. Do feel free to ask again in the future if you think circumstances change ;) _Talk Islander 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Thanks anyway :) Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 20:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I have rollback rights?

Hey Islander can I have rollback rights? please reply on my talk page--Markreidyhp (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Looking through your contributions, you have no particular need for them right now - you're not really doing any reverting. Also, your user talk page worries me somewhat. _Talk Islander 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

I am trying to prevent Annomoos pushing a POV i have raised the issues on admins boards and asked for and RFC but no one has been willing to get involved, so its left to me to try and revert his constant pov pushing if you review the edits on the page and the talk page (prior to me being locked out) then you may have been aware of this rather than just blindly reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.105.60 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2008

I was removing unsourced POV statement, if you examine the edit history, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.105.60 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008

You're actually adding a POV statement, and not citing it. Please cite your sources, and be aware of the three revert rule. _Talk Islander 20:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User name

Hello.
I am Islander in Swedish, Finnish, Danish and Norwegian Wikipedia, but when registering at en:wp, the system responded that "Islander" was occupied. Therefore I here have the rather clumsy username Islander(Scandinavia). (As a newbie i forgot the space between the words, and so it has remained ever since). Now, I wonder (just out of curiosity) how it is possible that your earliest edit is made (in May 2006) about a month later than my earliest (in April 2006). Did you register the name several months before you made your first edit? best rgds. -Islander(Scandinavia) (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Islander pretty much everywhere that I inhabit on the internet, so was upset to find the username 'Islander' taken on Wikipedia (it was registered on April 17, 2006) - I didn't register it. I therefore registered as 'TheIslander', and used that username for quite a while. In January this year, I noticed that the user who had registered the 'Islander' account had never actually used it. As they had never used it, I was able to usurp the username, and claim it as my own, thus I did so on 11th January this year. _Talk Islander 01:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. What a waist that I didn't register a few days earlier, and what a pity I didn't know it is possible to Usurp. ;-) I have had one or two other nicks in local languages, but haven't been active internationally before. Therefore I took the name Islander on Wikipedia (as I happen to live in an island). Well, First at the mill gets served first, it just feels corny to see ones own signature used by someone else. Have a good day! (Come to think of it, it may possibly have been me trying to register by that time, but somehow screwing it up...) -Islander(Scandinavia) (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Huggle User Category

Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

please quit warning me

I am using wikiguard. I was fixing the edit HAHAHA this is funny and reverting it to original. You and Pseudone were all doing this at the same time as me. We were overriding each others edit. I never wrote that at all. Please go back and check the log. Golgofrinchian (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked the log - you were reverting back to the vandalised version. Please be careful how you use that tool - you clearly aren't using it properly, and if you continue, I'll have no choice but to block you. _Talk Islander 00:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

duley noted please see below:

Zen Center of Syracuse

Hello, did you not even look at the discussion the original speedy deleter and I were having on the discussion page before deleting it? If you had read it you may have seen what we were discussing it before you deleted it. Thanks Golgofrinchian (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the discussion. It appeared to have finished, and after reading it I still deemed the page to fail WP:A7, hence I deleted it. Might I suggest that in the future you develop new pages in your own userspace, to ensure that they are fully referenced for notability, before uploading them to the mainspace? _Talk Islander 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A Clue!

Hello, speaking of ClueBot, would you mind participating in Cobi's RfA? Thanks. PseudoOne 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly :). Just popping off to do other stuff right now, but I'll read through it later on and see what I think. _Talk Islander 00:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: International_School_of_Kuantan

Thanks for popping and and reverting. I know you probably all ready are doing this, but the page could probably use semi-protecting. Thanks in advance :) Xymmax (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As per my comments at WP:RFPP, I don't think the page currently warrents this, as the vandalism is currently by one or two single-purpose accounts, who I'm keeping an eye on and am ready to block. _Talk Islander 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Monday Books

Greetings, and thanks for giving a clear explanation of the speedy deletion of this article. A lot of the time, I see a deletion and I'm not quite sure why it happened. In this case, I take your point. I was writing the article and posted it around bedtime. In hindsight, I should have continued developing the article and posted it later. Could I have the article restored, either to mainspace or to my userspace, so I can improve it and try again? Thanks, SSBohio 14:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the page to your userspace - see User:Ssbohio/Monday Books. Sorry for deleting it, but as you realise it was really a candidate for speedy deletion. Please improve on it, and I look forward to it being copied back over to the mainspace :). _Talk Islander 16:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. I suppose the lesson I should take away from all this is not to edit when I'm impossibly tired. Looking at the article I'd created, I'd've probably tagged it under A7 myself. :-) Cheers, SSBohio 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dark metal

WTF, man? We were busy working on that page to make it better. Just because it's been deleted beforte doesn't give it ground to be deleted again. We weren't amking it identical to the last version and we were trying to address the problems. You just went ahead nad messed that up! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Just because it's been deleted beforte doesn't give it ground to be deleted again" - actually, in this case it does. See G4 in the criteria for speedy deletion. The version I deleted was substantially the same as the previously deleted version, hence it qualified for G4. _Talk Islander 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to say thanks for semi-protecting the article and my talk page. I understand that the request was a bit unusual, but I really do appreciate it. One question, though... would it be okay for me to undo the anonymous editor's last change to the article where they removed the genre? I don't want to violate the 3RR, but the current format of the article goes against the decision we reached on the talk page, and we don't have to worry about the IP reverting the change now, so I was just wondering. Thanks again! —Mears man (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that another user reverted the IP's edit, so I suppose that's no longer an issue. Still, if you'd like to let me know for future reference that would be very much appreciated. Thanks again! —Mears man (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you're not exactly reverting vandalism, but reverting to an agreed format, it's tricky. I'd suggest that it's always better to err on the side of caution - if you really are reverting to the version agreed on by concencus, then others will also revert :). _Talk Islander 12:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Union busting

Are you sure there's an edit war on that page? It doesn't look like it to me. Why did you put up those tags? Wik idea 09:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am fairly sure - I wouldn't have protected it if there weren't. I put those tags up to alert people to the fact that it's protected. _Talk Islander 12:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting my user page in addition to the talk page. I wasn't going to bother anyone with it unless the problem persisted, but I really do appreciate it. You've really been a big help. —Mears man (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help ;) _Talk Islander 01:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)