User talk:Islander/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Contents

RE: Warning

Pleae re-visit my talk page. It is really difficult to believe that you have actually read Keeper's notes to Kurt on the original thread. But if you really have, then this situation is actually worse than I thought. Evidently I don't have the willingness to swallow sxxt that is necessary to remain in the community. As I said on my talkpage, I will refrain from communicating with other editors as an IP user; as no doubt pursuing what I think is right will get me into trouble again. Thanks again for forwarding TheProf's note - that meant a lot to me. Kek15 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Islander for your comment to Elkman re: his classy message on my talk page - you can't imagine my shock to learn that he is an admin. Now as you have not responded to my request for deletion (or any of my other comments) - do I need to go mental (like TheProf) to get deleted or what?Kek15 (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Go mental like TheProf and I'll block you quicker than you can say Wikipedia. But please don't. Why not leave gracefully? TalkIslander 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you not paying attention? I've asked to have my account/username deleted twice now. Can I do this myself? Can you do it? I'm trying to leave gracefully - how please? Kek15 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not possible to 'delete' an account. All you can do is log out and never log in again. Your userpages can be deleted, per WP:CSD#U1, but that's not the same as 'deleting the account', which is not possible, TalkIslander 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have told me that the first time I made the request a few hours ago. Not as much fun as giving warnings and threatening new ones I guess. Bye. Kek15 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One Canada Square

What was wrong with the pictures being on the right? My personal opinion is that it enhances the whole page. 87.114.31.128 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

They take up too much space - for example, three of them were in the top section, but they spilt right down through a number of sections. If they could fit within their respective sections, or even spill slightly, then fine, but I could not quickly think of a way to accomodate them, without alternating the justification between left and right, which can look pants if not done carefully. TalkIslander 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits

Reverting all my edits tonight is wiki-stalking. There is no consensus to warrent a mass-revert of all my work. I urge you to undo your reverts, or i will have to take this higher. CJ2005B (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to think twice before making acusations. There is no concencus to remove the flags, thus until there is the current system must stay in place, and the current system states that the template guidelines should be followed, and those state that flags should be used. It is you that decided to change, regardless of the ongoing discussions. I have not accused you of vandalism at all - in your defence, as soon as you were alerted to the situation, you stopped, which is good. However, I simply reverted so as to stick with the style we are following until concensus is reached. Also, take a look at WP:STALK, specifically "Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption...". I am not disrupting you at all. TalkIslander 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
EastEnders, Coronation Street and The Bill dont have them. There is no consensus that justifys reverting all my edits that took me half an hour to make. CJ2005B (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you finding so hard to understand? Until concensus is reached, we stick to what we did before concensus was saught, and that's the inclusion of flags. Now, quit being so petty, and realise that flags should be left in until concensus is reached. TalkIslander 21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk about petty, going through someones contribs and reverting all their hard work! CJ2005B (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but can you not see that you hard work was wrong? In good faith, most definitely, but still wrong. You've been absent from Wikipedia for three years, yet you expect to jump in, create a whole load of edits that cut straight across an ongoing discussion, and you expect them to remain? TalkIslander 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont see its wrong, because its not WP:FLAG states that you dont decorate with flags and there is no consensus anywhere to say otherwise. CJ2005B (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:FLAG is a guideline, not a policy. It need not necessarily be followed, at the descretion of editors. The Infobox Guidelines are also guidelines, so are on equal standing. As these have been around for much longer than WP:FLAG, they take presidence until concensus otherwise is reached. TalkIslander 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You should also wait for consensus. I urge you not to revert all my edits or i will have no option but to take it higher. let it go, please! CJ2005B (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Why can't you wait for a concensus? -- Why cant you? CJ2005B (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am, hence I'm reverting edits to those that are standard, and the standard (for the 100th time) until concensus is reached is to include the flags. Also, I find it highly hypocritical that you state "let it go!", when you won't. Also, FYI, I have let it go - I'm now only looking at those articles on my Watchlist. The others, unfortunatly, will have to stay as they are. TalkIslander 21:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Listen, the standard for other articles (stated above) is not to have the flags! I'm not out to cause a war. Wikipedia is a very hypocritical place and i feel this is a two-way street between both of us. At the end of the day, you think your right and i think im right. I applaude you for not reverting all my edits again. With luck the people higher than sysops will make things abit clearer one day. CJ2005B (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not an article-by-article discussion, though, it's a template-by-template discussion, and the current standard (until concensus is otherwise reached) is that for this template, flags are used. TalkIslander 21:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Then why dont the other articles have flags? CJ2005B (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Using another article to argue a point is flawed and wrong. See WP:WAX. Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Without biting, I think what Tool2Die4 is referring to is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the rebuttal to a common argument that other article which shouldn't exist or have policy/guideline-defying flaws are an excuse to repeat said errors. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference cuts both ways and points out that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."" The question lies in the validity of the comparison. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This may have been an oversight however Islander never responded to the final point made by Ckatz in the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ckatz#Edit_war_regarding_use_of_flags 72.92.4.157 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, missed that entirely. Will take a proper look later tonight - thanks for the heads-up ;). TalkIslander 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking

Per WP:BLANKING. I can and will remove finished discussions/warnings from my talk page. As a sysop, you should be defending my rights not siding with someone in the wrong because you like them better! CJ2005B (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:BLANKING, and as it says, repeated replacement of material does nothing but antagonise. However, replacing the contents of your talk page once does not count as repeated, and thus your threat was uncalled for. TalkIslander 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, i'm still right. CJ2005B (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I can clearly see why you started an RfA with an attitude like that. Makes perfect sense ;). TalkIslander 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Your attitude is terrible for someone who has actually passed an RfA. You seem to pick and chose which policys you want to follow and which to not! I dunno, maybe sysops can! Who knows!?! CJ2005B (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure I understand where you're coming from. WP:BLANKING clearly states: "Repeatedly replacing warnings does nothing but antagonize users..." - yes. However, he reverted the contents of your talk page once, and you threatened him with reporting to a sysop! How in any way does one revert = repeated replacement? Be reasonable! TalkIslander 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we get it! You hate me and like him. However, per WP:BLANKING, I can blank my talk page as much as I like. Anyway, another sysop steped in to help me. Now I think its probably bast if we go our separate ways. I wish you all the best, goodbye. CJ2005B (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it's best that our paths do not cross again. However, to set things straight, I don't hate you, and I don't know him. I am just trying to be reasonable, from both sides of this (and indeed any) dispute. Yes, you have the right to blank your talk page ad-infiniteum. However, any other user also has the right to unblank it, without being threatened, so long as a) there's good reason for doing so, and b) it's not done in a harassing manor (as laid out in WP:BLANKING). The talk page does not belong to you, though you are right that repeated (and I stress repeated) undeletion would be equal to harassment. TalkIslander 20:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Myst cover

Sorry, I updated the source. I picked that one because it was the original CD boxart, which I felt was a better pick for an image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hath image

Hello. What is "not great" about the image? It shows the monsters clearly. Anything else you want from it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See the article's talk page - just left a message there. TalkIslander 10:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What is "not great" about the image? You haven't answered that. It serves its purpose. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Continue discussion on the article talk page. TalkIslander 10:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Job Islander

It seems you've succeeded in dispiriting yet another editor [here]. That is truly a shame - first me, then CJ (above) over the flag issue (and blanking his own talk page), and then TeasuryTag (who knows how many others?). You called me a troll, but I never fit the description, as a troll exists to "disrupt Wikipedia." I never set out to do that, only to make my point. (Which was never addressed.) But your name keeps popping up in these exchanges where you are clearly undoing the work of others over matters of personal opinion. To me, that is "disrupting Wikipedia." 72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe in redemption and am also always willing to be proven wrong.72.92.4.157 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

72.92.4.157. A "troll" is someone that only posts to talkpages (in lieu of improving articles) to make comments about other issues that he/she isn't involved in. Kek, you and I have resolved our differences to a certain degree, but just looking at your contributions (access them by clicking on your IP signture above), you haven't done anything to improve Wikipedia. Editors disagree all the time. Editors that keep putting their "2 cents" in regarding issues they are not involved in, are the true disruption. Reconsider what you are doing here please. You've done this extensively on my talkpage as well (although not in the last few days). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, you are not involved in this issue. Islander should be able to speak for himself. He has a pattern of turning silent when confronted with his own actions. He ignored me right to the point when I got rid of my username - after I repeatedly tried to plead my case to him. This, after he involved himself in something that he was not involved in. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The only one that even "sees" an issue is you Kek. Every issue that you seem to have has something to do with someone else. The only issue anyone seems to have with you is that you seem to have an issue with everyone else. The only reason I stumbled into this is because you once again "had to respond" to something on my talkpage regarding atheism/militancy/Crusades. That had nothing to do with you either. After seeing that, I checked your contribs to see what you were working on, and frankly I'm disappointed that you haven't seemed to get on with life yet, and get on with improving Wikipedia. Tis a shame. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't blame you for not sharing my issues as I may not share yours. I only ask that we respect one another's positions (and work). That comment on your talk page was flip and offensive and I thought deserved a response. Give me time - I will got on with life - really. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are allowed to respond to "flip and offensive" posts on my talkpage, tis within your rights, but no one else is allowed to respond to your "flip and offensive" posts anywhere else, as I've done here? I found your post to Islander to be presumptive, a bit nosey, rather accusational, and really serving no purpose other than to rile Islander. The very definition, IMHO, of "flip and offensive". Sigh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. But Keeper, you are the one who originally admonished me for getting involved in issues that I was not directly connected to. Islander and I have our own history. It looks as though, had you not responded - I'd be listening to crickets here; as Islander is sticking to his normal communication pattern. So, in that - thanks. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Islander has six end of year exams in level two Physics within the next two weeks, the first of which is tomorrow. He is currently bricking it, and revising like mad, so please excuse him if he doesn't reply to a petty plea for attention within one and a half hours. Kek, here's a polite request: stay out of my own business. Any editor who edits Wikipedia for more than two minutes a day is guarenteed to get into a dispute about any one of an infinite number of different things, and I'm no exception to this rule. Pointing things like this out to me on my talk page is disruptive, and, in my book, constitutes trolling. Continued trolling will, of course, be ultimatley quashed with a block. Count yourself warned. And, while your at it, heed what Keeper has to say above. He's making perfect sense. Keeper, I thank you ;). Now, if you'll excuse me, I have by tomorrow to read over bound states (parity, degeneracy and the finite square well potential), eigenfunctions (superposition, completeness, orthogonality and the meaning of the expansion coefficients), hermitian operators, orthonormal sets and derivation of the expansion coefficients (normalisation of and expectation values in terms of the expansion coefficients), commutators (implications for observations, eigenfunction sets), Ehrenfest's Theorum and the Correspondence Principal. Getting the picture why I'm not responding within an hour and half yet??? TalkIslander 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Best of luck with the exams. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

72.92.4.157 (talk · contribs)

Hi. I know this guy is being a real pain, but can I suggest that it would be profitable for you to completely ignore him, rather than giving him any more advice? I am sure you are doing it to be helpful, but I expect it will do nothing but wind him up further. Good luck with your exams! Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gah, 'tis a fair cop. The number of times I've said "don't feed the troll", and look what I go and do. Thanks for pointing that out ;). TalkIslander 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Collectonian and Ryulong

Yes, from what I could tell, and what Ryulong was explaining to me, he was trying to improve the layout of the article to match others of the same topic. It may have seemed somewhat unconventional and contrary to existing guidelines, but he was also working on setting those up at the same time. Collectonian saw those edits and (I assume) didn't quite understand the context behind them, and reverted them, originally in good faith. At that point, Ryulong tried to explain the situation while reverting his one time, however Collectonian continued to revert the page despite the ongoing discussion and the involvement of two other editors (myself and User:Ohnoitsjamie). As I told Collectonian, I really don't care about whether Ryulong's edits are appropriate or not - the problem I had with the whole situation was the manner in which Collectonian continued to revert, in violation of the 3RR, and abusing their tools to do so. Ryulong, on the other hand, had stopped editing after his first "undo" edit, in an effort to explain the situation and stop an edit war.

Hi. Sorry to butt in on this, but since yesterday's insanity was partly my fault, I feel I should weigh in so you can have a more balanced picture of the issue. A while back, I started editing various Kamen Rider-series articles, and submitting them to the TV WikiProject for assessment and for help to improve them further. Because no one was assessing the articles anymore, I messaged Collectonian about it, and she looked at the article for me. [1] She also cut out a large amount of stuff, because, frankly, it wasn't going with the guidelines for WP:TV. [2] (At first, she mistakenly thought the show was anime, instead of live-action, but that's an honest mistake, and no major harm was done in doing so.) [3]
Anyway, now that I've caught you up on the history of this article. I'll tell you essentially what happened yesterday, so you don't really have to dig through logs. I look at the article, saw that it was all full of cruft again, and sent Collectonian a message, saying simply [4] that Ryulong undid all the edits, as he is wont to do with extreme efficiency. As you can see in the diffs, I never said for her to go and refix the article, I just mentioned that her work was all undone. She then reverted back to, in my opinion, a superior version,[5] and Ryulong reverted her again. Now, admittedly, I had been pestering Ryulong, and was perhaps a bit of a cock about it. [6] Because I was basically screaming at him to standardize the format for these articles, he up and decided that WP:Toku should have it's very own MoS, which is not what I meant at all, but that's Ryulong for you.
So, all this is to say the following. There really wasn't a discussion, just a lot of headbutting. Hersfold and Ohnoitsjamie weren't doing anything other than reverting Collectonian, and my suspicions on why that happened are an entirely different matter. Ryulong was being his usual stubborn self, and refusing to accept any improvement to "his" articles. Collectonian was attempting to assert what she thought was the best version of the article, and I agree with her edits, which did not violate 3RR. And then, you have me. I inadvertantly stirred up some shit, and had I known what would happen, I'd've left well enough alone or tackled the issue differently. After dealing with Ryulong, however, I decided to give him a piece of my mind, which now seems to have sent him off onto another potentially-tyrannical tear wherein he will write down his preferred Tokusatsu MoS and enforce it ruthlessly, as he typically does anyway, rebutting all valid criticism with sneers, silence, and contempt.
That's all I have to say right now. I just wanted to present a side to the story that isn't biased and uninformative. I know you've participated in the thread on Ryulong's talk page, so I know you're not entirely clueless, but I felt it neccessary to get this out there, just in case you needed the extra context. I'll answer any questions, if you have them. Howa0082 (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Thanks for your post. You too, Hersfold.I think I've come to the conclusion that I butted in when I perhaps shouldn't have. The situation seems to be a bit of a mess, but it appears to be under a sort of control, and so I'm going to slowly back away and leave you all to it. Appologies for any problems caused - if anyone would like my input, please ask directly. TalkIslander 15:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Islander...

Hi Islander, just wanted to say I think your dead smart and have done really good Wikipedia things Including the EMA thing that I commented on!!! :):) (86.147.37.225 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Catherine Tate

I changed them to the British format as it's a British article so I don't see the problem 128.240.229.66 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem per se, it's just completely pointless, as the wiki software automatically swaps the dates around per user preferences. TalkIslander 08:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)