User talk:Islander/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

en.wikibooks rename

As per your request, I have usurped the account User:Islander. To complete the usurpation, you must log into the account with your global password. Feel free to contact me if you have any problems. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 23:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, worked perfectly. Thanks for that! _Talk Islander 23:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Protest

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I just want to say that I am appalled by the way you have destroyed a valuable editor at Swedish Wikipedia. You had every chance not to sneak up on him the way you did and present him with a fait accompli, and yet you chose to shut him out of an account that he has been using for two years. From what I can tell, he has given up editing. You must be very proud of yourself.--Bothnia (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Username on se.wikipedia doesn't appear to link to anyone... SUL is not "destroying" anything - in order for en Islander to usurp the account name of se Islander, a local bureaucrat on the Swedish Wikipedia would have had to agree based on local policy. Avruch^T * ^ER 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Avruch. There did indeed appear to be a temporary bug that, when I linked my account to the global 'Islander' account, it blocked SV Islander out of his accounts temporarily. However, this quickly rectified itself, and as he proved at commons he had no problems logging in and editing etc. I have not shut him out of anything, he still has ownership and control of all accounts that he has used up until this point. The only thing that I have done is made it impossible for him or anyone else to sign up as 'Islander' on any Wikimedia project where neither him nor me have already signed up. For me to take over his accounts would require, as Avruch has pointed out, a local bureaucrat on the project in question to usurp him, and that has not happened. _Talk Islander 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

By the by, the account se:User:Islander does not exist - you surely mean sv:User:Islander. _Talk Islander 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to sv:User:Islander. Well, the tenor of your message here leaves little doubt what you are up to pushing him out of his account and you are presenting him with a fait accompli, despite the fact his account is older than yours. You have had every chance not to put him on the spot the way you did, and yet you did it. As an administrator you have the upper hand and you are abusing that power. You may be right in a purely "legal" sense, but you cases is dubious on moral grounds. Furthermore, it is much harder to recruit editors on smaller language versions of Wikipedia than on English Wiki, so we lose this multi-lingual editor as a result of your action, the net loss is larger.--Bothnia (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, what makes you say he's left the project? He hasn't edited in a day here, on commons or on sv, but so what? Doesn't mean he's left for good - could easily be on a wikibreak. If anything, the last I heard from him, over at commons, very much suggested to me that he was planning on staying and taking this further. The post of mine you cite above actually took me some time to word, as I was trying to approach the subject as tactfully and gently as I can - there is absolutely no problem at all with my asking him if he'd be willing to do this, and that's all I did, ask. As an administrator I do not have the upper hand, and so there is no power for me to abuse. _Talk Islander 17:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what you have done and you know that you have the upper hand. Islander (the real one) had no idea about this procedure and had no advance notice. And he has posted a message on his Swedish account that he will leave the project if he can't keep the name.--Bothnia (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Islander. As there is no meta medcom, I'm going to be sending both Islanders an email in hopes of resolving this conflict. I hope you'll keep an open mind so that we can work toward the best result for both of you. Bastique ^demandez 17:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly do my best to keep an open mind. Please be aware that I am fairly busy in real life over the next week or so, and completely unavailable over this coming weekend, so there may be delayed responses to your emails, but I will reply - I tell you this so that you don't think I'm ignoring you :). _Talk Islander 18:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing some hostility up there... I'm an admin at svwp, and would surely also be mad if this would happen to me, but that aside. The problem is obviously the implementation of SUL, not this particular situation. Islander, it would make things easier though, if you could choose to rerename yourself back to TheIslander, and claim that SUL account instead. It seems this is a bigger deal to Swedish Islander, and this compromise wouldn't really be too bad right? You've lived with that name long enough ~~and even still sign your posts with that name~~ (sorry, misread the vague "talk" as "the" /Grillo (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)). I believe a user name conflict is a silly thing to make someone leave the project over. /Grillo (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Grillo, I am grateful for your input, but this is a matter between myself and sv Islander. Though I am happy for certain others to mediate (Bastique thus far has been textbook-neutral, and I thank this user for that), I don't wish this to become a point of discussion for half of en:wp, sv:wp and commons. _Talk Islander 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't want it to come up for discussion. Then it would become clear that your threat to usurp his account in Swedish Wikipedia is based on a relatively new policy and you have been aware of the fact that there was another Islander for quite some time and that he might mind this course of action. You could have suggested a compromise instead of presenting him with appears to be a fair accompli. As you have said yourself, you would be pissed if someone did that to you.--Bothnia (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite some time? Look at the date stamp, that link is from around 24 hours before my message to sv Islander. Now, with the greatest respect, this is an issue between myself, svIslander, and those mediating, and you are not one of them. This discussion is continuing in private. _Talk Islander 21:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Protest (part 2)

(ctd. from above) Yes, quite some time. As you yourself pointed out, There's also the slight issue that he has approached me in the past, asking how I'm using his name, so I'm not too sure how he'd take it. As anyone who clicks on that link can see, you have known about sv:Islander since late February.

Sorry to bother you with this, but your actions clearly show that you are aware of the fact that your course of action is questionable and I think this is not just that concerns you, but the wider Wikipedia community. You are about to set a precedent a very recent policy, which may have consequences for users in many different versions of Wikipedia. By the way, I apologize if I sound confrontational and I regret some of my first remarks, but I do take this seriously.--Bothnia (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, none of this concerns local English Wikipedia policy. If anything, it is confined to Swedish Wikipedia policy and the Foundation implementation of unified login. There is currently a poll on meta (found here) to ratify the usurpation policy (found here). You are free to weigh in there with your opinion, and to make your feelings known to your local bureaucrats on the issue of usurping usernames of active and long term contributors. The framing of the policy did not, so far as I know, involve Islander (en.wp). Compared to many instances, he actually went out of his way to involve sv.wp Islander. I'd suggest you let Cary Bass (Wikimedia volunteer coordinator and en.wp user Bastique) settle this specific problem from here on out and instead involve yourself in the wider policy discussion. Avruch^T * ^ER 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Avurch, I appreciate your help. Bothnia, you no doubt noticed that I closed the discussion above. This was for a good reason - publically, this discussion is over. I am now discussing this with Cary Bass, privately, via email. This matter does not concern you, so with the greatest respect, drop it. 23:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Sheffield University Theatre Company Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_University_Theatre_Company Why have you proposed deletion of the page? The company is still very much alive and running and acitve, in the past three months we have two been nominated for an award of best website and Awarded Recognition for Excellence in Independence at NSDF08 for promoting student theatre.

Please respond on here. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.240.152 (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC) --143.167.240.152 (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The company may well still be alive and active, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable. Notability is the key - the article must adhere to WP:N for it to exist, and that includes the fact that it should include reliable third party references, which currently it does not. _Talk Islander 11:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The creation of the Awards subcategory should give it suitable notability, no?--Mtbab (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the deleting the Sutco page, really helpful. We need to promote theatre and culture and student theatre, and so why you deleted the page I have no idea. Just because I was unable to find notability online does not mean it has none. Not everything goes online these days would you believe it, and in terms of British Student Theatre Sutco is well known. If the sheffield newspapers choose not to publish online I can't force them to just so i have notability. The Wiki page is a good source of getting people, epsecially freshers who Wiki everything to know about the Theatre Company. Heres the link to the category "british student theatre" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_student_theatre, why don't you delete all those, I'm sure they dont all have notability.--143.167.240.152 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The original Sutco page went through an articles for deletion discussion here, and the consensus reached was to delete. Recreating the same page was therefore against WP:CSD#G4, namely that a copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion can be speedily deleted. _Talk Islander 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

iPlayer

It's hardly "illegal" hacking - it's just ways of getting value for money from our licence fee :D. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

...right, that's certainly an interesting way of looking at it. Hmm. Nope, still illegal hacking ;). _Talk Islander 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, worth a shot :P. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your help with anon IP reverts at One Canada Square. The whole 13th floor mystery/government building conspiracy is quite bizarre, IMO. I do plan to take a crack and clearing out all the unencylopedic mumbo-jumbo in the One Canada Square/13th floor "mystery" section. If I do, I hope you'll weigh in. We need more responsible editors on this section, again, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly keep an eye on it - good luck ;) _Talk Islander 20:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Forest of the Dead images

Might I trouble you to point out where the standards for the image shape are? I'd like to fix the images in place as well as ensure that I follow the rules and guidelines for such in the future.
As well, I think you are expecting the images to carry the entire article; they are not supposed to. They are instead supposed to compliment the article in such a way so as to be useful (not be decorative); to whit: "For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television". As I think that most of the images do not fail NFCC criteria as posted, and serve to compliment the plot (which is where I intended one or two of them to be, and not as a replacement image for the infobox), I am unclear as to what your specific criticism is here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

University of Surrey Sports Centre

I assume you have a reliable source for building work starting on the centre in 2007, otherwise you'd be adding original research to Wikipedia. The Independent story already used as a reference says work will start in 2008 -- can you provide an alternative reference? If not, would you mind reverting your own revert? Jonobennett (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For a start, it's mentioned in the University Estates and Facilities Management Newsletter from Summer 2007, which can be seen here, but unfortunatly only by those with a UniS login. Also, it's talked about in a video on the Surrey Media Player, accessible through Surreylife (the university's intranet, again unfortunatly only accessible to those with a UniS login - there does seem to be a way to send the video via email, though I can't get it to work off-campus). I am looking out for external sources, and will post them as and when I find them. I can guarentee, however, that construction definitely started in 2007 - it caused me some problems, and as such I contacted the head groundsman a few times to recify them, so the head groundsman too could confirm that the works started in 2007 (not suprisingly - it would be worrying if he didn't know :P ). Part of the problem is probably that the Surrey Centre for Sport campaign didn't really start until 2008, which would be where the confusion is coming from. FYI, work on the second phase of Manor Park appeared to start in early 2008, though that's a different matter. _Talk Islander 16:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, just passing by. Would there be a value to adding a citation to the Newsletter with "(login required)"?Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Citv80slogo.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Citv80slogo.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:CITVLogo1992.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CITVLogo1992.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks

I don't particularly like your threats, or wikistalking, but I guess I have to put up with them, however when you are using this site to issue legal advice, please do more thorough research, than you did for this edit, the trade mark is easily accessible here from the United Kingdom's government Fasach Nua (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user's own talkpage. _Talk Islander 12:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at my watchlist today ...

... to see some pleasing edit summaries for my talk page. No need to call yourself unpleasant names. You had a legitimate beef, and it was very decent of you to remove the message before I even saw it. I was not a believer in WP:DTTR, but on reflection I suppose that seeing your template could have raised my heartbeat unnecessarily. It is good to make the acquaintance of such a thoughtful editor. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you - 'tis not often that you meet someone who is kind after being falsely accused of something :). It was a geniune mistake on my part, and I'm glad you saw it as such - very nice to make your acquaintance also :). _Talk Islander 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask myself if am being kind because I am considering an RFA (if I get a nom). If I do, the incident in question may indeed be a reason for you to oppose. In fact, something tells me that my hypothetical RFA could blow up over this trademark debate. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion discussions

I am wondering, if this is indeed a coordinated effort to remove images from media episodic articles, how we should proceed. I am thinking that, while a great many images should go, they shouldn't be nominated en masse, as appears to be happening as a knee-jerk reaction to any image addition. This seems like a larger issue for the wiki community that should be addressed and/or nipped in the relative bud. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Applying for Rollback permission

Hi! My name is Oliver and I have been a member of the english wikipedia for a couple of months now and have already made more than a hundred (125 [as of the moment I write this]) edits. I am strongly opposed to vandalisim. I mean, why do people do it, they just get themselves blocked! I have reverted a lot of unconstructive vandalism in the short time I've been here but I feel I could do much more if I could rollback edits because then I would be able to fix up more articles,
thank you for your consideration,
Oli (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Oli :). Appologies for the delay in replying to you. You seem to be very new to the project, and have very few edits to your name, which is slightly concerning. On the other hand, you appear to be doing a good job at reverting vandalism, so i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and grant you rollback rights. Be aware that they can (and will) be revoked instantly if the need arises, which I'm fairly confident it won't. Carry on the good work! _Talk Islander 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! You will not be disapointed. :) Oli (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

heads-up

Thanks for that. I am certainly interested in the discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Turn Left image

I was wondering if you would mind me terribly uploading a new image atop yours, specifically this one. I will wait to hear back from you. I think this image would better describe the situation that Donna finds herself in a lot better.

additionally, I was thinking of uploading this image to the plot summary. What do you think of it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First image - no. Wrong format (again). However, the content is good, and i see your point, so I've made my own screencap of this frame, and replaced it myself :P. Second image - no. It's two women sitting together - hardly difficult to describe. The self-appointed NFCC Police will (possibly correctly) have a field day. _Talk Islander 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

When you say "wrong format", could I ask you to point out where - precisely - the notes regarding the proper format are located, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any particular 'notes' regarding the format, but it looks much neater if the standard aspect ratio is maintained. Using a different aspect ratio to that which the program is broadcast at just looks wrong. _Talk Islander 09:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CP

Thanks so much for chipping in there. :) I am committed to knocking down that backlog! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a problem - it's hardly like I did much :P. I had 15 minutes to spare, with nothing better to do ;). _Talk Islander 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You have restored my hope and my dedication. :D After 5 hours yesterday, I was getting pretty fed up with it. Now I am strong again to continue to graphically demonstrate my lack of a meaningful existence. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

kendrick

I have already reported user Kendrick for his 3RR violation. --Wiendietry (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

user kendrick has attacked User:WilyD personally. I have never done anything like that. It's prove enough that he doesn't have good intentions. --Wiendietry (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

I am not myself, and should not be editing at all right now. I am very sorry for my rude edit summary, and it will not happen again. Best, Jeffpw (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Appology accepted, though you should probably appologise to Gears of Wars. Having lost a close member of my family in the past, I know what you're going through, and wish you all the best :). _Talk Islander 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeff just handled this better than I was going to Islander. I was about to trout slap you. Letting it go...and Jeff, you owe no one an apology, especially Gears of War. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Jeff. Just take a little break in that garden for a while. There is no need to edit here until you can deal with these folk in your usual even-anded way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have apologized. Life is too short and fragile to let misunderstandings injure others. It was a faux pas, and I handled it badly. Thank you all for your understanding and compassion. Jeffpw (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ian and Mike Szelemej

Don't you find it a bit curious he vandalized a page of a blocked account? To me, it smells of sockpuppetry. What do you think? -- Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 21:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh definitely. I'm only a hair's-width away from blocking on sight. I thought I'd leave it for now, though, and keep an eye on him. After all, if he never edits again, then there's no problem. _Talk Islander 21:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! You're very attentive! Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 July 2008

You wanted someone in the UK to verify that a certain fact (namely this one) was indeed stated in the UK-only video. I'm in the UK, I verified it for you. _Talk Islander 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Merlin Entertaiments

Care to explain this edit? _Talk Islander 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The page was empty when I placed it on. Also, I thought it could be mainspace at first by accident. Sorry. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

'salright ;) Just be a tad more careful in the future - none of the CSDs for articles apply to talkpages. _Talk Islander 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I was about to log off and was too quick. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 07:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

..doesn't apply to breaches of WP:NFCC, but that seems to be moot here. Betacommand seems to me to be applying an interpretation of policy regardless of the individual merits of the article, and that's where the problem arises. However, my plans to take Sandy Denny to WP:GA have been somewhat trashed anyway. Ho hum. --Rodhull andemu 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but if two of us reckon that these images are not in violation of NFCC, then it's highly questionable whether that 3RR exception would be valid. It's undeniable that whilst this matter is being discussed, Betacommand is edit warring regardless. _Talk Islander 16:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Betacommand

In my experience, people who do not-smart things almost always know afterward that what they did was stupid. Blocking Betacommand was incredibly not-smart, and seeing that Rob was the one of the people involved in the edit war and he was the one who blocked a long-time contributor indefinitely, I have no doubt that he knew it was not-smart as well. And frankly, level of curt doesn't apply when people do things that are blatantly not-smart. In short, the intention of the message was not to explain to Rod what the issue with the block was, he was already perfectly aware; the intention of the message was to ask him to unblock before I did. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost correct. I may have blocked indef out of sheer frustration over the non-communication, but that's not uncommon here. We frequently indef-block editors who "just don't get it" to wake them up. In this case, I'd put a reasoned argument on the Talk page of the article, and of course, I think that argument has some merit otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time. After posting to Betacommand's talk page seeking clarification, he did at least email me the text of an essay (nothing more) that set out some arguments in relation to fair-use in lists. Having spent considerable time reading that, and the material linked from it, my conclusion was that in the case at hand, the argument for deletion was not clear-cut. That doesn't surprise me in the slightest, because the fair-use policy is perhaps deliberately vague, and therefore ought to rely on common-sense. Apparently not. Over the last 36 hours both you and I have pressed Betacommand to amplify his objections, without any constructive response. I suppose at least I've opened a debate, and with any luck, I'll be alive to see the end of it. But, like the NFCC policy, that's moot too. --Rodhull andemu 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think the block was particularly wise (COI and all...), I do applaud you for bringing this issue into the light. Having had similar problems with a frankly similar editor recently, having brought it to ANI, and having had no particular conclusions from it (except a bunch of "yep, I agree"s), it's good to see it finally being discussed, allbeit with axes, flamethrowers and general death-appliances at the ready. _Talk Islander 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in as another editor who's frustrated with Betacommand's insistence on removing (what certainly appears to be) legitimate Wikipedia content, en masse. His bad attitude is simply the sour icing atop the sawdust cake. E^robson (T^alk) 13:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand can not enforce policy that does not exist. I have suggested in the past and do so now: we need to bring forth a cogent, sane proposal to get rid of the inane parts of WP:NFC which exist to satisfy ideological purists. I suspect, however, that seriously refactoring or removing WP:NFCC #8 will also be needed. The problem is that the talk pages for these policies are a walled garden. Any proposal should be brought to the village pump so that a serious attempt at consensus can be had. --Dragon695 (talk)

I see he's now been blocked for another 31h by Arthur Rubin. "Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends". --Rodhull andemu 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)