User talk:Island Monkey/Archive 3
congratulations
[edit]On the quickest ever block User_talk:Acroplosurinator for vandalism ! Can you file all my reports for me ? μηδείς (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Block? You've got the wrong person, bro. Take it to him. Island Monkey talk the talk 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
June 2011
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Raymond v. Raymond. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may beblocked from editing without further notice. Island Monkeytalk the talk 12:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Reverts
[edit]You reverted 6 times on the same page in less than 24 hours. Thus breaking the 3 revert rule. If you continue I will report you and have you blocked from editing on Wikipedia.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- You were the firestarter. Anyway, I hope an admin will be lenient enough to give us both blocks of only 24 hours. Island Monkey talk the talk 12:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have only reverted twice. So I will not be blocked. You on the other hand keep breaking the rule. 7 reverts?? That's got to be a new record. And you insist on reverting good and constructive edits that improve the page. Have fun being blocked.Rose Marie Aragon (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.CIreland (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
- Phew... it has been finally been sorted. I'll come back tomorrow, feeling better. Island Monkey talk the talk 13:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Born This Way/talk
[edit]Would you mind adding your two cents to this discussion I started regarding a layout/structure change to Born This Way? Me and some other editors to the article have expressed differences with the more appropriate way of structuring the article body. Dan56 (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. Just need to wait until I shake this damn block off me. Island Monkey talk the talk 10:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Delinking
[edit]Please do not de-link articles because the "may be delete". It implies that they already have been and it essentially orphans them.
Thanks
- J Greb (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Especially when you nominated the article for AfD. You can wait. - J Greb (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:GorillaBread20
[edit]Hello Island Monkey. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:GorillaBread20, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: U1 not requested by the user. Thank you. —DoRD(talk) 15:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You obviously hadn't looked at the talk page before doing this. He had done exactly that. Please rememberWP:BITE. I have restored a better version, which probably took as long as reverting & leaving a message. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
UAA
[edit]Hi there Island Monkey! I was just wondering about this report; what was misleading about the username? I'm just a little confused, that's all. ceranthor 19:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well it sounds like it represents a group and according to Twinkle one example of a misleading username is a UN that sounds like it represents a group. (Oh AzaToth! Look what you've done!) Island Monkey talk the talk 07:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: File:Grint.weaseley.OotP1.jpg
[edit]
Hello Island Monkey. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Grint.weaseley.OotP1.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G7 does not apply - the user who blanked the page was not the original author. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
On restoring PROD notices
[edit]You recently restored a PROD notice to Vadaanya janaa society, with an edit summary telling people not to delete PRODs. Actually, editors are supposed to delete PROD notices; a standard PROD is for an uncontroversial deletion, and the editor is showing that the deletion is controversial by deleting it. If no one deletes a PROD notice during the PROD period, then we know it's uncontroversial.
The exception is BLP PRODs, which are only supposed to be deleted if at least one reliable source has been added to the article. And one should not deleted Article For Deletion notices.
If you want the article deleted now, you do not restore the PROD. Instead, you go through the Articles For Deletion process.--Nat Gertler (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- What if the main author removed it (that's what happened)? As far as I'm concerned the main author had no proper contesting for the the PROD notice and was instead probably a bit pissed off (I would be). Island Monkey talk the talk 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Even if the main author removes it, yes. As it says on the prod notice itself, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." (I should note that this is very different from a Speed Delete notice, which the original author should not remove, but they have specific ways in which to contest a Speedy.) The proper reason for contesting a prod notice is that you don't think the article should be deleted, and understandably the original author thought so. Deciding whether they have sufficient arguments not to delete it is what the AFD process is for. Thanks for moving forward with that! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
WVJW-LP
[edit]I'm sorry for undoing your speedy delete, but <title>.co.tv copy from the English Wikipedia. If you look down, you will see attribution to wikipedia.org. --Bsadowski1 07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Response
[edit]Please see User_talk:Haveanicelifeconsciousness#HP_Disorder. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ditto. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine. Island Monkey talk the talk 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Please be more careful with your notices
[edit]I do not think that this message you left on my talk page was appropriate. If you'd looked at the edit log for that article you're notice that I created it as a redirect so I do not think it was appropriate for you to leave me a stock message about spam etc. While a message saying what you had done would have been appreciate the stock message was not. Can I suggest you be more careful in the future. Dpmuk (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Shawn Piller
[edit]I'm sorry but I'm not exactly sure how I am vandalizing the Shawn Piller article. I posted everything in the talk section and if you can find anything in there that is - Abuse of tags; malicious account creation; avoidant vandalism; illegitimate blanking; repeated uploading of copyrighted material; edit summary vandalism; gaming the system; hidden vandalism; image vandalism; link vandalism; illegitimate page creation; page lengthening; page-move vandalism; silly vandalism; sneaky vandalism; spam external linking; talk page vandalism; template vandalism; user and user talk page vandalism; vandalbots - I would surprised since, the real Shawn Piller asked me to update his page.