User talk:Islander/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ticket machine

This article is specific to self-service ticket-vending machines. It makes no mention of portable ticket machines that you may find carried on trains and ferries, the built-in under-desk ticket machines you may find in cinemas or tube stations (manned counter), the old Almex ticket machines that a bus driver might use, the small desk-top ticket machines that you might find at the entrance to Blenheim Palace etc etc, the list goes on. As I say, not all ticket machines are ticket-vending machines, so the title of the article should be what the article is about, i.e. ticket-vending machines. I wonder if you would mind reviewing your assessment of my logic. Regards, Mannafredo 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, you make some very good points that I hadn't thought about. Having said that, why can't this article stay named 'ticket machine', with the view of including such machines in the future? As far as I'm aware, none of those you mention have articles, neither are they notable enough to have articles. They could, however, be mentioned in this article. _TheIslander 15:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing just that, when I got some kind of wiki-error and lost the lot. When time permits, I'll have another go. Regards, Mannafredo 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, hate it when that happens :-/. Best of luck ;) _TheIslander 16:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:24.60.41.165

Please block this user. As you can see from User talk:24.60.41.165, he has a long history of vandalism, including today with the article The Star Jones Show. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 17:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, seems there's not been enough recent activity from him to warrent a block. _TheIslander 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. On his talkpage, you told him "This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Amp'd Mobile, you will be blocked from editing." Three days later, he vandalized again. Why should he stop if he sees threats to block him are meaningless? Thank you. ConoscoTutto 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I'm not an admin. I gave him a 'final warning', as I did indeed notice that he had vandalised and been blocked in the past, thus going for any lower level would have been meaningless. When you contacted me, above, I immediatley reported him to WP:AIV for a blocking, but the admin who dealt with him felt that there wasn't enough recent activity to warrent a block. I personally agree with you, but there's nothing that can be done about it. If he continues, he can get another 'final warning', and maybe then the powers that be will agree with us. Sorry. _TheIslander 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I thought you were an admin, that's why I had asked you to block him. ConoscoTutto 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Yes, I lost my temper, and I should apologize. However, the Romanian-language comments directed at me and other users are of a disgusting nature - so much so that I do not want to translate all of them. Suffices to say that the comment just after yours on my talk page deems me a "stupid cunt". Dahn 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Then report him and have him blocked, but make sure you stick to the rules, m'kay? ;) _TheIslander 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

He lies. He can't tell us why he butchered the article can he? --202.144.118.50 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Dahn

Per WP:ANI I request to block him. (WP:CIVIL) --202.144.118.50 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it - he deserves a short block after the way he's treated you. Let me know if you need backing up ;) _TheIslander 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC) comment retracted now that I know full details

And there you go. this "user" is clearly an open proxy of User:Bonaparte. Dahn 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still uphold that the manor in which you treated them was completely innapropriate, be them editor, vandal or sock. I'm not going to bother reporting you, but please do bear in mind WP:CIVIL. _TheIslander 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In my defense, i responded to comments such as "go up your mother's cunt"; "another cocksucker"; "isn't it true that you enjoy sitting on a cock?". Similar comments were addressed at another user who reverted his additions of POV in the article (all unsourced). Another one of his suspected sock just started this thread, headlined by a racist comment. In it, the proxy again called me "stupid cunt". Dahn 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The material is unsourced, and a large part of it reads like advertising in favor of Romania. The new sections on Moldova is filled with POV, and expresses the user's personal theories on what was positive about Romania's actions and negative about Moldova's. Dahn 20:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't lie again and again. Tell us on the talk page your list of complaints (she is not used to talk on talk pages).--220.231.49.218 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Look his edits, User:Dahn litteraly butchered the article.--202.144.118.50 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask you, who is the real vandal? I think User:Dahn. His edits are still there to check them. --202.144.118.50 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All the people complaints about User:Dahn's behaviour. --220.231.49.218 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet another IP to block. Dahn 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Already onto it ;) _TheIslander 20:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

220.231.49.218, Would you mind logging into an account, Are you the same person as the other IP? And why did you leave comments in another language to this user?  Tiddly Tom  20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, By the way, TheIslander, are you an Admin, or do you just report users?  Tiddly Tom  20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Tom, but I've got it covered ;). I'm not an Admin, I'm just good at reporting people =P _TheIslander 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw alot of activity going on on this page, though I would say Hi :) I am nosy like that. :p  Tiddly Tom  20:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. _TheIslander 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, both anon. IPs in the above two discussion have now been blocked. _TheIslander 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw. You were quoted here, and I think it was without your permission. Dahn 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, got that, cheers ;) _TheIslander 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 5 years, a little random :P Ironic that the ips get banned while trying to get Dahn banned. :P  Tiddly Tom  21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not weird at all - if you do a bit of RC patrolling, you'll see just how many anon-IPs try to wiggle out of a ban by trying to ban others. I've had people trying to ban me a couple of times, completely unjustifiably, just because i was in the process of getting them banned. _TheIslander 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to newbie patrol, as it also covers lots of the new article creations that need to be speedily deleted :)  Tiddly Tom  21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you more insight into this. Over the past months, through his IPs and socks, Bonaparte has: filed an RfC against me (with help from another banned user, and using a sock he had created months before, with which he contributed only to Israel-related articles so that he did not draw suspicion immediately); posted nauseating spam on my talk page; campaigned against me on Romanian wikipedia (where I don't contribute); impersonated me on meta (where I don't contribute); conned admins to speedydelete one of my sandboxes (profiting from the fact that they did not look into the rationale and who signed it). In retrospect, this last trick he pulled was a trifle. Dahn 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In which case, I sincerely appologise for the comment which I struck through above. It was a knee-jerk response to what I thought was a genuine plea for help in blocking you. Your comments were obnoxious enough for me to believe him, though if what you say is true they were much less than he deserved. _TheIslander 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I was out of line, and I should have known better. For the RfCing, see here (both the sock making the comment and the user who owned the page have been indefinitely blocked). For the sandbox deletion, see here. It also seems that the content he was adding to the article in question was copied from a site, if I read Mikkalai's comment correctly. Dahn 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My sandbox

Thank you for your concern, but it was I who blanked my sandbox. Pelegius 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - you should really be logged in when doing something like that, as it really looks like vandalism if it's just an anon IP blanking it. _TheIslander 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DVD-R Tools

Another admin declined the prior speedy request and I won't unilaterally overrule him, however I did nominate the article at WP:AFD. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 17:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie McGuire

On the Lizzie McGuire article you said:

In which case provide a valid reference to state as much.

In reference to this:

• Even though the show lasted three years, Lizzie and her friends remain in the eighth grade during the second and third year.

What exactly do you need a reference for? All you have to do is go here, it's already explained on there. Ospinad 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do we need a reference for? Oh dear. Take a look here, and all will be made clear. In this case the episode list is poorly sourced, so no, that doesn't count as a reference. _TheIslander 09:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't exactly answer my question. What I meant was do you want a reference for the statement that the show was on for 3 years or for what grades they were in on the show? If a site says that the show ran from 2001-2004 would it be considered original research if we interpret that and say that the show ran for 3 years? Or what if we can site a source that says they were in 7th grade when the show started and they were graduating middle school at the beginning of the movie, which was supposed to take place after the show ended. Couldn't we interpret that to say they only aged two years during the show? Ospinad 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. I think we need a reference for what grades they were in during the course of the show. I just can't remember there ever being a mention of the characters grades, so some evidence to proove that this is correct seems needed. Having said that, seeing the points you've placed above, I think we possibly can interpret the duration as two years (I struggle slightly here, as I'm from the UK, and don't know how the American schooling system works). However, if that's the case, then what you've put above should really be put into the article as well, to clear confusion, and then sources probably wouldn't be needed. Have I made any sense? _TheIslander 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Middle school in America is usually from 6th to 8th grade. The only time that I remember them mentioning their grade was in the episode, "Just Like Lizzie" where Lizzie mentors a 7th grader, (she mentions that she feels more confident now that she's in 8th grade) and that episode took place about 2/3 into the series. The thing is, it's not that there were 3 seasons of the show and the writers just forgot to age the characters after the 2nd season. The problem is that the show ran for 3 years, but technically there were only 2 "seasons" of the show. Because as the series got closer to the end, they waited longer and longer before they released the next episode (you can see that in the list of episodes) with the last episode being released over a year after it was filmed. Maybe it'd be better to say something like that instead of the way we had it. Tell me what you think. Ospinad 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, it probably would be better to say something like that - it's just that what you've written above is completely true, and can be properly cited. What is on the article, however, is almost conjecture. _TheIslander 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, I added it back after changing the wording. Let me know if it's good enough. Ospinad 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Very sorry for the delay in replying - yup, I think what you've put there sounds good ;) _TheIslander 17:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My edit in Dead Ringers (comedy)

If you whatch the video, Gwen goes "Well let's shittin'/bastardin' get them!" a lot of times. Machine758 08:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps - they way you wordeed it, though, seemed very vandalism-like - there's no real need to include it in such detail. _TheIslander 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry. It will never happen again. Machine758 11:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Briantist

I'd rather you didn't address me with the same warnings as this guy simply because I slipped in a minor retort after I was shocked from recieving such an unexpected and unnecessary backlash. He seems to be incredibly abrasive and I'm especially not fond of how he's now making himself out to be some kind of harrassment victim after he responded so rudely to my original opening of discussion. Twenty years of professional writing be damned. --84.65.21.21 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Briantist is not acting appropriately. However, if you just "slip in a minor retort", then that's equally not good. It's tit for tat. Better not to say anything, and for you to be completely in the clear and him to catch the flack, than for you to retort, behave as he does, and get warned. I would strongly suggest that you back down now, and report him appropriately if he continues. _TheIslander 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Back down? If he continues? You make it sound like we're deadly rivals. He's just some bloke who happened to keep reverting me. It's not a problem. --84.65.21.21 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, didn't mean to suggest that, though if I see any bloodshed, I'm calling an admin, m'kay? =P No, I just mean leave it at that. I've dealt with Briantist a small bit; it wouldn't suprise me if he continues to retort. If he does, just ignore it and report him if it's bad enough ;) _TheIslander 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

accusatory?

You seem to be accusatory saying if someone were at fault for sock, frequently using the phrase "like you" (pointing fingers at me). This lack of assuming good faith is worrisome.

Please note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Lost_passwords.3F Haveaquestion 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just that a number of things seem to point towards you being a sock, though I'm quite happy to be proven wrong. There's the fact that your account is relativley new; you headed straight to the RfAs; you do seem to be an experienced user; and the fact that you set three out of four candidates exactly the same question seemed odd. Also your username seems very apt to what your activity thus far has been; also (though this is much less directed at you) there has been a bit of sock activity in the RfA recently. It just strikes me as odd, that's all. I appologise if I've wrongly accused you; I'm just using the facts with which I've been presented. Here's a question for you: why did you head over to the RfA almost immediatley with this new account? _TheIslander 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just seen this user's comment at my RfA, I would just like to add this: perhaps I shouldn't have compared the likely traits of a sock to this user, but, as above, the evidence seemed to me to be there. I feel that from this simple comparison, this user has labeled me as a likely heavy-handed admin who'd block him at the quickest opportunity, but I feel this is as far from the truth as possible. I appologise for any problems caused. _TheIslander 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept the sorry. I have upgraded my vote for your RFA. As far as asking RFA the same question, this shows that I was not giving you trouble. I asked everyone the same question. One was hostile, one was very nice. The nice guy got my support. The other guy got an opposed, later changed to neutral.Haveaquestion 00:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Please take my comments in the spirit in which they're intended. Please drop me a line in October, and I'll invite you for admin training at the Virtual Classroom, if you're still clearly a good'un. --Dweller 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Hi, as you can see I have withdrawn my rfa as to be honest looking at it now I probably wouldn't have supported it if I was on the judging, first of all i would like to thank you for you comments and although you did not support I was glad to have some feedback. Athough i do not agree with your 'ageism' I can I understand your concerns and will take them into account in future rfas, as for the future I will try to address any concerns raised. I will continue most of my regular actives but I am also going to try to get many Linux articles up to GA status as well as trying to get some previous Linux FA back up to FA. As for future rfas i am pretty sure I will try again but I am not going to put a date on it. --Chris  G  12:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wokingham

How is Wokingham District not a borough, when the article says it was awarded borough status in March 2007? Marky-Son 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. Going to Wokingham on a regular basis, you'd have thought I'd notice - my mistake, appologies for the reverts. _TheIslander 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

cbbc on choıce

hi I on holiday back on tuesday can we dıscus cbbc on choice when i return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.225.30 (talk) 19:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Certainly - just leave me a message here. _TheIslander 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thorpe Park

Hi there, I just saw a comment you made on the talk page of the Thorpe Park article and I just wanted to let you know I agree with what you are doing. I think at least half of the article is opinion and another fair chunk will be uncitable. I've not been a massive contributor to the article as there are a lot of enthusiasts adding unsuitable material and getting in a strop, but I'm going to try and make a change. If you could back me up if I run into any trouble that'd be much appreciated! :) Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly back you up, as I hope you'll back me up ;). I just looked at it today, and thought "Hmm. You know what? There ain't one single, tiny little reference. Not one." I thought I'd tackle the 'future' section first, 'cause that just plain fails under WP:CBALL. I'll delete it sometime tomorrow evening, if no-one's referenced it. It'll probably be reverted quickly, but there you go. I've seen an article blitzed in this fasion before, here, and though it was almost a shame, it deserved it, as it was full of opinion/unsourced fact etc. I'm sure we'll whip this one into shape somehow ;) _TheIslander 00:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started to edit together a history section on there, it's probably one of the most important parts of the article and it was missing. I'm tempted to remove almost all of the Fright Night section for being unsourced and full of opinion, I'll give it a day and see if anyone comes forward! Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - as you might have noticed, I had a bit of a vandal problem. Fright Night section was nice, shame to see it go, but you're quite right, completely unsourced. You seem to be doing a very good job, so very well done - I look forward to seeing the article in a day or two ;). _TheIslander 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bodger and badger

The reason i keep adding the opening titles section is because people can know what happened in the opening titles but yes it does look a mess so i have tided it up why not check it out. Jack haywood 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but those links to Youtube are copyright violations, and so absolutely cannot be linked from here - as such, I've removed them. Also, the trivia section goes against WP:TRIVIA, so that has to go as well. I'm sorry to be harsh, but them's the rules :-/. _TheIslander 15:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok allmost all the good stuff i do gets deleted i don't really understand all this wikipedia stuff its pretty hard to understand Jack haywood 16:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not too bad, just takes some time getting used to, 'tis all ;). For example, copyright violations are a big no-no. That means that nothing should be copied from another site, copyright violations themselves should not be linked to / uploaded (youtube videos are almost always violations). It's common sense stuff, really. Just take a look around, and you'll get the hang of it. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask! _TheIslander 16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I just created [[1]] page take a look wether its allright Jack haywood 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's rather empty, and the spelling's poor. To be honest, it fails a number of criteria, and I can't see it survivng for long. Sorry. I'd suggest you steer clear of creating new articles until you're much more experienced here. _TheIslander 18:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear ah well i have just joined unclyclopedia its looks quite good maybe you shouldJack haywood 18:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy here, thanks ;) _TheIslander 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah well i'm fine here too but its more fun there Jack haywood 19:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it

Don't mention it. I still have your page on my watchlist, because you replied here, so it was easy for me to spot. Dahn 15:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Durham Cricket

No worries; I assumed it was a good faith nomination. I can't find a link to policy that is relevant, but teams that compete in the highest level of sports leagues/competitions are deemed notable at AfD. English County cricket is the top level of professional cricket (first class cricket) in England and probably the world (well, the Australians might disagree). It does stand to reason that if the athletes that compete in top flight sports leagues/competitions are notable (see WP:BIO#Criteria for notability of people under athletes) that the teams that compete in it are also notable. But I will look further for a specific policy. And re-reading this, my explanation looks a bit convoluted... Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the criteria used for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket (under Notability criteria guideline for article inclusion) is "has appeared in at least one major (i.e., first-class or List A) match as a player". Again, nothing about the team per se, but it does seem reasonable that if the people are notable, then the team would be too. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Good on you for withdrawing so courteously. Johnlp 18:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the main reasons I originally came to Wikipedia is for all the new things I learn. I forget that sometimes when I'm on vandalism patrol or getting lost at WP:ANI. You just learned something new, so don't beat yourself up over this!! As John said, thanks for withdrawing what was obviously a good-faith nomination. As for cricket... great game! I didn't learn to play until I was an adult, but it's a lot of fun. Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry to hear you had bother. Glad it's sorted. Before I was mopped, I found the fastest way to get admin help was to check recent changes for a deletion and contact that admin directly. Hope that's a helpful tip! Otherwise, contact me or carry on using the boards... they sometimes get backlogged, but there's usually help to be had. --Dweller 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User page semi-protected...

For 1 week. Let me know if you want it longer/shorter/removed... — Scientizzle 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And now I've s-protected this page for 24h. — Scientizzle 22:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much - I really appreciate that. I made the gross mistake of politely pointing out to a user that he needed to cite sources for his claims (outlandish, I know), and he now seems intent on racking up as many vandalisms as possible, across as many IPs as possible (of course, I can't 100% guarentee that they're all socks of Danielthesaint, but I'm fairly sure they are). The time limits you've set are great, though it wouldn't suprise me if I come back and ask for more on the talk page. We'll see how it goes. Thanks again ;) _TheIslander 23:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's Danielthesaint (talk · contribs), I think a WP:RFCU could be appropriate. Contact me any time about protection issues if you have any more problems. — Scientizzle 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been so consistently unable to help you so far! RL is intruding a fair amount at the moment. I'll keep an eye on this page though. --Dweller 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful

I have closed your RfA. I'm afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns raised, and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (apples) 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Try again soon. I will be happy to support! Politics rule 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to nominate (or co-nominate) you in about 2 months if you keep your edit count going up as it is now! Seeing as basically the only reason it failed it because most of your edits are in the last month, I am pretty sure you will succeed in 2 months :D Tiddly-Tom 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably the last thing you want to hear, but if I'd realised I'd have voted for you. Oh, and by the way, I got hugely carried away with clearing up the Thorpe Park, Alton Towers and Drayton Manor articles that I created a new WikiProject, feel free to join, would be good to see you there! Seaserpent⁸⁵_Talk 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who voted to support my RfA, and those who opposed it constructivly - much appreciated. I don't have much access to the internet right now, so I can't reply to anything else :P. Cheers! _TheIslander 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register

Hello, Islander! You are receiving this notice because the WikiProject BBC is attempting to determine which members are still active. As a result of this all people on the active members list are being asked to re-register.

To re-register please see Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC/Re-Registration.

If you do not re-register within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the active members list and put onto the inactive members list (if for any reason you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just move your name back).

Boy1jhn 14:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my edit, perhaps because you disagree politically with the info in it

I know anybody can edit anything in here -- but reverting other peoples' edits is not polite.

I added info to 2001 anthrax attacks showing that a permanent effect of the attacks is slowed mail delivery to Washington politicians and bureaucrats, referencing appropriate source materials. I added it to an already-existing section entitled "Aftermath" with subtitle "Political effects". Previously, this information did not appear in the article. You removed it, claiming that it was "not constructive". I think the information that I added was constructive, accurate, objective, footnoted, and had NPOV (or very close). Your "not constructive" opinion is subjective and your action of ripping out my improvement came without any reference material or support.

Perhaps you don't think it's "constructive" to point out that politicians have become less responsive to the electorate. I think it is constructive; before a problem can be remedied, it has to be seen and understood. You seem to want to leave it as an undocumented effect of the anthrax attack; I'm not sure why.

But I'm not a Wikipedia mogul, I'm just an individual contributor. I don't spend my time going over other peoples' stuff and reverting it; I try to *add* rather than *subtract* when I infrequently come to Wikipedia. Don't insult me by telling me to make "test edits" to a test page; it's apparent from inspection that this was not a "test edit". I'm not a newbie, nor a vandal; I have indeed read the Welcome page, and have made a variety of previous edits. Perhaps you have a prejudice against people who contribute anonymously without logging in? I don't feel particularly welcome at Wikipedia, given your action. Why should ordinary folks bother adding constructive information when some self-appointed censor will throw it away a few hours later? Why does every minor improvement have to be done as a tug-of-war against live-in vultures? Perhaps you and other vultures want to "own" the encyclopedia, ignoring the rest of the public? Make your own encylopedia, then; this one is for everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.225.236 (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because

• If I am stating these childrens were shown on the BBC i feel it is only acceptable that i provide links which prove that the show i am that were indeed on the bbc with credible evidence. Dwanyewest 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Dwanyewest 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC) So shall i put the links on for each respective show then

tpskyline.jpg

Hello, please don't be so patronizing next time you comment on my talk page. I am not new to Wikipedia, and I especially do not like it when people delete pictures that I could fully vouch for, but no link was given to me to show who owned this picture and that he gave permission for this to be uploaded, and he was going to show that he still is giving permission. So In a kind friendly way, maybe you should tone down your bots on Wikipedia, and stop it deleting something that has been on Wikipedia longer than the bot, and before it needed to be sourced?

ffs, Sebastian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's stupid. That's like saying 'you did 'xyz' crime, so your going to get shot'. I will reupload this picture to show how silly it was ofg you tagging it, and then getting it deleted when I could FULLY show it's copyright or CC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems I will ahve to uplaod the picture again with rights attached. Stupid bot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebastianoutfin (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5