User talk:Islander/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Islander. 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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Re: Adminship

Like I told Risker, I didn't know that her adminship came to an end. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads-up. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Konnie Huq

Why do you keep reverting the Konnie Huq in Playboy article? This is genuine, I have the source also Konnie also talked about the fact on the ITV show Al Murray's Happy Hour on March 21st 2008. [1]

In 2008, Konnie Huq reportedly turned down a six figure sum to pose naked for Playboy magazine. Loaded magazine were also in touch wanting come topless shots. She said: "I've had offers from lads' mags. I wouldn't mind, as long as it was classy and sexy. The problem is, when you have big boobs like mine, a topless photo shoot looks tacky, whereas with someone like Kate Moss, who has a flatter chest, it looks arty.I'm not going to rule anything out. I'd love to be a sex symbol. If you've got it, you have to use it." [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.226.242 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I reverted it because it's something I really wouldn't have associated with Huq, and so felt it a BLP issue, but if it's sourced, fair enough. Still, there's no need to go into the detail you went into, especially seeings it seems to be a copyvio of that article - just mention it breifly with a reference, and it'll be enough. _Talk Islander 13:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for rollback

Hi there, Islander. I found your name on the list of admins who consider rollback requests. When it was first announced, I wasn't too interested in the rollback feature because it didn't seem like it added substantial functionality. After having used it as an admin at another wiki, however, I now appreciate that it can be a time saver. I hope you will take a look at my edit record and consider my request. Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to say I'm impressed. All requests for rollback I've had thus far have been from people that unfortunatly should not have Rollback. You're the first exception to the rule :). The only thing that I'd say is that your number of edits without an edit summary is a little higher than I'd like, but I'm still willing to grant you rollback access ;). _Talk Islander 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Islander. The bulk of those edits without edit summaries are things like moving a period from after a <ref> to before it in an article's lead. I sometimes do ten or twenty of those a day compared to one meaningful edit every few days. Adding an edit summary for minor edits is a waste of time (not to mention a waste of database space). And isn't saving time why I'm asking for rollback in the first place? :-) Robert K S (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Terminal 5

Hello! just a small thing for you :-) I noticed that someone removed my edit of terminal 5, then reinstated it, then you took out a word:

'High-tech' - yes it is, but it just has the feel of a weasle-word to me...

This sounds a little funny for a reason to revert it! lol. I was actually using the word from the article itself, surely its grammatically correct? As an aside though, thanks for correcting my shocking grammar in the rest of the section! :-) δ²_{(Talk to me!)} 16:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammatically correct it was, but that's not what I meant (and actually 'weasel word was entirely the wrong term :P). What I meant was that it almost added a POV slant to the sentace. It's not necessary to know that it's high-tech, only that it broke down. Saying that it was high tech and it broke down kinda makes it sound worse. The whole T5 situation's a complete mess anyway, but this article needs to be neutral, and that phrase just didn't quite sit right ith me. _Talk Islander 19:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, and understood. Good call :-) δ²_{(Talk to me!)} 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway

([2]). For example, see London Underground - there's just a roundel without text. --<Flrn^talk> 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair point. I've reduced the size of the roundel, though, 'cause at 250px it looked huge. _Talk Islander 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Classical language

An informal caution on my userpage may have been appropriate, but a formal 3RR warning tag certainly wasn't, considering that I have made only two edits to that article in the month of April... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

From a neutral perspective, it was apparent that you and the other editor were edit warring, regardless of who's right, and regardless how many reversions had actually been completed. There's nothing wrong with the tag - you're not being punished, nothing will come of it so long as you don't break 3RR - it's merely there to prove that you are aware of 3RR, should you break it (not that I'm saying you will). Also, I warned the other user, and had to really warn you as well just to keep things even. It was a way of reducing the possibility of repercussions. Like I said, I wasn't stating that you were reverting for the wrong reasons, merely making you aware of 3RR. _Talk Islander 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not neutral, when you give him the chance for 3RR... and me not.

"you're not being punished, nothing will come of it so long as you don't break 3RR"

"Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule." This is really unfair.--Thirusivaperur (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, as of right now, both of you are in the same boat. You won't get punished, so long as you don't violate 3RR either. I just warned you, to make you aware of the rule. This, AnonMoos, is exactly the reason I had to warn you too - if I don't treat both parties equally, you can be certain that one will complain. As it is, unluckily for me, you both have. Be fully aware of this: neither of you face a block or anything like that if you don't continue reverting each other. The entire point of the warning is to stop you before you do anything that could warrent a block. _Talk Islander 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Could you explain, why the protection is not "warrent"? The page was once protected, as there was an edit war. Why not now? And i want to inform you, that you act against WP:AGF with your statement. I'm strongly against your condemnation. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, enough with quoting AGF. If you continue to do so, then I can only assume that you've read it thouroughly, including the sentance: "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice". No one has accused you of malice. Also, take a look at WP:AAGF, i.e. the assumption of assuming good faith. As for the page protection, no, it's not warrented. The dispute is only between two editors, not entire factions. _Talk Islander 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CBD

Regarding a recent user you are working with that has contributed to your userpage, I'd advise you strongly not to block him yourself. Lots of eyes are on him now. See the last thread of my talk. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I think I got a little OTT in the heat of the argument - I should really go and cool off myself. Thanks a million for your help ;). _Talk Islander 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 31 hours. When he/she returns, he's on my watchlist, and anyone else that looks at my talk. I'll have no problem extended the block if his/her veiled threats and attacks continue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your help, Keeper - very much appreciated :). _Talk Islander 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FGW

Sorry, I did not check (beforehand).

Perhaps I did continue the topic, but what I have done is refocused the section back to the task in hand! This was certainly not going to happen the way things were going!

Regards, Btline (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008

The April 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

It said on the BBC article I provided that they enjoyed a night of cocaine, sleeping pills and vodka. News sources also confirm that he had fallen asleep in the bedroom as his fiancée was in the bath, and he only discovered her when he woke up the next day. 86.157.118.213 (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says nothing of them "enjoying" a night of cocaine, sleeping pills and vodka. If you are going to re-add it, please do so neutrally. Please see WP:NPOV. _Talk Islander 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It says in BBC, "the couple had been "partying" at home on their own and had taken cocaine and sleeping pills as well as drinking wine and vodka." "Partying" can be synonymous with "enjoying"!!! Nonetheless, I have now directly quoted the source. 86.157.118.213 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Speight

"The Sun" is not a reliable source, and even they don't confirm it's him. I have BBC News 24 here; as soon as it is CONFIRMED that the body found is Speight's, the article will be unlocked. Meanwhile, WP:BLP still applies. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC News 24 are still saying "believed to be"; that's as far as we can go. I would unprotect back to semi but we'd still get editors saying it's true, and we don't know it is. WP:BLP still remains policy, as do WP:V and WP:RS. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I won't object if you want to take prot back to semi, but you can fire-fight it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, don't worry about it; multiple edit conflicts on heavily-edited articles will always lead to that kind of thing. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 17:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

no probs. Sorry for adding it too quickly. I removed it myself because like you, I don't do unconfirmed news.--w_tanoto (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re coursework: You can always do what I do. Not sleep. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never, nor planned to delete any entry made by another member, when it was done to me I was so angry and felt it so unjustified, but respecting anyone's right to sleep I choose to watch the article and Wiki deaths page till Islander wakes. He (and Rodullandemu) have fought hard for the high road and I respect that. OneHappyHusky (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I got to bed, the battle (if you choose) is now yours. OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you OneHappyHusky - I appreciate that ;). _Talk Islander 09:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks

as a life long mark speight fan i'd like to thank you for maintaining the respectability of the mark speight article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.199.8 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome - I'm happy that at least some can see the benefits of what we were doing. Thank you :) _Talk Islander 07:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Exquisite Death of Saxon Shore

Can you please restore this title? This is not a band and is not subject to an A7 deletion. Chubbles (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a band - appologies for mistakenly deleting it as such. However, it an article about an album that contains little more than the date of release and genre, thus it qualified for A1. Sorry for the incorrect deletion summary, but I'm affraid I cannot restore it as it is. _Talk Islander 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It didn't have a track listing? Chubbles (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Here's the entire article, just before I deleted it:

Yeah, well, I was working on it. I'm rather new to starting my own Wikipedia articles, so I apologize for being too slow (at least by Wikipedian standards). Currently re-working the new article. Thanks for taking note, though! SenorPsychotique (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

{{db-band}}

{{Infobox Album <!-- See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums -->
| Name = The Exquisite Death of Saxon Shore
| Type = Full-length [[studio album]]
| Artist = [[Saxon Shore (band)|Saxon Shore]]
| Released = 2005
| Genre = [[Post-rock]]
}}

_Talk Islander 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

what do you think about this?

I've shown that i never edited under another IP address.My edits are public so i don't need to prove anything and you know it very well. Do you know what is reasonable doubt? You can not punish people beyond a reasonable doubt specially with false accusations.The prosecutor(you) must prove the accusations not me.Now i challenge you to show me proof my editions were made with 2 different IP. This is not guantanamo. 1-Your friends made false accusations (like you) ex:impersonate another user proof:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.23.133.162 -Impersonation of other editors

Please do not impersonate User:Folken de Fanel-here is my sentence-Don't be a goofy and hypocrite folken already confirmed daizenshuu 7 listed tenshin as an alien in the discussion above" Toriyama didn't write the Daizenshû himself, but he has read it, enjoyed it, and he approved the book for release. We also know that he himself wrote some paragraphs in the book. Thus it's a canonical source. However we can wonder how the "tenshinhan is an extraterrestrial" thing was really usefull, as it has never been brought forth in the manga. But since Gokû's tail makes him an extraterrestrial, why couldn't Tenshinhan's 3rd eye make him alien also ? And the manga didn't specifically state that Ten' was a human. Thus the alien explanation is at least coherent and it should be mentionned in the infobox, at least in the form "human/alien". Folken de Fanel 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

now folken de fanel here in the topic incorrection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Prede Toriyama didn't write the Daizenshû himself, but he has read it, enjoyed it, and he approved the book for release. We also know that he himself wrote some paragraphs in the book. Thus it's a canonical source. However we can wonder how the "tenshinhan is an extraterrestrial" thing was really usefull, as it has never been brought forth in the manga. But since Gokû's tail makes him an extraterrestrial, why couldn't Tenshinhan's 3rd eye make him alien also ? And the manga didn't specifically state that Ten' was a human. Thus the alien explanation is at least coherent and it should be mentionned in the infobox, at least in the form "human/alien". Folken de Fanel 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

-finally your friends were trying to apply me the 3r to block me without any reason. I showed an official reference instead they made edits without references-reference number 30 is not official but it comes from a fan page which means they made unsourced editions several times. This is not a copyright violation??????-URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg These scans were provided by me why insist to keep them in the discussion page??? I am working in citizendium and your behavior here was agressive, unfair, wrong and abusive. An administrator must be wise,you are not wise and refused to listen. Remember an administrator is not untouchable. Your false accusations and abusive actions are clear in this situation.--~~the-one~~

Sorry, but I seriously haven't got a clue what you're saying / what you did / what you've been accused of etc. Rudget seems to be the one dealing with this, so please go through him. I only commented on one isolated comment I saw on his talk page, to point out the obvious. If you wish me to help, you are going to have to take a deep breath, and explain everything to me carefully and clearly, and not like the above which is just a mish-mash of facts, quotes and hell knows what else. _Talk Islander 14:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Excuse me Sir, but my reverts are cited.

The reverts of the other users, are original research.

Since when Wikipedia administrators replace cited material with original research, and call the cited and referenced edits; "vandalism"? --Elampon (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I protected the article because I saw a large number of iP edits that were being reveted. Your edits actually swayed my decision very little - I'm really not targeting you. _Talk Islander 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Islander, in addition, you might want to take a look at the little community founded against my person, with insults(by an administrator Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (talk · contribs) , and coincidentally this user is the same who has been reverting the article with original research with the help of 3rdAlcove (talk · contribs) and is the same who banned me. In his talk page, you will find both of them conspiring to ban me, and also, using the terms "katara sto ladempora" in Greek, ie myself, who is the one that forced them to revert 4 times, and it means "curse to the oil-merchant", "oil merchant" being Greek slang for "gypsie, dirty" and the likes. If it is possible, can you please take some appropriate action? Thank you.--Elampon (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into it. Looking at Future Perfect's talk page, I can see your side of the problem, but not his, so I really need to wait and see what he has to say first. After that, I'll do what I see as fit. _Talk Islander 13:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"oil-merchant" is in fact slang for "oil-merchant". I have never heard it used in any other sense and I speak the language natively. Elampon is obviously making it up as he goes. The phrase as used by Fut. is just a general expletive like "shoot, forshooth, damn it" etc. Not directed at anyone and I am curious as to why Elampoon is making such a fuss. If I were uncharitable I'd say someone is gaming the system...Xenovatis (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xenovatis for putting this right, I appreciate that. For a moment he had me caught off-guard. That's always the danger when you try to say something funny in a foreign language; you can never know if it really means what you think it means. I'm glad to hear I wasn't that far off. Seems those Kypatzides taught me correctly after all... ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone is certainly gaming the system, and the "Katara sto ladempora", is clearly an insult, as it means literally "Curse to the oil-merchant"(ie to the "dirty dude" that made as "dirty" as well in this case "dirty" as "forced us to revert"). This is certainly directed at my person. And i speak the language natively as well.--Elampon (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello there Islander. The expression κατάρα στον λαδέμπορα in Greek reffers to the black-marketer quislings during the German occupation of Greece during WW2. Would you like to check that bit here [3] as well? I am the IP user who was accused by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise of being a sockpuppet (yet he wasn't able of answering to my question of whose sockpuppet I was). He said something weird at me too: όξω κάλτσα απ' την παράγκα, meaning "get out of the shanty, sock". The usual slang expression (used by a dead now show-woman) is όξω πούστη απ' την παράγκα which would be translated as "get out of the shanty, queer". כתר (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Islander i have written this already more than 3 times and it always gets deleted from the talk page of FPaS, so i write it here as well:

Islander, the ISO-standards website in regards to XMK[4] writes explicitly "for description see Linguist List", and the Linguist List is clear on the matter, if the ISO standards are not good enough, i sincerely do not know what is. In addition, the most up-to-date theories all agree that it is a Greek language, the theories that claim otherwise are outdated and old. You can see this from the wiki article, in the paragraph "classification". But this is really besides the point, because the ISO-standards, have published their consensus, and the consensus is exactly as i wrote it in my edit. "A Indo-European language of the Hellenic family tree, but its exact relationship is unclear: possibly this..and possibly that."
In addition the text "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language", is very bad POV and original research as well because the actual quote is and cited as well: "There are no texts from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek", i have cited and even linked the book from the google.books database. Regarding the slur, i do not sicnerely care if this person should be punished for it or not, but it is useful to illustrate the POV of our respective positions, and a probably evident bias regarding this particular case. --Elampon (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise"--Elampon (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Elampon, this issue is over. I've asked you for more sources, and all you've done is tried to elevate the status of your original source. Find a tonne more sources that back you up, from completely different websites - before you do, you have no argument to use. _Talk Islander 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Islander, the ISO-standards are responsible for the classification, and the code that this particular language has, there is no source higher than this one This is the source responsible for the code this language has internationally. And their description is the description i have added on the article. --Elampon (talk)

16:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Islander to bother you again, but I've now got both these guys edit-warring on my own user talk. Could you do me a favour and reign them in? Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here, the XMK ISO standards are being deleted by FPaS. What is this?--Elampon (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange things are happening @ WP... User:Future Perfect at Sunrise behaves very strange. Has he always been like that? Maybe he's not sober? ktr (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

IP Edits to User talk:Rodhullandemu and WP:AN

what are you serious>? I made a post on a page I know about and this guy tells me he will ban me if I post again and you dont call that a personal attack against me?

What kind of website is this?

Anything I post you guys remove see?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&action=history

You sure are not very helpful to new people to wikipedia are you now.

How the hell am i vandalising Wikipedia if I am posting on the Administrators HELP board Wtf is wrong with yu poeple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.175.94 (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2008

Recommended administrators

Hello, i have created a section on my userpage for other users to find administrators recommended by me. I would like you to add yourself to the list so it can have your unique signature! Please use ~~~ to add yourself, as this will omit the date. If you do not wish to be on the list, thats okay! I respect the choice of every administrator/user on wikipedia. Have a nice day :-) TheProf - T / C 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a Look at me Now

Hi the Islander. As you may know Britishrailclass91 has been cuasing some trouble and decided to comment on my talkpage because I opposed his RFA. It is still their to look at if you want. But I didn't get hotheaded this time but stayed cool. Thank you for your help. --FGWQPR (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:FGWQPR/adoption. Thanks, Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DW / TW

Hi Islander, could you please revert any future edits that remove the flags from the infoboxes at the Doctor Who and Torchwood articles. Yesterday, after I tried to uphold the current consensus, I was unfairly accused of edit warring (which was never revoked). So in future, I will be avoiding making any edits to those pages. Thanks TheProf - T / C 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try and urge related editors to reach a concensus on the relevant template talk page, and if some are blindly removing the flags, I'll do something about it, but I'm not going to repeatedly replace the flags myself I'm affraid, as concensus *has* yet to be reached. _Talk Islander 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:TheProf07

Hey Islander, as I'm sure you are aware, generally user talk pages are not deleted, even if by user request, as they contain archives/page history of other editor's contributions. Exceptions would be for RTV or attack concerns. Any reason why this was deleted that I'm not aware of, besides the obvious angry "user request"? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

TheProf07 (talk · contribs)

Is it appropriate to delete a talk page while there are good faith issues still outstanding? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is when a) the user themselves has requested it, twice, and b) admins (who will probably be looking into this) can easily take a look at the deleted revisions. Besides, taking this into account, an indef-block doesn't look too unreasonable. _Talk Islander 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, my above comment, I support the deletion. Bye Prof. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked now. Has become disruption only account, vandalizing user and usertalk pages. Sigh, tis a shame. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all points above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page as well. 'Tis a huge shame indeed. He was a fine editor, who got (perhaps understandably) riled, but the escallated beyond reason. TheProf: Feel free to email me (link above) if you want to discuss this, slowly and rationally. _Talk Islander 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Islander. Prof: I don't have email enabled, sorry you can't communicate with me directly at this point. If you were to email Islander and work things out between each other, I would support a reduction in block length away from indef without needing to talk to me as blocking admin. Although Seicer was the original blocking admin, he set it for 31 hours, so after that expires, you are under my block and not his. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Islander, if you are in contact with TheProf, would you kindly let him know that I miss him and have been letting it be known. Thanks. Kek15 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He has spent the last hour or so watching his and others pages on the project, he'll probably see your comment above - sorry, but I'm not Wikipedia's link to TheProf. Like I've said in a number of places now, this is over. TheProf has told me that he is leaving, block or no block, so that's that. Case well and truely Closed. _Talk Islander 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much for forwarding Prof's message - you can tell he's a good guy just by reading it. This is over as far as I am concerned as well; although it was all I could do not to pipe in on Keeper's page to say that he has the need for atonement backwards. Enough said. I won't be bothering you again on this. Thanks. Kek15 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)