User talk:Sceptre/Archive 48

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

edit

Some handy links

I'm still around, pottering away, editing where I need to.

The current local time is: 05:13, 16 November 2024 (GMT)

Only 51666 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 48

edit

Help

Hi Will,

I realise you are not an admin. anymore, but I will say this anyways...could you please find someone that will block this IP 82.110.149.233 ? Heaps of edits and ALL vandalism. Thanks! :-) Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input

I suggest that we take the question of fictional House characters to mediation. Can I ask you to weigh in on which form of mediation you would prefer? Thanks Will. Eusebeus (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who newsletter

Hello Will. After proposing and receiving ideas here [1] I have finished my recent cleanup of the participants list for the Wikipedia Doctor Who project. You can see the members that I removed from the active list here [2] I also noted the reasons that they were being removed from the list, however, at the request of Lady Aleena I hid those edits so you will have to click on the edit section command if you want to see them. There are about another 10 editors who have not made any edits on wikipedia since last fall. I am keeping an eye on them and may move them to the inactive list in another six months. The reason that I am informing you of this is so that you can remove them from the mailing list that you set up for the Doctor Who newsletter that you recently started if you wish to do so. I hope that this is of some help for you and I apologize for taking up your time if it is not. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I have an impersonator...

I warned this user here, and as a result it's clear they created an account to impersonate me. What sort of action do I take here? Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content forks

Hi, could you clarify this change? I know that content forks are generally merged rather than deleted, but sometimes (especially in the case of POV forks) deletion is the only good option. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with many of the points that you raised in the AfD (at minimum, the article ought to be trimmed quite a bit and renamed to a title that is more defined in scope and doesn't give the impression that the article should be a laundry list of questionable activities carried out by or events connected to the Church of Scientology or Scientologists), a single AfD does not invalidate an established portion of the deletion policy. While Scientology controversies is a content fork, there is apparently no consensus for the position that it is an undesirable fork and/or for the idea that deletion is preferable to merging in this case in this case. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that content forks have been given free rein for some time, but removing the criterion from the deletion policy would only deepen the problem for other cases, where there often is consensus for deletion or merging. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truly undesirable content forks are generally deleted, so the criterion is not "dead weight". Moreover, POV forking is a major problem in many topic areas that are plagued by ethnic or nationalist disputes, and there is often no other way to deal with such articles except deletion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations...

Re [3]. Agreed. I've benn trying to trim sections which already have articles elsewhere. I've just done it for Japan. If you're prepared to help out, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 24 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Planet of the Ood, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Just so you know, I reverted here, since there was no Talk Page evidence of disputes over neutrality or facts. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage question

Hi, can I ask what the strange box below your barnstars is? The multicoloured one? Cheers, and enjoy the Sontarans!! —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing planets? Shadow Proclamation? Oh, I've got it: all your edits are related to Who. Oh, dammit! :-) Fair enough —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Companions of the Tenth Doctor

hi, i edited the Companions of the Tenth Doctor template to show Rose as a companion in the final 3 episodes and and martha in the last 2. However, you have edited it to show Rose in the third to last episode and Martha on the last 2 and have then said my edit was vandalism! This is NOT TRUE. If you look at the Wikipedia page for Journey's End and its discussion page you will find Rose is confermed to be back for the finale, as is Martha, Sarah Jane and Captain Jack. I would appreciate if you would stop deleting my edits or if you could tell me why this is vandalism, thank you. S-m-r-t (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation

Please explain your inappropriate accusations of original research and vandalism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your are mistaking

I was fixing a problem caused by another user. --Plate King (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Hello, I've made an article about "Sensible World of Soccer" but there is another site called "Sensible world of soccer" (small letters) which redirects to "Sensible Soccer". How can I delete this redirection without beeing a rowdy?

And I hope the pictures which are used in this article are OK now. I think I have some problems with the tags. (Redhair23 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Can you help me? What's wrong with this image: Image:Cover_SWOS9697.jpg ? What do I really need to add there? The box is a scan by myself and I have the permission by Codemasters to use it for this article on Wikipedia. I've already checked other game covers here and compared with this one, but couldn't find the problem, please help me. (Redhair23 (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Unprotecting Dean Martin

You know, the number of elephants has tripled in the last six months. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only guess that's an oblique reference to the episode of the Simpsons where it was mentioned. I'm not in North America so I have not seen the episode and can't comment. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert, actually. Mentioning editing Wikipedia on such a popular show does open the floodgates... I think Snake Jailbird had to be protected a few months ago for the same reason. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not denying that, but we usually go vandalism first, protect second. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sontaran2008.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sontaran2008.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena's RfA

Sceptre...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

COI/N

Can you look at the recent edits for me on this article (Crystal Castles (band))? I think there's possible COI issues with the editor who keeps reverting as they keep removing any negative material, ignoring the sources etc. If you agree, do you think you could report to the COI/N on my behalf? I really don't have time to do it tonight. Thank-you thank-you thank-you! (Or you can tell me to get lost :P) Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sontaran Stratagem

Let's discuss this edit you made on the discussion page. Please don't remove it again without concensus.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from Horologium

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium

Why?

..did you delete the screenshot from the posion sky? There was no need to, and no reason to. - Mikeipedia (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free media (like the screenshot that you added), need strong reasons for their inclusion. That image doesn't illustrate "a key element of the plot and key characters" and also it does not meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8. Once the episode airs, it's probable that a very good image could be found which would show a key plot point. Until then, the addition of that image is unnecessary. Also, if you check the history of that article, there was a discussion about images, which should adequately sum up any other questions. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sontaran Strategem

On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Sontaran Strategem, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

duuude

gtalk. now. kthnx? : Øřêōş 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity sex tape

Hey, regarding your edit to the Celebrity sex tape article, if you really felt some of those entries were improperly sourced you probably should have dealt with them individually, or preferably said something on the talkpage. Not blank the article entirely. And while I would normally drop a {{subst:uw-delete3|Celebrity sex tape}} on your talkpage for such a maneuver, you appear to have made the edit in good faith. But you're also an experienced enough editor to know better, that an indiscriminate page-blanking is not actually a helpful edit and would be instantly reverted. Ford MF (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, you have to stop blanking articles and simply citing "BLP Concerns" in your edit summary. If you actually have a BLP concern, we have talk pages for a reason. Now, stop blanking the article and actually address the issues you have with the article. - auburnpilot's sock 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Celebrity sex tape. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ford MF (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image not showing

You're cruel :) I though about reverting that, as PiC and TSS had good pre-airing pics, but then I thought it might actually be a good idea... but I'm wondering now. Even TT asked about it on WP:VPT and the article's talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 21:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Grawp" thread on WP:AN

Please in the future do not start any more "Grawp" or "vandal" threads. If you have an idea that you would like to propose, (such as requiring accounts to have a certain number of edits before they can move pages) then make the proposal without mentioning a certain vandal directly. Please stop overreacting. --Urban Rose 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever

I've had my fill of vandal fighting so I don't really care what you people do in that regard anymore. I was just giving you some friendly advice, as a lot of people don't like it when people make threads dedicated to specific vandals. And the problem wasn't with just Grawp. It was with page move vandals in general. You could have started a thread about beefing up the perquisites needed to move pages and maybe mentioned that a vandal had been abusing page moves, but there's no reason to create a thread on a vandal. But whatever, I don't care anymore. Wikipedia could stop petty vandalism if it wanted to by going through with my proposals, but it's not going to do so anytime soon. So anyway, have fun with your vandals. I've got other things to do.--Urban Rose 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Alternative music Newsletter

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 13 - April 2008

"God is in your scrotum!'"- Perry Farrell
Project news

This month was the first in over a year in which no articles were promoted to featured article status. In the period between March 2007 and April 2008, the project produced a whopping 70 Featured Articles. Let's keep adding to those numbers!
Pearl Jam was featured on the Main Page on April 22.
We collaborated on My Bloody Valentine, The Queen Is Dead, Double Nickels on the Dime and Ten (Pearl Jam album) during the past month.
During the month of April, Diorama (album), Editors, Neon Bible, Ghosts I–IV, "Yes! I Am a Long Way from Home" and "Who Really Cares (Featuring the Sound of Insanity)" were promoted to good article status.
This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Sleater-Kinney - Dig Me Out (1997).

New members

Arleach, Panic!out, N0tverycreative, and Gallagher2x2 joined the alternative music fold during April.

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated Giggabot (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cloverfield (Yahoo trailer).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cloverfield (Yahoo trailer).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just reminding you

You're not an admin, so you aren't allowed to close deletion reviews. Also, even if you were, you would need to point out how something is disruptive, not simply cite "disruption" as your reason.--Urban Rose 21:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

But just because a site has attacked you doesn't mean that requesting the recreation of an article on it is "disruptive". Seriously, please get over it. I was attacked by that site too and even I think it deserves an article.--Urban Rose 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image over at The Doctor's Daughter

Hey Sceptre ;). As the person who added the restrictions to the Doctor Who Infobox, I wonder if you could take a glance at The Doctor's Daughter, and it's talk page, and give me your opinion on the picture that's been added, circumventing the new restriction. Cheers, _Talk Islander 11:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to that, could I make a few points about the new restriction?

I don't recall any consensus or discussion about it, and can find none. Could you maybe tell me how I can revert the restriction so that we can then form a view?
It's not "circumventing" the restriction, since it has no grounds. Is there any policy on the subject? No, so why shouldn't I put an image outside the infobox since you've unilaterally banned images inside the infobox?

Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hidden WP:CANVASS reference, however, as this is not a poll, call for concensus, AFx or any other WP process, but merely my informing Sceptre of a current situation, it is not at all relevant here ;). _Talk Islander 11:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden, then. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN thread

I've started a thread at WP:AN (here) concering your actions yesterday. Your input is welcome. Please do not remove this comment citing "vandalism" as your reason, or that will be added to my report of your disruptive behavior. Thank you.--Urban Rose 11:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at that report, actually, and think it makes reasonable points; I'd advise you not to delete the above message since it's fair and civil. Hope you don't take this the wrong way, —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if instead of simply ignoring my WP:AN thread you would make some kind of comment on your actions.--Urban Rose 12:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give the guy a chance - he only started editing today around an hour ago... _Talk Islander 13:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WP:AN thread

Please go here as you were on the same site as I was when the incidents occurred. Undeath (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo

Just thought I'd let you know that the following two sentences on your userpage make no sense:

"I know an odd and very smattering of French and German"
"I also possess a great deal cultural references"

You might like to get on that. Have a nice day, -- Naerii 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Sceptre, due to your abuse of the rollback function and the numerous concerns raised at the current discussion on WP:AN, I have revoked your access to rollback. I have no doubt, if you demonstrate an acceptable use of other revert methods, you will be able to regain access to the rollback function. After a few weeks, I'd be happy to reinstate access myself, or you are of course free to request access from any other administrator. - auburnpilot talk 00:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, you should remove the rollback icons on your userpage, as you currently don't have rollback now. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity sex tape

I saw that you blanked the page or part of it again (what is this, six times in two days now?) I'll let someone else revert you now, but since you have refused comment on the article's talkpage, I'm trying to solicit some rationale from you about why BLP should apply to people who aren't alive? Since you seem to apply it like it does. Ford MF (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the non-answer. Ford MF (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]