User talk:Sceptre/Archive 45

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: 16:21, 16 November 2024 (GMT)

Only 51668 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 45

edit

reverts to my edits on Follicular unit transplantation

Hello, I don't understand why you reverted my additions to follicular unit transplantation. The message I received was that my edits were not constructive. Being a 3 time hair transplant patient and doing extensive studying on the topic, I would never add content that wasn't constructive. The content I added is 100% relevant to the topic and can't see how you would think it is not. Please advise. Thanks. Falceros7 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2008

Illinois Fighting Illini football year-by-year record

Hi, I don't understand why you've reverted my additions to this page. I was only trying to complete what was a clearly incomplete list using clearly cited statistics. If the information is "unconstructive," then perhaps the entire page should be removed. Please let me know what your problem is with my changes, and I hope we can work this out. Thanks. Elcapitan52 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Cherie Blair

Sorry about that ... I was trying to undo some vandalism, and it reverted to a version that was itself work of a vandal. I think the current version now works. Eddieuny (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverts to my edits on Westboro baptist church

I found my information concerning the membership of the church through a webcasted interview with Shirley Phelps Roper on Fox News Network URL http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217975,00.html asking her if it was true the church is made up primarily of her own family and she admitted to such a claim. I was editing truth, not defaming. User799 03:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

my edits were not uncontructive they were accurate and i wil put them back in lease do nt remove them again, i would never mak edits i did not know to be true, as i admire this women very much- could i ask though what edits were hese as i have made sevrel in the past few days Chloe2kaii7 (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 21 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ji Yeon, 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.

--Maxim_(talk) 12:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deshastha

Hello Will,

I strongly object to you reverting my edits to this page. I had not signed in when I made my edits, however. My edits were to add to the article or to reorganize the text. So please please , do check your facts before issuing warnings etc.

Thanks.

--Shakher59 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I've been wondering, why were your sysop rights removed? Malinaccier (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. The main concern was account security, correct? Malinaccier (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requestion action for personal attacks/3RR

Hi ... please see the recent edit summaries for the Cannibal Corpse article. I don't appreciate being told "fuck you" and being called an "ass" for reverting the nonsense of 142.163.159.219 (who I suspect is really Jumanji656, since the edits of this IP defend/guard Jumanji's irrational edits, the same edits you told him to stop making). Thanks. Logical Defense (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D. B. Cooper

TJRC and I have replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D. B. Cooper. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your signature

Your signature of "Will" is confusing because your username is Sceptre. Also, there is already a user named Will and people leave messages intended for you on the talkpage of Will. If you can convince a bureaucrat to move User:Will then you can take over that name. Until then, please change your signature to include your username. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shape of Things to Come (Lost)

The Shape of Things to Come (Lost) has been officially confirmed on the podcast. -- Silva Storm 01:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have not waited for press releases for other episodes confirmed on podcasts and such so I don't see why this should be any different. -- Silva Storm 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Portland's page was made straight after it was mentioned on the podcast. -- Silva Storm

Oi, you

Dihydrogen Monoxide would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Dihydrogen Monoxide to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sceptre 3. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Shockpuppet

You're a shockpuppet of User:Badagnani. JacquesNguyen (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reject that reality and substitute my own. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, and I tell you something, about my edit in Hung Vuong, I erase Han tu because that the most ancient characterd of Vietnamese language, most people don't know it, so we don't need it, we only care about the Vietnamese language using the Roman alphabets, sure you'll understand this, please don't add Han tu in Vietnamese-related articles. Thank! JacquesNguyen (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya.

On.
off. I'll change the colours around if you want. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 08:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry your RfA didn't go through! Don't know what else to say aside from... well... keep on truckin'! :( Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 11:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that sometimes, people can't keep it in anymore and need to vent. However, we have wikibreaks for that, and if you ever get stressed out remember that the people who matter all think you're awesome. The scum of the earth, meanwhile, can say anything they like; I don't care, and neither do most people. My point is, responding to them so aggressively is just going to keep them coming back because that's all they're here for; to try to piss you off. And since barnstars are overused, I'll instead write that I admire your devotion to the project; it's a model for all of us. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 21:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For "courage under fire" during your RfA - it was a big risk to take, and I admired your openness in expressing your views. Orderinchaos 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. A great user with a good outlook, you'll do fine. Rudget . 13:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better luck next time, and if you work on those few issues in the oppose section I will be happy to support next time. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 18:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeii

Well if we were fitting to the other articals we'd use my version, but seeing as we don't have that much information giving each little bit its own heading could seem a bit OTT, I'll leave you to make the call. For your brand new artical on the Agatha Christie episode I would recomend we break up the text with another heading or a couple of sub-headings, it will help make it more palitable to read once we've added a plot, continuety, etc.--Wiggs (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but I do feel that once we have a plot and all the other things that come with it someone might decide to put what is written to one side instead of incorparating it in, since it will take up the begining of the artical, because aditional bits that make an artical impressive usually go after the plot, like Doomsday (Doctor Who). If we find a suible title to give the text about Gareth writing the episode I think it would last forever, rather then being replaced with the plot or reduced.--Wiggs (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Good.--Wiggs 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really being a dick now…

E-mail. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 19:31 22 March, 2008 (UTC)

Deshastha I

This guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.187.26.104 has been removing cited links. You have already issued the warning to him. I checked the cited links and My grand father belongs to an eminent family from the community and was a historian and had written many books on indian history. C Hayavadana Rao. And that guy who had provided the links was right. So ask this guy to stop vandalizing or Please do take some action. Jcavale (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deshastha II

Dear Will, I have been crawling through some wikipedia articles, and I came across a user who is continuously reverts valid edits by the user User talk:122.167.35.179. The instigator, coincidentally, is the one posting above. Please help them solve their problems.Storms991 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He took it totally wrong!

Look at the diffs in the e-mail I sent you, then go forward a few until my next edit. He totally misconstrued it. >:( — $PЯINGεrαgђ 03:42 23 March, 2008 (UTC)

Why vandalism?

I provided an update with a newer source to the sales figure of an album. Why is this unconstructive? And how would an edit summary help when it merely contains 'Update'? Threatening to block me for that seems excessive and totally discourages participation. Hekerui (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source at all? These are the Billboard sales figures, this level of detail can hardly be emulated, and it is constructive as it provides information about the success of an album, which is what Billboard generally does - and this institution is not discarded as unconstructive. However, if you want me to stop helping out here I will. I also gave tracklistings to album stubs and corrected mistakes in quite a few articles but I better don't do stuff like that anymore when caring for music here results in being banned.Hekerui (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on User talk:Jimbo Wales

You've broken the 3RR rule there. I don't see a point in blocking either you or Marsden now that the war seems to have stopped, but have warned her so it's only fair I warn you. NO MOAR REVERTS KTHX. Martinp23 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

HAPPY EASTER!

← Here are some eggs for you to find today…they're all right there! ← ;)
On a less light-hearted and more serious note, please remember that "He is risen" isn't just a cliché; it's true.
On a more light-hearted and less serious note, please have a wonderful Easter today with you and whoever you like. :)
—$PЯINGεrαgђ

AN/I

I have removed a comment of yours per WP:BLP. Your choice of the word "incarcerated" here was inaccurate, and I hope you'll agree that this kind of wording tends to reinforce rather than de-escalate attention-seeking behaviour. Best, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's (supposed to be) a harmless analogy. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's an analogy, but consider the audience. The press may be watching; we don't know if they are but we never know until after the fact so it is always a good idea to assume that they are. The press does not understand Wikipedia's internal workings well - as we've seen, they can barely get their heads around the distinction between articles and userspace. Poorly-considered analogies make it easy for them to overlook the fact that we do not block people in order to punish them. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 20:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

..for pitching in to revert the vandalism. I seem to have annoyed somebody. Never mind. Cheers, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Smith

Just chill for a second, ..."unconstructive". Jumping your gun, man, ha? How does this edit of capitalizing "swedish" to "Swedish" become "unconstructive"? You are welcome to clean up your post off my Talk page, I ain't gonna stop you, and we'll be square. Peace. Maksdo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi you recently said i vandalised a user's page. I am unaware of how i vandalised it when he has vandalised my page and a page ive been working on. It is the St. Josephs High School (saskatoon) page and ive been told before that he and his friends would be banned for continuing to vandalise it and its zulu sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farthing69 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for fixing the vandalism on my talk page. Once again Thanks--UESPArules (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help with Albanians (again)

Hi, I could use some advice from one more experienced than I. Back in December, user:Србија до Токија created Albanians in Serbia by copy-pasting the contents of Albanians in Kosovo and Albanians in Central Serbia, which were then redirected to this article. This was one of his earliest edits, and occurred not long before he got hit with the banhammer (as you might imagine from his username) for his constant nationalist insults of other editors. Twice I tried to bring Albanians in Serbia to AFD, (most recently here), and it was rejected both times. My preferred solution would be to restore Albanians in Kosovo and rename Albanians in Central Serbia to Albanians in Serbia, especially given the current political situation there. My problem now is not so much that I "lost" the deletion debate. It's more that the other two articles still exist, as there is no consensus for their deletion. Albanians in Kosovo is still being actively edited. So with the information available in two separate articles, doesn't WP:FORK come into play at some point? I discussed this with the closing admin, but he wasn't much help. Any suggestions? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 05:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response time, I've been traveling a lot this month. I'm not sure what you mean by it's "been done already". As I see it, there are still two separate articles with duplicated content. If that's not a problem, I'll be happy to drop the issue.

On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if you noticed, but our friend user:Adrianzax is back under the new username user:Rezistenta (with a properly-done name change, so no sockpuppetry). He's involved in a dispute on Roma people, tagging along on an effort to get the article renamed to Gypsies. His efforts extended to attempts to change the wording of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). You might take a look if you have a chance. Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

i reverted / removed my message since i felt that there is no point in arguing with that person who has accused me of something which im not , so i wished to remove my message . yup i agree that striking a message will look awful , so now im just removing the same from there . --Pearll's sun (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Turner

Your edits seem arbitrary. The footnoted article is entitled "Sean Hannity's Friend" (approx), not Bob Grant's. The article details Turner's relationship with both Grant and Hannity. As such, I find both your edits and your warning misplaced and unwarranted. Jimintheatl (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl[reply]

Your recent RfA

Hi Sceptre, I just wanted to say that it was unfortunate that I missed your recent RfA. Had I been active last weekend, I would have supported. Good luck. Acalamari 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Days of the year guideline

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jimintheatl

I've sourced Hal Turner. While the user may have a POV, if he can source it it is acceptable, as long as it follows guidelines of course. His edits don't seem too bad to me; it has been reported by multiple sources that Hannity is tied to Turner, so I don't see why that information can't be incorporated. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sexty

Contesting a prod by deleting it is not vandalism. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editing the XENON dark matter experiment page; from Lbaudis

Hi,

I'm not sure why you called my editing of the XENON ark matter experiment page vandalism? Could you please explain. I have updated the information (which was quite old, and of course is not yet complete, thus I plan further additions). I am one of the PIs of this experiment and I believe I should have the right to edit the page.

Thank you,

Lbaudis

Removal of notification

The article about vandalism states: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." So could you please remove the vandalism brandmark from my page? I have indeed never harmed any page, nothing of what I wrote is not true and I helped contribute to, correct and expand many pages.Hekerui (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Hekerui (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Turner informant section

Why do you keep removing -- without comment -- the well-referenced (a reference from the ADL and one from the SPLC) section about allegations that Hal Turner is an FBI informant from his article? --RucasHost (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netflow

No need to revert a perfectly legitimate typo correction, is there? Jobjörn (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: PBS Idents

I was the person who made the edit that you reverted. I would like to know exactly how it constitutes vandalism. I was simply posting the more-accurate information from the NET article. The Green Lantern (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]