This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Sceptre/Archive 56

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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: 08:05, 28 April 2024 (BST)

Only 50361 articles (0.739%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

from Erath from FireFox from Cool Cat from Dr. B from Holocron from Brandmeister, originally rotating from Phaedriel from Sergeant Snopake from Ding Xiang from Chili14 from Sergeant Snopake from Springeragh from Springeragh from Chili14 from Springeragh from Springeragh from Springeragh from Springeragh, originally rotating from Springeragh from Springeragh from Springeragh from Riana on behalf of User:E@L on behalf of E@L from Glygly from Felixboy from Springeragh from Darksun, originally rotating from Springeragh from Sharkface217 from Acalamari, originally rotating from I (minor barnstar) from Porcupine from RFerreira from GundamsRus from Orderinchaos from Josiah Rowe from thedemonhog from KillerChihuahua from Bearian from So Why from thedemonhog from Jenuk1985 from Chillum from TheMightyQuill from Ruby2010 from Cirt from Kudpung


edit 
Sceptre's talk page: Archive 56


...

History in Archive 55.

WTF? He has no eyebrows!!! Seraphim♥ 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And he looks twelve. Still, I've never seen Party Animals. Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of white people

Hi Sceptre. Hope you're well, and a happy new year to you! I've declined the G10 for the above. It's hot ground, and there are some statements that need to be removed due to lack of referencing, but it's not a G10 in my book. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. It is borderline... it wouldn't be G10 a few months ago, but seeing as G10 has been expanded recently, I thought it might fall under the new criteria. Sceptre (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close call I agree, but better at WP:AFD I think. Ah - my inclusionist tendencies :) Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments on that AFD, someone changed that article very recently, it's not what it once was. I'm hesitant to unilaterally change it back mid-AFD without discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all those citations

Heh. Only seven? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a guess. It's only the sources I can see, and not the invisible ones :p Sceptre (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's like a simultaneous contrast illusion. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I'm a bit cautious about presenting something as fact that needs more than two citations to assert itself. If it needs more than that, it's really just a widely held viewpoint (and then it becomes wrong to assert it as fact). Anyway, at least you're better than FT2; he never uses preview. Sceptre (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, spot on what I was getting at. As for preview, I often don't need it but then, woe to me when I get sloppy :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the other side of what I was getting at, which is to say, the other side of the box. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ. All the pro-science editors like OM need to realise that a widely held opinion isn't always fact. Especially outside the science articles. Sceptre (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even with science articles, in an encyclopedia it'll come down to WP:V as swayed by consensus. Meanwhile, I glark that in another 500 years or so, folks will think of someone like Stephen Weinberg as we think of Copernicus today, kinda maybe more or less on the way to understanding, but way muddled nonetheless. Everything we think we know about stuff is wrong in some way, but we do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a link to negative proof should be helpful... it is vastly harder to find a source that disproves something than one that proves something. Sceptre (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Mind, I'm not the one who told you to go find a source asserting the negative :) The pith is, sources do assert that the site is neo-Nazi, so in they go, as they should. WP:V. It may not be the canny Truth(TM), but it's all we've got to go with in a tertiary reference like Wikipedia, which is only meant to echo verifiable sources which are taken to be reliable. Meanwhile if you can find some sources which say it's something other than neo-Nazi, those could go in too. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also an NPOV issue in that Stormfront being Neo-Nazi is, after all, only an opinion. A widely-held opinion is still an opinion and not a fact. Fascism and all it's derivatives have so many definitions its hard to get objectivity out of it. Orwell famously said "I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else." Sceptre (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPoV has only to do with juggling verifiable PoV. There may be but one truth, but our sundry takes on it are all PoV. If you want to put content into that article which asserts that the website is something other than neo-Nazi, you'll have to come up with some secondary sources and even then, following WP:V, the sourced "neo-Nazi" label will be there to stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I encountered this same problem on Osama Bin Laden. I'm not trying to remove the characterisation, I'm trying to word it in a way that is compatible with NPOV so not even the enemy can argue with it. Still, people see me as trying to remove the characterisation entirely and deride me for being a terrorist sympathiser, or the like. Sceptre (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're all gangsters, Sceptre ;) Given what most English language sources have to say about ObL, yep, the Wikipedia article will tend to shy away from likening him to St Francis of Assisi. This said, I'll warn User:Dance With The Devil for the wanton and uncalled for personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know we should call him a bad man, but the trick is to call him a bad man without making moralising judgements. I'm trying to not moralise here. Still, Wikipedia is entrenched in the verifiability extremists who, when cornered, always ask "sauce plz". Which is a bad practice in itself. Common sense is needed on the project, after all. In the case of OBL, it's stupid to say "he is a terrorist" is a fact when calling someone a terrorist—as opposed to a freedom fighter—is a matter of judgement. (We can say that people call him a terrorist, but it gets a bit dodgy to definitively say he's a terrorist, no ifs or buts.) Sceptre (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdenting) Good and bad are moral judgements. When I hear the words terrorist or freedom fighter, I reach for my copy of L'Avventura. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Mr. Clinton's quote "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is"? :)
Pertaining to the Stormfront discussion, I'm struck by an item in this diff, starting at "In recent months...". More than anything else, this struck me as noteworthy, since it indicates that we may (or may not) be out-of-date in our description. Franamax (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Good luck trying to get it against MPOV (majority POV) pushers. Sceptre (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing blocks

What business do you have reviewing blocks? You're not an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the backlog down. Non-admins should be encouraged to decline unblock requests like that. Sceptre (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Don't try and pretend to be an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be an admin, so I know easy declines when I see them. Besides, non-admins are encouraged to close matters where there is only one reasonable outcome, that doesn't need administrator action; it's explicitly allowed on AFD and CSD. Sceptre (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin deletion closures are different from reviewing blocks. I too am not an administrator, so therefore reviewing blocks are none of my business either which is why I don't do so. Just because you used to be an administrator doesn't mean reviewing blocks is your business at this point. Just wait for an administrator to review it and see what happens. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed text from Aids topic

Can you please provide an exact quote from guidelines for external links that shows the edit I made does not meet these requirements? Codepro (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be including a link to some sort of remedy? service? In any case, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand and is verging on being advertising; which Wikipedia is not for. Sceptre (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The Scripps Research Institute is not a remedy or a service. The first external link goes to an open source project called Autodock. The second external link points to the research project at The Scripps Research Institute that uses Autodock to conduct basic research for Aids. If what you are saying is true then the Wikipedia page for The Scripps Research Institute should be removed along with all links to open source projects throughout Wikipedia including the link to the source code what runs this very website.Codepro (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a link to an open source project, on a medical topic, is really appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The project is basic research, it offers no medical advice.Codepro (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's not really needed as a link; we need more than basic research for such topics. Sceptre (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the "see also" section. That's enough weight, considering that it hasn't still been reported as having discovered notable stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey there- I just wanted to drop by and thank you for the vandalism revision you did on my talk page. It's greatly appreciated!! :) ~Pip2andahalf 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for me [1]! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarnath

I don' think [2] is vandalism. The IP is trying to upload a file. The Ip doesn't know he/she needs to first upload it on Wikipedia. KensplanetTC 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call it vandalism; I just reverted it because that's what you're supposed to do if someone includes a link to their hard drive (better to be safe than sorry; such paths often contain personally identifiable information). Then again, it only gets called vandalism by the warning templates because of how the warnings stack... Sceptre (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you called it vandalism since you warned the User [3]. Anyway, no problem. Someone already has informed the User to upload first to Wiki to use them. KensplanetTC 13:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of white people

I hope that you've had the opportunity to read the rewrite I did of this article. • Freechild'sup? 05:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Homer vs. Patty and Selma/GA1

Thanks for doing the GA Review. Just an update - I responded to your point from the GA Review, and shortened the Plot summary subsection by 200 words as you recommended. Cirt (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (video game)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (video game), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (video game) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (video game), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk subpage for IPs

Following up the recent AN thread, do you have a subpage for IPs to leave messages? If you are leaving warnings for IP users, you ought have a way for them to contact you. –xeno (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The coffeebox looks a bit ugly; I'll replace it later, though. Sceptre (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cool, cheers. –xeno (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

What, my article revision was not vandalism as per your beliefs. In my honest opinion, isolated incidents should not be on the US human rights page, lest we list human rights violations that had nothing to do with the Government —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced information, and if done by the army, I think the government could be held responsible (unless it's a "we take the profits, you take the blame" situation) as the army are effectively representatives of the government. That, and it wasn't labelled as vandalism, it was labelled as unconstructive. They're different, you know. Sceptre (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill

I'm keen to improve this article to, hopefully, GA level. Given your experience with improving other TV articles, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look and give me some suggestions for changes and additions I should make. I'm not asking for a full peer review, but more some informal advice on the most effective improvements that I can make. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Try, first, dividing it into sections like: Premise and/or Setting; Characters; History; Impact and/or Reception; Multimedia. Sceptre (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Meh, not really?

I refer to your revert of my edit on the Matt Smith's page. I took it out as its a page about Matt Smith, not about the catalogue of actors who competed against him for the role, most of which are rumour and have never been officially confirmed as ever even being asked to audition. The article so far is to top heavy with irrelevant information not really pertaining to the *actor* himself. Mmm commentaries (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exopolitics

Thanks for the tip! Springnuts (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

Delivered by The Helpful One for Garden and iMatthew at 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

DYK for Matt Smith (British actor)

Updated DYK query On January 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matt Smith (British actor), 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eleventh Doctor

Updated DYK query On January 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eleventh Doctor, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup

In the interests of making this a little more interesting by fostering friendly competition:

Mwahaha! I have moved to the lead in our group. Can you catch up? I think not!

=P

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've been thinking about taking up Durova's offer of restoration work. The problem is: a) I'm a student, and while I have Photoshop, my archive-searching skills will be limited; b) I get a bit distracted; and c) I have exams over the next two weeks. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have a lot of stuff I could use help restoring, some of which would be good for amateurs. If you wanted, just ask and I'll send you some. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


RfC re: Journey's End IDW notes

I created an RfC to try to deal with that bit about the IDW series' relevancy, to try to drive the discussion out of the edit history. TheGreenFaerae (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OM

Why do you feel the need to attack OM every single freaking time you see him? Sceptre, I like you - but dang, this is getting ooooold. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticising isn't attacking. ;) As a rule, I don't criticise people unless there's something to criticise. And really, with his behaviour, OM is becoming into the same kind of people he's fighting. He's becoming more of a Madalyn O'Hair than a Richard Dawkins. As we've seen with Betacommand, and we're probably going to see soon with SA, following policy doesn't excuse you from being rude. Enough about this tangent; a few weeks ago, I asked you to talk to him and you did. It doesn't seem to have done much to change him... can you try to get through to him that, right or wrong, he needs a bit more decorum? Sceptre (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three questions: What are you turning into, hounding him like that? and second, what is your aim and do you think your approach is likely to achieve it? third, What is most likely to be best for the encyclopedia? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) I don't know, but I make no efforts to disguise the fact I'm not perfect; 2) to try to get him to be a bit more civil; and 3) him being civil while enforcing NPOV. You can, so I see no reason why he can't; there is no mitigating factor like death threats (SA), off-wiki harassment (MONGO) [although those two can be switched around], or even just poking the bear until it claws your arm off (Giano). Even then, you're expected to rise above it. We're all expendable. Especially rationalists. If the worst-case scenario came—i.e., OM were to leave or be banned—, and another rationalist who was much more civil came, then yes, that would improve the encyclopedia. Sceptre (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, think about this a bit: from my perspective, you're the one poking the bear this time. You cannot simultaneously hope OM becomes more civil, and also harass him virtually every time his name appears. So leave him alone, ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

Your closure of WP:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush (4th nomination)

If you feel the timing of the AfD was in poor taste, I would've liked to have seen that brought to my Talk page prior to straight up closing the AfD. As I stated in my response to David Shankbone's vote, this is the first time I have seen the article. I left a comment in the talk page as well, mainly discussing how there is never going to be a time when a discussion of anything Bush related is going to go without being "heated" or "pointy". I am especially disappointed that it was closed so rapidly given the arguments I had put together, considering the primary "Keep" comment made more than one accusation of my own intentions behind the AfD, even after I had made the exact points he argued against in the article's talk page. -- TRTX T / C 17:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could've chosen a better time to nominate it. You're obviously not living under a rock; why do it five minutes before his term ends? You could've waited for the National Mall to clear before you nominated it. Sceptre (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When would it have been a "better time"? As I said in the AfD itself, and in the article talk page, there is never going to be a "good time" to discuss mass edits regarding George W. Bush. Just because he's not President anymore isn't going to suddenly make everybody who disapproved of his Presidency any more accepting of his stances or actions. Furthermore, I understand a non-admin can speedy close an AfD, but given the more than controversial nature of the subject (regardless of time frame), I feel doing so in this case was less than helpful to the situation. If anything, it will only serve to poke the fires even more. -- TRTX T / C 17:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: after the National Mall clears. Trust me, striking while the iron is hot does not work on AFD. Sceptre (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre, your action is inappropriate under Wikipedia:Speedy keep. None of the reasons given for a speedy keep apply here. If the previous deletion discussion had been last week, ok, whatever, but 2.5 years ago is certainly enough time to make a new discussion a legitimate option and not disruptive. The guideline also specifies, "Non-administrators may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate. Otherwise, non-admins are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" in the body of the discussion, and allow an administrator to take the decision." Please revert yourself. --B (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the time since the last AFD, but the real-world time it was nominated. Seriously, nominating on Inauguration Day is suspect. That, and the fact that it would've been speedy kept anyway. If you really want to dispute it, take it to DRV. Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Hi Sceptre - I've re-opened the AfD, as it doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:SPEEDY. Not a big deal, but if you feel strongly about it, feel free to drop an explanatory speedy keep vote in the AfD and another admin might judge it. Generally speaking, if a speedy close is controversial, it's best not to do it. Feel free to drop by my talkpage for any discussion. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be controversial at all. Hell, I'll be surprised if even one person turns up and votes to delete it. (besides, IAR and all that. SK is not all-inclusive) Sceptre (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, any administrator may revert any non-admin closure. Fritzpoll was correct to undo your closure and all he did was beat me to it. --B (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I give the AFD twelve hours before someone closes it again. All you're doing is delaying the inevitable by adhering to a non-all-inclusive guideline. (It says "reasons include", not "the AFD must only be kept if it satisfies one of these conditions") Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Controversial to me in this case is that it was sufficiently borderline that another user independent of the AfD questioned the validity. Not sure closing early is necessarily for the better or worse of the encyclopedia, so not sure how IAR would apply. I have no strong opinion on the relevance of the article to Wikipedia. If the AfD runs its course as keep, we can avoid this discussion turning up again in a few weeks! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it didn't satisfy the arbitrary reasons included on SPEEDY. Seriously, there is literally no chance it will close without a snowing under. Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll find out soon enough. No rush :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revisions

Did you see this by Erik Moeller, saying that "at least two-thirds" majority would be necessary for it to be switched on [4]? There's also the issue of the discussion page about flagged revisions having a big box at the top with a statement from Jimbo dismissing opposers as being motivated by "FUD", which may have tainted the debate so far. DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've brought the latter up as a COI point. The former post is linked to, IIRC. Sceptre (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FR RFAR

I really wish you hadn't done that. This is the first time SINCE blp I believe he's done anything major and unilateral. Sigh. rootology (C)(T) 16:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But not with the community's consent. He devolved the decision to the community, and is a major proponent of the extension. Those two strip him of his right to unilaterally declare a consensus in his favour when it's debatable there is one. Sceptre (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of my proposed scope on your RFAR request? I can't see it having any value outside of that, or chance of being accepted. rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea. Still, I think that with closing debates, he should be held to the same standards as anyone else, like impartiality. This is the straw that's breaking the camel's back. Sceptre (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid theory

[5] A, AB, ABC, ABCD. Thoughts there on that page? If the FR is a flop, I'll be the first to ask you to tell me "told you so". rootology (C)(T) 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before any trial can start, the trial must have a two-thirds consensus to run (as dictated by Brion), the variables A, B, C, and D must be specified precisely, and, this is the most important thing, the trial must have a sunset clause. Sceptre (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reference

Hi, I noticed your Matt Smith article on the GAn list, and I remembered this link, perhaps it can help you. Have a nice day.--Music26/11 14:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on my suggested FlaggedRev implementation?

If you have time, would you care to comment on my suggested Trial 13: Three month trial of all BLPs + flagged protection? Basically, would FlaggedRevs on BLPs and individually selected articles be ok? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

requesting userpage design

Hello, are you available to do a userpage redesign for me? I'm just looking for something simple, basically just reformat or rearrangement, whatever you think is good. OlEnglish (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxxy image

Hey Sceptre. Would you mind leaving the image here alone for now? If the article is deleted, the image will be deleted, and so the image issue will become moot (pun slightly intended). If it's not deleted, we can deal with the image then. You're approaching edit-war territory, and I think disengaging would be a good course of action. As a side note, do you want your talk page fully move protected? seresin ( ¡? )  08:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is deleteable anyway, and removing the image is 3RR-exempt. But sure, and yes. Sceptre (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have just removed it again. While removing images that fail NFCC is 3RR-exempt, the criterion you're removing it under is not universally interpreted the same way. I would appreciate if you did not remove the image again; if the AfD closes as 'keep', we can deal with it then. And [move = sysop] done. seresin ( ¡? )  20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NFC, Unacceptable uses for non-free images, criterion 12 seems to have very little leeway. Sceptre (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's here, now he's not

I'm sorry if I left an e-mail conversation hanging; it's been hectic over here. I would have said this through e-mail as it was, but Google is being a piece of shit right now. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:59 3 February, 2009 (UTC)

S'okay :) Sceptre (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Doctor Who Star Wars.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Star Wars.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) 05:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial move

Please read what it says even in our own article on the British Isles. That move smacks of ignorance... it is clearly an outdated and offensive term and there was no objection to its previous title. You can't just come along and decide a certain phrase "sounds better"... that's blatant POV pushing... --➨♀♂Candlewicke ST # :) 05:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still the most common name for the islands at the moment. If it wasn't, the article wouldn't be at Great Britain :). Besides, I have no reason to POV push, I'm doing this from a purely stylistic point of view. Sceptre (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Could you also possibly extend your warning to Yamanam for his disruptive edits? By the way, you have a very impressive user page...and you're only 17!!!! Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

23:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Matt Smith

Okay I will look into this but in the meantime have you been able to find any reception, or critical coverage of any of his performances/acting work in any secondary sources? Again, I find it extremely difficult to believe that none exists out there and in fact think there must be a bunch. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that would be that useful. As I said, this is a rather obscure actor. There isn't much in the reviews except that "he was good", and that's not really the best thing to be citing five or ten times. Searching for '"matt smith" party animals' in Google News gives just this that talks about his acting. An anonymous DVD critic. Not the best of sources, is it? Sceptre (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And literally nothing for the Sally Lockhart adaptations. Chances of finding any sources for the Street, and/or Secret Diary episodes, are close to nil. Sceptre (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I have just been able to find some stuff for his theatre work. I'll add some reviews for That Face, but no so much that it overloads the article. Sceptre (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure rationales

Large is good. Don't think that the bad examples, set by some, of just adding {{subst:afd top}} and a single word, are the standard to follow. Closing rationales that explain one's reasoning, and how the closure was arrived at, are exactly what prevent things from going to Deletion Review, in practice. People generally understand if a discussion closer explains the closure, which heads off most of the subsequent discussion before it even begins. (At least one closing administrator's talk page is a lengthy series of "Please explain your closure." requests from a large number of editors across a wide range of closures.) Showing one's working is just as good a practice for a closer as it is for the participants. Uncle G (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree, generally. Unless of course the consensus was pretty clear, I would always give a rationale in my reasoning, or did if asked. It is of course better to provide one (one of my longer ones) Majorly talk 15:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant large as in the AfD is large, not the closure itself. Although, whenever I close AfDs, I always explain it if it isn't obvious. Sceptre (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School block

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

WP:IPBE to be granted momentarily - see below for reasoning. I'm pretty sure you already know the policies behind this, but I'm required to tell you to read them anyway. So humor me.

Request handled by: Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I have asked User:Luna Santin to review this. Martinmsgj 12:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A IPBE is fine, too. Sceptre (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An IPBE is probably appropriate, but just in case of a good hand/bad hand scenario - I wouldn'tdo it without permission from a CheckUser. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go right ahead and grant IPBE. Sceptre is a long-time contributor, and if he were the vandal causing the problems on this IP, we'd have figured it a long time ago. (Besides, checkuser doesn't show any indications of unpleasantry by Sceptre.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And one or two moral lapses aside, I've been out of trouble most of the time. As far as the IP goes, 89.207.208.16 is a proxy for the Yorkshire and Humberside Grid for Learning, which my sixth form college is a part of. I'm not sure what the optimal resolution is when a IP shared by a few hundred is used for abuse... were I an admin, I'd softblock and disable account creation. But I'm not, so... Sceptre (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't, because I'm pretty sure that (checkuser hardblock + "g") = grawp block. We want these to stay hardblocked to keep him from using accounts made by others. Not sure how he got on your IP, but again, I'm pretty darn sure you're not him. Going along with jpgordon, who is a checkuser, I'm going to grant IPBE to be removed after the end of the block (May 12, 2009). Luna is of course more than welcome to override me as she would know more about this than I would, but please let me know so I can turn off my IPBE alarms. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impersonators/Copycats? I've been under the impression that Grawp is no longer one man now. Oh, and Luna's a he. Sceptre (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, sorry about that. :) I've taken to hardblocking most IPs Grawp (or Grawp imitators) use, since I've seen several cases where they'll come back and use a given address time and time again, once autoblocks expire. With this particular IP, three abusive accounts were registered on 10th Feb, with only a little traffic otherwise; I was thinking it might be a proxy of some sort, but figured that didn't matter much, either way. Aside from those three accounts and this unblock request, I haven't been aware of any other problems since then, either in terms of further abuse or collateral damage. IBPE makes sense, here. I have no objection if someone wants to unblock the IP to see how things go, though I do ask that somebody let me know if that happens. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sceptre (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stolen Earth

Hello Sceptre,

The reason i removed the wording aout Dawkins and Ward is because it is a bit excessive underneath Dawkins picture and the same information is listed in the casting paragraph to the left of the photo.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closer for individual Pokemon articles

Really wish you hadn't non-admin closed that AFD ... the articles are generally horrible, and should be deleted. There's no way for that view to ever prevail if people keep speedy closing the AFDs as "keep", despite that fact that Bulbasaur, at least, fails WP:N dramatically. I haven't even bothered to look at the others recently. They might have been improved, but I seriously doubt it.—Kww(talk) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I'd normally agree that early closes of potentially contentious noms should be avoided, that nomination was absurd. Essentially, the only reason given for deletion was that the articles themselves were surplus to a list, which isn't a reason for deletion at all. There are the usual suspects who will take this close as some sort of precedent, but most people would look at it as a bad nom which didn't have a snowball's chance of succeeding. Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What Protonk said. No reason for deletion was given at all, and the AFD would have not ended with a delete for Pikachu, or, for that matter, the other nominations. Additionally, group noms tend to fail more often than not. Sceptre (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 18:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

Sorry I'm not on at all; I'm having a medication adjustment and it's not going well. When I'm down I'm not on the computer, and when I'm up I make myself so busy that I can't get to the computer. :( It will pass, though. Have a good 18th. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:44 3 March, 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, you can now get married (without parental consent), smoke (after paying for it yourself), get elected and vote—party time! –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the big one: get absolutely wasted. Maybe it's because you're both from places where the drinking age is 21 and 19 respectively :) Sceptre (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Black Freighter

Please do not keep deleting the Tales of the Black Freighter article which I created. I am aware that there is not much on the page but other users can add to it, and make it a much longer and better article. However, this cannot be done if you keep deleting it, so please do not. I am not trying to be rude but I think that people should at least be able to expand it.

And by the way I know that this may be a little late but I dids not vandalise the [[BBFC]'s page last year like you accused me of. Instead I had only just started editing Wikipedia and did not know how to use it very well, which is why my edits may have looked bad.The Editor 155 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

A reminder that the Manchester meetup is this Saturday. Hope to see you there! Majorly talk 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O hai. Tales of teh Black Freighters.

Hi, I've left a message on the Black Freighter article talk page. Basically, the article only needs to cover the DVD, because Zach Synder made it a separate element from his movie, while in the original story its more of a motif than a separate story (plus the comic article deals with it comprehensively, so the section about the comic is just an unnecessary duplication of content). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it is at the moment. I was going to replace the current section in the comic's article with a one-paragraph summary, with a link to the article. Sceptre (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even a summary is unnecessary. We really only need an article to focus on the DVD. Note the comments on the talk page. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rfadost.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Rfadost.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) 05:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consiracy theories

There was no consensus for the move you just made and pretty clear consensus against it. As soon as i figure out how to revert, I will.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people agree that both should be mentioned in the title, or "conspiracy theories" shouldn't. No-one replied to my point that the original title was a BLP problem, because it lumped the people on a vain quest for "transparency" with wingnut drivellers. I'd consider reverting back without explaining why it isn't a BLP problem a BLP violation. Sceptre (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who "most people" are due to the fact that there was no consensus for that move. Please stop edit warring the move and get consensus on the talk page before attempting the move again. Brothejr (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned you here [6]Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical and legal concerns about a living person override Wikipedia's consensus model. Sceptre (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a topic ban on your involvement in Obama-related articles in the light of your violations of the current article probation regime in force. Please see the discussion at WP:AN/I#Disruptive conduct by Sceptre. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic ban is a rather harsh suggestion, but I do think that this argument has become unproductive, and thus somewhat disruptive. There comes a point when these sorts of get labeled as tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you're dealing with BLP issues, the level of sanctionable disruption a long way off from my current level of editing. BLP needs to be enforced aggresively and quickly so that the end result is an article that no-one can complain that it violates BLP. As we have established editors arguing that it does, in some respect, that there is a BLP issue, we need to sort that out. That's why some policies have exemptions for BLP. Sceptre (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the argument - it's the move-warring, the assumptions of bad faith and the disregard of consensus, all of which is specifically forbidden by the article probation. I'd like to see this resolved preferably by Sceptre voluntarily agreeing to disengage from the article. Otherwise he will either be topic-banned for his violations of the probation, or he will be taken to arbitration (where sanctions may well be more severe). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus only works when it's compatible with our key policies of BLP, NPOV, NOR, RS, and NFC. As I've said, ethical and legal concerns regarding living people can override consensus. Which is why people can vote keep on an IFD of an image of a living person, but the end result being a deletion. Sceptre (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

No, not offering any - requesting some! I know you've done a vast amount of work on our fiction-related Wikipedia articles, and I was hoping for some generic pointers. I'm partway through my rewrite of Frasier (done the cast section so far) and what I'm struggling a little bit with are the synopsis and some of the available sources. I ultimately want Frasier up at FA standard, so I actually went and bought the official companion guide. I was hoping you could offer some advice on a) how much/whether the synopsis needs to be referenced b) how much it is possible to rely on an official guide - does it count as a primary source, do I need to find more tertiary sources? Basically, I need some pointers on what works best from the point of view of writing about fiction, and any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, synopses tend to be okay if they're uncited, as anyone wanting to verify a fact can watch the source material themselves. When it gets to season, series, and character pages, it's best to cite, at the very least, the episode in which a fact can be cited. Additionally, with plot synopses, it's perfectly fine to use primary sources. Hell, in most cases, it's okay to use primary sources, but we prefer secondary sources if they're more useful and makes more sense (i.e., it'd make more sense to cite the government's record of a legislative bill than the NYT's summary). When it comes to synopses, though, it's perfectly acceptable. Sceptre (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it's a bit of a new area for me. I may return to ask more when I need to, if that's ok? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Sceptre (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore

Thank you for closing all of the "controversies" pages which had been listed at AFD and I largely agree with your decision. However, out of all of the pot shots which were taken, the Michael Moore controversies page actually had a reasonable debate growing and may have passed or failed its AFD. Is it possible to undo a non-admin closure to let this AFD ride through the process (I'd co-nom, if that is necessary) or should we wait a week and I'll relist it at that time? Thanks. JRP (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I have no opinion either way, so you have my blessing to relist a new AfD. Hell, I want the article deleted. Sceptre (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bush/Cheney '04

I should make the point it's 3021, T.A. :P Sceptre (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be early 3019 T.A., after Merry and Pippin meet Treebeard (just prior to the Battle of the Hornburg). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, you're right. I really need to re-read LOTR. I wouldn't've made that mistake otherwise. Sceptre (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an admin

I highly encourage you to revert your edit purporting to close the AfD for Criticism of George W. Bush. JustGettingItRight (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Speedy keep:

Non-administrators may close a nomination as "speedy keep" if there is no doubt that such action is appropriate. Otherwise, non-admins are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" in the body of the discussion, and allow an administrator to take the decision.

Thank you, come again!. Sceptre (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If only "JustGettingItRight" was right :) Majorly talk 17:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Sceptre/Archive_56"