User talk:Sceptre/Archive 47
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
){kind=link}
HP MfD
My apologies; this was my first time processing one, and I had followed the cue of another editor who added it to the HP dab page. I have since found out he was wrong toadd it, and I was wrong to select the miscellany for deletion. I apologize if my mistake harshed your calm.
With respect, your assertion that HP is used outside a fan forum in a notable source for Harry Potter is incorrect. There aren't any, and many have looked. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, the search is flawed, which is part of the problem. In virtually every article your search (and others' as well), HP is used as a short form for the text 'Harry Potter', which always appears in close proximity, so as to avoid confusion. In no place (outside of a fan site) does HP act as a substitution for Harry Potter. There are no articles where the entire article refers to HP alone with the expectation that everyone will know what they are talking about.
- Likewise, users and readers do not come to Wikipedia and type in HP expecting to get to a Harry-Potter-related subject. It is far more intuitive to reason that they will type in 'Harry' or 'Potter' to get to the article 'Harry Potter' (and in fact, both words are dab'd as links to Harry Potter). As the majority of folk pushing for its inclusion in the past have been Harry Potter fans, it stands to reason that they want Wikipedia to reflect their usage in the fan forums. We don't do that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- What,and risk someone calling it an advert project? Not really what I'd want, or what I meant. HP as an internal shortcut for editors to the Harry Potter WikiProject is fine, as it makes it easier to internal workings. I was referring to how, in the mainstream, it isn't a notable substitute for Harry Potter. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Boy Scout moves
I've undone all these. There was no discussion whatsoever on this. Next tag the pages appropriately and allow adequate discussion time. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Discuss it first, calmly. It became an FA with that name, so if it were in fact such a blatant foundation level violation as you call, I'm sure it'd been brought up during that process. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- With all respect, Sceptre, I take issue with your move. To begin with, I simply think that the meaning of the new title to which you moved it was unclear. Obviously it was clear to you, but you came up with it, so of course you know what you meant. Secondly, I disagree with your characterization of the word "controversies" as inherently POV. While "controversy" is often—probably most of the time, in fact—used in a POV fashion, the word does have a dictionary definition and can be used in a very literal and thus NPOV way. I submit that this was such a time, and that the title did not violate Wikipedia standards.
- I don't actually agree with User:Rlevse that you were wrong to make the move without discussing the matter. If you can't do this sort of thing, what does BOLD mean, for pete's sake? But I do believe that, once you have taken such a bold move, you should be respectful to those who found it to be over the top, be willing to discuss the matter in a civil manner, and give some due for the significance of both longevity and (in this case) FA status. You appeared to this observer to be pushing the civility envelope a bit in this area, if only slightly.
- Having said all that, I will add that I don't particularly care for the status quo title. I have not, however, been able to think of anything better. (And I swear I'm not saying this next line to be a smart ass) Neither, it appears, have you. Unschool (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Unacceptable
Could you please explain what part of the articles you linked on the administrators' noticeboard you find "unacceptable". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I puked in my mouth a little... Good night! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- ...and thanks for the star! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Partners in Crime
A fair enough explanation, and you'll see what I've done in reply. Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I've gone further and included it as part of a suggested next update. I'll be offline when it's time to update the main page, so won't be able to do it myself. BencherliteTalk 03:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), 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. |
Just re: your comments on my talk page yesterday - I nixed the article because you placed it in the 6th April section. Since expansions are counted from the day they are begun, by putting it in 6th April you signalled that you had begun the expansion on that date, so naturally I went to the last edit made on April 5 and compared the size of the article then with the current size. It turns out though, that you started the expansion on April 5th. Next time, please try to ensure that you nominate the right date, to prevent this sort of misunderstanding arising again. Thanks, and congrats on the DYK BTW :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Pompeii
Hiya... two things. Firstly, your edits here mucked up the first paragraph before the ==plot== section... do you think you could have a go at sorting it out? And secondly... the image isn't really relevant and certainly isn't free, I'm afraid - see the talkpage. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've fixed the revert-damage stuff; it wasn't as bad as it looked! But the image still isn't free... I'm at 3RR and can't do anything, but I'd ask you to read over the talkpage and remove it again until we can think of an appropriate one. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Re, outside references... I'd really rather not. By deleting them, we lost a lot of sourced stuff such as the Fawlty Towers reference; I've weeded out the shit and you can feel free to weed out more if you want to, but there's good material there too! —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I literally just clicked "save" when removing the SF point when the new messages flag came up :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Would deleting the bulletpoints not be simpler? You will lose some valuable stuff, I promise you. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you go through and remove what you want and we can discuss it; what about Fawlty Towers, Shadow Proclamation, modern art, Sparacus and so on? And with the Star, I meant not to suggest that it was true, but to point out the fact that it was said. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you've removed "outside references" and it's all sourced in the fact-file... why did you do that? —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, how's this for a compromise? You add in...
- Fawlty Towers
- Sparacus
- Shadow Proclamation
- Medusa
- Lost planets —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see no difference between Sparacus and Barcelona... they're both outside references from the same source. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Still, they're both in the fact-file and worth noting, I think. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Speight's body
It has been widely reported that Speight's body has been found. It has also not yet been subject to formal identification. There should be no problem with saying that much, as long as we say "it's been reported that..." surely? Steve T • C 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who helped guard against unsourced/unverified information being added to the article yesterday evening, I think we can be too precious about this. But OK. I'll change the wording to something less contentious in order to get the {{fact}} tag off. Steve T • C 11:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- No probs. Though I believe reversion of certain BLP edits is not subject to 3RR in any case. Steve T • C 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Moving hooks
Sorry, can't oblige on that. A hook goes under the day the expansion was started, not the day it was finished. The count starts from the day you start editing, basically. Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Review depth
Ah. I'm going to disappoint you now. We haven't had the chance to watch it yet, so I'm going to recuse myself from even looking at that. I'm a bit of a spoiler-phobe when it comes to my telly-watching. Hope you understand. :) (Though you have reminded me that I should go and register my !vote at Partners.) All the best, Steve T • C 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid your questions have become a subject of consternation. Dlohcierekim 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I declined speedy/G10 on that article. It was pretty thoroughly sourced and seemed like a valid criminal biography. Please let me know if you think I'm missing something. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. I didn't realize that term was POV. It is used in the New York Times article about him (citation #1). Mind if I send it to AfD? Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please contribute to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hampus Hellekant. To be honest, I'm kind of on the fence on this one. Toddst1 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Redirecting articles
Will, could I suggest that you take a more cautious approach to dealing with articles you don't like, such as Scientology controversies? Blanking and redirecting is not the way to get rid of such articles. It'll only provoke unneeded controversy if you blank and redirect articles that don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your attention, Sir, is requested...
...at Talk:Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings.
I reverted your edit for reasons I explain there.
Thank you for your attention. Randroide (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Did I miss consensus?
Why did you rewrite Ghulam Azam? I cannot seem to find where consensus was reached for this change; thanks for clearing this up for me. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
LMAO
| “ | Blah blah JzG blah blah ScienceApologist blah blah thin skin... come back when you're not rehashing this debate again. | ” |
LOL! I seriously almost wet my sweat pants when I read that. And a good point, too. ;) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:40 16 April, 2008 (UTC)
Hiya... I've added Transmorphers to WP:AIV for vandalism after a final warning... do you want to add a brief supporting note if/when certain admins say that he should be nurtured? Cheers, and I didn't say this :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to join the argument between you and Pixelface but I do agree with you, something that has been for months, or years even should never be removed without discussion first. I hope you can find someone to explain it better to Pixel. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
BLPWatchBot
Hello Sceptre:
I'm asking here because I just saw your edit on Paris Hilton.
I'm trying to understand what happened so I know what the Bot does for future.
What I THINK happened was:
- the bot saw that the article had been edited by an editor with a questionable record
- it told you about this through IRC
- the bot made an edit that removed an extra blank line and left an edit summary that says "Revert requested by Sceptre" (that seems an odd way to say it)
Then you made an edit to remove the paragraph "In 2007..."
Is this what happened or am I missing something? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Makes more sense now. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
BRMHS
No worries, I'm only interested in your POV, but... I saw you modified BRMHS and your small note was for the long standing NPOV issue. You deleted ~20K worth of information that I've now reverted. I'm good with deleting the data (or some portion thereof) but so much was deleted that I can't understand your objection. Can you explain the train of thought?
Cheers!
Bgautrea (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tourist guy.jpg)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Tourist guy.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. NotifyBot (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Welcome to the FA-Team
I'm glad you've joined, and look forward to working with you on a mission soon! Geometry guy 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
On Discussion
[1]. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Aang
I looked over and copyedited Aang. I would appreciate it if you looked over your previous comments at its FAC and see if they still apply. Thanks. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Scepbot
Hello Sceptre, there seems to be a bug in this bot's (new?) feature to tag pages for speedy deletion. At Gnilane your bot made a cut&paste move, after it had tagged Gnjilane, which contains the edit history, for speedy deletion - probably caused by the also inaccurate IP edit). Is it possible to fix this, at least for the cut&paste move? Regards --Oxymoron83 10:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK nom
|
|
On 18 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Fires of Pompeii, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The troll
Yes, when I saw the name show up in my watchlist, I had a feeling it was a troll (similar to Sergeant Snopake). NHRHS2010 has his own Wiki, and Alison and Tiptoety are on that Wiki: I think this vandal was blocked there and came here. No idea why they went after Keilana, though. Acalamari 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I saw it from Alison's talk page, which is often a troll magnet. Acalamari 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Brentwood School
Hi. Sorry about that but I just thought there was something wrong about that it said cheese all over lol --Icebreaker104 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, CSD G5 applies, but the subject of the article is legitimate (i.e. it isn't a hoax, though there are revisionists about who will claim so). I could put a {{hangon}} tag, except that I don't have the spare cycles to work on the article myself. Just a FYI. rudra (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Er...
OK, consider yourself smacked about the head with the blue flamingo. Daniel (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
whack!
Consider yourself whacked on the head with a blue flamingo for this edit [2]. Now, that was a nice joke, but I think that should look for better actions before removing all the fucking content on the article, like, dunno, pointing out on the talk page what exact content is POV-infringing (don't copy paste the whole article content and claim that it's all infringin, dammit :D), and why multiple editors failed to notice the infringing over years of time including Jimbo Wales [3] and so on :D --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- you are about to go over 3RR, and I could probably argue successfully that you are on 4RR because you asked BLPWatchBot to make a revert for you. Please go to the deletion debate and voice your concerns there. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Much, much better :) [4]. Now, by all means, please, if the article constains such blatant POV problems, then please go to [5] and voice your concerns there so other editors can look at them and help you solve them --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, but what you were doing amounted to deleting the article and starting over from scratch, and this is one of the conclusions that could be reached at the MfD if the closing admin can be convinced of that. Just wanted to say that you could convince him to do what you wanted to do. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Much, much better :) [4]. Now, by all means, please, if the article constains such blatant POV problems, then please go to [5] and voice your concerns there so other editors can look at them and help you solve them --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: "fucking hell, don't you people get it?" [6]
Perhaps I don't. What's the point that us people don't get? (It's clear that the subject is notable, and it's clear that the article, though quite negative, is well-sourced. There's probably an "undue weight" problem or two, but let's work on those in a detailed way, not by deleting the whole article text.) —Steve Summit (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Multiple noms
Sceptre, I let the last one run because, frankly, I had to remove so many that day I was just too tired to go through the (significant) work of withdrawing yet another. In the future, please take care to follow the instructions at WP:FAC, and not put up a second nom until your previous ones have a good level of support, with opposes resolved. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Why this edit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comics_Guaranty_LLC&curid=3922553&diff=206948771&oldid=206143290 - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Partners in Crime
Congratulations on yet another Featured Article! — Edokter • Talk • 23:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm here to tell you I've closed your nomination. I'm reproducing the rationale here for you:
- The result was Keep. While I agree there are problems with the article, these problems can be fixed by editing the article. There is no consensus to delete the article, yet there is consensus that this is not a matter for articles for deletion (based on prior closures). While there is no consensus, the default is to keep. If you do not agree with this non admin closure, please seek the proper venue instead of overturning only because I'm a non-admin. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If there are any problems, please drop by my talk page or you can swing by DRV if you prefer. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations!
|
The WikiProject Doctor Who Award | |
| The WikiProject Doctor Who Award is presented to Sceptre, for his work in bringing Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) up to Featured Article standard. Well done! Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
Beast
Feel free to revert it but I thought that beast would be less confusing. The devil was used rather jokingly in the episode after all...Thanks for all your work though! Keep it up! --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Graham's Userpage
Hi Will, if you have the time and the inclination, could you brighten-up my, (simple) user page? I'd be very grateful. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColmTalk 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)