User talk:Sceptre/Archive 30

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: 21:06, 2 December 2024 (GMT)

Only 51726 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 30

edit

Horseshite?

LOL! I'd be offended about being called "horseshite" if it was a real word… — $PЯINGεrαgђ 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

When an image is on Wikimedia Commons, does it automatically appear on Wikipedia? Otherwise, how does it appear on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Ted Ted 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spells in Harry potter

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ninoshima

I noticed on Friday you twice blanked [1] [2] the edits done by a new user, without any explanation other than "trim" and "source it >_>". It would have been reasonable and expected for you to leave a message on User talk:Mijalo, letting him/her know what problems there are with the edits. The edits looked good to me [3], but only needing a more experienced user to come along and help with formatting and references. In accordance with WP:CITE#Unsourced_material, you should have tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}}, since there was nothing libelous there nor anything harmful/false. You should not have blanked it. Mijalo started editing on Thursday, and we should be grateful that he/she came back the next day to make more edits. Blanking his/her edits is not good. (see biting the newbies) I hope Milajo comes back, despite being treated poorly like this. Regards. --Aude (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin coaching

WOuld you be willing to be my Admin Coach because I was supposed to be with [[User:Terrace], but he left before we could start anything. The Placebo Effect 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No goal

I reverted your edit to No goal, though I am certain you made the edit in good faith. The content may still yet not belong in the article, though. Please see the Talk Page if you are still interested. --Jaysweet 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the tweak. :) Any guess who I lifted the design from? (Answers must be made off-wiki.) ;) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too

Now that's the way to deal with vandals. The same infantile little twit made the exact same edits to my page last night--I just have to wonder what on earth I did to attract that sort of attention?? K. Lásztocska 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and Hungarian ones at that. ;-) On another topic: I'd recommend you stay out of the Anonimu Wars. It's just not worth the effort. K. Lásztocska 23:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about me being a rare "bird" on the internet--everybody used to think I was a guy, and I got so sick of being called Mr. Lastochka that I finally put that dumb little "this user is female" box up. ;-)

About the Anonimu thing. I see that the current dispute was set off by your removal of that ridiculous "Nazi" message on Anonimu's talk page. I understand you meant well and were only trying to stop the spread of incivility, but in this case I think it was a misjudgement on your part.

First of all, I still think it's just a bad idea to mess with anyone else's userpage or talk page, whether it's (at one extreme) calling someone a Hungarian whore or (at the other extreme) removing every last trace of anything that could possibly be offensive to anyone anywhere. Yes, nobody "owns" their user and talk pages, but I still firmly believe that there is (or SHOULD be) some sort of unspoken social contract between Wikipedians: don't mess with my space and I won't mess with yours.
Secondly, if some user leaves an intemperate and ill-advised comment on someone's page, isn't it the offending party's problem, really? (Note that this applies to general orneriness, not to obvious vandalism or pure trolling.) If I left some snarky message on your page in which I asserted that, say, User:Joe Schmoe was a sniveling fascist pig with no sense of logic or simple human decency, wouldn't that reflect more poorly on me than on Joe Schmoe? (I really hope there isn't actually a user called Joe Schmoe here...) And if I did make such a comment, why delete the evidence of my obnoxious behavior? Why not warn me but leave the message there for all to see? Transparency and accountability come into play...
One final point before I log off and get my weekly Doctor Who fix. :) Again, I know you mean well and are trying to nip off potential wars in the bud, but I think you're overreacting and it may cause more harm than good. Obvious vandalism and nonsense of course should be deleted, but...WP:CIVIL violations? Come on, we've all blown our tops a few times and no one expects the Spanish Inquisition over it. Again the social contract--we have to cut people a little slack, otherwise this place would start to resemble a police state crawling with informers and everyone would be too scared of getting reported to DO anything. (I'm not defending nasty behavior, mind you. A troll is still a troll, no matter what political system he lives in.) Invoking WP:CIVIL from time to time is fine and even admirable, but one must be very careful not to overdo it, because when that happens one just looks like an annoyingly self-righteous crusader.

OK, speech over. *climbs down off soapbox.* TTYL K. Lásztocska —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

OK, basically this is how I see it in a nutshell: a rule of thumb would be don't delete anything from a talk page that you didn't put there yourself. (And even deleting your own comments should not be done cavalierly--transparency and accountability, remember?) The exception is, as always, blatant and obvious vandalism and abuse--the kind that everyone agrees is vandalism and abuse. But politically insensitive remarks? Instances of a bad attitude? Deleting those just makes the deleter look like the thought police.

Incidentally, why are you involving yourself in l'affaire Anonimu anyway? I mean absolutely no offense by this, but do you even know much about Romanian and other C. and E. European history/politics? I think you're just asking for trouble if you get so far in over your head in a flammable area like East/Central Europe...

In any event, showing up on the article talk page and declaring "I will revert ANY changes that include this term that I find inappropriate, and that's THAT!" helps no one. You're setting yourself up as some sort of knee-jerk self-appointed "neutrality police", interrupting a potential discussion (towards consensus) with vehement statements of the obvious--in this case, WP:NPOV. It might not be an exaggeration to call it wikilawyering.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I think you're heading down the wrong path here. I know you're a smart guy and you mean well, so that's why I trust you can do better. K. Lásztocska 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminning-related issues

Will, please allow me to be frank. I notice your involvement in the "Adminnin-related issues", so to speak. Sometimes you opine against the editors that annoy me a great deal, sometimes you opine (and act) against the editors who are greatly abused by the annoying league but I can't help notice that your well-meaning involvement is often extremely unhelpful and only adds to the drama. Anonimu is one case in point. Kov/Zgoden is another one even though it relates to an annoying bunch, I give you that. Your accusations of Kov being Zgoden's sockmaster are understandable but happen to be blatantly false. I know you mean well but as reporting Anonimu to ANI and harassing him, painting Kov a sockmaster at RFCU and Zgodens' userpages is very offensive since the wrongful judgment is always offensive even when the person is guilty of something else. I ask you to, if possible, reduce your involvement in the WP:ANI issues and to try to devote more time to mainspace editing.

I am saying so not because I don't like you or because I think you intentions are malicious but since your involvement results too often in magnifying the drama, perhaps it is better to have less of it. Please give it a thought. TIA, --Irpen 05:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A star bar for you

Dear Will,
I would have given you a barnstar for you, but searching all the awards on the Wiki for the past day and ½ or so has not resulted in one that you are worthy of. So instead I give you this very strong crowbar (you know why) for being very strong. What I know of the events of the past year and ½ in your on- and off-wiki life would, if they had happened to me, have crushed me; however, you have borne up through it all and emerged in some way that I would never have guessed or predicted if I lived until the year 2987 (essentially, 1000 years old). Try and get a good recording of Dvořák's 'cello concerto; I always think of you when I hear it. And remember, no baseball bats! :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx

The creator of Sports Illustrate Cover Jinx requested deletion, which I then deleted, but it seems he did so because he actually wanted to create it at Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx. I've reopened the afd which was just speedy closed, rather than creating a new one. --- RockMFR 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal information"

I've got the following problems with the deletion of that comment:

I think that it's public knowledge about the age of the people referenced there; even if it isn't, it's not personally identifiable information.
You replied to the comment, and didn't complain at all. Only two months later - while I'm on a very long Wikibreak - do you think to delete it.
Since I contested its deletion, and it's my userspace, it would have been polite to enter into dialogue about it, rather than just revert me.
The points it contains about Matthew are interesting to me; an admin attempted to suppress that message from me anyway, and I reverted that because banned users have an absolute right to enter into dialogue with me unless I revoke that right.--Rambutan (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the circumstances, and the completely harmless and arguably public nature of the information, I don't feel that it should be deleted. Cheers,--Rambutan (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my userspace, and I think that means that I'm allowed to keep it - or at least keep reverting its removal. If a policy specifically says that it applies in the userspace of willing hosts, then I'll replace it with a history-link.--Rambutan (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop and discuss - either here or ANI, if you choose. I'm willing to negociate, but I'm equally willing to request protection.--Rambutan (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all you're concerned about is that they're banned, then I don't really care. You're not concerned about personal info, since you didn't worry until you discovered they were banned. Get community consensus that one loose comment in a willing usertalk archive is required to be stricken, and I'll strike it (and replace with a diff).--Rambutan (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this are simply vandalism, particularly where there's an ongoing discussion. I don't want to fall out with you, but I won't hesitate to request protection or even put you on AIV if you keep reverting without getting community consensus.--Rambutan (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, I'm requesting protection. At the moment, Will, you're just being a vandal.--Rambutan (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you seem confused. The "banned users may not edit" only applies out of users' userspaces. Within them, users can set their own rules - find a policy to contradict that! Therefore, I can keep that thread, and if you go over 3RR to remove it, then you end up here! Also, you don't care about the personal info - if you did, you'd have complained in June. All that concerns you is that it's a banned user, so get over the protection. Please.--Rambutan (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but nobody else has complained about the personal info, and an admin agreed with my POV.--Rambutan (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autofellatio

Please see: Jimbo Wales on obscenity and Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions where a compromise was reached to link the image. Could you please revert your change? Chesdovi 07:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a case of WP:JIMBOSAID, here - consensus and opinions can change over a couple of years and the content disclaimer does say it clearly - there's even a consensus on the TFD that it shouldn't be used in mainspace. Will ^(talk) 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can disclaim a discussion 197 kilobytes long where there was clear consensus to compromise. If you think two years is long enough to call for an update, why not discuss the matter on the talk page. Not only have you unilaterally re-added the graphic images after a major discussion took place on the matter, but you have also called for the link template to be deleted?!! Is this truly necessary? Chesdovi 14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rambutan

May I suggest you let it drop with regard to your argument with Rambutan? The comment is in the archive of his talk page. Very few people are going to see it there - or at least very few people would have seen it there. Now its on the Admin Noticeboard and some people's attention will be drawn to those comments which is surely the opposite of what you intended to do? I'm not saying Rambutan's right, just that you've achieved the opposite of what you wanted and the longer this argument goes on the more people will see the comment you don't want them to see. Kelpin 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autofellatio redux

Will, there appears to have been a move to remove all images from the above article. As there appear to be discussions about this in more than one place (which I certainly haven't been following), I have no idea whether this represents a potential consensus or whether it is flagrant censorship. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of proxy IP's?

Recently, my community was targeted by the well known vandal website encyclopaediadramatica, also known as ED. I have choosen to contact you because you have also been trolled by ED, which means it will be easier for you to understand what we are in. For now, we were unsucceful in blocking any of their raid due to their abuse of internet proxys. I would like to know if there's a list of proxy IP's somewhere on wikipedia that we could ban from our user database. If you think you can help me in any ways or refer me to a person which knows more, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or to email me at sprojdtu@yahoo.com. --AllUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken

Have you thought about suing ED for slander? 98.199.17.219 02:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Messagepoking

Interesting that I saw this 30 seconds after I logged in… :P — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One song?

[4] Got 4 out of 7 albums, mate! Soul Meets Body is just my favourite. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scooch

Please explain why putting in the correct position Scooch acheived is vandalism.

42 countries participated. It was a tie for 22nd place by France and U.K, Eurovision tie break rules state the country that got the most 12 points and so on will acheive the higher place so Scooch came 22nd and France came 23rd. --Demyx9 16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But 42 entries participated not 24, and read the tie break rules. --Demyx9 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's 12 points to 10 points to 8 then down to 1 and then votes if it is still tied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2,000,000th Article!

Great work everyone!Our edits ahave sontributed to reachiung a Wikipedi with 2,000,000 articles. It's been a pleasure working with you. A good effort all round, and a Party at my Place! Dfrg.msc 06:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Marlith ^T/C 04:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Flagpole Sitta.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Flagpole Sitta.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

he's reading this, I can guarantee you. Hello, Gunther!

Anyway, there's nothing that can be done. He's a dynamic IP and we can't block those. We can only try to make him treat us with some semblance of respect, or ignore him (which I confess I'm very bad at doing.) K. Lásztocska 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:Axel8 report at AIV.

I have removed this as a content dispute. WP:AGF compels us to consider all edits as legitimate, even if it appears to downright disruptive editing. Since A8 doesn't appear to wish to discuss the matter it is difficult to find that it is deliberate vandalism or ignorance of the rules. I note, however, that you have provided cites for your edit and can therefore revert A8 until they violate 3RR (at which point take it to their noticeboard!).

BYI, I noticed a flaw in your vote counting logic - no two parties can have the same number of scores down to two, and then have differing amounts of "one" scores (because one will have 1 or more fewer or greater than the other). Two entrants can have exactly the same number of scores from 10 down to 1 to tie (or whatever, draw lots?) but if two entrants have the same score down to the 3 point awards there will need to be a difference between the amounts of 2's and 1's to result in the same points being awarded but a difference in placing... LessHeard vanU 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I apologise for faulting your logic when it is Eurovisions... Following your detailed comments I will take another look at A8 and D9. LessHeard vanU 21:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... you may wish to look at the comment I left at User talk:Arcayne. I am now not considering sock/meatpuppetry, but they are editing disruptively. LessHeard vanU 21:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned both editors. If they persist issue a final warning, and then return it to AIV if they transgress further. I hope my actions will resolve this matter. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Rfadost.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rfadost.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV terms on Crocker article

Hi, I re-added the terms but directly quoted a ref instead to try to address the concern. "Lackluster," to me, is the amongst the nicest ways to describe Spears' performance and the event was widely seen and referenced as her comeback performance. Benjiboi 14:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:My Lunch.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Vlcsnap-1024218.jpg. The copy called Image:Vlcsnap-1024218.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 17:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ChoSh.jpg

Although I agree that the duplicate text repeated the rationale for Image:ChoSh.jpg, the WP licensing template mentions that the editor must provide a rationale for each use of the photo (from the template - "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information"). In this case, the photo is used in two articles: Seung-hui Cho and Virginia Tech Massacre. You had deleted the rationale for use of the image in the second article, leaving only the one for the first article.

That's probably why the other editor provided the information again to supply a rationale for the second article to avoid re-tagging of the image as not compliant with NFCC #10(c). →Lwalt^♦ talk 18:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the extra, superflous rationale was in direct response to Betacommandbot's demand for one. Betacommand's bot's latest deletion tear is currently being discussed at AN, but until the issue is resolved, the two semi-redundant fair-use justifications should stay. To parahrase the hot dog commercial, "Deletion bot get what deletion bot want!" If you could self-revert, I'd appreciate it. Once the WP:FUC image-deletion fracas is resolved, I'll come back and make the rationale elegant again; don't worry. --Dynaflow babble 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat link

Hi, what's the issue? Benjiboi 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references edit

Thanks for this edit to a Cultural references section. Is there a rule or policy that can be cited for this edit? This has come up before and aside from personal opinion I can't come up with a reasonable inclusion standard. Family Guy articles are magnets for trivia. / edg ☺ ★ 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]