User talk:Sceptre/Archive 57

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: 03:49, 29 November 2024 (GMT)

Only 51723 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 57

edit

ANI

I've been staying far away from any post at AN/I labeled Obama, because I don't want to get anywhere near that can of worms. But I accidentally noticed your edit summary. Could I make a friendly suggestion that with a frustration level that high it might be time for a walk in the sunshine and the smelling of a few flowers?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's two things you should know about Yorkshire: its inhabitants are blunt, and it's countryside is overcast and muddy. Seriously. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand what caused my Yorkshire ancestors to think northern Utah was a good place to live. Thank goodness my grandmother figured out there were better and warmer places, and moved futher west. ;-) I'll shove some California sunshine into my USB port -- you should have it in a jiffy. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: the UK is about the size of Utah. Wetter weather, though, I hope. Funnily enough, though, I can't remember the last time it rained. Mustapha bin at elast a week ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR talk removal

That's what I thought when I first saw the new section. However, I took a quick look at the editor contribs and thought it worth responding to, if dismissively. Looking again, 30,000 edits kinda gives the right to at least pose the question, even if it is IMO a pretty bad one. Maybe you'd like to think again and instead just restore and archive the thread? Franamax (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was far from a serious proposal. It did not even give justification. It may not have been trolling(then again perhaps it was), but removing it saves lots of time to get the same result. I would consider a long history here a reason to thing the user was aware it is an active policy, but again that is just an assumption. Chillum 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did seem rather mischievous and I responded as such, including noting the lack of substance. My personal outlook (since this is the one main page that convinced me I could start contributing here, as long as I actually had a clue) is that that pillar is important enough to patiently respond to every question and challenge, no matter how tiresome. Persistent inability to get it is telling, but constant questioning is just fine. I'd rather see the thread restored and convincingly refuted. Franamax (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And remember that the only time you can choose to save is your own - this is a volunteer site, it's not for you to save me any time, I already know how to do that. :) Franamax (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)While you do make a good point, I can still see the benefit of removing it. If our fellow Wikipedian wants to try again with a reason that would be better than putting back his reasonless proposal. While one certainly cannot save another's time, one just as certainly can waste another's time. Chillum 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was very definitely trolling. Stevertigo's been trolling Wikipedia for at least the past few days, specifically on the Obama pages. It's starting to spill over, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found the recent dispute and commented at his talk page. I note though that you seem to be involved in those discussions. All the more reason then that you shouldn't be unilaterally making decisions about what is and is not trolling. Sceptre, you already know where to go to ask others for an opinion and action. I'm off for a few hours. Please consider whether you wish to make a formal report. Don't consider yourself as the sole defender of the wiki. Many others are as equally able to judge as you. The WT:IAR thread could have died its own death without your actions, and you could just as easily have archived it. I'll consider doing just that when I return. It would be better if you did it yourself, rather than unilaterally deleting other good-faith editors' comments. Franamax (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"troll"

What do you mean by "troll"?

My question's prompted by something that popped up in my watchlist:

(Move log); 23:23 . . Sceptre (talk | contribs | block) moved Talk:Obama-Ayers association controversy to Talk:Bill Ayers presidential election controversy over redirect (revert troll)

The earlier page move might have been wrong (presumably you thought so) or wrong-headed or both, but it doesn't emit the odor of troll. (That would be "Barack Obama terrorist sympathies" or "Barack Obama as latter-day Weatherman" or whatever.) Why personalize it? How about "revert move made without agreement"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if an action does have the odor of troll to it, omitting the word is still the best strategy. Wikipedia has never been improved by calling anyone a troll. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, User:Fred Bauder said to me, "Don't call people trolls," meaning, "never ever." I've never been sorry about having taken his word for that. About the furthest I'll ever go is calling a kind of vandalism "trollish behaviour" and even that's... almost never. Upon being called one, a troll will gleefully cry abuse at the claim and a good faith editor will only be harmed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move warring

Dude. Please stop moving articles around. I agree that "Obama-Ayers association controversy" sounds slightly POV, but you cannot have "Bill Ayers presidential election controversy" because it implies that Bill Ayers ran for the highest office in the land! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

Ping

[1] Was that the document? The convo at the bottom. rootology (C)(T) 23:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brave

Big step: [2]. Congrats on being the brave one to go that route. Now we all get to see how it plays out. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is backed by the consensus on the Public image talk page. The Public image article now has some POV problems, but we've overcome the worst. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5

Hey there. I notice you were interested in attending [[Manchester 4; we're in the process of organising another one for some time in April. Hope you'll pop along to the page to organise a time and date appropriate for you :). Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

[3] Your caption-quote has been changed again :P ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 08:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case involving you 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/Obama articles/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/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Hi! A couple of things:

A Wikiquette alert has been filed against you here.
While I understand and agree that you needed to post a warning for the edits made by the filing party, I don't quite agree with the logic of issuing not just a one-and-only warning without making a greater effort to explain the problem - the contribution history indicates a near negligible quantity of edits being made, while his user space and user talk space appears to have never had any edits prior to yours. Usually, relative newbies would be given a welcome to direct them to the important links, particularly our policies and guidelines. Your warning on the other hand only provided a link to blocking policy, which appears bitey.
I'm assuming good faith in assuming that you didn't intend on being bitey. I'm ready to mark this as resolved (with regards to you) on 2 conditions: (1) you acknowledge that adding an explanation to template warnings, particularly those that are of a one-and-only nature, is sometimes necessary, particularly for relative newbies (even if it's an ssp); and, (2) from now on, rather than merely issuing a one-and-only warning like you did in this case, you agree to add something to help explain the problem to relative newbies.
If I've missed something, or you feel that I'm mistaken, please feel free to let me know below. At the moment, I don't see anything unreasonable in what I've said. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind that I concur here ... if the editor has never received a "copy of the rules" via a Welcome template or something similar, don't go all out on the single-block warning. "Assume Total Ignorance of the Rules" is a good way to go. Warnings are incremental, unless major issues have been noted. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:WTA

Please remember to assume good faith in these discussions, and not engage in gratuitous accusations of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Also, please remember that guidelines must enjoy consensus support, and do not make changes to the text of guidelines in the absence of such consensus. Ray^Talk 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are assumed to have a community consensus until there is a consensus to deprecate them. Half a dozen people on a talk page being split on whether something should be removed doesn't constitute a consensus to remove in anyone's dictionary. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and Don't revert due to "no consensus". It discourages people from adding common sense ideas to guidelines. Yes, it's a guideline. It doesn't mean it's perfect. Such a reversion is more of an indication that you're being disruptive. (Oh yes, and AGF isn't a suicide pact). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. Ray^Talk 17:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion regarding this edit.[4] I agree 100% with your sentiment that it's not right to add a fact tag to someone's talk page comment, and you weren't being unduly rude. But you could probably create some goodwill by being extra courteous in the edit summary. I'm thinking something like "request for substantiation acknowledged, but please do not add fact tags to my talk page comment". The editor, 3X3, seems very sincere and sits squarely in the middle of a number of the debates swirling among some disputed articles, so they're a valuable reality check for both sides as to whether they are being reasonable. With the arbitration afoot over talk page management, and some concern over the perceived lack of slack you and I have exhibited towards contentious editors, I think we should all try extra hard to be polite. Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Hey Sceptre,

Just wanted to clarify – did you mean to support or oppose my RfB? You said you "opposed" when you commented in the support section; maybe you were kidding around, or maybe you actually did mean to oppose, I'm not sure. Misclicks happen, so I thought it best to clear up any ambiguity. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to change to oppose now, because you can't read HTML comments :P Sceptre ^(talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

I'm going to assume good faith, and say this edit was a mistake? CTJF83Talk 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter

21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delivered for the WikiCup by GARDEN at 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC). Queries to my talk.[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XI

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who)

Seeing that the AFD looks like a solid keep at the moment, would you mind withdrawing the nomination so the article can be moved to the title 2009 Second special (Doctor Who)? Edgepedia suggested this but he is (correctly) hesitant to do it while the AFD is open to avoid problems. Regards So Why 11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who)

Hi!

Your name is mentioned here - just thought I'd let you know! Cheers, Majorly talk 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old timers

Hi there! I am indeed still around, just less active than I'd like to be. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Dead

Hello, Sceptre. You have new messages at Talk:Planet of the Dead.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Imaginationland

I would normally respond on your talk page rather than mine, but since somebody else chimed in on your question on my talk page, I just responded at my own talk page, so check it out! :) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XII

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Placeholder references?

Hi, Sceptre. In this edit to Planet of the Dead you removed two full references and replaced them with "placeholders". Why? I'm confused. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the references pointed to The Stolen Earth's secondary material, not Planet of the Dead :) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so they were. I had recently added a reference from one of the Fact Files, and I thought it was this one. Dunno where that came from — my bad. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody ban

As much as I would like to go forward with that proposal at ANI, let's save our energies for a separate post or a RfC/U fully detailing his behavior. Having a proposal that looks like it was born out of the heat of the moment isn't going to enjoy that much support. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting energy into an RfC/U is like waterboarding an African orphan: on the face of it, it looks good, but in reality, it does a lot more harm than good. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not want to RfC/U, but it's a separate issue, not a subsection of the Jack Merridew "incident". pablo_hablo. 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The issue of Jack's old socking and possible relapse into old ways and A Nobody's policy abuse are inexorably interlinked. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I can see why you feel that way. They certainly both have interesting histories - an unbanned indefbanned sockpuppet and a non-vanishing RTV (also with plenty of block history and several account names) - but surely issues like this would stand more chance of being treated as standalone items? pablo_hablo. 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I can't tell what's going on, but edit warring of any kind on the AN/I talk page is a very bad sign. I suggest that if you don't want to get blocked you should strongly consider telling the folks at the EW notice board that you didn't think that unarchiving a conversation was a reversion but that given the concern you will allow others to decide, and not do it again unless you're told it's okay. People can and have been blocked for repeatedly unarchiving closed discussions, and the fact that multiple editors have opposed you is a strong sign it is at the minimum not a clear case, i.e. that what you are doing is edit warring rather than reverting vandalism (and even there, even if you're right it's disruption rather than vandalism, and some have a dim view of calling things vandalism when they are not). AN/I is not the best place to get into this kind of a dispute. If you can take a step back, and you think the issue is unresolved, there are other avenues. Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated unarchiving to unarchive is 3RRable. Repeated unarchiving while reverting vandalism is not. A Nobody removed my comments when he reverted me, and I know he knows he knows better. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars

After seeing your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the deletion discussion for Chronology of Star Wars, an article which has been nominated for the same reasons. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 07:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's about maturity and professionalism

Don't want to clutter the AN thread, but in response to [5] - this is not some "think of the children" nonsense. It's about maturity and professionalism. Let's say you went to a public library, seeking some information. The person at the desk says, "Oh, yes, go see Johnson, down the hall on your left". When you get to Johnson's office, his door is closed and that picture is hanging on it. You open the door, walk past it, and go in.

Would this strike you as a professional environment? Would you expect to see this at the public library? Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with it, but do you understand how this looks to the average person on the street? It's important to think of these things. Wikipedia has an uphill battle trying to be seen as a legitimate resource rather than a laughingstock, and childish nonsense like this userpage does not help. Friday (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's laughable that that would bring the project into disrepute more than the libel and the bias so rampant on Wikipedia. Go fix that instead of going on about a picture on someone's userpage. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem also. Wikipedia has more than one problem. I see this userpage issue as a useful problem to consider, because it has an obvious and easy solution. Bias and libel deserve attention, but they're trickier. Sometimes it's useful to solve an easy problem first, even when it's not the biggest one. Friday (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see trying to make Wikipedia professional hopeless, though. It's a noble cause, but the only way to get it to be more mature and/or professional is to move towards Citizendium's model. Which would get you a lot of flak. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would go dim as a website if it took up Citizendium ways. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wikipedia may be a controversial pile of shit, but it's a popular pile of shit too. Everyone loves a controversy :) Sceptre ^(talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But. Sceptre. It's. for. the. children. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the children. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the first thing that school-age children do when they get hold of a dictionary? A biology textbook? An encyclopaedia? Anyone old enough to use a computer can cope with this picture. pablo_hablo. 16:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Pretty much the only French words I can remember are swear words. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off Wikipedia is not a profession, this is an important detail. I would not for example use a username that was a drug reference at work, it would not be professional. But on Wikipedia I don't mind because I am a volunteer. Secondly, there is nothing immature about a shaved vagina. While certain cultural mores may that a dim view of such things, I don't think we need to obey every cultural rule out there. The picture doesn't even show anything explicit. The only disruption I am seeing from this image is this debate. A debate I am starting to see brought up in more and more venues. Chillum 16:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, we are a privately funded and operated library, not a public library. (I used to go to the public library to look up nudie pics in the National Geographic magazines when I was a kid) Chillum 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where I see the immaturity is not in the picture itself, but rather in his unhelpful response to the whole situation. It's a clear case of "because I can" syndrome. But, I've said my piece, and I see see it's not going to be persuasive to anyone, so I give up for now. Happy editing. Friday (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits?

I can't help but notice you're marking quite big changes to Doctor Who articles as minor edits. That can't be right, surely? Maccy69 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This and this - they both seem like quite major changes to me. Maccy69 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must've accidentally nudged the minor checkbox. Happens. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries. It just seemed a bit odd. Cheers. Maccy69 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For showing common sense at a time when there is very little of it left on Wikipedia, you deserve this! Jenuk1985 \| Talk 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I accidentally posted to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster after you closed it due to an edit conflict. I did not see any pressing need to revert myself, let me know if you feel otherwise. Chillum 17:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't beat yourself up. It's okay if you accidentally edit conflict. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks

for your WebHamster-related good sense

DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, two people said I have common sense! I can die happy! But seriously, it is annoying seeing Friday forum shopping to Jimbo, then Jimbo's comment sparking another disucssion... thank God there was such a keep consensus. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that although we have disagreed strongly in the past, I hope I can be less confrontational towards you should we disagree again, best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I think people tend to judge people on the drama than what they really are; most people who talk to me are surprised I'm a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything. Mind you, I judged Kurt so negatively because he was harassing a female (wiki-)friend of mine, so I had a very good reason for that! :P Sceptre ^(talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - and again, thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

Surely you know better than to close a debate you've taken a side on? Re-opened. –xeno ^talk 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone who has taken a side re-opening the debate any better? Scepters close was in line with consensus, regardless of any involvement. Chillum 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate closures should be re-opened no matter what. (cross-posted from my talk page) I think a precedent-setting decision like this should run the whole length, or at least longer than half, and be closed by someone who hasn't participated in the run-up. –xeno ^talk 19:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it was an inappropriate closure, regardless I think that a speedy keep should be reversed if anyone really feels strongly enough about it, however unlikely it is to change the outcome. I don't think Sceptre did anything wrong, and I suppose re-opening the debate was not wrong either, just not likely to have much effect. Chillum 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre put himself clearly on the "its ok" side in the AN discussion. He should not have been the one to close the MFD. –xeno ^talk 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For attempting to cut needless drama off before it escalates further. This is always a productive and noble thing to try, even if it does not succeed. Chillum 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Really? Do you think re-closing this as a speedy keep again after it was re-opened last time is going to produce another result? Once is a bold attempt to avoid drama, twice is going to have the opposite effect. Speedy keeps should not be used when people are not wanting the debate closed early. The only way this matter will be put to bed is if the MfD can be closed in a manner that can hold up to scrutiny. Let it run its course and be closed by someone else, otherwise this whole quagmire will spill over into DRV. Chillum 21:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, and this speedy close may be accepted the second time. If so great. Chillum 21:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think those who don't like the userpage will be satisified by an DRV, if Friday's behaviour is anythign to go by; they'll probably end up doing something unilaterally or trying to edit war it out. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why the MfD should run its full course and closed by someone uninvolved instead of giving those whose opinions were not accepted grounds to complain about perceived unfairness. The page is present during the debate, and there is about 0 chance that the outcome will change, so there is no reason to close it early except to prevent drama. I don't think this will prevent drama, only fuel it. I think this little wildfire has gone beyond the point of being quenchable and now just needs to burn itself out, we just need to limit the fuel. Chillum 21:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to think that my closure would eventually turn out to be the five tons of sand poured onto bonfire. Hopefully it will. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets watch and find out. Chillum 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eh, you've got some stones, old boy. =] –xeno ^talk 21:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By jove I believe it has worked! Chillum 07:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sceptre. I only noticed this debate just now, and wanted to express my opinion. Where do you think is the best place to do so: the AN thread (now closed), Jimbo's talk page, or the (now closed) MfD? I can understand wanting to reduce drama, but there is a line between shutting down drama early and closing off venues (after less than 8 hours) where people can express their opinions. I feel the MfD should have been allowed to run the full course, as not everyone would have immediately been aware of it, and now the only way they can express their opinion about the specific page is at a DRV. It's ironic in a way, because when people try and raise such issues, it is difficult to have calm, rational discussion because people use WP:NOT#CENSORED, and the discussion gets diverted very quickly. In some ways, over-readiness to use "not censored" and "snowball keep" could in some ways be seen as suppressing debate (itself a form of censorship). Where is the line crossed between putting out a forest fire (reducing drama) or a legitimate snowball keep (what happens if someone says "I wanted to take part in that MfD but it was closed early"?), and shutting off discussion early? FWIW, the AN thread ha a note telling people to discuss at the MfD, which doesn't seem possible now. I think this has shut off short-term drama, but long-term the drama will keep reoccurring. Probably best is having a well-advertised discussion on the general points on some policy talk page. Would you be able to help do that? Carcharoth (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possibly the best thing to do first is to add a rule that a sig must have a link to the users page, and the users talk page, and let it go at that, & only proceed further if it non-conforms. I hope that's what Carcharoth means by the "general point" --if we need a general rule about what sort of pictures go on the user page, I think that might do much better to hold off on that. Sceptre, I think you are well positioned at the moment to propose that, but if you want me to, let me know. Personally, I would have preferred to wait a few weeks till the drama died down even for that, but, seeing Carcharoth's posting, I suppose we might do better to go ahead now. DGG (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a few weeks is fine (hopefully someone will remember). The point about what should be in signatures was one of the more rational points raised in the debates. I would say a link to the talk page should be required, and a link to the user page and other things (such as contribs) is optional, but I've never read any of the debates over what should be in sigs. If the point is to avoid people arriving at user pages that are being used to make political points with pictures intended to make the point in certain ways (parody, humour, call it what you will), then yes, people should have the option to bypass that and go direct to the talk page instead. Carcharoth (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think waiting a few weeks is best because otherwise people will just be polarized again around this user whereas having a link to the talk page is really just a matter of courtesy having nothing to do with this user in particular. –xeno ^talk 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re move protection

I am responding here, rather than WP:AN, as it is lower traffic; certain vandals have found that move page vandalism is particularly effective, as it requires sysop flags to undo (move over redirect, delete, etc.). When targets are identified related pages are move protected as a caution. While a pain, having to request move protection and getting a sysop to perform the move is perceived as less arduous than cleaning up the vandalism... I note, by raising my eyes an inch or so, that exactly the same protection has been accorded this page - for much the same reason. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move over redirect can be done by autoconfirmeds too, last I checked :) Sceptre ^(talk) 10:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can they? The young whippersnappers! Back in my day... (etc) ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About GAs

Hey, Sceptre. Congrats on getting Doctor Who campfire trailer to GA. Nice work!

I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile submitting 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who) for GA review now, even though the episodes won't be aired for 8 months. On the one hand, the article is about as solid as it can be, given that the story in question is still filming, and if there can be a Wikipedia article on it, I'm not entirely sure why there can't be a GA on it. On the other hand, the article will certainly be transformed over the next few months, as more information becomes available, and it will be quite a challenge maintaining GA quality.

I suppose what I'm wondering is whether an article on a developing subject like a TV programme that hasn't aired can be considered as a "good article", or whether you have to wait until the subject matter is "complete". Do you know whether this issue has been raised before in relation to GAs? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think it's best to wait until it does air before submitting it to GAC, the reason being that it can change at any time before filming finishes. Then you've got the hyping up... Sceptre ^(talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess I'm just a bit proud of the current state of the article — but I don't really need it trumpeted. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Planet of the Dead.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Planet of the Dead.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) 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XIII

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Protected edit requests

Hi Sceptre, I've had to decline a couple of your edit requests recently. Could you please ensure that a consensus is established before adding the {{editprotected}}? Normally the talk page of the page in question is the place to raise this. I've seen a few novel locations for these requests from you recently ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recently created article Doctor Who campfire trailer

Hi - I just commented at Talk:Doctor Who campfire trailer, that I have doubts over whether the subject is notable enough for an article. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Robofish (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Planet of the Dead

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Planet of the Dead, 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.

Chamal ^talk 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations — but I'm going to sulk that the DYK folks put Planet of the Dead up and ignored 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who). :p

Ah, well — we'll have another shot at that one if we can increase it by 5x after broadcast. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't count your chickens; I reckon it will do, probably on Sunday. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who)

On April 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Christmas specials (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.

Shubinator (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XIV

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

DYK for Doctor Who campfire trailer

On April 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doctor Who campfire trailer, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes

You recently asked, in a deletion discussion, why hoaxes are not speedable. Actually they are - under criterion G3 - provided that they are blatant and that there is not a snowball's chance in hell they might be true. I think we should seek consensus to edit the {{hoax}} template to reflect that, pretty much the same way the {{advert}} template tells people to use {{db-spam}} instead in blatant cases. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Dreamed a Dream

I've just copyedited it so it's eligible for WP:DYK. Go nominate it! :) Sceptre ^(talk) 11:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sceptre, I saw your message on my talk page regarding the song article. I've since made a few additional edits to the page (had to copyedit it because a few of the sentences didn't flow as well after your edit) and I added a few more references. I found a source for the Aretha Franklin version and added that back as well. I've never nominated anything for DYK, so I've spent the past half hour reading about it and I'm still a bit confused. Besides, I'm not sure what the "hook" should be, maybe that LuPone's 1985 version just now charted in 2009? You're certainly a lot more experienced around here than I am, so if you wanted to nominate it maybe I'd learn something about the process. If not, that's cool too. At least I feel more secure about the existence of the article in its own right. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll follow the events as they unfold, this is a lot more exciting than most of the edits I've made on here. And yeah, I guess after almost 3500 edits I'm technically not a "newbie" anymore. :) Cheers. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IDIOT listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:IDIOT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:IDIOT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Webster6^{Yo, So} 14:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XV

Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 08:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines

Have you seen the discussion there? Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar! I try to leave no stone unturned when I'm working on these South Park episodes FACs, so I very much appreciate our compliments and your help at the FAC nom pages! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 03:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 25 - April 2009

"The other day I had these Jehovah's Witnesses come round to my house, and they tried to convince me that the Pope was the Devil's representative on Earth. So I told them that Jesus was the world's first communist. So they left. They were genuinely enraged.'" - Ian Brown
Project news

We collaborated on The Stone Roses (album), "Don't Speak", Indie rock, and Eddie Vedder during the past month.
During the month of April, Slow Life, "Lost!", and Phantom Phorce were promoted to good article status.
This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Stereolab - Chemical Chords (2008).

Editors

User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About something you wrote...

Every so often someone squawks about Ikip and then bloodies the nose of the entire ARS collective simply because of perceived actions of one independent individual. I personally think that this is thowing the baby out with the bathwater. I came home from a long day at work and found such a discussion opened and closed... but spent some time reading the comments. When I got to yours, I was a bit saddened. "To be honest, I've never seen a "rescue" tagged-page actually be improved. If you want to save an article from deletion, sofixit, don't place a big stonking notice on every AfD'd article." With respects, I wish to make a few comments: First, not every ARS member is as strongly inclusionist as Ikip... he is not our "leader"... only a member with strong personal views. His actions, not matter how they are perceived by some are HIS... not the ARS's. Second, not all articles at AfD wear a "big stonking notice"... as it is placed on only those few that an AGF editor either determines or hopes is salvagable. And third, I kindly invite you to look at my rescue and improvement page as I offer some 90 articles where I had involvement in rescue, improvement, AND keeping... most of which I discovered because of the ARS tag. I see a tag placed by another requesting help. I look and determine if there are hopes of salvage. I pitch in and "sofixit" myself. Others help, or they do not. I personally find that occasional "big stonking notice" to be of value to me and my efforts to improve the project. And if I do not find a tagged article worth salvaging or am unable to do so because of lack of knowledge about the article subject, I will not even attempt it... and will often offer a delete opinion for such at AfD. Please don't paint us all with the wide brush being used toward that one person, as we are all individuals with the improvement of the project at heart. And PS: I am not on that rescue hall of fame page, though some appreciate my efforts toward the project. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ARS is good in theory but horrifically flawed in practice. The {{rescue}} tag tends these days to be applied to any article up for AfD, regardless of whether it can be rescued or not. Then again, I'm kind of disdainful for drive-by tagging of any kind. I only tag pages with templates such as {{npov}} or {{cleanup}} if either a) it's obvious it needs doing but I don't have the time myself or b) I have some specific objections I need to talk through before making the change. Otherwise, I silently fix it. Shimples. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merridew’s Law

Merridew’s Law:^cite
As a discussion about an inclusionist or a deletionist grows longer, the probability of a claim of harassment by adherents of the opposite philosophy approaches 1.

—Sceptre ^(talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers,^see Jack Merridew 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I've replied on my talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

There are not enough third party sources to verify the historical significance of this match. This is also extremely likely to end up being loaded with POV.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Giant Snowman 13:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – Pee Jay 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of this edit summary? You've been editing here for years, are you really so surprised that people would find this article to be very low on the significance scale? David D. (Talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WPFOOTY-motivated deletion. Not a lack-of-notability-motivated deletion. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your speedy on this, as someone else spoke for keeping. DGG (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with DGG that a speedy is not appropriate since this example needs to be discussed and could be a precedent either way. By the way, I have nothing to do with WPFOOTY and I agree with the suggestion for delete. Do leave the temper at home as it is not productive, thanks. David D. (Talk) 15:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epic NPOV win!

Congratulations. You argued well, you made your point, and after many many tries, NPOV triumphed. You've helped restore my faith in wikipedia. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another semi-final

Sceptre, Candlewicke has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, I noticed the bother you're in with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg. I couldn't help it really as User:PeeJay2K3 pointed it out at another deletion discussion which he began! :) Oddly enough, it too concerns a semi-final, that of 2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster which I created for various reasons that I believed to be notable and hich, like you, was sent to AfD before I could get it sorted properly. But I just thought I'd assure you that I find some of PeeJay's points baffling at your discussion when compared to mine, in particular the idea that the Battle of Bramall Lane is notable "because it cites an example of a match being abandoned because a team did not have enough players left on the pitch" when he would have mine deleted despite having a record-breaking crowd attendance and being the only match of its kind ever played in that particular stadium amongst numerous other things! Anyway good luck with the discussion, happy editing and don't let it get you down. ;) --can dle •wicke 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]