User talk:Sceptre/Archive 51

On 3 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Stolen Earth, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured as long as the rest of the new series followed this format, S4 should also. How do you propose to do that? Just not include it? Toomanysidesofme (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small issue with the changes, what does "2nd of 2-part story" have to do with the length anymore? Without the consistancy of 1 episode or 1 of 2 episodes, it's rather pointless as it is stated in the intro. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the feedback, "2nd of 2 episodes", but I do not see why this information is relevant."

No where does it say to delete 1 episode for the episodes that are not part of an arc. 1 of 2 means that they are one episode of the episode arc and refers to it's length, one episode. I disagree with the previous use, that second episodes it is 2 of 2, rather than 1 of 2. However 2nd of 2 part story, only implies that it is an episodes which is the second of such episode. It look inconsistent to change formatting from episode to episode, not to mention it in some. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Doctor_Who_(1996_film), is not an episode. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not implied by the infobox, for sure. It's inconsistent. How about we bring it to WP:DW for further dicussion? Toomanysidesofme (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		"The Defender of the thedemonhog Barnstar"
		Congratulations for being the first (and probably only) recipient of this barnstar! For Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/thedemonhog 2#Oppose and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Banning trick questions from the RFA process. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made this suggestion which I think would solve the issue.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, you have been around here longer than I have…not to mention I get like no messages on my talk page. Probably serves me right for telling you to shut up. :P —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:34 4 July, 2008 (UTC)

That's what my problem was! I kept vandalizing instead of vandalising! (Even though I used the latter in writing!) Now all my problems are solved! :P —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:35 4 July, 2008 (UTC)

Re. [1] (taking this here from the DRV page):

1. Contrary to certain lies that have been spread by some, Fasach Nua was not blocked for his IfD nominations.
2. WP:SK ("The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting") obviously doesn't apply in Fasach's case. You may find these nominations stubborn, exaggerated or whatever, but they are clearly made in good faith in the sense that Fasach thinks they are correct, and in fact they regularly draw supporting "delete" votes from respected users and very often result in consensus to delete. No way you can that easily dismiss them.
3. Voting "keep" when in reality you would prefer "delete" is, by definition, a bad-faith move. No matter what motivation you have for it, if you are going to comment on an XfD, vote on its merits, or don't vote at all.

I stand by my warning: Do these kinds of disruptive bad-faith votes again, and I will seek to get you blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2]: So, Fasach Nua does a lot of the Dr Who image nominations? Yes. So what? What's wrong about that? They are still good and legitimate nominations, and the only reason some of them get overturned is the Dr Who crowd has a larger number of its fans among the established editors than some other, less high-profile series. They shout louder.

And I don't call other people disruptive just for disagreeing with me. (Unlike you, did you notice?) I called you disruptive for giving admittedly bad-faith votes in deletion debates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "SK 2, especially iii": The point is just that Fasach's criteria are not strongly rejected in most cases. In fact, a very significant number of people regularly active on IfD evidently agrees with his criteria. Possible differences of oppinion over application to individual cases notwithstanding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3]: So Fasach Nua has no interest in helping the Dr Who project? So what, again. Neither have I. I have never watched a single episode of Dr Who (or most other anglophone series for that matter), and I couldn't care less if tomorrow all our Dr Who articles vanished from the servers. People can legitimately be interested in image policies without having an editing interest in the articles in question. And the fact that his activity seems to concentrate on Dr Who is easy to explain. First, there are actually not that many series left that have routine per-episode screenshots. Scrubs, for instance, is largely free of them, and I remember personally doing much of Star Wars. As far as I can see, there are only a few high-profile ones that have held out. And honestly, I can understand that one might first want to establish the precedent with one such series, and only then tackle the remaining few. I can see that with the Simpsons the shouting will be even louder. But then again, the Simpsons articles are generally somewhat better, it seems. Family Guy is an abomination, though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to re-ignite the hostilities, but I want to get one thing straight. You said F.N. "has a horrible record for getting Doctor Who images deleted (and half of the ones that do get deleted get overturned at DRV)". Now, what did you mean with the first part? That he gets a lot of images deleted, or that he gets few deleted? My impression is he has a remarkably high rate of accuracy, with his nominations resulting in a deletion consensus in a very reasonably high proportion of cases. And about the DRV claim, can you substantiate? I actually tried to check and went through the last eight months' worth of DRV archives. I couldn't find a single instance where an image deletion based on NFCC#3+8 grounds was overturned at DRV (no matter by what nominators). There were three or four where deletions were endorsed, and there was one were a keep decision (by Edokter) was appealed (by F.N.) and led to relisting and later deletion. So where are those 50% overturns you were speaking of? And who is being disruptive for reiterating arguments that were previously "strongly rejected"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. [4]: I counted. Between 1 December and 31 January I find 23 Dr.Who-related images proposed for deletion by F.N. There were seven straight "keeps", fourteen straight "deletes", and two initial "keeps" that were overturned at DRV and later deleted. That's a success rate of 70%. None of the delete closures were challenged, let alone overturned, at DRV. – By the way, I do agree there were a few really unnecessary ones, where the keep closure was fairly obvious, but that was clearly a minority of cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, that's good to know! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent you my apology :). The only bit I'll work on is the release and reception. The rest is yours! Seraphim♥Whipp 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to turn "Turn Left" into a single episode again. There were several discussions (Talk:Turn Left (Doctor Who)#Two-parter or three-parter: Straw poll and Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Revisited) and consensus is clear that it should be listed as a stand-alone episode. Can I trust you not to blanket revert it again and at least discuss it further on the Serials page instead? — Edokter • Talk • 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 00:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved :-) It was great, wasn't it!! ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Would you kindly provide your opinion about the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal for the article about Alan Cabal? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected an entry on the Scottish royal arms, from the arms of the United kingdom, but you reverted the said correction, please explain. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be in a revert war over the appropriate coat of arms. Rather than endless to-and-fro (roughly the last thing that page needs), can you please take it to Talk Scotland, along with proof citations for your side of the case. (Message also being copied to the other participants) AllyD (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you incorrectly listed the new article Xyience as obviously advertising or promotional material, as it was neither, and afsd'd it. It was a stub of an article that I was working on expanding as you deleted it, but contained no advertisement or sales promotion whatsoever, as you mistakenly labelled it. Baiter (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can an edit on a talk page, of a user page be vandalism. If it were an article, sure. It's not like it was very harmful.--Eedo Bee (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the above user from AIV. Hes a bit blunt, but I looked at his contributions and don't see any admission of an intent to disrupt. Maybe I'm soft but I like to assume good faith and think we should do so here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your actions re Open-pit mining and Highland Valley Copper at ths IP user's talkpage where I found this matter.Skookum1 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add here that your threat to block that IP user for simply adding the mine link to the mining page was not only uncalled for and anything but good faith, but is over-the-top and as we all know, threats are no way to produce consensus. If you had taken action to block this IP user, I would have found myself arguing for a suspension of your admin powers; that's not a threat, it's a simple statement of due process. You may be an admin, but that doesn't give you the right to be a content-cop.Skookum1 (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my turn for a bit of an apology; from the rumblings I heard about Highland Valley I thought you were also the person who did that merge; no it was just the open-pit mining page and assocaited warming. Still inapprpriate enough but I'm retracting all that stuff about hte merge; which I've protested to to Uewr:Brewcrewer whose fault it was.Skookum1 (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step back from those opposes for a while. Stay focused on improving the article and dealing with any other concerns. No reaction = no distraction :). Seraphim♥Whipp 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article will be ready really soon, Sceptre. It's just too soon right now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hoping someone would call this editor on his very WP:TE behavior. Sadly, it seems that the walled garden continues to deny that maybe, just maybe, the community consensus does not agree with such overly restrictive policies for fair use.

In the new version of Atropa belladonna you keep the phrase naturopathic preparation desptie the fact that it isn't properly cited to the sources. Is there any reason for this? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! You fixed it! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why you would try to delete an article I'm trying to recreate in my user space. You give the grounds that it is "recreation of deleted material". I've only just begun the article - how can it possibly be recreation of anything? Please clarify. Thank you. Dolores Luxedo (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing that, but I still don't understand why you were trying to delete it. Dolores Luxedo (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're approved. —Giggy 10:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove a maintenance tag, you should check the article thoroughly. Did you do that? Jehochman ^Talk 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have put the article i just created 'Joseph H Scammell' up for speedy deletion. could you please tell me why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasammaniti (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick favor, could you add the references i have left in the discussion page of the article Joseph H Sammell i would do it if i knew how to, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasammaniti (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the reason for nominating the image for deletion was NFCC#8, then I should cite that as the reason for closing the image as delete. -Nv8200p talk 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since when was it possible for an MfD to last only 53 minutes?! :-) Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your action. People have hardly had a chance to comment, and there were a variety of opinions for limitations and such within the keeps. Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it to deletion review. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any approval needed to use huggle? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have rollback. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. Did you mean something else? Heh, cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or someone else? Both the reported account and the page concerned showed no such edits, but we are getting hit by Grawp at present so they may have been swiftly oversighted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks. My signature references Dot Warner on Animaniacs, and how she always says "Call me "Dottie" and die!". It's not my strangest signature, though. Happy editing!!! I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sceptre. I am concerned about the manner you delisted Max Mosley as a GA. Please see this discussion at GAN. Please note I have only done this to get more opinions on the delist. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To be honest, I think that would have been far better dealt with by discussion on the talk page, it's not a hard job to trim a section, and as you should have seen from the talk page, we recognise the problem. I've listed at GAR as what seems to be an inappropriate de-listing. Happy to discuss. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. The section in question has been heavily cut back - I'd appreciate your views on whether the revised article addresses the problem. Probably most useful to comment at the GAR page. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering where you got the warning template that you used here. I've used one such as {{uw-vandal1}}, but yours doesn't look all that much like any of the ones on the user talk space messages page. Just curious. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you raised an AN/I notice about Jim62sch, you failed to notify him as would reasonably be expected out of politeness. You're also throwing around assertions about a "cabal" – may I remind you of a recent discussion about how such labeling is a bad idea. Please take care to be civil, and avoid actions that look like harassment. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre, I've got AN/I on my watchlist and I miss half of what goes on there. Some of us have more to do than read forums, and it's only polite to notify people when you open a report on them. It's easy to slip up, so an error is understandable, but do try harder in future. As for your silly count, of course people who have shared interests and work on hot topic articles share a large proportion of edits to the same pages. So what? Remember, WP:AGF is what counts, not wild suspicions. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm reminding you bringing up month-old issues at AN/I and quote-mining people to make it look like they are saying exactly the opposite of what they are saying are not considered civil behavior, and so need to end. FeloniousMonk (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, were you assuming good faith here? The edits did not appear to be vandalism, as your warning seems to imply. Regards, MSGJ (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

here's my take on it K. Lásztocska^talk 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per a recent UCFD, you may want to remove the associated user category from your page.--Rockfang (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that you would be willing to redesign pages, and I was wondering if you would be willing to redesign mine? It needs it. Badly. Leonard^(Bloom) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you did a lot of good work on an essay/guideline on fair use montages some time back, do you have a link for it? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]