User talk:Sceptre/Archive 28
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
.jpg)){kind=link}
Re: Ol' 81...
Given that one of his template edits[1] had Adam Mitchell back as companion for much of season 4, I'd just like to know where he's getting his ideas from. I can understand why some people have fooled themselves into thinking Eccleston could be back for Christmas, but some of his contributions were just bizarre. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Images listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.
Thank you. OZOO (What?) 12:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Even so, one's not enough; there are still at least three other oppose votes.--十八 12:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay; I changed the heading to reflect the 8/3 count.--十八 12:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I just have to give you this. :P
Thank you for experimenting with the page User:Springeragh on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 14:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
User was a sock puppet
About your reply here to this user, here, Fâtimâh bint Fulâni (talk · contribs · block log) was found to be a sock of a banned troll. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Google Talk
I'm going to purposely stay away from it until my connexion gets better or is fixed to avoid frustration on my, your, and others' parts. :( I'll still be here when it's up though. :) — $PЯIПGrαgђ 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- LOL! I give up—oh by the way my connexion is more stable in the mornings (my mornings; about 5 to 9 your time) so I may be on at least then. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
ROTFLOL
I just saw your message about staying away from the internet to avoid Harry Potter spoilers, and I was just about to put something like that on my own page!! My schedule is almost getting back to normal--another week of weirdness and then I'll be able to get back to wikiwork....but dammit, there's that little issue of finding out the ending before I get a chance to read it. I can't count how many football matches I've accidentally wrecked for myself (here in the States we can't watch the Prem live unless we get up at 5 AM--nooo thank you) by absentmindedly logging on to check my email and there in the headlines box is the score of the match I was eagerly anticipating. Bloody depressing really, takes all the fun out of it. Anyway, enjoy reading the book on your own schedule sans spoilers. ;-) I'm off to go indulge my Doctor Who addiction some more! K. Lásztocska 03:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, are we addicted to all the same shows, or what? I remember exactly which Scrubs episode you mean. ;-) As for the Doctor, here Stateside we've just seen "The Shakespeare Code" (loved it!!). I'm having a hard time getting used to Martha--I like her and all, I just miss Rose. "Doomsday" was THE saddest episode of anything I've ever seen. I'm just glad the Tenth Doctor is sticking around for a while (he's still in the fourth series isn't he?), I'm rather madly in love with him. He's starting to show such a dark side in this series though, remember that look of cold fury on his face when he killed the empress of Rachnoss in the Christmas episode?! OK....wow, I'm such a geek. Enjoy your break and I'll enjoy mine--and starting July 21, NO internet until we finish the book! Make a solemn vow! K. Lásztocska 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my page that was my 3rd time being vandalised.Sam ov the blue sand 01:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I posted the link to the author of the image, I posted a link to the CC 3.0 tag that appears on the bottom of each page of icanhascheezburger.com (site this was posted on) and yet it is again deleted, this time with no warning. What exactly do I have to do to satisfy the Wiki Law Staff? - NeutralHomer T:C 02:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you were free as a coach, even though you are on a wikibreak. When you finish your break, I was wondering if you would consider taking me on as a student. ffm 15:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
/b/
Aye, I've been there. But LUE and LUELinks have been so notorious and are so damn numerous I find the to be the single most destructive for in the internet. But cheers :) 190.73.209.148 19:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
but WHY?
How come you have the right to decide whether my article is submitted or not? I spent a lot of time making it and you cant find much more then what i did i put lots of links and stuff. BUT NOOOO. thanks a lot. pfftt Charlielovesmcr 04:37, July 20, 2007 (UTC)
M62 motorway
Could you please discuss any alterations to my proposed text on the talk page rather than delete it.GordyB 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- You did not reply to either my message here or on the talk page but you did continue to edit other Wiki pages. If you think my edit is POV then please state why and what you would like changing rather than deleting my edit. If you won't communicate with me and continue to delete without a valid reason then I will have to keep reverting your edits.GordyB 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Qazplmqaz
I took that off AIV without blocking because, while it was posted in an improper manner, simply posting plot spoilers isn't vandalism. More importantly, he hadn't been warned (I will give him a simple test1). Daniel Case 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Harry Potter spoiler = block?
We're supposed to block becuase of one unwarned act of vandalism that may or may not be a remotely accurate spoiler of a children's book? Just warn the editor...if it contines, it may warrant a block. — Scientizzle 17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I see (from the comment above), that I wasn't the only one wondering about this. Where, exactly, is it stated that anyone posting spoilers to the new Harry Potter book is a vandal to be blocked on sight without a single warning? Consider that once the book is released the article will as a matter of fact have a plot summary per WP:NOVEL. As it is, until the book is released, plot summary details should be removed because they can't be verified. But those who post them should not be blocked for any reason other than the usual ones. Daniel Case 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's frankly no worse than (and should be treated as) the addition of your standard nonsense/test. If it doesn't stop following proper warnings, then a block may be necessary. — Scientizzle 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, now I understand per your explanation here. But you should have made that clear when putting it on AIV (And maybe upgrading the page to full protection might be in order soon). Daniel Case 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for coaching
Hello Scepter, I have put in a inquiry for Admin coaching and saw your name of the list of coaches with a nice big "none" next to it. i know you'll be gone for a week or so but I figured I'l leave this for you when you get back. Feel free to respond on here if you want, I'll watch your page-keep the conversation together. If you can/want to do it, thanks! -Violask81976 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The Second Battle of Hogwarts
I noticed an edit of yours to the dab page for this which I suspect means you are going to have problems with my attempts to change all references to this back to canon - please check out the various talk pages and voice any concerns you have. My intention is to pull it back to being called "The Battle of Hogwarts" as it is called in the DH which I feel is necessary to be able to stop fancruft and OR add-ons. Only by sticking precisely to what is in the book will the article remain tight and relevant. Sophia 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
A secret code from someone who is not a Harry Potter fan but has some information
Sorry, pervasive truth. — $PЯIПGrαgђ 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Harry Potter redux
Yeah, I spent all yesterday reading it...damn good story all in all. Have to say I was NOT expecting the doe to be Snape's Patronus...actually I wasn't expecting any of those revelations about Snape except I had an inkling of the conspiracy between him and Dumbledore. I shouldn't be revealing plot twists in public, should I?!?! K. Lásztocska 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:42 (Doctor Who).jpg)
.jpg)){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:42 (Doctor Who).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)){kind=link}
I see you've met Anonimu...
...you will never know peace again. Thanks for trying to defend me though, but all it managed to accomplish was getting you labelled a "blind supporter". I'm already "Biruitorul's groupie", which is a lame nickname if I've ever had one--I was hoping for something like "the traitorous Romanian-loving Hungarian ultranationalist controlled from the Beyond by the demonic hands of Franz Liszt."
On a more fun topic, have YOU got any idea what Spring's HP anagram turns out to be? I'm really horrible at that kind of stuff. K. Lásztocska 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You're an admin, aren't you? Any ideas what on earth should be done about this guy? K. Lásztocska Review me? 23:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Right....knew that. See, THIS is why I keep thinking you're an admin--you know all the rules, guidelines and codes of conduct (and follow them!) better than three of me. Anonimu just got blocked for a week, FYI. K. Lásztocska Review me? 16:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you were an admin but aren't anymore? What happened? K. Lásztocska Review me? 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, wow. I'm not sure yet whether I should run for admin--I'm probably too moody and hot-headed, not to mention controversial and (lately) unproductive...but I still kind of want to try...K. Lásztocska Review me? 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're fine. People worse than you (I wish to dear God I could mention a name) have succeeded. ;) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Anonimu and the page protection, his blocking, etc....I've actually been thinking about it a good deal (only just got home though, so I wasn't able to post anything earlier.) Certainly Anonimu has been being obnoxious throughout this whole affair, and that big red banner was pretty tacky and annoying (especially to those of us who knew exactly who it was aimed at), and I find his practice of deleting comments by people he doesn't like quite rude, but there really aren't any regulations he's outright broken here and certainly no blockable offenses. Anittas is actually right that the banner, etc. did not really constitute personal attacks. And also, I have to tell you completely honestly that I'm very disturbed by what appears to be almost a little run of censorship on your part, particularly the edit to Jmabel's page. I can't imagine how you see "This user chooses not to listen to ultranationalist rhetoric of any nation" as a personal attack against anyone but hypothetical fascists (who probably deserve it anyway.) Especially since that's a fairly common userbox, I've seen it on quite a few pages, it has nothing to do with the latest Romanian flare-up.
My point is, we can't go removing things from people's userpages unless it is BLATANT hate-speech or a clear personal attack against someone in specific. For example, if Anonimu had written "This user reserves the right to delete messages written by the evil fascist Iron Guard sympathizer Biruitorul", THAT we could remove, and the sooner the better. But a vague statement about "ultranationalist editors"? Like I said before, it's obnoxious and certainly puts his personality on display for all to see, but there are technically no rules being broken and thus disciplinary action on basis of that alone would be wholly unjustified.
There was a brief kerfuffle a few months ago when a Serbian editor removed a box from a Hungarian editor's page that said "This user supports the independence of Vojvodina" on the grounds that some (most, probably) Serbs would find it politically offensive. That type of rationale just doesn't fly and has no place in a community that claims to respect free speech. Lots of people have loopy ideas--the proverbial slippery slope could eventually lead to Labour supporters and Tories engaged in massive edit wars on each other's userpages claiming they were offended by their opponents' statements that they supported the rival party.
I don't mean to be reading you the riot act too severely--again, being completely honest, I am a little annoyed at you right now, but we're still friends and all, don't worry about it. If we weren't, I wouldn't bother with this whole long message because I wouldn't think that you were any better than this. I know you're a smart and good guy, you just got a little carried away.
Anyhoo, let's see if we can get this whole mess sorted out now...K. Lásztocska Review me? 02:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is, ANY statement of an opinion will probably be offensive to somebody. I pissed someone off once by declaring I wasn't terribly fond of Jascha Heifetz's interpretations of the classics. Essentially, if we want to go deleting anything that is "potentially offensive", then ALL userboxes will have to go (and where's the fun in that?). I would suggest instead that we assume that most people are mature enough to handle the existence of opinions contrary to their own. And incidentally, Wikipedia is indeed not Congress, but it is not censored either. K. Lásztocska Review me? 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I know the article you tagged was dross but no way did it meet A7 standards. I have rewritten it rather then delete it Spartaz Humbug! 22:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding List of The Sarah Jane Adventures stories
- "Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures stories, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Will (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)"
Dear Will, Welcome to you as well. In regards to your message to me, I respectfully beg to differ. I was not finished with my edits, and my reference lists are ALWAYS the last thing I insert when I edit or contribute to a page. References are being list to the new titles. Thanks and have a nice day. (Deej30)
Regarding edits made during July 26 2007 (UTC) to User:Maurice27
It appears you edited somebody else's user page, which is usually not very welcome. Please don't do this. Thank you.. I understand you are an experienced user. I would appreciate if you discuss this kind of edits beforehand. Asteriontalk 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I understand there is an active discussion on WP:AN/I. I will keep an eye on it. Regards, --Asteriontalk 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Undiscussed edit to my user page
I strenuously object to your undiscussed edit to my user page. If you have a problem with what I am saying there, you could discuss it with me. Editing my user page is way out of line. - Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- You say the User doesn't own his/her User page. OK, fine. That doesn't give you the right to swoop in and make whatever changes you like as if you were the PC police. Fortunately, the way Wikipedia works, there are people who notice such behavior and undo what you do.
- I see that you have made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and I applaud them. Keep it up. But please try to develop better judgment, which you sorely lacked in this case. --Halcatalyst 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy Sceptre's Day!
 |
Sceptre has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
Deathly Hallows film
For the film article's AfD, you should have cited WP:NF#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. This especially applies to this film, whose article is going to sit around in stubby form for a long time while the focus is on the sixth film. If you are still interested in pursuing the matter, you should request for a merge. AfDs tend to make people freak out and think that the article will be gone forever -- fellow editors and I have put Spider-Man 4 and Jurassic Park IV up for AfD, and though they were kept, we were able to request for a merge to their film series articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
barnstar, nationalism, etc.
...(as well as starting a new section so things don't get lost.) I'm quite touched by the barnstar, as I did feel rather bad for ripping into you when you were only trying to help. I know you meant well, you just picked the wrong target. ;-) Regarding "nationalist", I agree to an extent. The word has been twisted beyond recognition of its original meaning in the last half-century or so. It used to mean something like "patriot"--the nationalists of 1848 were progressive radicals who wanted freedom and justice for their countries and rejected the idea of kings and empires ruling over peoples other than their own. (National self-determination, liberte-egalite-fraternite, etc.) The modern definition, in contrast, is usually more along the lines of "racist chauvinist." Not just on Wiki, either, but in general: when there were those crowds of ultra-right-wing, anti-Semitic, anti-Gypsy-ist football hooligans raising hell in Budapest last year, the media almost without exception referred to them as "nationalists." Argh.
I try to be careful about the word "nationalist" just because you never know how someone will interpret it. I generally use it in the "patriot" sense, and incidentally that is occasionally how I describe myself, but I infrequently use it because I know most people will probably hear "chauvinist." There's good nationalism and bad nationalism--my friend Istvan once described it quite succincly as "Good nationalism, love your country. Bad nationalism, hate everyone else's." ;-) K. Lásztocska Review me? 16:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree with the Samuel Johnson quote, but I know what you mean about skewed political meanings! I've got to the point where I basically refuse to declare allegiance to any ideology or party--they're all crooks anyway, politicians. ;-) K. Lásztocska Review me? 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And if I were a Hungarian citizen, I'd totally be voting KKP next election. Gyurcsany? Orban? Or a dog? No-brainer! K. Lásztocska Review me? 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
On frivolous political parties
Would you be willing to withdraw your just-begun AfD of the list of frivolous political parties for the moment, to discuss your grievances on the talk page and then - by all means - relist if you don't think that we can reach a satisfactory conclusion?
I ask because in my experience, talk pages and wikiprojects are far better suited for developing content, such as deciding whether to cover it in a list or a category, while AfDs have been getting increasingly polarized and are largely about deciding whether we should cover a subject at all. This one is almost guaranteed to turn into a battle over whether or not we should list frivolous/joke parties in any form. --Kizor 17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and if I came across as smarmy, please hit me with a fish. --Kizor 17:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
GameTZ Speedy tag
I removed the speedy tag that you placed on this page, as it does not appear to be appropriate. Speedy deletion of previously deleted material is not applicable when the original deletion was overturned at DRV. -Chunky Rice 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)