User talk:Sceptre/Archive 38
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
afd's
Hi. You're placing the afd's at the bottom of the log page. Any reason for that?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Two minor issues: 1. The bottom bullet in the guidelines box still points to Phaedriel's talk page, you might want to adjust that. 2. Why only TV? Why not also films? User:Dorftrottel 17:14, February 2, 2008
Commons image up for deletion
Please have a look here. — Edokter • Talk • 01:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters
The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:
For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.
As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
peer review
I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Branch Table
I cannot understand why you have reverted my changes to this article immediately! Please explain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.121.73 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
One more down
Well, we still have those GARs, but on the plus side "200" is now FA. Cheers! David Fuchs (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, yeah... apparently there's some serious "hurr I don't like pop culture FA" syndrome going around... see this little bit. David Fuchs (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Smile
Grrrlriot (talk) 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
hello
hey, whats up? ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
are you talking about the one on my talk page? ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
haha thats awesome ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 21:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
fer sure! futurama is the shiznit. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I responded.
I responded to your comment on my talkpage. You seem to like keeping a clean talkpage and so do I, so I figured I'd just keep both of our comments over there. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It just hasn't happened yet because that particular cabal is very small. See M:Kinky Wikimedians. Give it time. We'll have a BDSM portal soon enough. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
They are, but most of them are generally very busy, off-wiki. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Your revert
Hi; what was with this revert? Was it a mistake? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was astounded, just this once :D, that it wasn't! There was one edit that removed a reference, which I reverted but conflicted-slight with an edit that added a note to something else, but the first edit he made today was actually a proper sourced thing from the Radio Times. I think the best thing is to let it stand as it is, and someone else will add the RT news in due course, I'm sure - it's about the dates for filming the 2009 specials, so it's profound enough that others will spot it!! Thanks for the vigilance though :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
munkee_madness talk 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
My pet project is now a featured article candidate. Your input is welcome. K. Lásztocskatalk 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Voyageofthedamned.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Voyageofthedamned.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) 06:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
BetacommandBot tagging
Another thing has gone wrong (or went wrong at the same time as the Royal Mile) in that it tagged Swansea District Line which is a former welsh railway line. I don't think it was just Royal Mile that was affected. Simply south (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
DRV close
What on earth were you thinking? DRVs should be closed by admins and we usually let them run full term. Also the nominater is blocked and can't answer any endorse comments. Finally, you had already voted in the discussion. You know better then that. I have reversed your closure. Spartaz Humbug! 12:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop please
About LOM info box if you actually look all your doing is replicating and posting wrong links, it survived before you did this it will survive now, stop please. If you do reply please do on my talk page. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I didnt make the article do you will excuse me if I dont understand how it "Reeks of own" Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok I will leave it like this for the moment. You should read WP:Civil before you accuse users of such things. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
ok
I'll leave that up to you Will, but I don't think sources from outpost gallifrey are particuarlly useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.117.93 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
Since you put up the article for nomination, I'll come here first. I am reviewing the article and am really close to passing it apart from one thing. To spare the trouble of putting the article on hold, I'll simply put what needs to be done here instead. Please add a reference to the sentence about the Arcadian diamond in the continuity section. Then I can pass the article, as it fulfills the rest of the GA criteria. Zeus1234 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
re: Circular redirects
There are several flavors of circular redirects so we may be having confusion over terms. You used the terms A→A and A→B→A. Let me try to clarify what I think I understood.
- A→A: If I put a self-referential link on this page like this, it's not even a redirect, much less a circular redirect. The software does, however, interpret it oddly. The solution to such a link is to unlink it from the page.
- A→B→A: This most often occurs someone creates a link on A (a notable person)'s page for B (A's non-notable spouse, little sister or newborn baby). Someone else follows the link and creates a stub which may be speedy-deleted but which far more often gets redirected by a new-page patroller into a redirect to A. No knowing about (or perhaps not remembering to check for) the inbound links, the link on A's page points to B which points back to A. This is the classic circular redirect. Yes, they are bad for the system but the system handles them quite well. The right solution when discovered is to unlink the reference to B on A's page. Nothing is served by deleting the redirect at B. In fact, that's often the worst of all possible solutions because it again turns the link red and baits new users into thinking that we want an article at B.
Now, if someone created a page at A whose sole content was a redirect back to itself, that would be either vandalism (already revertable if there is useful history or speedy-deletable if not) or an obvious mistake (already speedy-deletable as a new-user test). Here's an example. As you can see, our software resolves that one properly. When you get pointed to the redirect via the outside link, the software stops the infinite loop of redirections and immediately drops you into edit mode so the next available editor can fix the link.
Likewise, if someone created A and B whose sole content was a redirect back to each other, the software will trap the infinite loops and keep the system from crashing. Again, though, if the links have history, they're not speedy-deletable. If the pages were created as redirects, that's either evidence of a mistake or vandalism. Actually, there may be a third scenario here - a badly cleaned up or partly reverted pagemove. But again, speedy-deletion is not the solution in that scenario.
So, having said what I think you meant by A→A and A→B→A, please tell me what you thought you meant. Because I still don't see a scenario where a new speedy-deletion rule is appropriate. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- So does the example I created above match your A→A scenario? If so, I that it's speedy-deletable but under other clauses.
I'd like to see an example of what you mean by A→B→A where A is a redirect. That's unclear. Can you point to an example or create a temporary one? Rossami (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)- That's what I thought you meant. I have two problems with the wording you added to the CSD criterion. First, in thinking about how that scenario might occur, I can only think of a few causes. 1) It's vandalism - already speedy-deletable. 2) It was created as a new-user mistake - again, already speedy-able. 3) It's a mucked up pagemove (such as A moved to B then back to A then A was reverted/restored to the intermediate version by someone who didn't notice the history.) In that case, speedy-deletion of neither A nor B may be appropriate. The right endstate may be content back at A and redirect at B. Or not, depending on the circumstances. Regardless, that's far too complex a scenario to justify a speedy-deletion just because it's a redirect.
The second problem I have with the wording you chose is that it implies that in the A→B→A scenario I first described above (with content at A, not merely a redirect), the redirect at B could be speedy-deleted. Those redirects are not even regularly deleted, much less speedily. I'm still not yet seeing a reason to amend the current wording of the CSD criterion. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I thought you meant. I have two problems with the wording you added to the CSD criterion. First, in thinking about how that scenario might occur, I can only think of a few causes. 1) It's vandalism - already speedy-deletable. 2) It was created as a new-user mistake - again, already speedy-able. 3) It's a mucked up pagemove (such as A moved to B then back to A then A was reverted/restored to the intermediate version by someone who didn't notice the history.) In that case, speedy-deletion of neither A nor B may be appropriate. The right endstate may be content back at A and redirect at B. Or not, depending on the circumstances. Regardless, that's far too complex a scenario to justify a speedy-deletion just because it's a redirect.
Oxford Round Table
Please note that I had self-identified as an SPA and the software also noted it. If you'd like to delete my vote, that's fine, but I don't know why you are striking my arguments.Academic38 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I too would be interested to know the reasoning (policies/guidelies) behind dealing with SPAs like this. It was not my understanding that participation is prohibited (though I am rather new here and perhaps I have missed something). thanks... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Will, please don't do this sort of thing again. There is a difference between a new account editing on the topic that brought them to Wikipedia (and please credit academics like this with being able to provide independent thought and analysis, rather than being mindless meat puppets). These SPAs are not the disruptive sock-puppets that were vote-stacking. Remember, "SPA" is not a dirty word. Many of the now established editors looked like SPAs when they first arrived. Some of the academics arriving to comment on this may stay and contribute if they like the look of the place. But they won't if you treat them like this merely because they don't yet understand how things work around here. Read the talk pages of the non-sock SPAs that are responding and interacting with others. User talk:Drstones, User talk:Nomoskedasticity and User talk:Academic38. They may not understand policy as well as you or I, but please don't chase them away. Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hum
My Google Talk password seems to not be remembering itself. I will be peeved if I forgot it. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 05:19 12 February, 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Template:M62 timeline
A tag has been placed on Template:M62 timeline requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
?
I just changed the statistics from the site wich are in the External Links on the Stelios Manolas page... http://www.national-football-teams.com/v2/player.php?id=14982 The-real-zeus (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You are cool
I'm serious --חציל קרב (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of School Reunion (Doctor Who)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Article you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Million_Moments (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of School Reunion (Doctor Who)
The article School Reunion (Doctor Who) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold.
It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:School Reunion (Doctor Who) for things needed to be addressed. Million_Moments (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Cloverfield
Please read the citations I have provided in the intro. The director has stated that the name Cloverfield is designated by the U.S. Department of Defense to the military operation. Sure if you want to have an article on the operation go ahead, but the creature itself is known throughout the internet to not have an official name. Also see the title sequence in the film "Case Designated Cloverfield".
I understand that a sufficient title is required on an article such as this where an official title has not been announced. But that does not mean a lie is used.
Henry Gale was sufficient because it was a name given to the character. And at that point in time it was the name people thought was official. But later his identity is revealed to be Ben Linus so it was changed accordingly.
Cloverfield isn't a codename or alias of the monster, let alone an official title. It is the military action taken upon it. Therefore the creature is unknown, and The Cloverfield creature suits it.
Try renaming the Iraq or Saddam Hussein articles War on Terror. JTBX (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, no one should do that without first discussing the idea and reaching WP:CONCENSUS, which you are failing to do. -Verdatum (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
In reply to your comment on my page, JTBX seems to have no interest in following WP:CONSENSUS. I've been adding appropriate warning templates to his talk page as his continues to violate policies and guidelines. Eventually, he will probably violate WP:3RR or be blocked for violating its intent. Since he's not interested in discussion, there's not terribly much else that can be done. -Verdatum (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Futuramascene202.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Futuramascene202.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 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Correction
The War on Terror is a term to describe the U.S.A's actions against terrorism. Including Iraq. The Iraq part of the War on Terror is called the Iraq War, but is also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom. Seperate, but related, and I have used those in the proper context. JTBX (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)