User talk:Sceptre/Archive 47: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:02, 15 April 2008

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: 00:09, 9 September 2024 (BST)

Only 51196 articles (0.744%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 47

edit

HP MfD

My apologies; this was my first time processing one, and I had followed the cue of another editor who added it to the HP dab page. I have since found out he was wrong toadd it, and I was wrong to select the miscellany for deletion. I apologize if my mistake harshed your calm.
With respect, your assertion that HP is used outside a fan forum in a notable source for Harry Potter is incorrect. There aren't any, and many have looked. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the search is flawed, which is part of the problem. In virtually every article your search (and others' as well), HP is used as a short form for the text 'Harry Potter', which always appears in close proximity, so as to avoid confusion. In no place (outside of a fan site) does HP act as a substitution for Harry Potter. There are no articles where the entire article refers to HP alone with the expectation that everyone will know what they are talking about.

Likewise, users and readers do not come to Wikipedia and type in HP expecting to get to a Harry-Potter-related subject. It is far more intuitive to reason that they will type in 'Harry' or 'Potter' to get to the article 'Harry Potter' (and in fact, both words are dab'd as links to Harry Potter). As the majority of folk pushing for its inclusion in the past have been Harry Potter fans, it stands to reason that they want Wikipedia to reflect their usage in the fan forums. We don't do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What,and risk someone calling it an advert project? Not really what I'd want, or what I meant. HP as an internal shortcut for editors to the Harry Potter WikiProject is fine, as it makes it easier to internal workings. I was referring to how, in the mainstream, it isn't a notable substitute for Harry Potter. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scout moves

I've undone all these. There was no discussion whatsoever on this. Next tag the pages appropriately and allow adequate discussion time. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it first, calmly. It became an FA with that name, so if it were in fact such a blatant foundation level violation as you call, I'm sure it'd been brought up during that process. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, Sceptre, I take issue with your move. To begin with, I simply think that the meaning of the new title to which you moved it was unclear. Obviously it was clear to you, but you came up with it, so of course you know what you meant. Secondly, I disagree with your characterization of the word "controversies" as inherently POV. While "controversy" is often—probably most of the time, in fact—used in a POV fashion, the word does have a dictionary definition and can be used in a very literal and thus NPOV way. I submit that this was such a time, and that the title did not violate Wikipedia standards.

I don't actually agree with User:Rlevse that you were wrong to make the move without discussing the matter. If you can't do this sort of thing, what does BOLD mean, for pete's sake? But I do believe that, once you have taken such a bold move, you should be respectful to those who found it to be over the top, be willing to discuss the matter in a civil manner, and give some due for the significance of both longevity and (in this case) FA status. You appeared to this observer to be pushing the civility envelope a bit in this area, if only slightly.

Having said all that, I will add that I don't particularly care for the status quo title. I have not, however, been able to think of anything better. (And I swear I'm not saying this next line to be a smart ass) Neither, it appears, have you. Unschool (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unacceptable

Could you please explain what part of the articles you linked on the administrators' noticeboard you find "unacceptable". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Foley scandal

I think I puked in my mouth a little... Good night! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and thanks for the star! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in Crime

A fair enough explanation, and you'll see what I've done in reply. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 00:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've gone further and included it as part of a suggested next update. I'll be offline when it's time to update the main page, so won't be able to do it myself. Bencherlite ^Talk 03:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Partners in Crime (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.

--Royalbroil 05:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just re: your comments on my talk page yesterday - I nixed the article because you placed it in the 6th April section. Since expansions are counted from the day they are begun, by putting it in 6th April you signalled that you had begun the expansion on that date, so naturally I went to the last edit made on April 5 and compared the size of the article then with the current size. It turns out though, that you started the expansion on April 5th. Next time, please try to ensure that you nominate the right date, to prevent this sort of misunderstanding arising again. Thanks, and congrats on the DYK BTW :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pompeii

Hiya... two things. Firstly, your edits here mucked up the first paragraph before the ==plot== section... do you think you could have a go at sorting it out? And secondly... the image isn't really relevant and certainly isn't free, I'm afraid - see the talkpage. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've fixed the revert-damage stuff; it wasn't as bad as it looked! But the image still isn't free... I'm at 3RR and can't do anything, but I'd ask you to read over the talkpage and remove it again until we can think of an appropriate one. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re, outside references... I'd really rather not. By deleting them, we lost a lot of sourced stuff such as the Fawlty Towers reference; I've weeded out the shit and you can feel free to weed out more if you want to, but there's good material there too! —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just clicked "save" when removing the SF point when the new messages flag came up :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would deleting the bulletpoints not be simpler? You will lose some valuable stuff, I promise you. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you go through and remove what you want and we can discuss it; what about Fawlty Towers, Shadow Proclamation, modern art, Sparacus and so on? And with the Star, I meant not to suggest that it was true, but to point out the fact that it was said. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you've removed "outside references" and it's all sourced in the fact-file... why did you do that? —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how's this for a compromise? You add in...

Fawlty Towers
Sparacus
Shadow Proclamation
Medusa
Lost planets —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no difference between Sparacus and Barcelona... they're both outside references from the same source. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, they're both in the fact-file and worth noting, I think. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Speight's body

It has been widely reported that Speight's body has been found. It has also not yet been subject to formal identification. There should be no problem with saying that much, as long as we say "it's been reported that..." surely? Steve ^{T • C} 11:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who helped guard against unsourced/unverified information being added to the article yesterday evening, I think we can be too precious about this. But OK. I'll change the wording to something less contentious in order to get the {{fact}} tag off. Steve ^{T • C} 11:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Though I believe reversion of certain BLP edits is not subject to 3RR in any case. Steve ^{T • C} 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving hooks

Sorry, can't oblige on that. A hook goes under the day the expansion was started, not the day it was finished. The count starts from the day you start editing, basically. Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Review depth

Ah. I'm going to disappoint you now. We haven't had the chance to watch it yet, so I'm going to recuse myself from even looking at that. I'm a bit of a spoiler-phobe when it comes to my telly-watching. Hope you understand. :) (Though you have reminded me that I should go and register my !vote at Partners.) All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kumioko

I'm afraid your questions have become a subject of consternation. Dloh cierekim 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 Ah. I'm going to disappoint you now. We haven't had the chance to watch it yet, so I'm going to recuse myself from even looking at that. I'm a bit of a spoiler-phobe when it comes to my telly-watching. Hope you understand. :) (Though you have reminded me that I should go and register my !vote at ''Partners''.) All the best, [[User:Steve|<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">'''Steve'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steve|T]]  • [[Special:Contributions/Steve|C]]</sup> 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
+== [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kumioko]] ==
+[[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Going_to_start_removing_stupid_questions|I'm afraid your questions have become a subject of consternation.]][[User:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#009500">  Dloh</font>]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|<font color="#950095">cierekim''' </font>]] 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Current talk
Bot			IP				RfA

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65