User talk:Sceptre/Archive 35

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: 07:59, 6 November 2024 (GMT)

Only 51626 articles (0.747%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 35

edit

Gamespot

Might want to monitor the article for possible WP:SPS and WP:BLP vios, per comments left at talk:GameSpot. No consensus has been reached, and the text included is nothing more than rumors. Cheers Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

No problem. Happy holidays! --Kyoko 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection logo.png. 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For excellent edits and improvements to the encyclopedia, I award you this Barnstar in recognition for your work. Acalamari 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Acalamari 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with the Troubles

Hi, I noticed your comment here and wondered how you had arrived at interpreting the decision as "the ruling is to stop abuse by admins heavily focused on one side of the debate". As far as I know, no admins were criticised by Arbcom; please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying what you meant, that makes perfect sense. --John (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However I think Rockpocket makes a valid point here; I am sure you would agree it would be a poor precedent if problem users were allowed to effectively choose which admins enforce remedies. While I am always in favour of using tact and diplomacy (and therefore accept the value of getting wholly uninvolved admins involved), it would be unfortunate if your comment was interpreted as a criticism of the many admins (including, but not limited to, myself, Rockpocket, Tyrenius, Alison, SirFozzie, etc) who were involved or mentioned in the Troubles Arbcom, or a suggestion that none of us should be involved in editing or performing admin tasks on any Ireland-related articles. After all, most of us were dragged into the area either because we edit Ireland-related articles or because another user asked us to get involved and we did, to the best of our abilities. --John (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, I had missed that entire conversation. I agree with you, it seems to make perfect sense. I would never block an editor to gain advantage in a content dispute, but if I see troublesome behaviour in an article or area I have not substantively edited, I may feel free to block if it seems like the only option. Of course there will be difficult grey area cases and I would refer these either to a previously uninvolved admin or to one of the relevant discussion boards, as I always would in such a case anyway. The trouble (for me) is I think I have more or less exhausted my supply of friendly fellow admins on the Ireland-related articles; all of them have either become involved at my behest already, or have expressed an unwillingness to do so for various reasons. Maybe I need to find some more friends here! --John (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better?

— $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:52 22 December, 2007 (UTC)

Good. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 20:30 22 December, 2007 (UTC)

User:John Lennon Boy

I've blocked John Lennon Boy (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. Per your WP:AIV report, which banned users do you think are related? Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Yamla (talk · contribs) would be a better person to ask. I notice John Lennon Boy removed a citation which Leyasu continually added. Seems odd to create a sock to undo your own edits unless the purpose is simply trolling. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report at WP:AIV

Hi. I removed your recent report to AIV as the ip editor has received no warnings in respect of their contributions. If it is vital to block the editor immediately then I suggest you take it to WP:ANI. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vandalism

Sorry! Whenever I see a huge removal of content like your error, I will issue a warning most of the time. I actually did think that it was just a mistake, but did not want to take any chances. STORMTRACKER 94 19:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta

Will, Im a complicated individual which of my myriad of vendettas do you wish me to give up? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gray's Inn Road

Hey there. I noticed you removed the Route and History sections from Gray's Inn Road. What's the reasoning behind that? Thanks, - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Will. I understand that much of the content you removed was OR and/or unsourced, but rather than removing the Route and History sections completely, it seems like it would be better to tag the first with unreferenced and the second with refimprove (seeing as the History section does have some citations). Unless you think otherwise, I'll add those two sections back in with the appropriate tags. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 23:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll leave the survey section out and only reinsert Route and History, with appropriate tags. Cheers, - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden

In the interests of moving forward, I have made a rather long post on the Talk:Rachel Marsden page. It is my hope that you (and others) will participate in the discussion. Thanks. Victoriagirl (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot

Oops, you are right, sorry. I had opened the talk pages of the ones involved, but apparently warned you instead of SqueakBox. Sorry about that! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorway Signs

Hi. Just to let you know I hadn't forgotten. I can't install the correct font at the moment, but I will get these done when that works. Cheers, Regan123 (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!--Ungurul (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collins = Creep?

Obviously at this time of the day I have trouble with anything. I've just had a look at Syd Barrett, it needs some work, and it's gone on the list. What I meant about Collins being a creep was that after Gabriel, he took Genesis into major stadium rock-like audience interactions, such as the "Domino" intros, something Gabriel would never have done; and alongside that, he had his mawkish ("In The Air Tonight"), disco ("Easy Lover") and actor ("Buster") careers. No problem with talent as such, Collins was good at doing many things well (especially his drumming for Brand X), but Gabriel was, within Genesis, focussed on Genesis, whereas Collins wasn't, which to my analytical mind suggests that with Gabriel, abominations such as "Genesis" (the "Mama" album) and Calling all Stations would not have happened. I haven't dug out Seconds Out for a while, since I have a backlog of bootlegs to sort out, but from what I've heard of Collins' interpretations of early material, they tend to be more overstated than Gabriel's IMO - which, I suppose, validates your "Willow Farm" comment. As regards the review of "Supper's Ready", I really hope to get to it soon, bt I have been grappling with the description in the lead of it as a "song"; clearly, it isn't a song, but several songs strung together, but the only terms I can come up with, based on classical musical terminology, don't seem quite right; "Suite" is reminiscent of Beethoven or Mozart, whereas "Song-cycle" sounds too much like Schubert. "Rock opera", it clearly isn't, because it lacks an obviously coherent storyline as per "Tommy" or "Quadrophenia". Any ideas on what to call this would be helpful. Meanwhile, a very Merry Christmas to you, I look forward to working on other stuff together; how did you know my name's Phil? regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point on "suite" with respect to Atom Heart Mother is well-made, and although I haven't played it for a while, it always seemed to hang together better than Supper's Ready, despite its occasional rawness, because it didn't have the bridging interludes that punctuate Supper's Ready. I would argue against "medley", because to my mind that conjures up a misch-masch of existing tunes, and sadly I remember Winifred Atwell in the 1960s and stuff like "Stars on Stevie" in the 80s. I'll sleep on it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am obviously going to have to dig out Seconds Out again. I'm not surprised that Collins gave a different interpretation, after all, they were largely Gabriel's ideas, and certainly his words. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, my friend. May this find you in good health, good spirits, good company, and good finances. If any of these be missing, may God see fit to restore you in good time. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 05:14 25 December, 2007 (UTC)

File:Julkrubba.jpg

I think Haizum is back

Please see this. Lawrence Cohen 14:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Haizum. Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved from AIV

SineBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - . Malfunctioning bot; see [1]. Will ^(talk) 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ermm, could you notify me first? :P --slakr^\ talk / 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is functioning fine. I added {{bots}} here. That page is a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion so that is normal behavior. Report this to WP:ANI, read the bot's user page, or inform me next time. Malfunctioning bots aren't vandalism. --slakr^\ talk / 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic takes a holiday

Care to fully explain the logic in blanking the Ullman page? I'm afraid I can see no justification for the move, nor have I ever seen anyone even propose such a measure before. Jim62sch 11:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People shouldn't be edit warring over anything, BLP articles are no different. However, the "orange box" or whatever you called it was for WP:COI not edit warring. There was no reason to change the article to a stub, sorry Will, but given the logic you used on that article we could probably zap 10% of our articles (BLP or not, it's really irrelevant) at any given time. Jim62sch 19:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frannie 911

There's already a decent amount of info as its already aired on the xbox marketplace and it has a scheduled date with preview clips and press releases already available. Grande13 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

check yours K. Lásztocska^talk 00:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Patronus Charm

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patronus Charm, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patronus Charm. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters

The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 14:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP ME!

POV pushing in three articles.

Debt-based monetary system is a pejorative for fractional-reserve banking, among conspiracy theorists.
Debt money is a pejorative for fiat currency, among conspiracy theorists.
Debt-free money is a pseudoeconomic term that can't be clearly defined, since it doesn't make sense from a mainstream economic standpoint. Money can't be created by individual banks, only governments and central banks. So "debt" isn't incurred by anyone when the money supply is expanded.

All three of these terms are not used by economists. They are used by lunatics that believe central banks are engaged in a conspiracy to steal wealth from the public through printing money. See List_of_conspiracy_theories#Theory_of_Electronic_Conspiracy.

The main perpetrator and his sockpuppets:

My request on ANI: WP:ANI#Banking_conspiracy_theories

Your help would be appreciated.

69.138.16.202 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wandered here for elsehwere, and stumbled upon this particular comment. As an actual economist, I would note that mainstream economics fully acknowledges that banks can and do create money. Let me briefly explain how:

When a deposit is made at a bank that operates on fractional reserves, the depositor is able to act as if she has all of the money associated with the account. Let's say that this is $100.
Meanwhile, the bank loans out some of that money to someone who know is able to act as if he has the money of the loan. Given 10% reserves, the bank loans out $90. $100 has become $190.
The borrow leaves some of that money in an account with that bank or some other, or maybe spends it. Anyway, any that isn't actually held as cash is in a bank account somewhere. If $10 is held as cash, then $80 is in a bank, and $72 of that will be loaned-out. The original $100 is now $262.
Thsi doesn't go on until the money supply is infinite — so long is there are reserve requirements or people hold a share of their money as cash, the money supply converges at a finite value. But the money supply is greatly expanded.

When economists (mainstream or otherwise) want to talk about just the money created by the government, they refer to M₀. When they start talking about M₁, M₂, &c, they are talking about the combination of M₀ with money created by private banks.

Now, until I saw it showing-up here, I'd not run across the term “debt money”, and my undergrad area of specialization was money-and-banking. So I'd view the discourse with suspicion. However the concept described is not that of fiat money. With fractional-reserve banking, banks can create money from a commodity base just as easily from a fiat base. So my point here is that User:69.138.16.202 just doesn't know his stuff. I couldn't say (without a surely unpleasant investigation) whether his opponents know their stuff (though, again, the use of this term “debt money” makes me uneasy). —SlamDiego_←T 01:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego, I do not deny that the money supply is expanded and contracted based upon the amount of deposits held in reserve by banks. I said that individual banks cannot expand the money supply, only governments and central banks can. Monetary conspiracy theorists claim that "money is debt" based upon the false belief that individual banks "conjure" money through the creation of loans and\or that there is a conspiracy at the Federal Reserve to print money (even though technically that's the U.S. mint's job) and then spend that money on hard assets. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AIV report

Thank you for making a report about Isgreatestman (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Sandstein (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how your numerous reversions of Iain Lee do not violate WP:3RR? Sandstein (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In such cases, WP:RPP may be a better venue than WP:AIV, since blocking individual shared IPs is often ineffective. Sandstein (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]