User talk:Sceptre/Archive 56

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: 16:16, 9 October 2024 (BST)

Only 51378 articles (0.745%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 56

edit

...

History in Archive 55.

WTF? He has no eyebrows!!! Seraphim ♥ 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And he looks twelve. Still, I've never seen Party Animals. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of white people

Hi Sceptre. Hope you're well, and a happy new year to you! I've declined the G10 for the above. It's hot ground, and there are some statements that need to be removed due to lack of referencing, but it's not a G10 in my book. Pedro : Chat 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. It is borderline... it wouldn't be G10 a few months ago, but seeing as G10 has been expanded recently, I thought it might fall under the new criteria. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close call I agree, but better at WP:AFD I think. Ah - my inclusionist tendencies :) Pedro : Chat 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on that AFD, someone changed that article very recently, it's not what it once was. I'm hesitant to unilaterally change it back mid-AFD without discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all those citations

Heh. Only seven? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a guess. It's only the sources I can see, and not the invisible ones :p Sceptre ^(talk) 01:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a simultaneous contrast illusion. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I'm a bit cautious about presenting something as fact that needs more than two citations to assert itself. If it needs more than that, it's really just a widely held viewpoint (and then it becomes wrong to assert it as fact). Anyway, at least you're better than FT2; he never uses preview. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spot on what I was getting at. As for preview, I often don't need it but then, woe to me when I get sloppy :) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the other side of what I was getting at, which is to say, the other side of the box. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. All the pro-science editors like OM need to realise that a widely held opinion isn't always fact. Especially outside the science articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even with science articles, in an encyclopedia it'll come down to WP:V as swayed by consensus. Meanwhile, I glark that in another 500 years or so, folks will think of someone like Stephen Weinberg as we think of Copernicus today, kinda maybe more or less on the way to understanding, but way muddled nonetheless. Everything we think we know about stuff is wrong in some way, but we do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a link to negative proof should be helpful... it is vastly harder to find a source that disproves something than one that proves something. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Mind, I'm not the one who told you to go find a source asserting the negative :) The pith is, sources do assert that the site is neo-Nazi, so in they go, as they should. WP:V. It may not be the canny Truth(TM), but it's all we've got to go with in a tertiary reference like Wikipedia, which is only meant to echo verifiable sources which are taken to be reliable. Meanwhile if you can find some sources which say it's something other than neo-Nazi, those could go in too. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an NPOV issue in that Stormfront being Neo-Nazi is, after all, only an opinion. A widely-held opinion is still an opinion and not a fact. Fascism and all it's derivatives have so many definitions its hard to get objectivity out of it. Orwell famously said "I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else." Sceptre ^(talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPoV has only to do with juggling verifiable PoV. There may be but one truth, but our sundry takes on it are all PoV. If you want to put content into that article which asserts that the website is something other than neo-Nazi, you'll have to come up with some secondary sources and even then, following WP:V, the sourced "neo-Nazi" label will be there to stay. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this same problem on Osama Bin Laden. I'm not trying to remove the characterisation, I'm trying to word it in a way that is compatible with NPOV so not even the enemy can argue with it. Still, people see me as trying to remove the characterisation entirely and deride me for being a terrorist sympathiser, or the like. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're all gangsters, Sceptre ;) Given what most English language sources have to say about ObL, yep, the Wikipedia article will tend to shy away from likening him to St Francis of Assisi. This said, I'll warn User:Dance With The Devil for the wanton and uncalled for personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we should call him a bad man, but the trick is to call him a bad man without making moralising judgements. I'm trying to not moralise here. Still, Wikipedia is entrenched in the verifiability extremists who, when cornered, always ask "sauce plz". Which is a bad practice in itself. Common sense is needed on the project, after all. In the case of OBL, it's stupid to say "he is a terrorist" is a fact when calling someone a terrorist—as opposed to a freedom fighter—is a matter of judgement. (We can say that people call him a terrorist, but it gets a bit dodgy to definitively say he's a terrorist, no ifs or buts.) Sceptre ^(talk) 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdenting) Good and bad are moral judgements. When I hear the words terrorist or freedom fighter, I reach for my copy of L'Avventura. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Mr. Clinton's quote "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is"? :)

Pertaining to the Stormfront discussion, I'm struck by an item in this diff, starting at "In recent months...". More than anything else, this struck me as noteworthy, since it indicates that we may (or may not) be out-of-date in our description. Franamax (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Good luck trying to get it against MPOV (majority POV) pushers. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing blocks

What business do you have reviewing blocks? You're not an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the backlog down. Non-admins should be encouraged to decline unblock requests like that. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Don't try and pretend to be an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be an admin, so I know easy declines when I see them. Besides, non-admins are encouraged to close matters where there is only one reasonable outcome, that doesn't need administrator action; it's explicitly allowed on AFD and CSD. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin deletion closures are different from reviewing blocks. I too am not an administrator, so therefore reviewing blocks are none of my business either which is why I don't do so. Just because you used to be an administrator doesn't mean reviewing blocks is your business at this point. Just wait for an administrator to review it and see what happens. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed text from Aids topic

Can you please provide an exact quote from guidelines for external links that shows the edit I made does not meet these requirements? Codepro (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be including a link to some sort of remedy? service? In any case, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand and is verging on being advertising; which Wikipedia is not for. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The Scripps Research Institute is not a remedy or a service. The first external link goes to an open source project called Autodock. The second external link points to the research project at The Scripps Research Institute that uses Autodock to conduct basic research for Aids. If what you are saying is true then the Wikipedia page for The Scripps Research Institute should be removed along with all links to open source projects throughout Wikipedia including the link to the source code what runs this very website.Codepro (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a link to an open source project, on a medical topic, is really appropriate. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The project is basic research, it offers no medical advice.Codepro (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's not really needed as a link; we need more than basic research for such topics. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey there- I just wanted to drop by and thank you for the vandalism revision you did on my talk page. It's greatly appreciated!! :) ~Pip 2 andahalf 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]