User talk:Sceptre/Archive 60

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

Some handy links

I'm still around, pottering away, editing where I need to.

---

The current local time is: 07:34, 16 May 2024 (BST)

---

• .JS
• .CSS
• 1A
• AFC
• DW
• ESP
• ETP
• FAC
• GAC
• MATH
• PC
• PLUSING
• RC
• RM
• TSPACE
• USPACE

---

Only 50470 articles (0.74%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

---

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 60

Archives

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

Quote

I have copied your comment about BLPs from Jimbo's talk page to mine. If you have a problem with this, just delete it, or let me know and I will delete it. (And as an aside: your instructions above the Edit box are way too long. With the best faith one can imagine, I got to the third line and thought: I'll take my chances; the worst Sceptre can do is revert. :-) Thanks for an excellent statement of the problem. Bielle (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Really?

the funny thing is, I try to be neutral in I-P arguments. Just that the general sheer stupidity of the pro-Palestinian side makes me tend to side with Israel.

That's a really quite offensive thing to say and given that its in an edit summary it cannot even be struck out. Good to know what your prejudicies are though. Tiamut^talk 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be offensive, but it's true. The vast majority of pro-Palestinian people have quite a bit to successfully use in arguments, but they don't use that. They're much happier using debunked and outlandish statements and moving so far into a "if you're not with us, you're evil" ideology that it ruins the possibility of good honest debate and agreement between the two sides. This whole conspiracy theory proves my point, really. Instead of people like Jenny Tonge (who, I should point out, is in the same political party as the one I'm registered to) lauding the humanitarian effort and saying "okay, now focus those efforts to the West Bank and Gaza", they jump on some bullshit about Israel harvesting organs because they can't comprehend Israel not being the Greatest Evil to Grace the Planet. It's like American politics, really. The Republicans could push for better efficiency and wider coverage for little more cost in the healthcare plan, but they're far more content with crying about "socialism" and "death panels". Sadly, it seems to be an effective tool of arguing. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope that lengthy rationalization of your gross generalization makes you feel better about your prejudice. I'd ask though in the future that you keep such convictions to yourself. I think a lot of things about people who make excuses for Zionist crimes, and the like, but I generally refrain from sharing these views with other editors at Wikipedia since they have nothing to do with improving articles and tend to alienate people with opposing viewpoints. I'm all for freedom of speech mind you, but this isn't a political forum, its an encyclopedia. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

See, I actually don't think I'm being prejudiced at all. I was making an observation that pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel people, when debating, generally go for the stupidest arguments that are not ground in anything close to reality, and, to be honest, it seems that way in real life. Pro-Palestinians have so much to successfully argue about, but they hardly go for the good arguments; like I said, the better course of action would be to be pressure Israel into doing more humanitarian work in the occupied territories instead of accuse them of stealing organs. However, I apologise for the way the remark came off; I was just slightly angered that mouth-frothing by anti-Semites (I mean, seriously, that article cites the leader of the Ku Klux Klan!) was masquerading as a real article. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Big Gay Al

Yeah, I think it's very nearly FA-ready right now. I did want to check a few other books and sources to see if anything else could be added, and I also wanted to put it up for a peer review, as I've had a few recent FACs fail due to prose reasons, even though I had previously gotten good feedback on the writing. I've been meaning to get around to this, but I've been distracted by the WP:Wikicup, and sort of been concentrating on finishing up the season 1 featured topic, which is so nearly ready. Another problem is a new rule only allows nominators to have one FAC at a time, and I currently have one out. Maybe I should list it for a peer review now and then push Big Gay's Al to FAC when it's done? — Hunter Kahn 16:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I'd like to think I haven't been recklessly nominating articles for FAC willy-nilly. lol Nevertheless, my last one failed despite a GAN review and peer review, as well as my own copy editing, so I'm a bit more paranoid about it now. Give me a few days to check for other sources on Big Gay Al, and then to see if I think it needs an independent peer review or not, and then maybe we'll move on to FAC. — Hunter Kahn 16:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Del Rev

Much appreciated. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...

I apologise for anything that may have been construed as a personal attack.--Kudpung (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, as long as you don't let it happen again. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Katrina Fringe Theories

With due respect, your recent edits are badly motivated emotional overreaction to a topic you hate. I can understand this (having been mightly frustrated by an article on failed religious predictions recently), but you've crossed the line. You removed an entire section claiming it was unsourced when it was plainly sourced. You removed another section because its fucking stupid to talk about divine intervention in this day and age. These edits are damn near vandalism and will serve no purpose for you.

Please consider calming down and editing the article in a constructive manner. Remove (or, better, tag and later remove) individual unsourced claims. Discuss notability of various other claims. Trim the article to a sensible size, but don't try to singlehandedly delete (via redirect) an article that has recently passed AfD. Phiwum (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave plenty of notice that I would remove the content if no-one gave a good reason to keep them. "It was kept at AfD" is not a reason as AfD, as it has been made abundantly clear, is only concerned with article existence (hence why "it's [not] notable" is the only argument that works there). None of the conspiracy theories are notable, and that has been known since the creation of the article. That's easily enough time to establish notability. And really, it is fucking stupid to talk about divine intervention in a day and age in which we know the mechanisms are not powered by a deity. I mean, seriously, we only mention a tribal volcano deity off-hand in our article about Mount Pinatubo. It is within Wikipedia's remit of sociological coverage to cover briefly tribal deities. It isn't within Wikipedia's remit to cover people in technologically advanced civilisations attributing a big cloud going swirly-windy to an invisible man in the clouds. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sontaran Stratagem

Hello, I noticed you have the fourth series of Doctor Who to become a featured list on the agenda, I thought I'd help out a little concerning "The Sontaran Stratagem", namely I have explanded the lead and reception. It could to with a little more work and copy-edis here and there, but I was just if your willing for you and me to co-nominate it for GA together anytime soon. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You recently participated in a discussion here. This issue has been raised again here, where you may wish to comment. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding ANI

Hi Sceptre, this is in regard to the ANI subthread you started. A new template was created last night for use on complaints that are outside of ANI scope but not suitable for a simple "moved discussion" flag. Sometimes a more nuanced approach is needed.

In this instance the deleting administrator wasn't willing to reverse himself, but it would be wheel warring for another administrator to intervene unless a valid consensus formed. A valid consensus over image deletion could form at DRV but not at ANI.

Your point is well taken about the undesirability of inverting the consensus burden through out of process administrative action. After you restarted the ANI subthread, another editor raised a similar point within the DRV in an articulate way. DRV has dealt with out of process deletions before; any experienced DRV closer understands the distinction and should take that into account.

This will probably get resolved within the DRV itself. If not, the Village Pump and admin conduct RfC are alternatives (you've been around long enough to know this). I did my best to express that succinctly in the thread closure note. If you can suggest a better way to craft this new template so it handles this sort of situation better, please advise. Durova⁴¹² 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DRV was unnecessary, imo, but it's there now so no use crying over spiled milk. I was trying to gather some consensus to restore the image at the ANI (and why can't it be divined there?) because it was the main turning point in ongoing informal mediation (subhead "Bit of an issue here..."). It wouldn't have been wheel-warring (wheel-warring comes on the 3rd action, and besides, Prodego had "deleted and ran", as it were). FWIW, I was the one who nullified your "resolved" tag because it clearly wasn't resolved. –xeno^talk 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the appearance of a consensus had formed at ANI it would inevitably have been challenged as the wrong venue. Administrators have no special standing to determine community consensus, etc. DRV is the accepted venue for image deletion reviews. That gives the best chance of a reasonably firm and neat consensus forming with minimal acrimony. Template:Thataway was created last night to deal with this sort of situation. Do you have suggestions for its refinement? Durova⁴¹² 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but again, it's moot now. I like the template you made but would suggest a rename to {{wrong venue}} (with redirect left behind). –xeno^talk 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There's already a template for simple discussion moves. In this instance too much else had already been discussed and DRV might not be fully sufficient to deal with the problem, for reasons Sceptre articulates. Durova⁴¹² 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally wrong venue seems a little more appropriate. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Aw, and "thataway" seemed so catchy. ;) Durova⁴¹² 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll redirect wrong venue for now. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 03:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Random Picture of the Day

Our current logo.

Hello, Sceptre! Just reminding you that you are listed as a member of the Random Picture of the Day! It would be great if you could add a picture or too! Put the template on your user page with {{User:Presidentman/potd/template}}, and encourage other users to add pictures. You can also put our userbox on your userpage using: {{User:Presidentman/Ubx/RPOTD}}. Hopefully you'll help out! Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC) - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference Query

We are a group working on this article as part of a coursework assignment to improve a wiki page designated as poor by our lecturer . We edited it recently on 22/03/2010 under the IP address 130.159.17.136. Recently the article was reverted to its original form by yourself. The problem seemed to be related to verifiability issues in the referencing. We are not disputing this, but as we are not experienced Wikipedia users, we would appreciate any feedback on both our version of the page and previous edit. What do you think could be done to improve the quality of the article?130.159.17.136 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)uery

Dalek FAR

Hi Sceptre! You commented at the FAR for Dalek (located here), early on in the FAR process. The review has since moved to the FARC section, where editors enter keep/delist declarations. Your opinion and any further comments you have on the article would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid

I was confused. I did not mean to revert out your changes. -- PBS (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Obama talk page

Forgive me for replying to your article talk comments here, but this sort of rant isn't appropriate for article talk. Don't waste your time arguing with these people, Sceptre. Rich Republicans have been hoodwinking poor Republicans into doing their bidding for decades, with the latter group being too stupid to realize it. The Republican way is to make the rich richer by making the poor poorer. Republicans destroyed the economy with financial deregulation, massive spending and tax cuts for the rich. I would describe myself as a "fiscal conservative", but I don't recognize anything about the GOP that says "fiscal responsibility" to me. Now these rich Republicans are using the poor Republicans to attack Obama and the Democratic Congress by getting them to whine about a gigantic national debt they themselves created. They are being fed revisionist claptrap and outright lies by FOX News (essentially GOP TV) and they're buying it because they haven't made the effort to learn the truth. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has finally halted the Republican Recession and paved the way for future growth. The health care bill, despite it being crippled by a foolish attempt to appeal to Republican lawmakers, is deficit neutral rather than an example of "uncontrolled spending". But the Republican sheeple will never accept this reality if all they do is sit in front of the TV, in their gun-rack-equipped Lay-Z-Boys, watching Glenn Beck and those other gibbering idiots. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dalek FAR (x2)

Hello again Sceptre! I know that you said at the beginning of the Dalek FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dalek/archive2) that you did not have the time to work on improving the article. Josiah has done quite a bit of work on it in the meantime, but has RL concerns that prevent him from finishing the improvements that are needed. Would you or other project members have the time to finish the work? Otherwise, it looks like the article may be delisted, as multiple editors have entered delist declarations and the article has been at FAR/FARC for quite a while. It would be great to see the last bit of work finished and the article kept, which is why I'm giving you another ping! Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN for United Kingdom general election debates, 2010

On 17 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article United Kingdom general election debates, 2010, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Apologies for the delay, I missed the posting with later edits to the template. If you think I've missed someone, feel free to template them (templates here!) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello from an old friend...

"It is always sad to forget a friend. Not everyone has had a friend."

— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

Hello, Sceptre/Will. It's been quite a while, over three years, in fact, and yet I have never quite forgotten anyone from Wikipedia... how are you? ♥ Fredil 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.

P.S. You are mentioned twice in relation to a prior incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Hi, Sceptre, you seem to have disabled your email; would you mind sending me a message so I can reply? Thanks! :) ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 07:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

HI

Kudos for trying to engage with a difficult IP editor, but please don't encourage it.[1] If someone decides to edit war a fringe theory while calling the regular editors partisans, etc., there's not much likelihood of it turning out well. Per WP:DENY you're encouraging edit warring if, after 8-9 tries, they finally get their way posting this. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted this before I noticed the comment over at the Obama talk page, so feel free to respond here, there, or not at all. I have no strong feeling and I'm not offended either by the IP post or your restoring it, I'm just trying to keep things moving along on the talk page without getting into yet more silliness. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is an element of assuming good faith. And I think the hostility is a result of the political climate in America at the moment, where liberals and conservatives are in entrenched positions, and it's not helped by the fact that most conservatives that post on the talk page are trolls or vandals, which creates a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario for the conservative/moderate/liberal who has a genuine query but is reverted by people who think he's trolling. And this was a genuine query, which resulted in us re-examining and possibly editing Q1 to reconcile Obama's error in DoMF and the reality of situations, where it was a source of confusion in both the Clinton and McCain campaigns. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He is trolling - beginning a post by decrying Wikipedia as a liberal sham and accusing editors of covering things up is not a good faith contribution. The question is whether the account itself is legitimate or not. I don't think it matters. If anyone wishes to participate they need to do so in the collaborative fashion required of all of us. Before they do that, I don't see any point engaging at all. Now they're insulting me. I don't feel like I have to respond to that kind of provocation, but absent a response the default is to reject any suggestions until and unless they're ready to contribute. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He may not be trolling, just angry that his question based on an inconsistency between the article and Obama's statements on the matter (and one in a published book, not a "57 states" or "my... Muslim faith" live interview). It's no secret that most of the editors on the talk page are liberal (including myself), and to someone who may be centre-right, it may appear that people on the left are trying to censor people who don't agree with them. Just call it a major fuck-up in communication. And please don't remove the guy's comments; although they are incivil, incivility on its own isn't really a reason for removing a comment, and for the second time, you've removed my comments too, and it makes following the discussion difficult too. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dude, you have to stop reverting other editors when they remove posts by blocked users whose only goal is to disrupt the page. There are several violations from the anon ip, and they were rightly deleted several times. I don't want to take this to the next level, and would rather we all just work together, but as I've been watching this unfold it's obvious that someone else needs to step in. Dave Dial (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  Where's the disruption? It's not deliberate disruption, just accidental disruption because of a SNAFU in conversation. Oh, and WP:DENY isn't policy, because even people who have caused disruption can be right every so often. All the same, I'm taking this to ANI, because we need opinions from a wider source than the talk page. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

All anyone has to do is look at the edit history of the page and the many, many disruptive edits by the anon ip, to see the goal is disruption and attacking wikipedia and the wikipedia editors. But be my guest, I will provide diffs from the user, the blocks, the reverts and the facts. It's an obvious and clear case of disruption. Dave Dial (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What, you mean reposting a question where he had a point because the talk page regulars removed it without even reading it? We could've sorted this out by replying to him in the first place! I'm actually on the anon's side here; in the grand scheme of things, apart from some minor incivility, he's done nothing wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have "a point". Either you are misreading the FAQ, or the claims made by the IP.

Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article?

A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of the Muslim faith. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See [2], [3], [4] The sub-article Public image of Barack Obama addresses this issue.

Everything in the FAQ is absolutely true, and backed up by links. If one wants to delve into the issue and follow the links, the whole situation is explained in detail. If I have to go through every detail step by step and show you the absolute absurdness here, I guess I will. But it would be better of one would just read the FAQ and the links. Dave Dial (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the given articles even mentions Obama's (factually incorrect) recollection in Dreams from My Father, you know. That's what I'm talking about: Obama himself recalls going to a Muslim school he didn't go to (granted, he was recalling it 25 years after the fact), and it's wise to sort these discrepancies out. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Did you even go to the links? Suffice to say, you are incorrect. Dave Dial (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They mention Menteg, yes, but they don't mention Koranic studies, the face-pulling, et cetera. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Note

A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion [5] – ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dramaout

Your name was on the 2nd dramaout signup and the organizer of the 2nd one suggested notifying those who signed up the last time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. We would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:England-Germany 2010 (Lampard).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:England-Germany 2010 (Lampard).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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

alignment

I can't get proper alignment for Template:Infobox ice hockey game for "previous" and "next". For ex., 2000 IIHF World Championship Final, the "<-1999" should be at the far left of the infobox, not the middle. Can you help? thanks. Slaja (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I believe I've fixed it now; you had the previous and next fields in the attendance figures' column, and not a row on its own. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the very quick response! Slaja (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

RTD

Heya, yes sorry, it was a hectic last term for me in particular. Ended up taking some medical leave. Anyway, I'll try a hand at the Reception section I promise but I do find those hard. I've never written one for a person before -- to what extent can I comment on his works' reception, or should I limit that to where said reception praises him? The key TV episodes that come to mind would be Queer as Folk's premiere, "Rose", "Doomsday", then skipping everything until "Midnight" (for its play-like qualities), "Turn Left" (for being, well, good) and then "The Stolen Earth", Children of Earth and MAYBE The End of Time. Perhaps mentions of the Slitheen episodes, Torchwood season one and "Love & Monsters" if I can find negative criticisms. And what about the fan hatred? The closest I [could, potentially] find would be that godawful Save Ianto Jones controversy thing. Uh, the synthesis bit would be hard.

I'm touched you should come to me but I've yet to successfully get an FA all by myself. I'm OK at whipping fictional character articles up from in-universe lists and dregs to barely acceptable things, but hell, I'm still waiting on them to give Imperial Bedrooms a bloody GA. So, anyway, I'll give it a go in the day; it's 4.30AM and for no reason at all I have yet to sleep.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 03:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ohmygod you've done it. I was just coming to help! Tell you what, as I haven't contributed it, I'll give it a thorough FA review.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See, I'd love to have some DWM just so that I could use it as a source on character articles BUT I can't bring myself to buy it... ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gallifrey Base

Having an article means it is notable, it doesn't mean it is reliable. Those are two different concepts. A source being reliable means that other sources regarded as reliable often cite it as a source of information and as an authority in the field (not simply talking about it), sources need to say stuff like "According to Gallifrey Base...".Have reliable sources done that?--Crossmr (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only link you've given me is one where you said it was upheld as a reliable source, you haven't actually provided a link where it was. The people at that link were just rubber stamping the "if it was approved before I guess it still is". Can you provide those links?--Crossmr (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I don't find that link terribly compelling. Yes someone agreed with you, but the evidence you provided still doesn't meet anything that resembles what is written on WP:RS, and if they're an aggregate cite the source.--Crossmr (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Russell T Davies

Don't take the oppose too hard, if you go through the other FACs there are plenty of Neutral and Oppose that have been stricken, most articles change through the FA process as do most of the assessments. Placing the oppose means the default status is set and if something changes, then so too can the assessment Fasach Nua (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I personally would've put it as a "neutral" until the consensus could've been formed. Opposing it, on the other hand, just seems a little bit like you're not getting your own way. I mean, I respect your opinion on fair use images a lot, as you're normally right (and, more importantly, not as extreme as the non-free vegans), but there are a lot of people who would oppose something just because they didn't get their own way. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for the barnstar. I appreciate it :) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Russell T

Would you be so kind as to hold off on the AWB run until this is settled properly? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sure. I actually started it last night but there was a bug with the API so I put it off. Besides, we all know it'll get moved back. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The point about this is that you moved the article after a discussion which didn't produce consensus and you didn't start a discussion about Requested Moves either. I'm quite prepared to be converted to your view but there should be reasoned discussion. Simply demanding that I move it back is not the way forward. If you start a debate on the subject and it goes your way, then you can be sure of the article not being moved again (as I see has happened at least twice in the past). Deb (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Obama talk talk

I've been bold. I hope you don't mind. (If you do mind, then please take up the matter on my own user talk page, rather than on that talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Russell T Davies on Play School.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Russell T Davies on Play School.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

Why doesn't the article describe it as far-right? Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Because most people accept it as a legitimate political movement, I'd guess. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody! Stats If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest. Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+). The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc. The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono. Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+). The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK. The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey. The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr. The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW. Gold Star Award Gold Star Award Leaderboard Articles Words 5k+ Articles 1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13) 2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8) 3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7) 4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6) 5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5) Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Help needed!

Greetings! I saw your name listed at the UPDC help page. I'm working on my user page and I need some help. I'd appreciate if you can have a look at User:Orionist/Style, which is a draft for my main user page. All I need is to make a floating sidebar to the right for userboxes, something I failed to do miserably with my meager HTML knowledge . Please have a look if you have the time, if you don't, I'd appreciate if you can guide me to someone who can help. Either way I'm grateful. Thanks in advance! regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 04:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thank you very much! But I still have a problem with the flow of content on the left side. It's not filling the rest of the page (as a fluid object). It's acting in a semi-fluid behavior. I'd really appreciate it if you could have another look! regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems I have to choose between leaving the design as is or making it fixed-width. Either way should be fine. Thanks for everything you've done! I truly appreciate it! Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

		a beer on me!
		Here's a beer for your fine efforts on my user page! Cheers! -- Orionist ★ talk 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks very much - that means a lot to me. It's felt at times like I've been ploughing a rather lonely furrow, so it's nice to know that there are others who who disagree with Jimbo's stance on this issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I was just reuploading the previous version of File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg as well, I guess it's redundant now :/ Btw why is your Commons userpage so mean spirited? Hekerui (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Fucking trolls. Fixed my commons userpage. By the way, you just have to click "revert"; you get an oppurtunity to enter a reason there. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I once tried this years ago and I remember something going wrong and you know how these things are: burned child eschews the fire :) Thanks for the advice! Oh, looking at the user page history the trolling was quite obvious :O Hekerui (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Hi Will. I could really use your copy-editing skills on the above article. I've spent the past month or so improving it from nothing more than a stub really but I can't see the wood through the trees with it now, I've looked at it that many times. I know its a complete mess in places, but wherever you could help tweaking and checking for MOS compliance would be much appreciated. Tom (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You two need to stop this little war, or there will be blocks. Courcelles 05:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But I am solely commenting on the content. And you need to stop assuming an equivalence, because there's not. I'm a bit annoyed and my edit summaries and comments show that, but I'm not sniping at Vexorg. Same can't be said about him, though. His conduct has been worse than mine. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You claim you are not sniping at Vexorg, yet you recently said "That you insist on introducing policy-violating, anti-semitic bullshit that others have to clean up?" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sceptre_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_Page_protected_for_one_week.29 - That is not only sniping that is sheer hate talk. Spewing talk like 'anti-semitic bullshit' is a lot more offensive than simple sniping. I have aright to comment on that. I will copy this edit to Courcelles as you will no doubt revert it. Vexorg (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, knock off it. When you make edits like this you lose all right to say you're not anti-Semitic. Don't edit my talk page again, or I'll revert you and report you for vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

YouTube

I wasn't trying to give you too hard of a time. I think we agree for the most part actually. Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Video links and letting me know if it is not worded strongly enough? No problem if you don't have the time but thanks if you do.Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. No worries. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 05:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)