User talk:Sceptre/Archive 25

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: 05:01, 27 April 2024 (BST)

Only 50360 articles (0.739%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 25

edit

IMDB

hello,if IMDB(the earth's biggest movie database) is not reliable can you give one?there are a lot of less reliable material in wikipedia that was serached in fan-club sites,in my opinion this kind if sites are not reliable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmoria (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!!! i'll check this site....but why the material found in "fan-club" sites are still there?they are not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmoria (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tina turner

hello!!! i'm back here to annoy you a bit more,i need you to help me to know how do i request a block, because the user maggott2000 didn't stop deleting the sourced material with verifiable sources(such www.kennedy-center.org,http://oldies.about.com/od/soulmotown/p/tinaturner.htm,http://www.grammy.com/Recording_Academy/Awards/Hall_Of_Fame/#r,etc....) when told many times to stop.thank you.have a great day!!! salmoria 4june 2007 (UTC)

RE: Sixty Six

Hi. Since you've deleted my previous comment -- I could have sworn we weren't allowed to delete talk page comments! - I'll just point out that I've responded to your "harassment" accusation on my own talk page. Please feel free to continue the discussion there if you're seriously concerned about people seeing your responses here. Thanks! Geoffrey Mitchell 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, no comment on other's actions, but Sixty Six dug his own grave in this situation, and you need to realize that. --MichaelLinnear 05:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor/Smith

Thanks for the note. Do what you think best: I don't feel strongly either way... If your message is inspired by my inline comments, let me explain that I was just trying to prevent the constant edit warring, assuming consensus had been reached on the talk pages. If it was me who inadvertently left out 'Smith' from Family of Blood, I hang my head in shame... Of course it has to be there! Gwinva 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that "fascism" thing on the ANI

Weird. I definitely know who that was, btw, it is Vince, a now-banned Hungarian editor whose heart may have been in the right place but who frequently caused more problems than he solved with his belligerence and addiction to getting into fights with Tankred. I've never been quoted by someone else to make his point before, so it's kind of an odd feeling. Vince wasn't attacking me though, quite the contrary. That big paragraph he quoted was indeed a miserable cri de coeur I wrote to Biru when I felt like I'd just had ENOUGH of one particular user who has, indeed, driven me absolutely bonkers since the day I met him, and I stand by my description of him in the paragraph quoted. I just can't mention his name because I suspect he watches my contribs (I got on his blacklist after I added some inconvenient truths to an article about Vojvodina) and I'm afraid of the retribution he might unleash on me! K. Lásztocska 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, no, he's not the Anonymous Liszt Scholar, he's VinceB. The anonymous scholar was a pretentious German guy who couldn't have cared less about "fascist" Hungarophobic editors, he wasn't into politics. (Except for the one time he insinuated that Béla Bartók was a fascist...) The guy Vince is talking about, and the guy I was talking to Biru about, is PANONIAN, a Serbian editor who really knows how to piss me off. K. Lásztocska 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My Username

Um, I don't exactly remember why I started doing it, but it was basically a way to make it a unique play on the word "demon." Some people (especially on IRC) call me caret demon, or power demon. That being said, I actually pronounce it "insert demon." Doesn't really clarify your question, but I tried :-P ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

Pleasure! Though it took me about five edits, even with copy-and-paste from Utopia! Do you think I edited the actual content of the synopsis OK?--Rambutan (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blink looks good. Matthew is bent on having no image on Utopia, but I've restored it for now.--Rambutan (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's taken it again! What do you suggest I do? And, forgive me, but what is "LOEs"? Cheers--Rambutan (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try on the Utopia talkpage.--Rambutan (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea, given all the other dreck people have been putting on about Jack is the Doctor's aunt etc.! I assume Matthew isn't an admin?--Rambutan (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he isn't. If he was, he'd say (admin) in this list. Thanks for all your help!--Rambutan (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly's protected a version without the picture, but with the {{inuse}} tag! I've asked her to change it.--Rambutan (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia's now unprotected. We're under a condition for four people to agree with a different image that I uploaded: would you care to be the fourth (we've got three already)? Thanks,--Rambutan (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know - I did three times in a row, on the same article! We ought to have a leader-board!--Rambutan (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww :)

Aww, thank you, thank you Will! :) But I was posting the day already when you proposed that... maybe save it for July 29? ;) Love! Phaedriel - 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hello, Sceptre/Archive 25, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

I take very few things really, really seriously, so I loved your volcano jokes! Actually, I expected some sarong-shaking wisecracks, but I guess I'll have to wait for some vandal to walk through _that_ wide open door. Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do tell

Do you sleep? — $PЯINGrαgђ 03:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Opposite Day/redirect to Liar Paradox

I was wondering what your rationale was for this action. Opposite day is not even mentioned in the "Liar paradox", so the information on the opposite day page, which was accurate, encyclopedic, and important for inclusion, has now been lost.

I was just going to revert, but since you're clearly a longtime, conscientious editor I thought I'd ask what your reasoning was first. skeptical scientist (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not both the same thing. The liar paradox is one of a variety of circular logic fallacies. Opposite day is a fictitious holiday that many people celebrate in childhood. They may have some common themes, but are otherwise very different things. And yes, I am aware that one can view page histories - I just meant that the information has been lost to the current version, and I think it is likely that some people will go to the opposite day page, get redirected, find nothing about opposite day in the liar paradox page, and then get confused. Many people will not think to go back to the redirect page and check the page history for the content they were originally looking for, nor should they have to.

Personally, I think things were fine the way they were, but in the interests of reaching a compromise I'll put the opposite day page info into the current version of the liar paradox page. skeptical scientist (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Face of Boe

Fair enough - I just wanted to check,--Rambutan (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On recent events

I would think carefully about this edit. One user was blocked for disruption over this already - there's no need for another casualty. It has been determined that the image did, in fact, fail criterion #8. From Talk:Utopia (Doctor Who), you cannot reach a "consensus" to decide that it did not. 81.104.175.145 15:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I'm unblocked, and I hope that you won't take this seriously: don't leave, you're a good editor. Just because there are bad, threatening editors around who don't understand about the concept of what one can do in one's own userspace, doesn't mean that they're infallible (I hope that's a real word!). Please stay!--Rambutan (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the image is fine. Always was. 81... really gets up my nose, and now I've got a "dirty" block-record. Shame.--Rambutan (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly that: "rude" doesn't quite cover it. I only noticed because I was watching someone else's contributions! BTW, how did the exams go? Mine finished this morning!--Rambutan (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Jacobi

Please be careful regarding WP:3RR on this article, this type of dispute is not exempt from this rule. You can pursue your position through discussion instead of reverting. ^(H) 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...

All the doctor ever said about the Harry Potter book is that hid read it and it was sad, he never suggested that it haddent been released in Martha's time. I think that since the book used was pre- 2000 we should assume its the same in the whoniverse. --Wiggstar69 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Hello :)

You're okay in my book, too, as long as you're nice to Sharon :). Cheers!--SWEETCARMEN♥ 17:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Websites

The problem is, the tie-ins have contradicted on-screen stuff a few times: for example, UNIT.org.uk dated the events of Rose as 26th March (real time with broadcast!), but the poster in Aliens of London says that Rose disappeared on March 6th. This means that that episode also takes place on March 6th, next year, but UNIT says it's 28th March, if memory serves. A can of worms!--Rambutan (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check User Case

Per this edit, you may want to try a CheckUser in order to confirm. But, in my opinion, the CUs will reject the case, because both of the accounts are blocked. I removed it for the time being. Cheers, and good luck with the exams! Miranda 06:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, Bhaedriel recreated the same page that EndoExo did. If that doesn't scream sockpuppetry, I don't know what does. Will ^(talk) 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, on the other sock, the He sock. Miranda 08:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I didn't add the Gorge He tag, just the Bhaedriel one. Will ^(talk) 08:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) My bad. Let me revert my edit. I was very confused. :-D Cheers! Miranda 08:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Yes, I checked the Talk page, and commented there. As has been said by everybody else there, there is nothing to firmly place the stories in 2008 any more than 2007. Why you insist on editing it to 2008 when the writers seem to have actually intended 2007 I do not know, but I'm going to keep correcting it. 172.206.142.80 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence pointing to 2007 is in the article. The proof that the writers mean to set these stories to be before "The Runaway Bride" came in "Blink" and I've quoted it on the Talk page. 172.206.142.80 15:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying ur interpretation and preferences are bad, but we have to go with what's actually on screen. You can't just make stuff up because you prefer it. 172.159.43.106 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well...

If your basing it on being forty years after that mans birthday (1968) it would be 2008, if your basing the magazine it would be 2006, I'm willing to go one way or another but certaintly not 2007, unless im missreading somthing?--Wiggstar69 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where your coming from but above explains why im confused--Wiggstar69 18:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first message 'If your basing it on being forty years after that mans birthday (1968) it would be 2008, if your basing the magazine it would be 2006, I'm willing to go one way or another but certaintly not 2007, unless im missreading somthing?--Wiggstar69 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)' that is why I don't get your resoning, am i wrong?--Wiggstar69 13:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Saxon page

Why have you redirected it? Lizzie Harrison 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dating

Personally, I think it's definitely 2007 up until Utopia, but we don't have a WP:RS. Or at least, we won't unless RTD reads this dispute and decides to include mention of it in the next annual, or something.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an inferior source. I doubt RTD writes it himself! I think they just pay somebody to watch the episodes and write tie-ins themselves, and they may wish to "correct" any errors themselves. Even the Torchwood tie-in website had a few dating errors (citing 2006, 7 and 8 in different places). At least with the Torchwood ones, logic dictates it HAS to be 2007/8. Here's hoping we get some sort of newsreel saying "Saxon will likely be in power by Christmas" or whatever.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About OG

There's nothing on the news page (the reliable and easily citable section). Unless we can source Simm as the Master or Utopia as the first of an official (ie. production office recognised) three parter, it doesn't belong on the article. Mark H Wilkinson 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's fine, then. Yep, Shaun & co are fairly sound on the news front, in my experience. Mark H Wilkinson 18:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-whisteling-

Any time you want to re-sysop is fine with me… — $PЯINGrαgђ 21:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh…I understand. I'm sorry. — $PЯINGrαgђ 21:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had thought that perhaps after your exams (although come to think of it today is June 15), and possibly either just before or just after mine. ;) You know, like one of us returning the favour to another. — $PЯINGrαgђ 21:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support you. Lot's of things have changed and I think you are ready. --MichaelLinnear 08:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:42 (Doctor Who).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:42 (Doctor Who).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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Master

I don't think it's fair to label the use of a current image of the character as recentism. John Simm's portrayal of the Master has been hugely trailed in the British media for the past several months, in the same way that David Tennant's Doctor was reported on right from the end of the 2005 series. We used an image of the Tenth Doctor in Doctor (Doctor Who) from the summer of 2005 on; why not use an up-to-date, accurate image for the Master in the same way? --Kwekubo 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a mere passer by, I watched tonights episode and am glad none of the huge trailing in the British media got through to me and I had an enjoyable surprise with the twists and turns. Am I Alone? I hope not, so please don't rush it :p--Alf ^melmac 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you messaged me last, another editor has made a collage of the six main Masters, similar to the ten-Doctor version in Doctor (Doctor Who). Although the current version could do with improvements, such as use of official publicity photos and the removal of the unnecessary logo, I think this would be a good compromise between showing longer-standing and current portrayals of the character. Do you agree? --Kwekubo 21:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-parters

Oh, yes -- can't argue with the primary source. Mark H Wilkinson 21:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Enemy" Use

I stopped reinserting "an old friend," but what's even more unencyclopedic is putting an important spoiler for the episode at the very beginning. It's all well and good to put a major spoiler in the detailed synopsis -- one must make an effort to read that -- but a reader may easily click on the link to "Utopia (Doctor Who)" accidentally and thus may be unintentionally spoiled. There's no reason not to avoid that -- simple courtesy. Same thing with connecting the Master to Mister Saxon; the BBC put the trailer for "The Sound of Drums" after the credits (as they do for two-parters) so that viewers can easily avoid getting such a spoiler. The connection between Saxon and the Master was not made explicit in the episode, so it should not be made explicit in the plot synopsis. -- Darth Sci 00:40 17 JUNE 2007 UTC

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Evolution of the Daleks.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Evolution of the Daleks.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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNIT

At the end of "Utopia" there is the usual NEXT TIME... trailer in which the President clearly says "From now on UNIT has control of this operation." Wolf of Fenric 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]