User talk:Sceptre/Archive 32

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: 05:53, 10 November 2024 (GMT)

---

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

---

Only 51638 articles (0.747%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

---

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 32

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

quick reminder

note to Porcupine: if you remove this before Sceptre can read it will probably most likely result in some sort of edit war as there will be no communication between two main editors regarding upcoming changes, so do so at your own discretion.

anyways, Sceptre, not sure if you got my email or not so im not sure if you read the comments. Anyways this is the only way i have left to contact you and i'd like to avoid having another sort of edit war if it could be avoided, anyways I'll be checking what you do with the simpsons episode list List of Simpsons Episodes, before any action is made as in the past they have provided valid reasons to the copyright database usage, and their current format is similar to the one you just changed with family guy and american dad. So if you're able to successfully change those formats of the page and they are agreed upon there id be willing to take that as the consensus decision and not bring up this subject again. Although if no changes are made i'll take that as a clearance to change back the family guy pages. So keep me updated, and i'll also try to occasionally check your contribs incase you forget to notify me, thanks. Grande13 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Incase you were wondering, it was a legit leak of the episode Stewie Kills Lois that is currently available, as I know I had initially thought it was vandalism as well. Also, any chance you can get to fixing the simpsons episode list page soon, as they are including all the copyright database episodes in their season 19 category. Grande13 16:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

{{cn}}

If the tag is not to be used - assuming that that mailing list conversation is authentic - then it must be deleted. While it remains on WP and is frequently used, it will continue to be used; it is, in fact, very useful.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] I've reverted myself due to the 3RR, but bear in mind that the guidance notes say that the template is: "to label a passage which is incomplete without a cited source of information". I agree with that, rather than with your off-site Jimbo opinion, I'm afraid - the guidance notes with template carry more weight with me.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you've misunderstood. The clause was removed, and I replaced it, along with the tag.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in DWM; I've cited it now. Google "TUATW christie" without the quotes to check it.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have it; it's too expensive! But somebody will. It's certainly true, though.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD/Bombadil

Sure. The closure was based on the fact that no one refuted that the band met the primarily notability criteria of significant coverage in third party sources. CitiCat ^♫ 16:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 19)

N is for Nerder was confirmed in an interview to air during season 19, E Pluribus Wiggum and Love Springfieldian Style were also confirmed to be season 19 episodes. If they are in the copyright database this early, then it means that they are early in the production code and will air during season 19, so it's not speculation. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you insist, I'll create a Future episodes of The Simpsons page, but I really don't want to. I added a note at the top that the page includes all information about future episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a point template. If you don't like being called a vandal, then you shouldn't blank 2/3 of a page for no reason like you did here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the holdovers have aired or are scheduled to air. There are only 22 eps in a PC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

S19

Enough spite. Who said that was a valid excuse? I'm merely stating you should leave them up there until further notice. Have you checked the sources? You should.

- Yours truly, Superior_(talk) 19:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RfAr

Interesting! That's actually the first closed RfAr I've ever seen...the others just kind of dragged on interminably until everyone gave up. I particularly liked the section under "At wit's end." K. Lásztocska 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/Incidents

I understand that you're trying to defend MONGO from harassment (really, I do), but before you dismiss his actions as a knee-jerk reaction, consider that this "knee-jerk" has been ongoing for a couple weeks on that page, and months on other pages he is following me too. Also regarding me being an "ED editor" - you know your way around a wiki, why don't you try and look up my contributions there, Schmucky's as well, before passing judgment. Milto LOL pia 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Cheers. Milto LOL pia 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

episode templates

Its common practice on wikipedia to include all show titles that are confirmed on the current season list, and the simpsons, family guy, and american dad all have confirmed titles in the future. Plus it clearly has the note "Not yet aired. Order subject to change." which just reaffirms the not yet aired episodes can change order. Grande13 19:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I sort of see what you are saying, but its not really assumption when shows don't work seasons ahead at a time. Grande13 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think its more of an assumption to say the episodes with those production dates aren't airing this season . Well it does say order can change, so that should be sufficient explanation in case the episodes end up getting shuffled around a bit. Its not like that message was just put there for show. Its not like its a horrible thing if one or two episodes get moved to the next season list that were initially labeled for this season either. Its the idea of keeping the encyclopedia as up to date as possible, and at this current date that is how the season stands. So therefore it would seem logical to include the extended list as long as it contains that statement saying its not entirely set in stone. Dont you agree? On the main page it even states "Wikipedia is continually updated, with the creation or updating of articles on topical events within seconds, minutes or hours, rather than months or years for printed encyclopedias." so this is just an example of how wikipedia can differ from printed outputs. Grande13 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

the point Im arguing is that we don't need a source saying the exact order, as there is a disclaimer at the bottom stating order is subject to change. Grande13

this person is behind the same belief Template:Infobox Simpsons season 19 episode list, although im not sure if their reasons are the same as mine. Grande13

I just used the same revised format that was used for Template:Infobox Simpsons season 19 episode list, and put it on the family guy and american dad lists. Grande13

update if you cared. I just listened to a message Greg Colton left and he's starting up his new blog soon, so once thats happens i'll talk to him about giving us an update to the episode list production codes stuff, with him hopefully being able to recite all 22 production code titles now. Once that happens i'll add those episodes back and properly source. Grande13 19:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked, and with this special wording there is nothing against this in wikipedia's guidelines Grande13

there is also a talk page for the template that can be used before reverting. Grande13

Stewie Kills Lois prerelease

How is that not reliable? I have a copy of it in front of me that im watching now, so thats a firsthand source...Grande13

Its not any different from using citations from DVD formats. Its a physical copy. My point is basically once there is a hard copy of something available to the public it become a legit item for source. This would be different from someone been shown a preview of something say at a meeting/convention as that is more self published and opinionated. I also left you a note above incase you missed it about me changing the formats to reflect the news simpsons season 19 episode template. Grande13

I read the discussion at 24 and that is a different issue. They were dealing with adding information on the episode that wasn't previously released that was acquired from the leaks, which has been prevented from being added to the page. The item you removed was just noting how the leak occured which is an entirely different issue from the 24 discussion and should be allowed as there is factual proof, as in direct links, that the episode has been leaked.

also this needs to be fixed by your standards, Template:Infobox Simpsons season 19 episode list Grande13 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok i see your point about the difference in the episode lists. Although the mentioning of the episode leak for stewie kills lois doesn't violate anything or requires publishment by Fox if all its mentioning is how it was leaked early and not any details about the episode.

also I just sent a text to Greg Colton and he let me know he's going to start up a new blog soon as his others have been removed over time and it will include new info on the upcoming season 6. I'll keep those episodes off the family guy list until I can source this new blog, if it ever gets up and running that is. Grande13

again maybe you're not understanding what is being said on the stewie kills lois page, but while any info from the leak is not realiable, the fact that is actually got leaked is a noteworthy fact. So im going to add it. Unless you can explain otherwise as its not self published if its readily available, it obviously is released early if its available before the scheduled air date which isn't original research just noting that its not the 4th, and its already out. Grande13 03:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OiNK

I think it'd be more proper to take it to DRV... I've never seen an AfD being re-opened before! Computerjoe's talk 06:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sceptre

I put the template back in on the list of DW serials page after the discussion at this thread [2] when it seemed that the vandalism had been removed. I am not sure how important the template is in any event but I had put it back just in case Edoktor had a specific reason for putting it there in the first place. I am only posting this so you can double check on everything and be up to date on what is going on. Thanks for you time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I see what happened you must have put the template back in just before I did. When I hit the save page command I thought I had already put it back in so I thought that you edit summary was stating that you had taken it back out again. A little follow up on reading the edit summary on my part would have saved you having to read all of this so my apologies and happy edting. MarnetteD | Talk 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

T-Rock

Why did you place speed tags on all the album articles without waiting for the DRV to be finished? User:Spellcast had already placed speedies, but I placed hangon tags to wait for the DRV to finish. T Rex | talk 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

T-Rock is at DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 15:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, Janet!

Would you keep an eye on the Dammit, Janet! article? An editor appears to be revising the article to make it look worse (deleted material except "Rocky Horror Picture Show Regatta" information[3] and adding inapprorpiate tags). Thanks. --

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Daleks in Manhattan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Daleks in Manhattan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Haham hanuka

Hello Sceptre! I need your expertise at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Haham Hanuka. Thank you for any feedback! Regards, gidonb 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2007Macra.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2007Macra.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1 != 2 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd be amazed at what happens when you clean out your watchlist...(pot calling kettle black?) a.k.a. really bad header subject that is ridiculously long and probably very annoying

Never thought I would find Mike Garcia fooled any single of you bitches. Love and kisses to you all and good suicide to you in my watchlist until I cleaned it out yesterday.

Haven't seen you very much—but that's probably because I haven't been on. I might be on about 1 or 2 this afternoon (9 or 10 this evening for you). Don't count on it though, because I've also wanted to be on here more, and well,I haven't. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  16:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

—  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who articles

I'm not sure quite what you're doing, but it looks fairly drastic - perhaps we ought to establish a consensus on WT:WHO and/or WP:MOS first?--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 17:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, could you at least hold off squeezing the entire cast into the infobox? — Edokter • Talk • 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate you on pushing forward, but might I suggest that images be put into the infobox? It's just easier. And do remember to put references directly after punctuation. Good luck! Alientraveller 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How about using the BBC poll on viewer's favourite scenes from Series 2? It's certainly more official than a fan site, no matter how big it may be. Alientraveller 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No archive eh? Shame, still, stick to newspapers and other reliable sources then. Alientraveller 21:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm on an extended Wikibreak & all that, but can you try to get a consensus before deleting loads of cast members from pages, please?--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, don't just ignore this, otherwise I'm reverting it. I don't think you should make major changes (marking them minor) and not discuss it first.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 07:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Sceptre, I was wondering if you were interested in taking on a student for admin coaching. I've had a failed RFA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montchav and got a bit disheartened, but am keen to try again sometime. --Montchav 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Eeeevil plans

But of course! Biruitorul 23:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sontaran2008.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sontaran2008.jpg. 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. Bogwoppit 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to point you toward the BBC article but I think you've already spotted it :) --Alf ^melmac 12:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Torchwood logo transparent.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Torchwood logo transparent.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 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please don't do this... you have now reverted 3 times in a 24 hour period.

Imaginationland
revert 1 revert 2 revert 3

Imaginationland Episode II
revert 1 revert 2 revert 3

Imaginationland Episode III
revert 1 revert 2 revert 3

Template:Infobox South Park season 11 episode list
revert 1 revert 2 revert 3

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

I will NOT report these at the moment... I do take this seriously though... Please do not revert any more on these pages, because if you do I will have to report this.. but I REALLLY don't want to, I've only done it once before and I hated having to do it. Just take a break from them for a bit please :-) -- UKPhoenix79 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hear in my mind all of this music

So you're a fan of Ms. Spektor as well, eh? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Saxon Toclafane.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Saxon Toclafane.jpg. 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 02:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello thar.

Still active, I see? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting Neil in the case of Anittas. I don't know how can people support Anittas, that what he said was "sourced" when it was a clear attack. While in general I'm not for indefinite bans I think in this case was needed especially that he's not apologetic about his behaviour. I didn't know about WP:IAR, that's funny. -- AdrianTM 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI - WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action

I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. • Lawrence Cohen 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)