User talk:Sceptre/Archive 11

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: 00:35, 30 November 2024 (GMT)

Only 51724 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 11

edit

Your picture

Your picture is great. Mine are usually hideous :| — Nathan ^(talk) 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More spamming

Hi Will, what's your take on this posting of articles that require attention? Does it look like a violation of WP:SPAM, which says: "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view"? Pecher ^Talk 09:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked for 3RR and POV editing before [1], and Usher's summary is better than what I can give Will (^E_@) T 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

It's looking fantastic - thank you so much!! Sergeant Snopake 10:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:OURS

What do you mean by "acting through proxy"?!? Am I now a meatpuppet of Rgulerdem as well? I've written large parts of this policy myself based on ideas I've found on the mailing list. What's wrong with that? Raphael1 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, thanks for doing the right thing and speeding Wikipedia:OURS. I noticed that the talk page for Wikipedia_talk:OURS was still in existence, was that left there by you on purpose? Netscott 20:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that you've already mirrored his Wikiethics page, and you're mirroring a lot of his ideas for WP:OURS. It's been discussed on AN/I. Zoe has noted that there's been a lot of tag-team editing between you and Rgulerdem. Will (^E_@) T 20:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, thanks for your diligence in this matter. Netscott 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has Zoe provided any prove for her "tag-team editing" accusation? Raphael1 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be asked on the noticeboard, not on here. Zoe is less likely to respond here. Will (^E_@) T 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, didn't you delete the proposal based on Zoes accusation? Why haven't you asked Zoe for evidence? What is "tag-team editing" in the first place? Does it mean, that collaboration is forbidden here? Have you been "tag-team editing" with Zoe and Netscott, when you removed that proposal? Raphael1 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it somewhat uncivil, that you first remove my work and than even refuse to answer my questions? Please explain what you mean by "Raphael is just acting through proxy"? Is a banned user a "persona non grata", with whom I am not allowed to communicate with? It does not matter where I get my ideas from - be it my sister (w/o any wiki account), my cat or the devil himself. I am an individual who is not banned. Since you refuse all communication, it becomes really difficult for me to not suspect you of having some kind of despotic disposition. Please restore WP:OURS! Raphael1 12:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to communicate with him. Policies created by banned users have a snowball in hell's chance of getting accepted. List it on WP:DRV if it isn't already Will (^E_@) T 13:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful, that you finally condescend to talk with we. I'd like to tell you, that my version of WP:OURS has already been different from Rgulerdems version, and there is no reason to believe, that WP:OURS would not get substantially changed before it would have been polled for approval. WP:SNOW does not apply, since there were three keep votes on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:OURS. The reason you've stated here is flat out wrong, since WP:OURS is not a recreation, and the reason you've stated here is a personal attack, since you completely disregard my individuality and the work I put in WP:OURS before creating it. Please correct your mistake and restore Wikipedia:OURS. Raphael1 13:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should've made myself clearer. WP:SNOW applies to the actual polling of the policy, not deleting it. On the deletion log, It was supposed to be G5. Anyway, just take it to WP:DRV Will (^E_@) T 14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know, that there will be an unanimous rejection of the policy, when nobody knows what that policy would evolve into? G5 does not apply, just as G5 does not apply to User:Raphael1/Wikiethics. I have created this policy and I am not banned. Please refrain from reinterpreting WP:CSD ad libitum and restore Wikipedia:OURS. Raphael1 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, you've done nothing wrong. The only thing that may need changing here is an addition to WP:CSD that clearly defines that pages created by proxies of banned users (ie: acting on the behalf of a banned user as Raphael1 was doing) are equally qualified for speedy deletion (which I'm sure your common sense told you when you did the actual deletion). Netscott 15:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael, I will not undelete it. If you ask me again, you will be blocked. If you want it deleted, go to Deletion review. Thanks. Will (^E_@) T 16:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Evil Day!

Happy Evil Day

Today is 6/6/6. Remember to do something evil for a friend! File:Xytra.jpg.

— Nathan ^(talk) 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil!

MUAHAHAHA

Here is an 6/6/6, aka Evil Day, greeting for you friend. These type of messages promote WikiLove in an unknown way. Spread this evil love to others by making a derivative work of this... Or another evil something that is flowing about. The King of Kings 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil!

Here is an 6/6/6, aka Evil Day, warning for you, enemy. I am extremely evil and you have entered on my evil property. Spread this evil-ness to others by making a derivative work of this... Or another evil something that is flowing about. And, if you don't you will be a goodie too-shoos forever!! GeorgeMoney ^T·C 6 June 2006

Wiki Quicksearchers -> 404 Error

On Wikipedia:Tools/Browser integration, there's a subsection on User:Sceptre's "Wiki Quicksearchers." However, clicking on the link in question takes you to a "page not found" error on your website. I wanted to alert you in case you wanted to host it elsewhere. If you don't, let me know and I'll remove the reference on said page. — Mike • 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've installed wordpress on my site, and it's currently not allowing you to see certain pages. I'll put it in a subfolder later tonight. Will (^E_@) T 17:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from a WordPress expert, but I've done a few things with it, and my site runs on it. Lemme know if I can be of any help to you in pointing you towards cool WP extensions, etc. No urgency — just figured I'd alert you to the broken link. — Mike • 17:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to use WP as well :) — Nathan ^(talk) 00:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the userpage colour lightening :) — Nathan ^(talk) 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland revert

Why have you reverted User:Wikinorthernireland's content by script[2], without any comment being made on why your makeing the revert? The additions all seem to be referenced and it certainly is not vandalisim, thus the use of a script rv without comment really isn't on. Thanks/wangi 17:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sceptre and misuse of rollback /wangi 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vanity page

Tha undertaker page seems like a vanity page, is it? if it is delete it please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.238.237 (talk • contribs)

Which page? Will (^E_@) T 18:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

It was in my own userspace, it's a record of harassment against myself, and the other user in question moved and then deleted it. He is out to have a go at me, as is everyone these days. Thanks, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carcassonne Salvaza Airport

No link to French wiki? is that a rule or what? -- max rspct leave a message 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see cheers anyway. max rspct leave a message 19:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you're cute

(^_^)

--The Mad Bomber (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it wouldn't be offensive, I'll second that. ;-)... funny though your face looks feminine now that I do a second look it could just be youth. Anyways, with the apparent nudge in the pic it's definitely cute. Netscott 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nathanrdotcom

[warning removed by Nathan]

It's not really vandalism. Nathan and I share a common interest, that being Doctor Who. We like to slip in our injokes, especially on other users like Snopake and Oreos. Will (message me!) 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha :-P Cyde↔Weys 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just a misunderstanding. Lovely userpage, by the way :D Will (message me!) 20:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can back this up. :) Sergeant Snopake 20:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that Cyde doesn't remove the warning. I did that myself. He and I seem to be reverting each other in my userspace and it's getting on my nerves. I wish he would just leave me alone :| — Nathan ^(talk) 17:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VANITY PAGE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tha_Undertaker

To me, it looks like he's writing an article on himself

I just took care of it.

--The Mad Bomber (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am The Temptation

and The Sin and The Fury. I shall never die for I will always exist in the bleeding hearts of men!
Ood 21:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't violate WP:POINT

The only page I vandalize was your vandalism page. Why did you actually block me? Netscott 11:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was visible on my main user page for a second, and those with dialup would/could be o_O. Will (message me!) 13:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my fault that it appears on your user page. I edited your actual Vandalism sandbox in accord with what is explained on your user page. I'm not sure why it is appearing on your user page when I never edited that. In my Safari browser on OS X (Macintosh) your user page appears normal. I kindly recommend you remove such allowance to avoid a similarly natured future experience. Netscott 14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sieger

Just thought you should be aware of this, as you're mentioned. Right of reply and all that ... - Ali-oops^✍ 07:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hganesan

Hi, I see that you've dealt with this user's violations previously. It looks like he got off a week long ban. From what others have written, he's been banned over 10 times and has many sockpuppets. I thought you like to know he's at it again. If there is a 10 Revert Rule, he's violated it. Especially on the Kobe Bryant page. Prokj 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dante

Damn right Dante's an oncoming storm! He's sitting on the corner of my keyboard, trying to bite my fingers...damn cat... Sergeant Snopake 21:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*goes to feed him kitty treats* — Nathan ^(talk) 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

feeds him some sugar* Will (message me!) 09:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, he's difficult enough as he is! Don't wack him out anymore! Kitty treats were bad enough, but just plain sugar? Oh, my God! He's getting fractious! Sergeant Snopake 13:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Hello, I am Thetruthbelow. I was recommeded to ask you by GeorgeMoney to join a new Wikiproject I am starting called "The User Page Design Committee". We will assist users in creating a great user page, and will have many great features. As of now, the Founders are, if you choose to join, GeorgeMoney, Sango 123, myself. and Moe Epsilon. I will create the page, but then feel free to edit it. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 21:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds nice. Will (message me!) 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to be a founder? Thetruthbelow 22:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please :) Will (message me!) 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made Wikiproject

I have just started the Wikiproject here. It is right here, and I would appreciate any work on it or the subpages that you do. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is really a rough draft so make as many changes as you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthbelow (talk • contribs) 22:34 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Lloréns-Sar

The article was (improperly IMHO) blanked and protected by an administrator. There is verifiable public information on the legal activities by Lloréns-Sar. Another question is whether his legal activities are notable, but since the AfD has focused on the privacy issues, this has not been discussed/resolved. No clear grounds for deletion are given. ~ trialsanderrors 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably take it up with the blanking admin Will (message me!) 21:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that you deleted the article the edit history is gone. ~ trialsanderrors 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the history is there ready for restoration at Special:Undelete. The blanking admin was Guettarda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Will (message me!) 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My perception was that the AfD was in process to decide whether or not to bring back (some version of) the blanked article. Deleting the article because the article was blanked seems circular. If/when the article is recreated and rewritten, as is sure to happen, we'll just have to go through the AfD again. Dori 00:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Dori's comment. In any case, I left a message on Guettarda's talk page to join us here. ~ trialsanderrors 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I requested WP:DRV. Perhaps the discussion should be there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comment on WP:DRV was a bit too presumptuous. I apologize for saying so much more than I should have (I should have let MetaMagician3000 reply first ;-). Considering I don't do AfD closures, I don't get the experience of always having someone objecting to my actions in that area. Keep up the good work. Cheers, NoSeptember 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred Wilson

Would you mind explaining how you arrived at the conclusion of the AfD with 'The result of the debate was delete, no reason to keep it and was an autobiographical article anyway'? Seems to me there was no consensus, and at least as many (if not more) votes to keep than to delete. there were numerous arguments presented on why it should be kept, and I did not see any of them addressed in any sort of debate. Isarig 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to delete it outweighed the reasons to keep it. Will (message me!) 09:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not really responsive to what I asked you. There was a debate. Arguments were presented on both sides, and there was no consensus. Did you just take it upon yourself to decide that since you were not convinced to keep it, it should be gone? Isarig 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the AfD for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review if you want to comment. Will, I'm not holding this against you, but three AfD closures with a clear lack of interest in doing due dilligence might be a signal for a Wikibreak, or at least a signal for an AfD break. ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird AfD closure : The Lost Boys (demogroup)

Hi, sorry to bother you, but you were the closing admin of the afd for that entry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lost Boys (demogroup). While I don't particularly care that the article is kept or deleted, I wonder what was the basis for the deletion closure. You wrote "delete, fails to establish notability", which is fine and all within the AfD discussion but is not what is expected of an admin closing said discussion, that should have been something along the line of "no concensus". Care to reconsider ? Equendil Talk 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at the article, there was nothing to establish its notability, which is CSD A7. Will (message me!) 17:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to clearly state when you close an AfD based on CSDs, but anyway, I don't believe CSDs should have priority above AfD discussions, I'll bring it up on review (DRV). Equendil Talk 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD do take priority over AFD, though. Will (message me!) 17:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TARDIStar

Thanks. Sometimes with various people complaining that I destroy their work, I do wonder if it's at all worth it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you design my user page

Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcelonamilia (talk • contribs)

Not tonight, but tomorrow. Sound ok? Will (message me!) 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey pal!

I've started a Doctor Who Glossary of Terms and Names, but there's not much in it. It'd be really cool if you could add to it, its mostly to list relatively minor things such as Waterhive, The and such as the like, but goes on to give brief details on major things such as Daleks as well as links to their articles.

Have a look and see what you think.

James Random 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]