User talk:Sceptre/Archive 5

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, 27 November 2024 (GMT)

Only 51712 articles (0.748%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

edit

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 5

edit

Admin channel

You just have to be online though ^_^ --Shanel 19:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFB

You might want to submit your comment again, because you blanked the entire page and we had to revert... ;) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kicks wikipedia in the balls* Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you
Hello Sceptre, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref

Hello - I got your message yesterday, and schwinged one back at you... did you get it? I have some time today if you do - this shouldn't be a problem long to get out of the way. If there was a screw-up please let me know on my talkpage.

Thanks, take care,

THEPROMENADER 10:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have left the above message around ten seconds before Wiki went down. Oh, well - another day. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 21:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Cel es tianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Happy Valentine's day!

<3

Happy Valentine's Day, Sceptre! :D Sango 123 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page nomination comment

You may want to take a second look at the nomination of your page for Esperanza's Userpage award. (Click the link you've provided.) - ElAmericano (dímelo) 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, fellow welcomer ;)

Just noticed that you are welcoming users at the same time as me, so I thought I'd send a message and say 'hi' :)

Also saw you are an admin as well and quite the wiki-addict (1000 edits in a week :p)

James Kendall [talk] 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page award

Congratulations, Sceptre/Archive 5! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

Banez 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks!

Thank you!
Hello Sceptre/Archive 5, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux ^Talk

Vandal User:Deathrocker

I have a problem with a user who is openly vandalisng musical articles including blanking, reverting any edit made to articles, POV pushing, ignoring WP:NPOV, personal attacks in edit summaries, and possible internet trolling.

Below is a revert war i have been involved with with this user, [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].

I stopped during this point to make comment twice on the articles talk page to the user, asking for co-operation and discussion of changes in line with Wikipedia policys, and also provided the NPOV tutorial and explained deliberatly blanking pages is vandalism, [35], [36].

I went on to make several minor edits to the article over an hour to make it less biased to any view, the cumulation of those efforts being here [37]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war that is in progress as i type this, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].

The user then went on to try to delete the article by claiming a merger when there was no dispute on this, which i reverted due to it being vandalism [47], [48]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [49].

This user did not stop at the Gothic Music article though, he also went on to incite a revert war on the Nu Metal article, removing sourced information that User:WesleyDodds, a respectable and highly experienced involved with the article reverted. [50], [51], [52], [53]. This user then went on to vandalise the page using blanking and internet trolling methods, ignoring NPOV and i quote in this paticulat edit summary saying You are a prick to myself [54], the edit war is on these diffs, [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66].

This user has ignored all offers to work peacefully and seems instistant on blanking articles that dont agree solely with their POV and then Deleting them through a paper trail of redirects if he cannot force his POV on them. I ask for assistance in this manner before the user causes any further harm.

I had previously thought of RFC but the user is ignoring other editors who have reverted him, which has been 2 highly experienced editiors. The user also said he doesnt care about WP:NPOV because his POV is the only one that matters. So i see no point.

Im referncing this to Admins Noticeboard on your suggestion, but some immediate page protection needs to be put in place as the user is now making a paper trail of redirects, deleting articles without going through AFD and just leaving Redirects that go around in circles. I tried engaging in discussion and got nothing, so admins really need to step in, which is why ive sought help against this completly UNWiki behaviour. Ley Shade 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wont lie, ive already violated it. Ive chalked up about 40 reverts in comparison to the 50 odd times that the vandal has blanked the page. We seriously need Page Protection against the user as he is convinced he now owns the rights to do whatever he wants on Wikipedia per his consistant paper trail attempts at deleting the Gothic Music article, and telling other users they are not allowed to edit it. Ley Shade 13:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed you were one of the few admins active on 3RR today. Would you mind looking at 82.141.187.170's violation? Thanks, and sorry to trouble you Dsol 16:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 reversions in 48 hours, with 4 in 24, appears to be a block-worthy offense Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moe?

Not that Moe Szyslak, Moe Epsilon! ;-) MOE ^E^psilon 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, it was the only Moe I know that had a pic! Sceptr e ^(Talk) 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(See user page) you also insipired my new signature. ;-) Moe ε 16:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Music

I know you just got done adding protection to the page because of a revert war, but I'd like to actually go ahead with the process of deleting that entry altogether. Will I have to go through the unprotection route in order to add AfD? And just out of curiousity, are you really only 14? :)--Adrift* 18:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15 in exactly 2 weeks (well, I was born March 3rd 1991 at 5:57pm GMT). I'll put it on AfD Sceptr e ^(Talk) 18:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow, very mature for your age, what are you a prodigy or something? Anyhow, thanks for adding it to AfD for me.--Adrift* 18:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a Mensa IQ of 178 (when I was tested 3 years back). That, and rejection in primary school Sceptr e ^(Talk) 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

please stop vandalising my page without giving reasons or even signing. Allow me to continue my work on Wikipedia.--TheFEARgod 19:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove warnings. That in itself is vandalism Sceptr e ^(Talk) 19:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if the warnings were false accusations? Please activate my page and don't lose time on that. You could have written a whole new article instead of tuoching my page! --TheFEARgod 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, removing warnings is vandalism. And accusing people of vandalising when they don't qualifies as a personal attack Sceptr e ^(Talk) 19:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's my page and I can do whatever I want. --TheFEARgod 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you vandalised my page AND PROTECTED IT! That's a personal attack on me.

--TheFEARgod 19:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Protection of your page was justified, as in the text of the warning removal warning. Therfore, it is not a personal attack Sceptr e ^(Talk) 19:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, could I ask you now to unprotect my page? The rule states it could be protected only shortly. --TheFEARgod 13:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blank it, then Sceptr e ^(Talk) 13:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley

I noticed that you have deleted the RFC. I am unaware of the process of referral and was not sure if my husband could object or if I could ask other users to comment so probably only I knew it was there. I'm extremely angry with this guy as he caused me untold grief with his comments on my husbands user page and has treated me like a nuisance on his talk page whilst demonstrating that he does not understand either networks or WP:SOCK (nor does he seem to care).

Could you please ask this user to at least review WP:SOCK to stop him causing the same distress and loss of credibility to any other editor. I did nothing to deserve the sockpuppet accusation - that was his view of what little facts he had. He had no right to publish his misconceptions causing me to spend a day explaining my private life to all in an attempt to justify my apparent "duplicity". Once the sockpuppet accusation was out it's amazing where it turns up and I spent a day chasing it round various talk pages refuting it (helped by one other caring honest user).

I've given up editing at present as I'm obviously not tough enough for this environment but I'm following this last process through as it's disturbing that an admin can be so ignorant of the rules and show so little empathy for another user left with a mess of his making. I don't want him to do this to someone else. SOPHIA 20:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking him - I have asked him to read WP:SOCK in my posts on his page but he ignored me which is why I asked you to get involved (and why I added the RFA). He's obviously convinced I'm wasting his time as he seems sure he knows all he needs to. Not a good example to other admins (or users) - hence my concerns. SOPHIA 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MikaM

Hi. I'm an editor on the same article as MikaM, who was blocked by you for 3RR vio and edit warring. However, despite what you tell her on her talk pages (that the other offenders were also blocked), I note that is not true. Edit warring user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wyss also violated 3RR on the other side of this conflict and despite being reported here [[67]], has not been blocked. I don't think it's fair if you only blocked one side in an edit war when Wyss also clearly violated the 3RR rule as much if not more than user MikaM. I hope you can be fair and apply the block to both parties as you suggest you have done on Mika's talk page. Thanks. Giovanni33 02:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sceptre. It was the fair thing to do and I'm sure MikaM will feel better about. Giovanni33 10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi, on User talk:Macedonia, you mention other violators of the 3RR as well. Who? I have not violated it. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just use the template if it's a 3RR block Sceptr e ^(Talk) 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I'm sorry, I was wondering ;-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you!

Hi Sceptre/Archive 5. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.

Soothing R 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted block

Hi Sceptre. I am afraid you did not investigate the issue. I insist that I have not violated the 3RR policy. Please provide proof where I have. If you believed an anon IP who provided the diffs, please doublecheck: the #4 is his edit and not mine. In the spirit of good faith I fixed the 3RR entry (filed against myself, because the anon broke the format of 3RR page) and added a comment. The anon failed to respond at talk and chose to edit war. This is my first block in all my 2.5 years here. Since I have been blocked unjustly, I request it to be erased from my record. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you didnt, with 4 reverts in 26 hours, it could've been an attempt to game the system. You got blocked until midnight. A few people have been blocked unjustly, so don't fret Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't gaming the system. Does the policy says 24 hours ort 26? Take a look at what this anon doing to the article Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says 24 hours, but some editors revert after the 24 hours to game. I see you weren't. Sorry. But still, the block is over. By the way, the text is a copyvio (members) Sceptr e ^(Talk) 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: your "sorry" is not enough. You are given extra power and it is your responsibility to use it responsibly. Please erase it from my track record. It is important to me. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. Only a developer can do that. A lot of people have been blocked unjustly. This one block won't harm your chances of, say, adminship. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 10:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to continue assuming good faith and believe that both of us were trying to improve the WP. You've done a sloppy job and it is now your responsibility to clean it up. If it takes working with a developer, you got my permission. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hey, just want to say thank you for the help with the userboxes. There a barnstar I can thank you with?Dr. B 03:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomral barnstar will do, as there isn't a Userbox barnstar Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll put it here and let you move it around as you like.

I award you this Barnstar for your work in the preservation of userboxes.

Dr. B 11:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked user

Hello Sceptre, you may want to have a look at this section and reapply the block on User:Wyss for the remainder of the period she was meant to be blocked for. -- Simonides 08:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire discussion begins here; please note that she has been blocked before on the same article for the same reasons, and has also behaved in a similarly disruptive manner towards other users. -- Simonides 08:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her IP was still blocked for the remainder of the block Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression she was unblocked after 10 hours as her block log says:

15:26, 18 February 2006 Sceptre unblocked Wyss (contribs) (user request)
05:20, 18 February 2006 Sceptre blocked "Wyss (contribs)" with an expiry time of 18 hours (3rr)

-- Simonides 09:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got an email a few hours later saying she couldn't edit (she appears to be right). The autoblock blocks all IPs used by a blocked username Sceptr e ^(Talk) 09:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, Sceptre. -- Simonides 09:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution history will show I haven't been disruptive at all and that I removed a couple of personal attacks from my talk page. Simonides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't realize that Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked yesterday for continuing to bicker about that sockpuppet check on the admin noticeboard, something User:Simonides is now doing. Wyss 09:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (my userbox project)

Thanks for your help with my userbox project. It's a daunting task. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 11:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Kurdistan

Hey, I have a situation you may want to take a look.

Recently there has been a "kurdistan kraze". As we have discussed the matter earlier on the name "Kurdistan" was a bit problematic (as it implies/means statehood with borders defined by User:Muhamed).
- about user:Muhamed, this person cannot speak english and have had been blocked for trolling me (most notably on my RFA). Please sort him out as he so far hasnt had any usefull contribution (as far as I care as I do not see people tagging random articles with a pov category constructive).
Also language articles are also now on Kurdistan category.
Furthermore we now have stuff like Template:Kurdistan-stub which is troblesome [68].

Sorry for the lenghty message. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Space_Cadet

Please note that SC has alrady been blocked for Wielawa yesterday, and you have now blocked him again for the same thing. This is unfair - please unblock him (I don't want to start a block-unblock war, but if you don't reply in 1h I'll assume you are away and I'll unblock him). Note that I have reviewed Space Cadet (talk · contribs) contribs and I don't see any 3RR violation other then dipsuted Wielawa in his action log.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK. It's that it was re-reported. Oops. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SC is writing to me that he is still blocked. I traced the problem down to autoblock (Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by Sceptre Reason given: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Space Cadet". The reason given for Space Cadet's block is: "4 3RRs in less than 3 weeks, blocking agian". (see our blocking policy)) but I don't know how to unblock him (his username is unblocked, I unblocked his IP and ID but that doesn't seem to help :( ).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre is just a lean mean blocking machine, isn't he. Lou franklin 03:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coalition_for_Religious_Freedom

I just wanted to inquire as to why you deleted this article? The debate stood at 11 deletes to 8 keeps... hardly seems like a concensus to me. Im debating bringing this to undeletion, but if you had some other information which led to the belief there was concensus, I'd love to hear them first :) -AKMask 22:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, my maths was all wrong (mistook it as somewhere in the high 60s, which is a consensus to delete) Sceptr e ^(Talk) 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, no worries at all, Actually, I was assuming you had acted correctly and I just somehow missed something... I was pretty convinced I was gonna look like a fool bringing it up :) -AKMask 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Spindalis

Hi Sceptre, I've never had the pleasure of writting to you before. I would like you to see my opinion about the Puerto Rico "Nation" issue. It is sad that such a graet article as the Puerto Rican Spindalis should be converted into a controversial political issue as to wheather Puerto Rico is a nation or not. Puerto Rico is not a sovereign nation, however Puerto Ricans share a common language (it has its' own Spanish dialect which is different from the other Hispanic countries), customs, culture, history and traditions and therefore it is a "nation" as defined in various forums. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913): Nation \Na"tion\, n. [F. nation, L. natio nation, race, orig., a being born, fr. natus, p. p. of nasci, to be born, for gnatus, gnasci, from the same root as E. kin. [root]44. See Kin kindred, and cf. Cognate, Natal, Native.] "1. (Ethnol.) A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock. All nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues --Rev. vii. 9.", FWDP "NATION: A self-identifying people who share a common history, often language, a common culture and a homeland. A nation is the most persistent and resistant organization of people-culture- territory. There are between 7,000 and 10,000 nations.", and the Free Online Dictionary by Fralax sec 3: " A people who share common customs, origins, history and frequently language, a nationality." There are various nations within the United States, amongst them the "Cherokee Nation", the "Navajo Nation" and the "Chickasaw Nation", they, like Puerto Rico, are not independent but, non-the less are a nation. Before Puerto Rico became a posession of the United States, it was already a nation in the process of obtaining more autonomy from Spain. Let me point out that Puerto Rico participates as a nation in the Olympics and that Puerto Rico's Basketball team is known as "El Equipo Nacional de Puerto Rico" (The National Basketball Team of Puerto Rico). There are many verifiable websites which site the Puerto Rican Spindalis as the National Bird of Puerto Rico these some of the many sites: "www.welcome.topuertorico.org", "www.Enciclografica.com" and "www.puertoricoinfo.com - Geography". This should not be a big deal. The facts stated clearly shows that Puerto Rico is a "Nation" (not an independent one) and that the Puerto Rican Spindalis is the Puerto Rican National Bird. This my opinion which is not based on politics but, on cited facts. Thank you Tony the Marine 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page...

Be more careful in the future

You blocked me for violating the 3rr rule. Be advised that the rule does not apply to the correction of vandalism. Please take the time to understand what you are doing before you go blocking people in the future. Lou franklin 03:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!

Thanks for correcting the userboxes on my page!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For fixing the userboxes on my page without even being asked to do it. For that my friend, you have my thanks. Holocron 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

Do you think sprotect would be appropriate? I hesitate to apply it myself because I edit the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100000 seconds

I'm not sure if you realize this, but 100,000 seconds is actually a pretty long time--~~~~

Bud....quick entry, you slated me in a past post, REMEMBER! not all of us have GOD DAMN static IP's

I looked at Wiki today to find 3 complaints about pages I HAVE NOT ONCE VISITED. I draw my IP from a pool.....it changes everytime....and being from the UK I have little to gain from defacing the Pakistan page.......so please get off your high horse.

I shortened the block as fast as I could. It should've been 1000 seconds. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 08:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing my userpage!

~~Don't touch MY userpage. --UVnet 12:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry about that. I thought you deleted my userboxes.
What you did is you replaced the already deleted ones with non template versions right? --UVnet 13:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. [[User:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild is running a project to replace deleted userboxes, so i helped with it Sceptr e ^(Talk) 19:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will continue fixing boxes on my page right? --UVnet 14:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the deleted userboxes should've been fixed. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Boxes

How do you create the user boxes? (You Created Welcoming Committee){{user WelCom}} Also, is there a page that lists all the avalible boxes? I'm tired of looking through talk page after talk page for them to add to my user page.

Thanks!

Talk Page

--Primate#101 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UBXSceptr e ^(Talk) 10:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot! I just have one more question---how do you create userbox templates with variables? For example "This user has n userboxes", and the template name would be "TEMPLATENAME|n". I want to be able to create the variable templates so that the templates I create are not only specific to me (ex. View my desk page here, without a variable, would always lead back to User:Primate/Desk, no matter who uses it.

Primate#101 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few variables for MediaWiki. {{PAGENAME}} is the page name, and {{n}} is the nth variable of a template. Those two are the most common Sceptr e ^(Talk) 17:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My change to your talk page.

Please be more careful when leaving messages like that to people. If you had paid more attention yourself then you would have realised my edit was indeed marked minor. Thanks, — FireFox • T • 11:29, 24 February 2006

MedCab case

I don't think you have really made a mess of the case. The real problem is that at the centre of it is a dispute between two groups of Puerto Ricans (or one group of 3 and one individual) as to what Puerto Rico is. And then there's me - I happen to agree with Tony and the others, and I would like to say that as an "uninvolved" outsider my opinion should be right, since it is uncoloured by nationalism...but that's not true, it's just my opinion. If I had any idea of how to get a constructive dialogue going, I would, but neither side seems to acknowledge what the other side is saying. It might be useful to try presenting both sides' arguments in your own words (subject to their vetting of your paraphrase of their words) and make a brief argument of pros and cons of each argument, as you see it. At the very least it would make people read the other sides views, devoid of the growing animosity. Guettarda 15:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Article

Sceptre,

User:Bsarbey is creating articles about himself in the main namespace. Here are the link: Ben Sarbey and Larry Sarbey. They are both about 2 sentences long, and when I googled them, I came up with nothing. I was wondering if you wanted to delete them without a deletion vote?

By the time you get this, I think they will already be deleted. Oh, well.

Primat e #101

your user page layout

I'm impressed with your user page layout and have adapted it for my own page. Just to let you know. :-) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 23:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My final good-byes

Hello Sceptre. I came to tell all my friends, yes, that means you, that I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you for being so kind to me during my stay on Wikipedia. I hope to speak with you again someday. Moe ε 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup taskforce

The article Witch-Hunt has been added to your desk. This has been worked on. It now needs wikifying to examine its red links and then an opinion on whether it needs further cleanup. Please examine it or pass it along (or let me know and I'll reassign it). This has been placed on your desk because of your interest in wikifying. RJFJR 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Puerto Rican Spindalis

Tony the Marine has started a poll on the national/official question, and has informed certain people about it on their user pages. Please come and register your opinion. Talk:Puerto Rican Spindalis Algr 21:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Tycoon 2

I noticed you removed Zoo Tycoon 2 from your desk with the comment that it was done. Is it ready to have its taskforce entry closed? RJFJR 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing what needed to be done, yes, I suppose so. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 08:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's much much better. There is a WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Tycoon Computer Games) which will continue to improve these articles.

Just a little note..

Happy Birthday!

It's that one day of the year when you feel special for just being you. Have a great day, keep up the awesome editing and speak to you soon, Sceptre. Best Wishes, --Ali K 07:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention attempt

I am attempting an intervention in the edit wars over the Ayn Rand (Talk) articles. You blocked a combatant, so I thought you might be interested. At more than 4* your age, I probably ought to know better; but intervention, like remarriage after divorce, can be described as "the triumph of optimism over experience". Wish me luck.--TJ 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday! - File:Ottawa flag.png nath a nrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy birthday message from the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee!! JaredW! 20:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a birthday committee? *goes to sign up* - File:Ottawa flag.png nath a nrdotcom ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

Have a fresh smelly fish for your birthday! Compu terjoe 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Hello, I was browsing through Wikipedia and I somehow landed on the Esperanza page which listed your birthday (yesterday) as an important date to note. So, Happy late birthday! :) Hurrah 05:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From me too -- hope it was a pleasant one! — Catherine\^talk 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion

Hi Sceptre. Happy belated birthday. I was hoping you could help me out in proposing this article on "Ghost Culture" [[69]] for deletion. I'd do it myself, but i'm still uncertain about policy regarding these things and don't want to mess it up. I'd like to propose deletion based on the article violating the 3 core policies of Wiki (NPOV, Original Research, and Verifiability). Also the article is based on a Neologism, and 3 references in the article have nothing to do with the article at hand (one of which is simply an internet Quiz created by the author of the article). I know you're taking a wikibreak at the moment, so if you can't help out I understand and I'll try to find another admin. to help out. Thanks for any help you can give me in this.--Adrift* 16:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i was also wondering if you could nominate this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gothic_music for speedy deletion because it is a "Talk page of pages which do not exist". Ok, thanks.--Adrift* 16:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]