User talk:Sceptre/Archive 37

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For her birthday (what I said in the e-mail...)
Image:Bildtankstelle 1 004.jpg &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:39 18 January, 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form featured topic?
Well, I really have no knowledge of the other articles, but I'll be happy to look at what's been done so far and see what I can do. What would be the lead article, though? David Fuchs ( talk ) 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I get that, but according to WP:FT?, we need "an introductory and summary lead article" to link the winners together. That's what we're short on. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Prolly the latter (althought I'm not sure what the process for that is.) Either way, I'll work on "The Girl in the Fireplace" to start with ('cause that has the most to work with... I admit it I'm lazy. :) David Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...And I submitted it to GAN, it still needs a little trimming of cruft, but I'm pretty happy with it. That's one down ;P David Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. Maybe we can win some award for fastest featured topic ;P Since the main linking page will obviously not really be a GA, how does it pass an 'audit for quality'? David Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Marsden
The DRV is unambiguous. The fact that she keeps harassing us into deleting this content is hardly relevant. It is all well-sourced. If you have a specific complaint with the content other than Marsden not liking the content please explain it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hovind similarity should actually be pretty obvious. The difference is one of degree, not of kind. I can see why Sun Media by itself might not be noteworthy enough (and wouldn't object if you only removed that section). The remaining content however I don't see a compelling reason to remove. And for that matter, there's a simple reason that most of the article is controversy- she's a very controversial person. I do intend to add more from the deleted versions that isn't controversy, but if you think a specific item should be removed then please discuss it on the talk page rather than simply revert. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit you just made for example seems more reasonable than complete removal. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm taking this case back to Arbcomm and I'm going to ask for bans and sysoppings where applicable. You cannot have an NPOV article that is a string of allegations, smear and garbage like she was "investigated for criminal harassment but no charges were laid". Mike Bate (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Impossible Dream.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:The Impossible Dream.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 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 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 (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Supervolcano.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Supervolcano.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 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 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 (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Surprise.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Surprise.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 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 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 (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

School Reunion
You're missing the forest for the trees; you're Emperor Joseph II from Amadeus, condemning for "too many notes". Look at what I have done, rather than just discarding it because it's not yours. I eliminated run-on sentences, corrected spelling, and fixed incorrect plot points (for example, Mickey destroyed the computers; the Doctor only destroyed one of the screens).

Barnstars do not make you infallible. DiogenesNY (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Created a different revision instead; this one clocks in at 515 words (yours was 511). DiogenesNY (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion
A poorly coded bot is not one of the rationales listed in WP:CSD; unless you have a reason to believe this was intentional, I see no reason to delete any of User:Andreas's pages. I've blanked the redirects. —Random832 17:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They didn't widen the screen before the bots got to them. And the user might have wanted to see what a redirect loop does without even thinking about the bots - just because that was the effect doesn't mean he was trying to do that. Anyway, it's resolved now; if you want you can leave a "don't do that" note on his talk page. —Random832 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Andreas/test #REDIRECT User:Andreas/test1
 * User:Andreas/test1 #REDIRECT User:Andreas/test2#xx
 * User:Andreas/test2 #REDIRECT User:Andreas/test
 * looks like a circular redirect to me. the code for skipping them apparently needs work. (actually, looking at what it did - it looks like it's not handling section redirects properly at all, circular or otherwise; I wouldn't even be sure about its results with genuine double redirects to sections; i've created a test for this case (don't worry, I didn't do anything circular).) —Random832 17:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. I soon found out that something is wrong and I continued my tests at http://test.wikipedia. I have written a modification of redirect.py on pywikipedia that a) eliminated multiple redirects and b) catches circular redirects. It would be nice if somebody would help me test the code. See User:AndreasJS/redirect.py. —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note
Just to let you know, I've discovered that has a sub page with comments made by you. See here. Stuart DD  contributions 14:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Book ref needed
Hey Will, I need a book ref for celery as worn by Peter Davison of the ceery article. Can you help? I also have The Making of Doctor Who by Hulke and Dicks from 1972 for older material. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists
Thanks for letting me know and apologies for not keeping up to date on this. I think the DW wikiproject discussed this some months ago and came out on the other side of the debate at the time and that is the reason I was making the reversions. Aesthetically I dislike jamming all of that info into such a small space, but, that is just me and if the consensus is to go the other way then so be it. Are we still applying our rule that "cast lists are as seen onscreen" because one of the edits that I changed had added all sorts of roles that had not been acknowledged in the end credtis? Thanks again for updating me and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sonic screwdrive
I've undone your closure, I think it was bit premature, and the nominator does not own the process, I think it is better for it to run it's course Fasach Nua (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Episodes
While I generally accept your opinions, and you're generally right, what is with this confusion over asserting notability and establishing notability? Yes, things like reviews and ratings assert notability, but just having one or two sources that can logically be covered elsewhere does not mean that we need an article on the topic. That's because notability isn't established; you need much more signifcant coverage for that. If you want to assert that by having those rating or two reviews that more can possibly be found, that's fine, but please don't bring these articles back without actually setting something up to find them. TTN (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lewis junior high school
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lewis junior high school, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Lewis junior high school. Wisdom89 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Scepte/los
During template cleanup, I came accross this page (note the misspelling). Do you still need it? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

bottom=
"Bottom =" seems broken either way; it does not display on articles (or the template itself). Ugh... never mind :) — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

List of unmade Doctor Who serials
Thanks and congratulations to you for all your work getting List of unmade Doctor Who serials to Featured List status! Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
Ok. I still think it's better as it originally stood, but I won't change it again.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Carnival
I wouldn't call removing copyrighted material "vandalism". Given your self-revert, I assume you have already realized this yourself. I think Image:LimassolCarnival.JPG is also worth looking into, as it may also be copyrighted (see ).--128.139.104.49 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:75.24.28.220
Is there something wrong with the template? It isn't resolving the second parameter. Corvus cornix talk  22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So the second subst shouldn't be there? Corvus cornix talk  22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Never saw anybody do that before, that I'm aware of. Doesn't it confuse the poor newbie who does know what the "2" refers to? Corvus cornix talk  22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I was worried that that might be the problem. Good luck. Corvus cornix talk  22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" to Atlantic Records
I don't mean to be incivil, but I'd like to point out to you that you reverted an edit that was clearly not outright vandalism, quite correctly, but you forgot to assume good faith and gave the user a vandalism warning when the edit itself was constructive, but not helpful.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that the "you suck" thing has been added a lot but that actually attempts to describe it in an encyclopedic way, and is definitely not vandalism even if a misguided edit, where as replacing the entire page with "you suck" would be vandalism.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:209.217.79.61
I saw your report on WP:AIV about User:209.217.79.61. AIV isn't the best place to file complex abuse reports, though, so I have removed the report. You should probably consider taking this to WP:ANI to get it resolved. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned
Failed GA, sorry. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work on M62 motorway, looks you addressed the comments pretty well at the FAC. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music January 2008 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Alternative music. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or would like to receive it in a different form, add your name to the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated xihix  (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC).