User talk:Sceptre/Archive 39

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Emmerdalehouse.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Emmerdalehouse.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) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Motorway hcard
A tag has been placed on Template:Motorway hcard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of School Reunion (Doctor Who)
The article School Reunion (Doctor Who) you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:School Reunion (Doctor Who) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Million_Moments (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: So close...
So do we know what to do about the lead article? List of Nunavut general elections has the little check mark thing, maybe we should ask whoever worked on that. David Fuchs ( talk ) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cloverfield
The image description doesn't have a source, and the summary indicated that that it was taken from in the theaters, which I assumed was through a bootleg copy. Is there an officially distributed place of the image? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that works. Can you update the image description page, then?  I'm not sure if the image is quite appropriate in the Plot section of the film article, since it's kind of a subjective choice of any screen shot that could be chosen to display a scene from the film.  It should be OK as the primary image at the creature article, though.  Does that work? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:
You're sweet. :) Thank you. &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:56 14 February, 2008 (UTC)

Disruption over Roumania -
Hi Will, I've just had a quick look over the history of this, and you are right, he would appear to deserve blocking but I'm tired here and I don't want to put my foot in it since I'm thinking of a lengthy block for this guy. I'm sure some other admin more used to the situation will come along, or I will look at it tomorrow. It seems to be personal as well, which is one reason I don't want to act out of line. Cheers. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be right
It may well be that "featured" and "good" articles don't put much importance in real world aspects of subjects on Wikipedia. It follows from our purpose, however. This is why it's always a good idea to be wary of tags like "good" and "featured". Ask me some time to tell you about my experiences with "featured" articles, supposedly the best Wikipedia has to offer. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nullified primaries
Regarding Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008: the word "controversy" is also used as a section heading in the two main articles that expand on this section, and I don't think the word's inappropriate there, so it may apply here as well; please review them yourself. Personally I have no problem with the word "controversy" since there are mixed feelings about the decision. "Nullified" sounds too final at this point; the injured parties still have some hope (as does Ms. Clinton) that the results will be admitted into the convention. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

re Hal Turner
Ref your request at my talkpage, I think you may wish to request full protect/indef on WP:AN, where it has already been suggested that the article is deleted per BLP. I only put up the sprotect so people could have space to talk rather than get caught in revert wars, and have no knowledge of the history, etc. If there is consensus to fully protect (and for whatever time) I would be pleased to enact it. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicola Roxon
Could you please explain your massive reversion. It introduces one error - she was elected in 1998. It removes a useful disambiguation that was added last night. It removes material that is referenced and was supported in the talk page discussion last night. Some of it could do with some tidying up now the battle is over, but I think it should remain. I have started this discussion here as it is about your actions, not about mine which was the discussion on my talk page. I am however soon going to be off WP until this evening. --Bduke (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you delete this please?
Someone moved Anonymous (group) to Anonymous (Cyber-Terrorism Group). I have reversed this move by moving the article to Anonymous (Group) but now the article needs to be moved back the the original correct title which is Anonymous (group). Thanks. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?
Why did you revert it and say that I introducted unsourced defamatory content into the Hal Turner article? According to WP:BLANK, we can't have blank pages. I was not the one who made the "defamatory" content by your definition. According to WP:BLP, it doesn't say that stuff with defamatory content HAS to be blanked ASAP without any warning unless it's an attack page, and what you've done seems more like page ownership to me. What I have done is not against any rules. I did not introduce any new defamatory content. The way we do things around here is that we FIX the problem instead of trying to push it under a big huge rug. The only time we TRULY need to blank the article is if it's a copyright violation, or a legit attack page (which can be deleted per the Criteria for Speedy Deletion). So now I'm a wikicriminal in the eyes to you, right?

The extra tag I added is a reminder of what we have to do. Reverting to a biased version of an article is being bold. I did not create the content at all, and I assure no responsibility for the content of that article. ViperSnake151 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Several issues
First, do not use the rollback function to revert anything other than vandalism, as you did on Hal Turner. Second, nowhere does WP:BLP suggest that an entire article should be completely blanked for the duration of an Afd; it says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" should be removed. The Hal Turner article has quite a few sources. Third, do not throw only warning templates at established editors, as you did on User talk:ViperSnake151. That is considered extremely rude, and usually does nothing more than inflame a situation. Please revert your blanking of the article, or at a minimum return it to its previous state, without whatever unsourced or poorly sourced material you believe to be a violation of BLP. Thanks, - auburn pilot   talk  20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consider this your last warning for abuse of the rollback function. Next time I see you do something like this, I will personally remove it. - auburn pilot   talk  00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Army of Ghosts
Doesn't seem worth putting tha article on hold for this. There is one sentence in ratings "The episode's overnight ratings were x million" that doesn't make much sense. Also I changed some of the references to the primary source, however I notice you are a much neater referencer than me and I'm not sure if you want to change them to the cite templates that I can never be bothered to use outside of science articles. Apart from that one sentance, I've made the changes necessary for it to be promoted in my review which was basically a couple of word changes and primary sourses. Million_Moments (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Army of Ghosts
The article Army of Ghosts you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Army of Ghosts for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Million_Moments (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Counting down to one... Tell me when it passes and you create the FTC page. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not
Hey. I reverted your removal of NOTNEWS. It's used on AfD all the time. We should probably discuss this if you think it should be removed. Corvus cornix talk  23:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Made in the Dark
I've spent the entire day writing this article and basically added all of the content that is now in it (besides, the infobox, lead section and tracklisting). I have managed to increase the content five fold and will probably work on it some more tomorrow. Does this qualify for DYK? Also, if it does, would you help me with the process? Thanks :D Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 23:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Downloaded (Battlestar Galactica)
Hey. I've reviewed the article you've placed for GA nom, and my comments are on the talk page. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I went ahead and passed it. Have a great day.  Mastrchf91  (t/c) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

KTTV Fox 11 news report
I have temporarily reverted your removal of the "KTTV Fox 11 news report" section (permanent link) in the Anonymous (group) article. The cited source is a newscast broadcast by KTTV (an owned-and-operated television station of the News Corporation-owned Fox Broadcasting Company, located in Los Angeles, California), which is available online (on the broadcaster's website). My understanding is that FOX is acceptable as a reliable source. I would agree with you that the material quoted is rather controversial to be cited against just a single (even if reliable) source. However, in this case, there is an acknowledged lack of readily-available sources. My opinion is that wording the paragraph such that it explicitly attributes any controversial statements to the source ("[the] report [...] call[ed] them", "[t]he report covered", "[t]he MySpace user also claimed", "the report also mentioned") is an acceptable solution in such cases. Nonetheless, I have posted the issue at WP:RS/N in order to get external feedback. CounterFX (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm...
Please be civil. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Emmerdalehouse.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Emmerdalehouse.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 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wha?
Image? Huh? O_O Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Image:Snopake user.jpg? Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, so did you want one?>:) Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I am slightly puzzled by your comments on my talk page would you care to eloaborate.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ed link removal
I'll keep the link removed since you gave me an explination, but could you show me the policy that doesn't permit linking to ed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom784 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:UK motorways/sand
A tag has been placed on Template:UK motorways/sand requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack Chick
Hi, your help has been reverted I'm afraid. Benji boi 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)