User talk:Sceptre/Archive 59

Cassie
Not an awful lot of sources out there (as you've probably noticed), but I dug up a selection: Hope those are useful. I'd offer to help but I absolutely hate writing reception sections! — 97198 (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2008/08/sepinwall_on_tv_skins_review.html - Hannah Murray brings a sad... (onwards)
 * http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/15/entertainment/et-skins15?pg=1 - lately institutionalized anorexic crazy girl Callie...
 * http://blogcritics.org/video/article/dvd-review-skins-volume-one/ - The second episode, "Cassie", focuses...
 * http://www.popsugar.co.uk/1533583 - she's become more messed up and less likeable; Hannah Murray put in...
 * http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2008/08/skins_tony_cassie_horny_guy_hu.html - Cassie's demonstration to Sid...
 * http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2008/12/skins-series-2-in-review.html - I thought Hannah Murray was...
 * http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a93003/chuck-video-preview-skins-twist-news.html - if you're not an ardent hater of Cassie already...
 * http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20248951_8,00.html - Cassie's (Hannah Murray) struggles with anorexia...
 * "The kids are still alright", Andrew Billen, 12/02/2008, The Times, Section: Features, Last Night's TV, pg. 19 - Cassie, the anorexic, played with brittle winsomeness by Hannah Murray, had the plot you needed to follow.
 * "TV previews", Marc McEvoy, 14/01/2008, The Sydney Morning Herald, Section: The Guide, pg. 10 - [The show's] imaginative treatment of Cassie's anorexia reveals adult ineptness in dealing with her problem along with the skills she uses to disguise it. Hannah Murray is captivating as hippie-dippy Cassie.
 * That make both of us, heh. Sceptre (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish you luck, then :) — 97198 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :)  iMatthew  talk  at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by JCbot (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Russell T Davies
Nice work on your rewrite thus far (I look forward to seeing if you keep to your deadline!). Empire has a short interview with Michael Sheen here in which he briefly mentions Davies' work at youth theatre if you want to incorporate it. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:


 * T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
 * WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
 * WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
 * WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
 * WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 02:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Academic Views on Falun Gong AFD
Hi Sceptre. I have posted an alternative on the AFD page. What do you think of it?--Edward130603 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

AfD nomination of Diversity (dance troupe)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Diversity (dance troupe). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Diversity (dance troupe) (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

MartinVl
Hi Sceptre - Thanks for your message regarding the M62 coordinates. I have updated the M62 page but the changes have not yet filtered through. Please let me know if they do filter through, or if they don't would you please advise what should be done. Martinvl (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Amended remedy
The Committee has amended several remedies of Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles, at least one of which mentions your name. You may view the amended remedies at Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles.


 * On behalf of the Committee.  MBisanz  talk 03:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Fashionably late
Only amongst friends. ;) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:24 2 August, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh—hey—how has BoyCD's gang been treating you guys? (As a hint of where my ghost has been while I'm gone, then among other things you could "translate" Lastochka into martlet if you like; if you're passingly familiar with heraldry you should recognise the term immediately.) &mdash; $PЯINGεrαgђ  06:58 16 August, 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2009
SoxBot (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing broken episode links
The reason I removed them is because they lead to nonexistent wikipedia pages. The pages do not exist. There should not be false links in the references. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But the links to the episodes are still there. The only difference is that they no longer look like an external link. Looking like an external link to go to another wikipedia article is misleading. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who
There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again.  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  11:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVIII
Delivered by – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk at 15:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak support on Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Hey,

Just wanted to ask you why did you just put a weak support and then argued about Slow Riot..., when the page in discussion is Lift Yr. Skinny Fists. ≤ alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I was arguing/agreeing that both pages would need to be moved to be compliant with naming conventions. Sceptre (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why 'weak' if you agreed in the moving of the page being discussed? ≤ alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 04:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight topic banned
As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.

By motion of the Committee at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Discussion of this motion should be directed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Declined speedy
There is a meaningful difference between a neutral article about a slur on an individual, and an attack page which fulfils the speedy delete criterion. I suggest you open a discussion at WP:MfD, and stop reverting my user talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no way such an article could ever be neutral, though. It may "balance the views", but it'd still give undue weight to a comparison that is so logically fallacious that you got made fun of if you made it fifty years ago. Wikipedia doesn't even need to consider covering logical fallacies, unless it's about the fallacy itself. Thus, as it's about a living person and violates (and will always violate) NPOV, it violates (and will always violate) BLP and speedy (lower case "s") deletion is mandated by our BLP policy. Sceptre (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop restoring removed comments to PhilKnight's page, Sceptre. Surely you know you're not supposed to do that? See Don't restore removed comments and this section of User page. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC).
 * While he is perfectly entitled to remove comments, it's a bit of a dick move to do so when a) he's declined a speedy that really should have been open-and-shut, and b) I'm trying to get an explanation why. Sceptre (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is perfectly entitled to revert you, although, curiously, you claim the opposite on his page, referring to it as a "misuse of admin powers". I'd call that a bit of a dick move from you. For the rest, I don't know the rights and wrongs of the matter; just don't restore your comment again, please. Bishonen | talk 11:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

Recent vandalism on my user talk page
Hi Sceptre, my user talk page has recently been vandalized. Assuming good faith, it's a coincidence, or maybe somebody imitating a pattern of behaviour you've grown out of. Anyway, I hope you don't mind if I request a checkuser just to confirm. PhilKnight (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Yeah, you could have just acted like a 19 year old instead.. -Stevertigo 17:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha
This is true, but I bet Godwin cries himself to sleep a lot because of what goes on here. The poor guy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello...
If you fancy it, I've put A Weekend in the City up at FAC and would appreciate your input/any edits like last time. Cheers. Rafablu88 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Barack Obama Joker poster


The article Barack Obama Joker poster has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This was a very minor passing incident of no lasting importance.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2009
SoxBot (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brokencyde
Nice talk header template. In case you aren't following it, I wanted to point you at Talk:Brokencyde since you added the advert tag. It may have been so at the time (see the diff I provided), I wonder if it's changed. (my only interest in the band is reftag cleanup) tedder (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXX
Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

For what it's worth

 * If you don't like somebody, and you bring that person's name up out of the blue in order to insult them, and then in a second post you use sexist or racist comments to elaborate on your dislike—as you did—and you do so because you think it adds to the harmlessness of your sense of humor, most people aren't going to be able to distinguish that from actual sexism or racism. That is, presuming good faith that you did think your two posts of sexist comments were harmless, and it never occurred to you that someone at the Barack Obama talk page might take offense to your insults.  But my point isn't whether you know whether you're sexist or racist, but that you know that you are misusing the talk page of a BLP.


 * Given that the LP of the B wasn't even a Clinton, and that the subject of that thread had nothing whatsoever to do with being a Clinton, being a woman, being married, or being "henpecked", indeed given that the thread was rehashing a patently obvious point (the definition of African American) that only a troublemaker is going to pretend not to understand, it's rather more than just a bit of a stretch, it's abuse, and not just abuse of the Clintons. It's likely to lead other editors to see you as cruising for a conflict, even if you do not actually cause one.  Once the previous editor called you on your insulting comment inappropriate to the BLP talk page (a concept you've been around here long enough to be familiar with), what purpose does it serve to return to that BLP to elaborate on that comment with remarks even more offensive?


 * I'm not sure I really want to know, but I'm intrigued by the affect you note it had on you: what children's TV program presented a joke about the president's marriage and what was the joke? Abrazame (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Animaniacs, which asserted Hilary was wearing the pants. Then again, this is the show that was able to get multiple instances of parent service under the radar... Sceptre (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Hello Sceptre, would it be OK, if I ask you to give your evaluation on this issue? Thank you in advance. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I much appreciate the constructive criticism received in connection with this article, and have now made a number of changes to the article which hopefully addresses the concerns expressed here. Please let me know if they are still not yet addressed. In the interests of keeping all FAC related discussions in one place, I would ask interested editors to kindly list in bullet point any remaining concerns about the article at the nominations page, so that they may be dealt with, and for the evaluation/nomination to proceed. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Following the NPOV noticeboard listing, I have been in active discussion with SilkTork. As a result, the article has undergone some changes over the last few days. I have left another message on his talk page following his comments yesterday, asking him to respond at the FAC nomination. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Intimacy FAC
Hey, I was wondering if you have more comments, and also if you are happy and able to take a stance. Cheers. RB88 (T) 05:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Avshalom Haviv and Gaza War
Hey Sceptre,

I've read in your page, in the "things you can do" list that the articles "Avshalom Haviv" and "Gaza War" need an improvement. As a Hebrew speaker I can add information to these articles but the problem is that I don't get the problem in these articles. Avshalom Haviv's article mainly focuses on his achievements even though the British Mandate considered him a terrorist. Che Guevara was considered a terrorist, Nathan Hale was considered a terrorist and Camille Desmoulins was was considered a terrorist. Today, they are heroes of millions of people, and their crimes are mentioned in a tiny chapter under the title "Capture and execution" or "The Trial and Verdict", just like Haviv. I'll be happy to hear your opinion, --Etai han (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just want to say that I have no control over the list; the list is transcluded from here. I second your opinion in that, while it could do with some copyediting, there is no neutrality problem I can see. Mind you, the Arab-Israeli conflict is one where it's nearly impossible to have a neutral POV about. Still, the word "terrorist" is best to be avoided, as the label is dependent on political factors than factual factors (if you told Ronald Reagan 25 years ago that Osama Bin Laden would be on the FBI's most wanted list, he would've laughed at you). As long as it keeps to a dispassionate list of his activities, and subsequent execution, the POV tag is likely to be unwarranted. Sceptre (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm so sorry... I'm a kinda newcomer in Wikinglish... all the best and shalom from Israel. --Etai han (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who campfire trailer
I appreciate the hard work you are putting into Doctor Who campfire trailer, but "the people have spoken" on this issue twice, and there needs to be more discussion before permanently restoring the article. I would encourage you to keep improving the article. If you do, either turn it back to a redirect at the end of each edit session, or put some kind of a note at the top saying it is a temporary page pending the outcome of a rescue discussion, and put a reasonable deadline for the discussion. Bear in mind that if there is no new consensus, "default=previous consensus." I've started a merger/demerger discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 4). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right, in a "the people were right about Prop 8" kind of way. Sceptre (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been mooted by changing events - as I'm sure you are aware the article has been restored. This reminds me of a line from Futurama, where Bureaucrat 1.0 is talking to Hermes:  "You are technically correct. The best kind of correct."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I love that episode. If not for the song at the end, then for Morgan's lines. Sceptre (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love to hear the Monty Python spoof on Futurama's bureaucrat system. Let's all sing now:  "I'm a bureaucrat and I'm okay *visual of rubber stamping "approved" on singer/bureaucrat's head*...."  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FEMA Article
You should be aware of this. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking after my talk page. I appreciate it.  QueenofBattle (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Persecution of Falun Gong needs to be renamed into something else?
That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Awards
Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already!  iMatthew  talk  at 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Heroes
What are you talking about? I havent been editing the heroes article. And the page clearly violates the rule od verifiability. — Matey  Ahoy  02:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it. You know you're disrupting Wikipedia just as well as I do. Tip from someone who knows: the featured content review pages are not to be used for silly content disputes. Sceptre (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Look I am a new member here but have been trying very hard to follow the rules over this. Please explain why I am being cited for disruptive edits when I have made no recent edits and have been providing verifiable information. Thank You — Matey  Ahoy  02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I made one or two edits to the article and when people complained I refrained from editing the article.
 * 2) Others have edited the article in favor of the verifiable information and the other three just edit it away.
 * 3) I am not trying to be diruptive, rather fix a problem of a page that ignores verifiable information!
 * 4) The information is clearly verifiable. Does verifiabily count for nothing?
 * You didn't edit the article, but you're being increasingly disruptive on the talk page. It doesn't matter if you're not meaning to be, you still are. We get the point that you think "Jump, Push, Fall" is a separate episode. We don't need to have that opinion shoved down our throats (for what it's worth, using the show to delineate episodes has worked perfectly in the past, and is just as verifiable...) Sceptre (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I didnt know you could be disrutive on a talk page. I thought talk pages were there to avoid disruptive activities.....
 * 1) I was trying to present verifiable information and avoid any kind of edit war.
 * 2) I really have no strong feelings for that article other than I found it really confusing and am sure other readers find it the same.

So I am being banned from editing, because I presented what you consider to be disruptive information on the talk page...... I am now really confused as to the purpose of talk pages :(

Please explain how presenting verifiable information on a talk page, then supporting the information is disruptive. Thank You — Matey  Ahoy  04:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think your friendship with "Thedemonhog" might be making you biased? Co-authored with thedemonhog. :) — Matey  Ahoy  07:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, I commend you for your efforts in this matter. The fact is Mateyahoy, you staked your claim on a position that the majority (if not all) of the editors involved with this article are apposed to. You tried time and time again through multiple efforts to convince us and you failed. It should have ended there but oh no, god forbid you should give up without a fight. You kept hammering at it until you took it too far. You might have done your best to keep an editing war from arising and that is appreciate, but in the process you used methods that alienated yourself from the rest of this particular group of editors. You can go on and on till the cows come home about how you were trying to help the site, but all you did was hurt it. How, because you hurt your position with fellow editors. Part of what allows a site to develop is the comradery amongst fellow editors because by developing a sense of trust, people gain a better sense of judgement. The little trials and tribulations that occur here and there allow for an eventual building of that trust. What you did has greatly impaired our trust in your editing judgement in this matter, and I am afraid it may be a long time before you can show us you are trustworthy again. We all make mistakes, but you just perpetuated yours and dug a hole for yourself too deep to get out of for a long time. If I were you, I'd stick to minor edits for a while and work your way back up to the big stuff. Otherwise you might find yourself in a worse position than your are already in - blocked! Snake Chess  5  20:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comradery amongst fellow editors, is not a reason to post unverifiable information, and ignore the verifiable. I have no interest in editing the Heroes page, I will leave that up to you. My problew was when I first went there, the page confused me greatly. By watching the page for a bit I could see that the editors there were indeed ignoring verifiable information in the spirit of comradery. I tried to help them better understand the information, but you seem to be taking it rather personal, when its not intended as such. I did not make any personal attacks. I did not start an edit war. I made very few edits and even agreed to not edit the page, which I have not done. Now I feel even though I don't like wasting the time I must take Sceptre to Arbitration over his actions. Thank You — Matey  Ahoy  23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that comradery amongst fellow editors is not a reason to post unverifiable information and ignore the verifiable. However, at present, we have come to the conclusion that the information we present is correct, not what you felt was correct. Look, I feel for you. It's not the first time a majority group held a stronghold stance over a minority group, it has occurred throughout history. I have had times where I have crossed paths with this particular group of editors and found myself in the minority. And perhaps you are right with your position and we are wrong, I'll be the first to concede that. But there is a time and place for being right, and that wasn't it. For now, we believe we are correct in our position. Now perhaps, in time, it may come to light that you were right, but sometimes you need to let things happen in their due time, otherwise things will fall so far out of control that that kind of change may never happen. If that time comes, you can be sure that I will make sure that everyone responsible for effectively shunning you from editing Heroes pages will regret their decision. Until then, don't let your pride get the better of you, stay strong. Your time will come. As for arbitration, you have that right, you do what you need to do, but think about what I said, maybe patience is the best thing right now. Afterall, patience is a virtue, be virtuous. Snake  Chess  5  02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snakechess I was planning on letting the issue drop, until i saw your comments on edocters page. I really dont have time to devote to this. The Heroes group should perhaps read verifiable again. The heroes page is clearly in a position where unverifiable information is being used. The worst part is it makes it very confusing for readers seeking information. Insofar as arbitration against Sceptre goes, thats a different issue. I believe his actions are far outide of the rules of Wikipedia and thats up to an arbitrator to figure out, if I decide to take the time to go that route. Sceptre used to be an admin so he should know the rules better than anyone. I am surprised he would have any involvement in any of this. But we all make our own paths. — Matey  Ahoy  03:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find it's spelt "camaraderie". Sceptre (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha Thanks I missed that. BTW you have the best user page I have seen. I love that split page, but the code is blocked and the Skelator templates are no longer there. — Matey  Ahoy  03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for more the new discussion. Dale 10:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
I have taken the bold step of collapsing and resolving the thread you started. If you'd like to join my attempt to resolve the matter at Kmweber's user talk page, consider yourself welcome to do so. Nothing good would come of a premature ban proposal at this point. Durova 362 04:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, please. I am on the verge of closing the report myself. I definitely DO understand where you're coming from, but I do not think that A) This is not the right time for this to be done.. and B)You are definitely not the right person to do it. Kurt got roundly rejected last year, and there's no indication that there will be any difference this year. Let someone else do it as necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Durova, SirFozzie, you know the steps you're saying wouldn't work. And it's not "premature" at all, in my opinion. The way I see it, Kurt's latest ban proposal was only "two weeks" ago. That, and exercising the RTV when you're about to be banned, and coming back to troll, should really warrant the instant banhammer. I know I'm not the right person to do it, but I'm the only person that will. Sceptre (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I have reclosed it procedurally because your reopening left my signature intact, thus creating a misleading impression about my opinion regarding closure. I have no intention to reclose if it gets opened again. Let's talk about this matter. Durova  362 05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have re-closed it Sceptre, this does nothing but incite unnecessary drama, and imo you aren't the right person to do it, if you truly are the only person to do it. Essentially you're saying there isn't consensus for it. With that in mind, please don't reopen that thread. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 05:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think ANI is the best place to talk about this. But still, Wikipedia proves that we're more insistent on sycophantically brown-nosing our precious little Designated Dissenter and letting him go off on his little harassment and trolling spree than applying the rules this situation is making a mockery out of! Sceptre (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Let me ask this on a pragmatic level: if you truly believe you're the only one who would do this, then the odds of it succeeding are very low. In fact, you run a greater risk of a backlash that would have the opposite effect of your stated goal: prolonging his return. Durova  362 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the only one who has the balls to post on ANI to get him banned. Really, we all want him gone. But sometimes I think that it would take a dead body before people stopped brown-nosing him. And maybe not even then. I'm not saying that he'd do that, but, honestly, the noses are so far into the rectal cavity it's unbelievable. Sceptre (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, today is Veteran's Day. I happen to be a war veteran.  Navy.  And certain language comes to mind which I will not post onsite, but it has something to do with rectal cavities.  And it has something to do with more than just a nose being lodged there.  Look upward before you go any farther, my friend.  The sky above you is brown.  Durova  362 05:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's actually the twelfth in my time zone. And it's known as "Remembrance Day" here. Point taken, though. Sceptre (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still the eleventh in California. :) Seriously, the regular route of dispute resolution is better.  Try to talk to the fellow.  If that doesn't work, RfC him.  And try to make the RfC work: be civil and orderly about it.  You might just be mistaken and get the matter worked out.  And if you're right, it'll get proven empirically in a way that everybody can see and agree.  Durova  362 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tried talking to him. All you'll get back is the question "Why do you hate Wikipedia?". RFC won't work as it requires two certifications. And I'm sure that I'm not mistaken. I was actually talking to another Wikipedian about him last Thursday. Either he's really immature (using his Ayn Rand fanaticism as an example: the literature is boring and the philosophy is so broken that anyone with half a brain can pick it apart) or he's trolling. Either way, he shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Not least for the fact that RTVing is permanent. Sceptre (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When was the last time you tried talking to him onsite? Durova  362 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't, because I know it'll be a futile effort. Honestly, I know I should AGF, but Kurt has been known to harass people he doesn't like in the past. Sceptre (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. So you state that it requires two people to certify an RfC, yet you refuse to attempt normal dispute resolution.  And you ask the community to ban him, knowing that few people will support the initiative without the attempt at dispute resolution.  This type of behavior is something I've seen before from people in prolonged disputes who do not handle those disputes very well.  One or more of three factors usually explains the behavior: irrationality, immaturity, or trolling.  Have I missed something?  Durova  362 05:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be irrational, but it's only because it sickens me to see someone who's got a track record of harassment to be allowed to do anything he wants because people are scared to upset him. Sceptre (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Nope, that cuts no ice. You started the ban proposal subthread with a header stating you were reigniting it. You knew it would be contentious and your own posts here express disgust with how many people put up with him. What you were doing was initiating a self-defeating drama fest. And you tried as hard as you could to relight that flame several times--to the point where you could have been blocked for disruptive edit warring. I've been around the block long enough to know when someone is setting themselves up to fail politically in order to indulge in I'm right and you're all wrong chest-beating. It can be cathartic, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for that game. This is a serious website. And if you're serious, get the rectum off the pot and join me at Kurt Weber's user talk page. Durova 362 06:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not afraid of upsetting him. I am aware of his track record - and have been going back pre-Wikipedia, he's been using a friend of mine's open access UNIX system for about 20 years now and was part of the larger Santa Cruz geek community that whole time.  If he becomes a problem again here I am certainly willing to block appropriately, up to and including indefinitely.
 * It is important that if the community did not ban someone, and an admin didn't indef block them, that we not provoke them into needless confrontations if they return and are apparently trying to behave well this time. I am not slavishly following his actions this time around - but I haven't seen or heard of any direct misbehavior.
 * I think his attempt to run is futile as he really doesn't get along well with people. You are not, in my opinion, wrong on that.  But he's not currently blocked, and he wasn't banned (for whatever reason - temporary retirement or what) before.  I don't think it's healthy for the community to attempt to impose a "community acceptability standard" on the election short of the actual voting.  That way leads to madness.
 * The proper venue for this is to vote against him, not reignite the ban discussion or block him now.
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia fame
It has to do with your having proposed to merge Criticism of George W. Bush with Public image of George W. Bush way back when. Feel free to remove, put on your user page, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sceptre. The only mention of you (I'm sorry to say!) is the one that is at present visible on my personal site, which I think you've seen. As you can see, there's no criticism of you personally -- it's clear from the whole context that your view of this issue is shared by many others, indeed probably a majority! I mention you because I aim to give the usernames of all Wikipedians whose work is discussed: I think we deserve credit for what we do on Wikipedia.


 * On the main issue my conclusion is not quoted in that extract. I'll quote it for you now. "This reinterpretation of the rules is a bad thing. A historian would argue that the existence and nature of criticism of a head of state is important. An article surveying contemporary criticism of Augustus, or Nero, or George III, would be really useful; it would be more instructive than one surveying contemporary praise, and in any case there is no moral imperative to balance the two. I would argue that, anyway. But, I admit, it’s hard to compose such an article dispassionately when the subject is a person for whom, or against whom, one is personally voting."


 * I think we do disagree, therefore, but I don't underestimate the importance and difficulty of the problem faced here. And rew D alby  09:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The End of Time
Re: this edit; you were right to revert (because the previous edit messed up some references, and other multi-part serials with a single title in the table are listed only once), but your edit summary suggests that you haven't seen the latest from the BBC. It seems that the "six-word title" to which Davies referred is "The End of Time, Part One". Six words. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't keep an eye on the BBC Doctor Who feed; I still use Outpost Gallifrey Base for my Who news. That said, he is right. Technically. And we know Davies has a penchant for being technically right, given how Rose and Donna "died" :P. Sceptre (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RTD-WritersTale
Template:RTD-WritersTale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Svick (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk  at 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Monk
Though I don't understand your header on my talk page, I understand your message. I can't help, as I do not wish to spoil the ending which won't air in my homecountry until next year.-- Music 26/  11  20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I supspected something like that. Gross. Thanks for the update by the way.-- Music 26/  11  15:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Wall isn't this where we came in.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Wall isn't this where we came in.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ja Ga  talk 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation! (reminder)
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating.  iMatthew  talk  at 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver FAC
Hey Sceptre. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver FAC, if you can spare the time. It's gone without any major comments for a while and I'd really like for an established user to take a look at it. Thanks in advance, if you can! —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  07:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not restore personal attacks on a talk page
The user who made the attacks has been warned not to make them. I will not have personal attacks on my character and editing in an article talk page. They were moved to an arbcom talk page as evidence and have no value to the article discussion. Miami33139 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * RPA is not policy. WP:VAND is, and it stops you from removing comments unless they are indisputably personal attacks or unconstructive. And it isn't indisputable, so... Sceptre (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The MFD
You know it was coming, didn't ya? Seriously though, I obviously don't believe that a speedy keep is appropriate, but more importantly the potential perception of conflict and the fact that an early closure is more likely to induce "drama" then allowing the discussion to occur lead me to ask you to change your mind. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seven less days of drama; if it got taken to DRV, it'd be endorsed, I reckon. MfDing something on WP:CENT is nearly always unwise. That said, I must dispute your nomination reason, because if you actually do talk to people who support flagged revisions, you won't find that many people who would even want it on all BLPs, if only for matters of practically. Sceptre (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we'll find out... (and incidentally, it's not on cent. Also, the page in question expressly disavows your stated stance here, which is one of the reasons that MFD is one possible solution) — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The petition? I signed it on the understanding it'd poke the developers to turn it on for us, so we can try out FPPR. That's why most people are signing it too. Sceptre (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but what you're missing is that the proposers seem to be disavowing the use of FPPR. Take a look at the page history, where you'll see the reversion of attempts to mention FPPR (let alone attempts to allow opposition to the petition). I've been attempting to facilitate the discussion, but the neither the people who support nor the people who oppose are allowing the page to develop, which is (a rather large) part of the reason that deletion may be worthwhile here. The whole issue should be restarted, after being recast in a more appropriate en.wikipedia manner. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC) FYI: It's at Deletion review/Log/2009 December 19. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 01:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Obamarama
Please see my comment on the talk page. I think we'll all do well to tone things down a bit there. I understand where you're coming from, and in normal conversation words like "shitstorm" are good because maybe that's what it is. But it tends to have the opposite effect, making things more contentious rather than less. The page now has the attention of AN/I, and if we're not careful things from early this year could start replaying. Group hugs and all that. It'll work itself out sooner or later. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt
Hi Sceptre. Since you've been blocked and temporarily banned at times in the past for your involvement with Kurt, might it be appropriate to refrain from further participation in the AN/I discussion about him? If you want to continue, you should at least disclose your history there so folks don't inadvertently read your comments as objective. Nathan  T 19:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who frequents ANI knows I'm not objective, anyway. Sceptre (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trolling
I've removed your trolling from Requests_for_comment/ChildofMidnight. It's already difficult enough getting a useful outcome from RFC without users intentionally making it harder. Friday (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can get a useful outcome from RfC? When did that happen? Sceptre (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's rare. But, still, this is no reason to go intentionally derailing things.  Friday (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. The quicker we can get it to a dispute resolution process that works, the better. Sceptre (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have to say that that really wasn't helpful in the slightest Sceptre. A lot of people have been calling for an RfC on ChildofMidnight and it took a helluva long time to put that thing together, so I guess I'm hoping people can be a bit more thoughtful than you were in your comment. Obviously RfCs often don't have much effect on problems (and sometimes create their own), but it's really the only appropriate "next step" in dispute resolution in this case. The one thing I do know is that the chances for a "useful outcome" are essentially nil unless most who comment there can maintain a modicum of civility. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Davros75-08.jpg
Feeblest non-free content rationale ever? No. Not even the worst I've seen today. Not the best either. If it's not necessary to do this sort of side-by-side thingy in Davros I can't see how it's necessary anywhere else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as the comparison (and similiarity) is part of the article it's in, use is justified. Mind you, I swear the rationale wasn't that truncated. Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Last chance to confirm your WikiCup participation!
Hi ! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers!  iMatthew  talk  at 14:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI
You are being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:scjessey.2C_User:Unitanode.2C_User:Sceptre_reported_by_User:Jzyehoshua__.28Result:_.29 --Jzyehoshua (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Union-Democrat
Hello Sceptre. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Union-Democrat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: We do not delete articles within minutes of their creation per A1. Thank you. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RTD
Wow, what a credit, thanks! Sure, I'll help as much as I can (I don't currently have a project). I'm up to my ears in Chaucer and Milton, but I enjoy doing this sort of thing.~ Zythe Talk to me! 12:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave the whole thing a read-through and it's excellent writing. I'll find some sources on his writing too, if I can, because I'd love to give mention to the Joss Whedon influence somewhere too.~ Zythe Talk to me! 15:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True that. I'm at the US pace, seen "The Attic" and eagerly awaiting "Getting Closer". The show feels it's skipped along to its fourth or fifth season in terms of plot progression. It's gotten so good. :( ~ Zythe Talk to me! 13:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry for my laziness/busyness. University. Well, I think it would be useful to have some prose based around newspaper articles which largely compliment the awards (which I guess are there to show objective acclaim, and weight on positive vs. negative) and then some of the information which critiques his writing / his themes (no more than a paragraph, I feel). For sources, I think newspapers will probably suffice: they're more objective than say, Doctor Who fan publications. How would you like me to contribute specifically, maybe draft / outline something?~ Zythe Talk to me! 12:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

.js pages
Those .js talk pages you've speedy tagged, are you asking for the actual .js pages to be deleted, or just the talk pages? -- Jac 16888 Talk 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The actual scripts (and the talk pages). You can't add templates to script pages, so you have to use the talk page instead. Sceptre (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Boom, done. Just so you know, you can actually add deletion templates, it doesn't show, but it does add the page to the category. Thought I'd seen it before, and I just tested it on one of my own-- Jac 16888 Talk 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Faith Christian School (Williams Bay, Wisconsin)
I deprodded this--probably you didn't spot that this included a high school, not just an elementary school.  DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't. Sceptre (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles created by Ulises Heureaux
I don't think applies since the pages were created long before they were blocked. Am I mistaken? MrKIA11 (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied. Sceptre (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand now. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama amendment
I just wanted to inform you that I have formally requested that my name be withdrawn from your proposed amendment. It has brought me nothing but aggravation, to be honest. I know you meant well, but I must ask you to refrain from doing this again without first consulting me. In fact, I think you would do well to withdraw the whole amendment, because it seems doomed to failure. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. This was supposed to be a straightforward request. However, COM just had to butt in... Sceptre (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Secondary vs. primary
It appears these two articles rely heavily, if not exclusively, on primary sources for the Continuity sections. Was any of this commented on and analyzed in any significant amount of discussion in secondary sources not affiliated with the article's subject? Cirt (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Fires of Pompeii"
 * "Planet of the Ood"
 * You seem to be under the fallacious assumption that primary sources should never be used. If we're counting DWM, DWC, and the commentaries as "primary", they're the good kind of sources: essentially, the word of God. Personally, I see DWM, DWC, and the commentaries as between primary and secondary, and the episode citations I use are just to substantiate the statements given in the behind-the-scenes material. That said, we could remove the timeframe of Planet of the Ood, in retrospect, as that didn't get mentioned by said material. Sceptre (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think primary sources should never be used. I just think that we should base our analysis of what to include in the article - based on the significance of amount of discussion given to it in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Plerimest
See my talk page. You complained about this user back in march 2008 because he sent two personal attacks via email. You asked for his mail to be disabled but I indefblocked as he had no contributions. Hopefully you remember this because I didn't, I don't think that he remembers it either because he doesn't understand why he is blocked. My intention is to unblock him, but I thought I'd just check with you first. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking over the emails, it's clear he was just pissed at me reverting an edit of his. No harm in an unblock. Sceptre (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street)
Hey, just wanted to make sure at your FAC comments for the Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street). I believe you've said that you are supporting the article, but since you didn't specifically respond to my comments I wasn't positive. Is this the case? Let me know either way. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an unconditional support, as the prose concerns weren't great enough to oppose. Sceptre (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama portal
Hello, I saw that you created Portal:Barack Obama but never seemed to finish. If you don't mind, I've decided to do some work on it. Thanks,  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have put the portal up for peer review at Portal peer review/Barack Obama/archive1. Any advice and suggestions would be greatly appreciated!  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

goatse mediation
just an FYI - the mediator is waiting on initial statements in the goatse issue here - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Goatse.cx. if you could make a statement or some other notification, that would expedite things. thanks. -- Ludwigs 2 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, I've reiterated my point, anyway. Anything that expedites matters... Sceptre (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Harassment
Hiya Scept. I wasn't comfortable with the second part of your edit to this page, but feel free to revert. What you said wasn't technically wrong, but I think we have to be careful with analogies; people grab onto words and run with them. I don't want people thinking that what we're defining as harassment on this page is the same thing as felonious behavior, they will get completely the wrong idea. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd love it if our definition of harassment was as narrow as the legal definition. But, I don't see anything with your removal as it is... Sceptre (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * kthx. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship
I write because your name is listed at WikiProject User Rehab. I wonder if you might consider joining others in sharing the burden of a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Phaedriel
Dear Sceptre, I wanted to write you in regards to your comment on Alison's user talk page. I want to state here that I am completely unfamiliar with your reference to my abuse of "Phaedriel's" account. From what I remember, s/he was a really good editor/mentor/friend of several Wikipedians. Any abuse connected to Encyclopedist or any of my accounts is simply false. But thanks for giving me a second chance. Unfortunately, I will probably not use it since I won't edit here that often (being a grad student and looking for a job). Ulises Heureaux (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it was in reference to the SweetCarmen sock ring, which Alison did unblock along with your return... that said, I'm giving you a second chance because I trust Alison's judgement to Do The Right Thing™. Sceptre (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip Zlotorynski
Why make it a redirect? Its not as if its the only thing he has done. I am fully aware of the vandal issue because i've been documenting the past atrocities and reverting that scumbucket since I caught it recently, but that only means it should probably be protected, right, not blanked into a redirect?--Milowent (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources indicate that he's only notable for the movie, and as the article about him is overwhelmingly negative and reiterates the content in the movie article... I went with the principle of least harm and redirected it. Sceptre (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of YouTube
You're walking a fine line there. If you're going to ignore the 3RR for what you claim to be a BLP vio, make the case very clearly on the article's talk page. It may have been possible to avoid the mess simply by talk more and reverting less. As you're well aware. Yes, the BLP policy is on your side. Even if you're wrong, the onus is on the other party to justify their inclusion of the material before re-inserting it. But you shouldn't assume that the other party is aware of any of this. Take a moment, explain it, and then if the other party ignores you, it's clear whose right. But when you edit war while simply asserting that it's a problem, you muddy the water, and turn what should be a simple block into a difficult call. It's still edit-warring, even if you're "right". Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right. Still, I don't feel I should explain reverting unsourced negative information about living people, as it's the Right Thing To Do even if the BLP didn't exist (and we now both feel old for remembering when it didn't). Sceptre (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At least you can just feel old. I hit 40 last month!  Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Professor Blood
Heh, your message first sounded like a death threat *shudders* I was hoping to use the artwork for the production aspect of the article, or a behind the scenes filming picture (available on E4 website) might be good as well. There are plenty of filming pictures of shooting the moped scenes. Maybe a heartbroken Emily standing on the edge of the building looks better and sums up the whole episode? I really don't have much experience in making episode pages, this was my first actually. -- Hana ichi  12:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If its the Naomi/Sophia love story (ugh) picture, I would say the kissing one would suit better as it practically tells the whole plot. There are other options like the one where Emily first opens the box and see's the sketch book - that would look good too while having all 3 aspects there. I'll have to go dig for more reception info, reviews should be up soon by all the usual websites. -- Hana ichi  12:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

...the usertalk CSD
Hey, I declined it twice because the history (and his actions) need to be visible to more than just admins. He's blocked, the talkpage is blocked, and it seems the EN-Wikipedia no longer supports the deletion of indef'd usertalkpages. Cheers. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just declined it as well. It's just occured to me that you might be worried about the age issue of one of the edit, in which case oversight would be the solution. Ged  UK  13:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)