User talk:Sceptre/Archive 31

Under a case you saw out, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker User: Daddy Kindsoul was limited to one revert per day, 2 per week and 3 per month per article. In the past week (September 10-17) he has reverted the NOFX page three times.[1][2][3] Hoponpop69 02:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just saw the quote from Suppers Ready at the top of your page - an excellent song and an excellent choice. I see from the page with the albums you like you have some Porcupine Tree but none of their earlier stuff. Is that because you don't like it or haven't heard it? If its the latter may I recommend "Stupid Dream" to start with? Kelpin 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just dropping by :) Nice blue flamingo. ♥ Fredil 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

How can it be verifiable when it's just the head of delegation's opinion, he knows nothing about what we voted for and nothing about how Malta voted, he was just guessing that's why, as if the whole country would vote in protest or even the majority, the majority of people who voted in the U.k last Scooch 53 or 73 whatever against Cyndi in final, now with many brits living Malta couldn't it be they liked the song aswell, to say it's a protest vote is just one man's guess on a website.

We were on holiday there at the time and when me and my twin voted I can't seem to remember us voting in protest, just for the song's we liked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

On a seperate point even if you insist 23rd(even though tied 22nd is the real position as the tie brake doesn't mention anything below 10) 42 countries competed not just 24 in the final, it should read "finishing tied 22nd out of 42 nations competing over the final and semi-final.--Axel8 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

So if you're saying you believe that Malta fixed the vote than that would make sense but shouldn't this be sourced, i think so. Speaking to many people in Malta they voted for the song. Also you failed to answer my question about 42 nations competing not 22.

Also may I ask why, whenever I to put the article in a more neutral view you immediately shout VANDALISM and acctually try and report it. You may not like the group but doing all in your power to make the group look bad isn't fair. --Axel8 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can't make the pages take any biased view which at the moment the way you word it is very negative.--Demyx9 18:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

p.s An admin, who is a friend of ours, said I should point out I'm Axel's twin otherwise people like you start examining the rule book until you can find something to hold against us.

Hmmm, what I said was make sure that editors are advised you are twins so that the wrong conclusion does not occur...(I also suggested remembering to sign your posts!) However, Sceptre, I would comment that it is inappropriate to claim vandalism over good faith edits - these guys are pretty new to WP and WP:BITE applies. I would request that you discuss the reverts with the twins (I generally copy everything I send to one to the other, and all the replies too) and possibly include User:Arcayne who is familiar with both the twins and the subject. Please AGF and be CIVIL. Thanks, and happy editing. LessHeard vanU 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heya, I just got back from playing in the mud today. Might I ask where the specific points of contention are occurring, please? About marking edits as vandalism, that seems a bit on the non-AGF side; I know the lads are a bit on the edgy side, but vandalism seems a bit over the line. If they are uncivil, say so, as they seem to be fairly reasonable - as I am sure you are as well, judging from all the stars you have at the top of your page. Let's sort this out. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment at my talkpage and, which also helps Arcaynes request above, I would note the two revisions of Flying the Flag (for You) which mentions vandalism as these two. Upon review I realise that they are Twinkle reverts with (what I presume to be) a standardised edit summary, so I am certain that the claim of vandalism was unintended. Of course, given as the twins are pretty new to this, it should be realised that they may not be familiar with Twinkle and assume that what is written is what is meant. Is there a way of amending the edit summary? In the meanwhile I confirm that there is no suggestion that you intended to term them or their edits as vandals/ism. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dude, I've been at this for over a year, and I've never heard of it. It's a bot, right? Perhasp the bot can be re-tasked in such a way that it doesn't call differing edits vandalism. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have now warned this editor. I request that you continue your present softly softly approach. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um... Did you post on my talkpage, rather than User talk:Axel8, or where you responding to A8's comments on my talkpage? LessHeard vanU 20:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks! LessHeard vanU 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was just looking at WP:ANI trying to figure out what to do about an editor I'm having troubles with and I noticed a couple of your comments regarding consensus, which is one of the issues with this editor. I'd really appreciate your opinion if you have the time to spare.

In late December last year several editors, including me, reached consensus that certain information shouldn't be included in an article because it wasn't notable enough for inclusion. Just recently another editor tried to add the information to the article. I reverted his edits and left a message on his talk page about consensus and directed him to the discussion the article's talk page. His response was to immediately revert the changes and justifies it by claiming that we came to consensus for the wrong reason (notability). I've since directed him to Consensus can change but he refuses to discuss the issue before adding the changes.

My interpretation of Consensus can change is that the spirit of the policy, in a nutshell, is this: Editors should not ignore consensus even if they disagree with the reasons for reaching consensus. It's quite acceptable for an editor to try to seek a new consensus but it should be done through discussion and not by arbitrarily deciding that a new consensus has been reached or that the old consensus is no longer valid.

Do you think my interpretation is wrong?

Regards, --AussieLegend 02:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your response. I didn't think I was crazy. Now I have to work out what to do next.

Cheers. --AussieLegend 11:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss on Template_talk:Motorway hcard why the template should be used for coordinate entry instead of the standard templates. --Para 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting the Revenge of the Slitheen entry. I put August because the schools go back in August in Scotland. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Green Day Simpsons.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 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's your basis for [4]? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The categories were caused by short-lived vandalism of the tag abuse type, and have been taken care of. What is the appropriate way to proceed? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, there was nothing suspicious. The accusations are baseless, and by putting a deadline to backing them up with actual evidence, I hope to get that accepted as the consensus.

I will, however, proceed to renominate the article for another review. It's considerably improved after the last review, thanks to Dihydrogen Monoxide's expert advice, and should have no trouble passing the review again. (The primary aim to my question was to determine if WP:GAC or WP:GAR is the more appropriate venue.) Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now, the article has suffered a recent revertwar over silly tags, and is protected over it. There goes my first WP:GA :-( Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Three days…tsk tsk :P :P :P —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  16:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just thought Id let you know that I have removed the following duplicate AFD you posted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Jackson's 10th studio album. An AFD for the same article was still open before you put it up for AFD. If I have made a mistake by removing this AFD, I do apologise. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't take my words offensively, but WHY IN THE BLUE HELL did you nominate Children of Bodom's 6th Studio Album for deletion based upon "crystal ball?" How can it be a crystal ball if there is a sourcable link right there on the page itself, that you can click on and find all the info in firsthand terms? There's new info on it all the time, and it is going to be released. I just want to know what your motives were. Please respond to me, unlike the vast majority of Wikipedians who never say anything back. Prove to me you're different. Dark Executioner 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Dark ExecutionerReply

But the song "Tie My Rope" is out now. That's new. This isn't a band wwho waits 11 centuries to make a new album like GNR. It's gonna happen, dude. Disagree with me as much as you like. Oh, and you didn't tell me WHY you nominated it, like I clearly asked you to. But, I do appreciate your response. I'm getting off the computer now, so I'll get back to you as soon as possible. Dark Executioner 21:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Dark ExecutionerReply

Replying to your statement of "some bands release a single but no album": 7 of the 10 songs for COB's new album have been recorded according to scythes-of-bodom.net. Just letting you know, y'know... The album is coming out, and it needs a page. Dark Executioner 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Dark ExecutionerReply

Thanks! It's good to be back, and glad to see you! I hope the encyclopedia has been treating you well. -- Natalya 11:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

We have a new debate on the same ol' talk page about the same ol' subject. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Thanks for all the noms. Can you please slow down? We have a backlog. Bearian 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Will. I was looking through a list of users that participate in the aforementioned project. I was wondering if you would consider being my admin coach, and if not, there are plenty other users for you to choose from. Wishing you well! Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. I wanted to warn him further, which I have done. I will keep an eye on his edits and if he does it again, I will have to block. With regards to the other(none AFD removal) edits, do you think that the two of you can work something out? TigerShark 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why? Lots of user do that. I can see that this could be causing you frustration, but I think that this could be resolved. Cheers TigerShark 22:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, that doesn't mean that you can't discuss and come to an agreement, it just means that agreement can't violate WP:V or WP:OR. I don't know if you will be able to reach an agreement, I am just suggesting that you try. However, I am not aware of the full history here, so it may well be that you or other have tried. I have made it clear to the user that the removal of AFD notices and the 3RR violation have to stop right now, so hopefully things will calm down. I will keep an eye on the situation. Thanks TigerShark 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

How did they violate WP:NFCC? Which particular criteria? I'm sure that you are aware of the established standard of using a screenshot in the infobox to identify the episode in question for an animated series. As an admin with some experience dealing with such images, I can tell you that prior proposed deletion have been almost universally contested, and that the majority have been ultimately kept (including the FG images I chose not to delete yesterday). If you have a problem with the specific rationales, or with the current practice of using templated rationales, there are several avenues open for discussion. You could try template/image talk pages, WT:NFC, or WP:MCQ, among others. Thoughtlessly tagging images for deletion, however, is not a constructive way of criticizing the basis and justification for fair use. Cherry picking a small sampling of specific episodes is also a poor way of proceeding, so I would like to urge you to gain consensus against the practice of infobox screenshots if you intend to challenge the general usage. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The copyright owner is well-defined and self-evident. I thought you had a real, meaningful concern, not just nitpicking over unimportant minutiae. If you don't like the specific phrasing of any part of the rationale, please feel free to {{sofixit}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you've tagged the soundtrack as containing OR, but it actually doesn't. So perhaps you'd like to list your concerns on the talkpage, as you're supposed to, and then we can discuss them in accordance with the message contained in the tag? Thanks. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Will. That's an awesome whacking flamingo - I just tell people to slap me with a fish. Anyway. The SuccessTech shooting AfD was closed as a speedy keep, the withdrawn nomination and strong support were found to be sufficient. Since you were a proponent for its deletion, I'd like to ask you to let it go for now rather than renominate straight away. (Not saying that you would, but making sure.) For one thing, in my not inconsiderable experience, nominations of articles about recent events in the spotlight have a very strong tendency to end up as massive trainwrecks from which no consensus can emerge. For another, this is not a pressing issue. If the event turns out to be eminently unsuitable in the article, it'll be deleted before too long once the situation has settled down (without the fuss, too). For a third, I had a look at the section of WP:NOT you quoted, and while it lays down some restrictions on making articles on recent events, it doesn't prohibit them, and my interpretation is that the page does not prohibit the SuccessTech shooting article. From what I can see, the same opinion is widely shared. Those are my arguments, and if you don't like them, I've got others and we can discuss them in more detail. Thanks. --Kizor 22:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

A "no" would probably have been more polite, but oh well. --Kizor 01:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for your note. I've reverted his edits, given him a stern warning (!) and will continue to monitor his edits. Hope that'll suffice for now. Do get in touch with me personally if you spot him before me... The Rambling Man 08:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

just letting you know the above links have been fixed, as I had assumed that was just a vandal and not some cleanup group. Anyways i did not revert the episode lists, but added sources, specials, fixed some wording as well. Plus all those edits were explained in numerous locations on all the talk pages as i had mentioned in my posts. I didn't mess with any of the episode pages as there is still a discussion going on about those. Anyways, you are the only one that reverted things there, as it was confirmed the copyright database is sufficient for the american dad and family guy episodes if you would only read the discussions. Anyway people have been and are being contacted later today about your straight up reversion of sourced material. thanks Grande13 12:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Will, I've reverted your re-insertion of "possible episodes", while a script may exist that doesn't mean it will possibly be an episode. If you can provide a reliable source to backup the claim that these will possibly be episodes then please do so, until such a time please be aware that I am challenging the information (therefore you should not reinsert it).

Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.

—Official policy

Have a good afternoon! Matthew 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yah, I know. I still had to send you a message though… couldn't resist :-P. I don't see the point in compromising though as policy is really clear that the content shouldn't exist on Wikipedia, so I don't understand why he's repeatedly re-inserted it. Matthew 13:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I offended you yesterday, it was actually a reference to Billy Crystal. It may have been a Freudian thing, but I didn't mean anything personal. Burntsauce 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. My attempt at reopening debate was deleted three times, until I finally appealed at ANI. Corvus cornix 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't look like vandalism to me, Will. Please AGF and all that. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I recently created the article Slown Down. I see that you uploaded the sound for Bloop, and I do not know how you converted it to an ogg file. I am asking you if you can upload the sound for Slow Down. Respond on my talk page, and please see here for the sound. Thank you.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Trying to help your great AFD. Thought: Would a PROD be easier? Obina 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please reiterate your opinion on the specific case of "Stewie Loves Lois" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewie Kills Lois, whatever your opinion may be. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Please disregard that, I didn't notice "Will" wasn't "User:Will." Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I may as well close 'em – if I relist them they'll sit there for another five days with no comment, so let's be done with it. I _might_ relist the Simon & Garfunkel one because I found a Billboard article about it – but it is a Simon & Garfunkel production, after all, so there's really no telling if the thing will _ever_ be released. I saw them in Dallas on their 2004 tour, and they even started the show 25 minutes late. Oh, wait, you're too young to know how many times they've broken up/reunited/announced a tour/delayed the tour/announced a new tour/cancelled the first tour/broke up again/called each other names/reunited again/cancelled the second tour two years late and on and on. They're a conundrum. *shakes sarong* - KrakatoaKatie 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I honestly doubt that the report was submitted in bad faith (I'm assuming good faith here, of course), and humiliating and attacking him to the point of making him leave, as happened there, is even worse than anything he has done. --Agüeybaná 22:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply