User talk:Ned Scott/archive9

Archives • ℹ
1. 02/06 - 05/06 2. 06/06 3. 07/06 - 08/06 4. 08/06 - 09/06 5. 10/06 - 11/06 6. 11/06 - 01/07 7. 02/07 - 03/07 8. 04/07 - 05/07	9. 05/07 - early 08/07 10. 08/07 - 10/07 11. 11/07 - mid 02/08 12. mid 02/08 - mid 05/08 13. mid 05/08 - mid 07/08 14. mid 07/08 - 11/08 15. 12/08 - 05/09 16. 06/09 - 04/11 17. 05/11 - 06/18

Formatting

I hate to bother you, but I just added a subsection to the merge voting, for the proposed new formatting. I realized that although I was showing people my idea for a new format for the season page, I hadn't actually requested anyone's opinion on it formally. I'd appreciate it if, when you have the time to spare, could speak your opinion on the proposed new format for the season pages as well. I appreciate any time you take out to address that. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence on the Aquaman FAC. Just wait till you see what I have in-store for Pilot (Smallville). I just finished the DVD commentary for the episode and I got a lot of great stuff. 3 pages of legal pad, which is more than I got from the Fight Club DVD commentary. I was really surprised by how much relevant content I got from it. I think people might be really impressed with the amount of information that is going to be in this article when it's finished.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that merge kill two birds with one stone if the result is delete?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible, although since the instructions were not apart of the original nomination it would be fair to say that a separate MfD should be held for it. In any case, this addresses at least 2 of the deletion supporters, making the current count 9 keep to 4 delete. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd contact them to make sure they are still following. They may never come back, and thus never change their vote...that is if they intend to change their vote after all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Because if we are going the "hold discussions on the parent talk page" then the template becomes obsolete, since we are putting a link on the review page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

re: image protection

Thanks for the heads up. Er, was that an unprotection request? :) Riana ⁂ 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

*shrug*, I have no need to edit the image page, but I thought you might like to know. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat

Please stop re-adding the notice regarding the DRV and merits of the closure to the above MfD, it's quite pointy that you keep on doing it. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is being disrupted, and it was originally added because I thought Newyorkbrad (the closing admin) was ok with it. I've moved the note to the talk page, as Brad suggested to me incase anyone had an issue with the note being on the main page. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And I had self-reverted the change, but it would seem we both made the change at the same time. So kindly get off my back. -- Ned Scott 06:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

.....I love the edit summary[1]! Ryan Postlethwaite 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning what? -- Ned Scott 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning nothing, I just thought it was funny. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh.. :) -- Ned Scott 08:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sig changes

This is, in fact, done for privacy reasons. I noticed some questionable websites use mirrored Wikipedia talk pages to lure visitors via search engines, and don't want my full name appearing on those in the future. I hope you understand. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense.. -- Ned Scott 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On BJAODN

I wasn't singling him out. If you'd like to add references about others agreeing with the action, that's fair. But why delete the date of the action or the reference to the decision? Would you consider rolling back your deletion, or at least editing it? It feels unfair to me that my contributions to the page are being summarily deleted.

If we compare:

On May 30, 2007, citing concerns he had about this section violating GFDL due to lack of edit histories, an admin deleted nearly all of the content of BJAODN.

vs.

In 2007, due to concerns raised about this project violating GFDL, many of the pages where content from deleted articles had been copied and pasted here, rather than renamed so that edit history was preserved, were deleted.

The former has an exact date and reference and actor. The latter removes the actor, the exact date, and the reference. Furthermore, it is more accurate by far to say that nearly all of the content was deleted than "many of the pages" were deleted. How is the latter text preferable? If there are elements of the former you find objectionable, I would certainly consider it reasonable that you revise them. But what is the justifcation for reverting my edit summarily? Yours, The Cunctator 13:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no point to it. If you want the stuff back then stop complaining and help attribute the sources using copies of the pages found on mirrors and Google cache, that's what I plan on doing. -- Ned Scott 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stokke

Sorry, edit conflict :/ Haukur 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I think I edit conflicted with Doc too. Doesn't bother me much. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re HD DVD Digg image

You said 'using an image to post "the numbers" to get past the text filter is not acceptable. We can not display these numbers on Wikipedia'

Well actually the image is not keyspam it is relevant to the article in question. There is no policy that says the numbers cannot be displayed, I suggest you check out WP:CENSOR.

Also your speedy delete was blocked 'this is not a CSD criterion and there is no "ban"; the number was added to the spam blacklist due to spamming in several unrelated articles' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lmatt (talk • contribs).

You're like a month late for that message. This issue has long since been cleared up. -- Ned Scott 19:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN

Ned, I'm concerned with how you described the AN/I report on TTN's page. I honestly appreciate you rewriting your comment, but please - what, exactly, is the alternative to a report? (I mean, it's certainly not like I go that route every day - I think I've filed maybe two other AN/I reports in the entire time I've been here, both of which were deemed entirely appropriate. I'm also not one to toss around "Wikipedisms" like "good faith" and "NPA" when things don't go my way.)

I'm dealing with an editor who is deleting like mad, who is ignoring the opinions of others, and who is responding with rudeness and disdain. If it were a simple content dispute in an article, or something similar, then normal procedures might be applicable. However, one has to take into account the speed at which TTN is proceeding, the approach he/she is taking, and the disruption it is causing in the community. Given that, and also given that I 'm not interested in an edit war, what, exactly, are my alternatives? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ned, sorry to bother you about this, but it was a serious question. I know we've got different opinions about the matter of the episodes. Putting that aside, however, and speaking generally (not specifically about TTN): if you were in my position, how would you have approached it? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably be really pissed off, to be honest. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Strengthening WP:EPISODE

There must be a way to just strengthen WP:EPISODE enough to just allow us to nuke these things right away. Even if my "editing problem" is solved with unneeded discussions and an attitude comparable to flowers, people will still find a little loop to tug on. Any ideas? TTN 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not really you, it's just the nature of Wikipedia. People will defend and fight for these things, because they've spent so much time on them, and have gotten used to them. I've been in their shoes before, and it's a tricky situation. I don't think we'll be able to nuke things quickly, at least not any time soon. One thing I've noticed that really helps people get on board is for them to see what else they can do for Wikipedia. People don't like feeling useless, having their main tasks being taken out from under them. Often, these same editors don't realize the true potential they have, and the true potential of the articles related to the shows they're working on.

People seem to get set off when they see us telling them one thing, but they're seeing something else actually happen (such as "if only certain episodes should have articles then why are there so many?", etc). If we acknowledge this in our messages it seems to make a better impact (saying something like "While there are many TV shows with articles for each episode, this is usually undesired and is often due to a misunderstanding of what episodes are notable or not").

Remember that we're all on the same side. Even with a neutral message, and no real intention of "battle", people get ready to duke it out when seems like one of those situations. And a lot of times we have pent up situations, like episode articles, or those episode screen shots in lists. It gets pent up until it just explodes. While the explosion can often help us, and cause for quick and somewhat easy change, it's a messy way of doing things, and puts many editors at odds with each other. I sometimes seem to have a Jekyll and Hyde thing going, I notice in myself, where I often forget these things and just go into "battle mode". When I'm calm, like now, I feel like it's possible to help the other editors understand the situation we're in. Other times I've just had it, and feel there's no excuse for what's going on, and want to see it changed right away.

Do we need to stop and discuss these things? Probably not, and that's ok, but there's going to be a lot of energy from these editors, and they're going to want to vent, express, and feel some control about these articles. The control they have, and the true potential of the articles, is what we need to help them see. This thing with one episode per article, with just plot summary and trivia, that's an old format that easily locks readers out of finding great information about these shows.

I'm not really sure if any of this is helpful. I think I'm pretty much just ranting to myself, since you got me thinking about the situation, and it's been on my mind for a while. I might even be reminding myself by writing all this stuff up. What was the question?

One thing I do really want to do is find ways to get these guidelines and advice out to new editors in a better way. They learn to make a new episode article from example. Being influenced from guidelines doesn't happen as easily, and often people don't know they exist unless they actually seek them out. Like, what if there was a 3rd tab for each article, like "Article" "Talk" and "Guidelines". I also had an idea where something could even replace talk page banners, and would include the guideline links and links to WikiProjects, etc, in a more cleaner and space-conscious format. -- Ned Scott 22:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a lot longer than I thought it was :) -- Ned Scott 22:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a good read, though, and worth scanning by all parties in this. Right now, there's a big divide - "virtually no articles" versus "an article for everything", with little in the way of a middle ground. And yet, I can't help but feel that the solution to this lies somewhere in that middle... that both sides will have to compromise, and perhaps come out of it with something better. Expanded "list of" articles, far more single-episode articles than one side wants (but far less than what the other does), perhaps some sort of "hybrid" partial-season/multi-part articles, or separate "plot" articles that expand on the episode lists - or something completely new.

Perhaps "strengthening the guideline is what we need. However, I think "strengthening" means something more - something better - than just "a way to nuke stuff". It needs to include a fair process for assessment, for merging (if appropriate), and for a "waiting period". I think the latter is key, for two reasons: first, it gives contributors a chance to prove that they can bring the article up to standard, while establishing a deadline so that things don't drag on. Second, it prevents what has happened over the past few days, with large-scale deletions without consultations. (I think we have to take a positive view of such a merge process; I've seen it work many times with regards to characters and other series-related subjects.)

Finally, I think there should be some onus on the editor who proposes the merge to actually take steps to incorporate the single-episode data into the merge target. (Otherwise, the work is dumped on those who come after - and it isn't always easy to find data if you don't know where it is.) Like it or not, Wikipedia is now a storage location for a whole slew of somewhat rare information. It may be easy to find websites with text about Lost, or CSI, but not so much for older and lesser known productions. There is also a real advantage to presenting it on Wikipedia, as opposed to Wikia or TV.com or "Joe's Server Farm" - not the least of which being that we are able to filter out speculation etc.

Sorry for taking up a lot of space on your page, but I just started "thinking out loud" after reading your piece above. I'd like to know what you think. Cheers --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline

Agreed, we're getting circular. I'm afraid compromise will be difficult if we can't even agree on logos, which are probably the least controversial fair use images. So one group says "stock rationales are never acceptable" and the other says "stock rationales are often fine". I'm afraid the average user is not going to know what to make of this without guidance, and we can't guide if we can't agree. Any ideas on how to move forward? I think I'm stumped. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The way forward is keeping the guideline as it was. The consensus still stands, it's just that there is now a large vocal minority that has been stirred up because of the mass tagging. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to let you know

I'm sure you'll be shocked and appalled to realise that both the TV series projects of which you are a member have hundreds of articles that should be redirected under the policy you are arguing for with TTN. In fact, the Stargate SG-1 project even outlines how to create these episode articles in a manner that would warrant their deletion...[2] You could even combine two of your causes into one and delete redirect them yourself! Anyway, you're welcome. Conor 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't told me anything I didn't already know. The only reason I haven't redirected them myself is because I've got other things I wish to work on right now. But hey, nice attempt on trying to prove a point, better luck next time. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So I didn't prove my point because you 'have other things you wish to work on', not at all because you're afraid to do it, or you like having those articles? Yes, I really can't argue against that kind of logic, ouch.Conor 11:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to go assume some bullshit that has nothing to back it up, fine. -- Ned Scott 18:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Response

I don't know why you made the message - I'm pretty certain that I've calmed down well enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nova (English school in Japan)

You are requested to stop personal attacks and to discuss the removal of the warning message on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not required to discuss before removing misleading and false warnings from the talk page. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You were asked to discuss the removal of the warning message on the talk page. Instead you chose to editwar and indulge in personal attacks. You have been reported to the Admin noticeboard. [3]. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying the message made you look like a dick was not intended to be a personal attack. It was intended to express to you that you were making yourself look like a dick. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You said: "I understand that, but you're being a dick in the process". "You're" not "you look like". Throwing around insults is not acceptable on WP. It is unecessarily combative and does not assume good faith. In future, please be more careful with your tone. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what I said, and I'm telling you what I meant. I probably could have said that with better words, but screaming to AN/I that I'm giving you waves of personal attacks is just bullshit. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to say nasty stuff, but the point of WP is to find consensus, through discussion. Coming into a page and just deleting stuff without discussion (when there is a discussion about the item) is bad faith and personally attacking me for replacing the item is simply not acceptable. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally attacking you, I'm sorry I fucked up on the wording, I'm sorry I was rude, but I am NOT personally attacking you. I do not know you, I do not want to know you, and I do not wish to comment on your character. I will, however, comment on the impression the warning message made. Big-freaking-difference. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. After a little calm-down time, I'd be happy to discuss your comments about the warning message with you on the talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I got so heated with all of that. I could have avoided much of it with a better word choice, and that was my fault. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(<-) No problem. It's easy to get caught up in these things. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it Ned. [4]David Lyons 13:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

! Why that little.... -- Ned Scott 06:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode notability template

I was just wondering if the episode notability template can be used now. When you put it on one episode you called it a test case, and the template isn't widely used right now. I've been trying to follow the discussion on the WP:Episode page, but I'm not sure right now if it's saying that the template can be used at any time by anyone yet, or if it's still in the testing stages and shouldn't be used until everything is worked out. Phydend 16:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm just kind of seeing what happens when people see the tag. I guess you could start using it now, and it would all work out, but just remember that there is no formalized review process or anything like that (we're still getting all those details down). Even without a reviewing process, the template at least points out that an episode article should assert notability. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I had tagged some King of the Hill episodes hoping that at least someone would notice and clean up or something. I wasn't planning on going all hardcore and start tagging every episode that I think needs it yet (although I did tag a few more than I was planning), and I'll just try and keep up with the discussion to see how the review process comes along. Phydend 14:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So it seems we'll eventually have to go back to doing another community consensus, this time with a different name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nice comment

Thank you, but what articles are you talking about? Do you mean just in general?--十八 07:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary on Wikipedia:Spoiler

and you guys proved my point. you have an issue with Tony and the others far more than you have an issue with the guideline, which was a compromise to prevent total removal

It seems you are hinting that we should consider other ways to resolve this 'issue'. Could you elaborate? Personally, I think that the problem is tied up with the guideline; the 'compelling argument' section sounds reasonable but in fact grants the anti-spoiler admins veto power over every spoiler tag on Wikipedia. It is not a consensus to prevent total removal, since total removal is what is happening.--Nydas^(Talk) 19:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, total removal is what has happened. --Kizor 21:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Spoiler tags can now be inserted in appropriate articles where a compelling reason exists under the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why the anti-spoiler side does not hold veto power under the guideline. --Kizor 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If I knew what that meant, I might try to explain. There is no veto that I'm aware of. If editors on the talk page of an article about a fictional subject find that there's a compelling reason for a spoiler tag somewhere in the article, it'll most likely end up with a spoiler tag. If they don't it won't. --Tony Sidaway 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Poke for Talk:Nikki Fernandez

In response to what you said at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulo (Lost) about merging the two articles. I am getting opposition for this proposal which I now support. --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Montana episodes

I have a question. Why did you put up all of those notability boxes on the Hannah Montana epsisodes? I checked most of them. They all show clear notability, no false information, no useless information, and are all written in encyclopedia form. Why did you put these boxes up? --69.236.183.47 02:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles show no indication that the episode in question is independently notable, or even has enough real-world information to warrant it's own article. Episode articles need to be more than just plot summary and basic credits. It might help if you check out WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:QuackGuru

The removal of warnings is not prohibited. If you want to see if he was warned, just check the history. If he is engaging in the same activity he was warned about before, give him a stronger warning. — Moe ε 07:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

An unfortunate guideline that allows users like Quack to mislead others with their talk page. If he wants to complain about me restoring a warning on his talk page, then let him, otherwise there's no reason for you to be giving me a lecture. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the harsh response. I've seen Quack canvass to newbies in the past to get a leg up on disputes. Him removing comments from his talk page, but leaving a welcoming template, is particularly misleading. It's not worth pressing the issue, though. -- Ned Scott 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

State languages

Hi - I noticed (and reverted) this edit. Official language does vary by state, some don't have one, some have passed laws designating English as their sole official language, some (e.g. Hawaii) have laws including other languages. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Allo.
I've posted my take on your comments on the anime/dragonball project page. However, I'll understand if you aren't interested in continuing with the discussion there (whether because of heated arguments, or simply because it simply doesn't matter that much). If you aren't interested in continuing about it, for the sake of the namechange, I was wondering if you could still address my questions, say on my talk page; simply because I'd rather understand how the naming conventions work before the topic comes up again. Bladestorm 01:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ditto for me too. I don't understand how articles like the Sailor Moon one's can be considered GA status while basing info and naming from the manga, but doing the same here would be violation. On the flip side, using the western order of Goku Son would be entirely unfamiliar, as it has never been presented that way (official English sources use Son Goku/Gohan/Goten). Onikage725 01:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP Policy

It seems the BLP policies need to be more carefully written before too many articles get deleted for no reason. I hope you can help. This is too difficult for little old me to handle. Good luck. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, about your recent edits

Hello, I think you're getting a little hot under the collar. I'm sorry if my editing has been the cause of that.

I notice for instance that you reverted me twice on the Wheel war guideline without responding to my comment on the talk page in any way, and even on the second revert said "Rv, right back at you. You're the last person (besides Jeff) that should be editing these pages. Bring it to discussion -before- making changes to policy".

There are several problems with that edit summary, and I'll list them one by one:

1. You say I should not be editing the policy. You do not indicate why not. As it stands it looks like a pure personal attack, and even if explained it would be hard to read, I suspect, as something other than a personal attack.

2. You make a second revert without, as I requested, responding to my comment on the talk page.

3. You make a nitpicking point: "Bring it to discussion -before- making changes to policy". You're an experienced editor and administrator. You know we're not a bureaucracy. It's rude and wrong to make a revert to any edit without indicating a substantive objection.

I could comment on your other recent edits, some of which are just as aggressive and unenglightening, but I'll concentrate on the abovementioned case.

Is there something that I'm missing? Why are you behaving so aggressively and so uncommunicatively? --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. I object to your wording choice and the misconception that it gives admins some kind of special authority to start doing BLP deletions by their judgement alone. I would like to ask you why you are being so aggressive for these changes, so suddenly and without any discussion? These are policy pages, and it's not unreasonable to ask you to discuss how these things will be worded, or if any change is even needed, before adding them. Especially when it's been such a controversial issue with so many different views on the matter. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, first I'm sorry for saying you're an admin. I've seen you around and you seem to be pretty sensible.

One statement by you above, I think we should discuss.

You say you object to my "wording choice and the misconception that it gives admins some kind of special authority to start doing BLP deletions by their judgement alone."

Hmm, maybe I'm completely and totally misreading this principle adopted (6-0-0) by the arbcom:

Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

Could you explain your interpretation of this? Then we can discuss detail.

On discussion, I think you'll find that I have done my best to create a discussion on each edit I have made, not only today but throughout my very long and successful history of editing the policies by which you and I live when we're on-wiki. I apologise if there is any single instance of an edit to policy where I did not create a parallel discussion. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, Tony. That principle is likely to pass, but wait until the case closes, please! :-) Carcharoth 10:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive navigation boxes

I have just archived the old talk at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, to free page for more discussion once the wikiprojects come on board. However, I couldn't work out how to add a new archive to your excellent navigation box, so I pasted in the old one as a temporary aid. But I'm afraid I can't figure out how to restore the nav box to include my new archive 3. Sorry to have mucked it up. Hoping you can fix it (and perhaps show me how you did it so I don't get myself in a mess again). :) Gwinva 09:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wheee

Hi Scott! With respect to that Wii point mess, an editor suggested to me that perhaps we should delete the list entirely, as arguably it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. Thinking about it, I must note it seems to lack reliable external sources, and is plausibly a copyvio considering the Nintendo site contains pretty much the same list. What is your opinion on this? >Radiant< 09:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Juice Plus

Please be aware that you are close to violating the three revert rule on the article. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page which you appear to think holds no merit, however, we would be welcome to have you join if you'd like to discuss your concerns with the article. Shell ^babelfish 06:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.. I've read them. Take a look at those links I left on your talk page. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was involved in a lot of those discussions and the RfC, so I'm quite well aware. The problem is that while we're having on-going discussions about some of the issues in the article, you're re-introducing some pretty serious flaws like the FDA data which was called a bad report and withdrawn by the FDA itself. I just don't see anything so horrible about the article that requires more edit warring instead of using the dialog we finally got going between all parties. Shell ^babelfish 06:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violating the three-revert rule on Juice Plus. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As one of the involved editors, I would like to say that I would support unblocking Ned Scott, if he is willing to avoid editing the Juice Plus article, and simply participate at the talkpage. --Elonka 04:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm done with that article completely. The dispute is not worth the frustration or effort that, as Deckiller has pointed out to me below, could be better spent doing other things. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ned, are you into Final Fantasy XI? We're planning a FA push with that article. I also agree with the unblock, especially if he decides to take on other projects. — Deckiller 04:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help, but I haven't played the game before. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't played it either; most of us in the project haven't played it. The main concern is the gameplay section. It's been split (and the subarticle has been merged into another subarticle), so it needs a lot of trimming. By 2/3 at least. — Deckiller 04:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Ned, I have a suggestion, and don't take this the wrong way; the entire Juice Plus thing is silly for both sides (especially the "buddy-editing" as you rightfully put it), and reminds me of the opening act of World War I (which I'm sure you've studied).

There have been a few instances where you seem to get entrenched in debates. With your most recent block and contributions to the Juice Plus debate, I see it more prudent than ever to point this out to you. There is no need to get so passionate about minor things or things that your friends/enemies are involved in. It is not productive and often just complicates the situation when users bring their friends into their discussions (a reason why I've been avoiding Juice Plus like a plague). I've noticed this with everything from the early policy debates to the handicapped symbols to Juice Plus (which you seemed to randomly pop into).

You might enjoy passionate debates and arguments or getting entrenched into a side for the challenge of proving your point (I recommnd a debate class when you go to college if you're into that sort of thing), but it can eat you alive, trust me. I know firsthand, because I used to be similar in discussions a few years ago. Here's what I suggest: take some time off the controversial discussions and work on articles. Try elevating a few articles to GA status. It will give you a newfound respect for the project, and will let you return to these issues or other issues (if you choose) with a fresh perspective and a positive attitude. Try to choose uncontroversial articles, like video game articles or spoorts players. This should cure the problem easily.

Hopefully you'll take this advice into consideration. — Deckiller 15:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that you should focus more on article editing for some time. Perhaps elevate a few articles to GA status or something. This will give you a new perspective IMO. Matthew needs to do the same right now. — Deckiller 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked

Block on account itself was lifted, but autoblock message still comes up. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I think SlimVirgin's version is significantly better, as I noted in my edit summary. Crum375 14:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

replied. -- Ned Scott 15:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's version is considerably better. Besides copy-edits, other issues have been addressed before, such as the use of 'material' instead of information and the need for sensitivity to the subject. Simply comparing her version to yours, hers seems better written and closer to our BLP goals. If I need to choose between them, I choose the better one. Crum375 15:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The specific diff you provided seems to be mostly a copy-edit style issue. I think the one that starts with the concept of consensus is better than the one that starts with DRV. As far as the overall editing strategy, all policies and guidelines are in constant change - that is the wiki concept. If I come across two versions, I tend to choose the better one. Crum375 16:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't help me understand your logic. And yeah, all pages are always changing, I know that, don't treat me like some new user. My point is that changes that do not reflect consensus or may become misleading should be discussed. -- Ned Scott 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Bark

The emmy thing cannot be the sole indicator of notability. That combined into a paragraph or two of other points would work, but one sentence that could easily fit in an overall notability section of the series doesn't work well. TTN 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

True. Hmm.. I think the wording of the template should be changed. Asserting anything is likely to be abused as a loophole. -- Ned Scott 23:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The nomination is a good start, it should mean that critics have written about it. But if they haven't, we can't have a reception section that goes "it was nominated for an emmy. the end."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a "What asserts notability?" section somewhere (Do we already have one?) and link to it from the template. TTN 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but does this not sound slightly pompous toward the show, "it's notable because it's an episode of Futurama".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's like that. I doubt he even has seen the show. He's just on a everything is notable kick. We should probably be ready for a mass removal of the tags. TTN 23:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the funny thing. I randomly clicked some episodes, and the tags are still there. Maybe they just hadn't gotten to them yet, but I picked one in the first season and it doesn't take that much to remove a tag. Notice how he doesn't participate in the discussion on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, only two have been touched (JPS), and only JB has actually had much done to it. I won't put it past Matthew to start removing them based upon "consensus" pretty soon. TTN 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, don't get me started. If we lived by Matt's ideas we'd have to have consensus before we fixed a typo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep

Do NOT speedy keep discussions on templates YOU WROTE. You are not an administrator and this is evidence of showing WP:OWNership of the template. -N 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is the second warning you are receiving. You are violating Wikipedia policy. Do not show speedy keep a template you wrote. -N 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the policy says "If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place." -- Ned Scott 23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

• WARNING, you are violating Wikipedia policy WP:OWN by speedy keeping a discussion on a template you wrote. Cease and desist or I will report you. -N 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You fail to understand very basic concepts here on Wikipedia. Go ahead, report me, it will only show how you and Matthew have been disruptive and down right ignorant about this entire issue. -- Ned Scott

The template and category for episode review

As you created the template for episode notability, I presume you have at least a modicum of coding knowledge. The category does not allow for removal of automated entries; i.e. the only currently listed entry, The Road to Audition cannot be removed once a decision is made. If you know how to fix this, please do. Thanks. Alcemáe T • C 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? If the episode establishes notability you just remove the template. -- Ned Scott 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Alcemáe T • C 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't exactly work. You can see the code, instead of a link. I also think it needs to be made in a larger font so that people can see that there was a change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

# messes it up. Not sure if the link will be able to directly point to the section. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If scrolling is all they have to do to find their article, then they can scroll. At least it provides a link directly to the page. Can we make it bigger, because it's going to be a major discussion (some will) and I don't want someone going "well I didn't notice the tag had any change to it". If it's in their face, they can't deny we didn't try to let them know about the review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Silly me, good work on the template so far though. I like how all we have to do is add a "yes" and not have to worry about copying/pasting a new template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The message itself is kind of sloppy, but at least it's something for now. -- Ned Scott 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That didn't make it bigger. Don't worry about it then, you've done a great job with it already. Will fend off any nay sayers if they say we didn't alert them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

finally!

VanTucky has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Thank you for finally being the only other user so far with the balls to delete that horrendous list of toupee wearers!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

VanTucky 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind stopping tagging articles please?

Good job on tagging articles with the notability tag. However, I am beginning to realize the vast amount of work that is about to be unleashed. I would request that you stop tagging articles for now. There are enough articles tagged, and if we have thousands of articles to be reviewed, it will probably not be manageable. We do not currently have an efficient, decided course of evaluation, and if we have a thousand page backlog, it won't help it. Also, moving articles from the cat to be reviewed is annoying. Again, I would ask that you stop using the template for now, until we have a workable system to edit. Thanks for the work though :) Alcemáe T • C 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done any mass tagging (I did a one show's worth and a handful of others), but yeah, I've already noticed that we now have something like 700 articles that are using the template. I was hoping we'd be able to slide into the process more gently, having some time to tweak the review process. I guess we'll have to figure out something o.O -- Ned Scott 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Virtual Console games (North America)

There are no strong arguments against Wii Points, and the overwhelming consensus is to include the points. So why did you remove them? Especially since the issue is still being discussed. I would think an admin would know better than to do what you are doing. TJ Spyke 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There certainly are strong arguments against them. Consensus is not formed by a vote count or by how passionate people are about their position. And I'm not an admin. -- Ned Scott 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Find this interesting

Matthew cited "WP:DEADLINE" in his nomination, yet there was the clear stated about notability in that essay he neglected to mentioned, but as I was looking at it, I found Wikipedia:The world will not end tomorrow. He must have not noticed this article in the "See also" section, because it goes on to state that (and it's an essay, not a guideline) about how notability should be established with diligence, and not rushed, and that there are few instances with notability is instantaneous. I think we could probably use both of these essays to our advantage on the WP:EPISODE page and the other pages, because they both show a good insightful opinion on how to handle the notability of articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea. -- Ned Scott 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation

You have been blocked for 48 hours for a WP:3RR violation on WP:BLP, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ned Scott reported by SlimVirgin (result:48_hours). When you return, please use the Talk: page to discuss changes, rather than reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What? no, please, I was trying to update the wording, I swear. I got my block message when trying to save the page with this edit:

"Administrators should seek consensus before undeleting another administrator's action. This is especially true for deletions where this policy is cited, due to the sensitivity of the situation. Where possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the deletion to other administrators, by e-mail if the material is sensitive; administrators and other editors who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to Deletion review, but any protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative."

I swear to you, I was not trying to revert war, at all. It was an accident, I didn't think I had reverted the page to the old version, honestly. -- Ned Scott 00:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ned, I was actually about to request another 3RR block on you for the Juice Plus article, since you've got 4 reverts there in 26 hours. I would also point out that you were just 3RR blocked on that article a few days ago, and I actually supported the concept that you be unblocked, if you promised that you'd participate at the talkpage instead of revert-warring on the article. At 04:27 on June 24 you agreed and said, "I'm done with that article completely." So you were unblocked, and then at 21:49 on June 24, you were right back to Juice Plus and edit-warring again.[5] I think this time you just need to sit out the block. Take a break, go do something off-wiki for awhile. --Elonka 01:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You've also violated the 3RR, but I like how you leave that out. I also like how you deliberately make your edits misleading to hide that. Elonka, you're the last person who should be talking about not revert warring. -- Ned Scott 02:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ned, it's clear you've been reverting an awful lot recently. You were just blocked for 3RR 3 days ago, and got yourself unblocked after you promised to stop editing the article, only to return almost immediately to reverting there. I think you need to take this time off to re-think your approach to editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Your last three blocks were generously overturned, but it's time you actually sit one out. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Read it again, I was unblocked because it wasn't a 3RR violation. This time around, I honestly meant to save in a newer version, but I must have gotten my windows mixed up. If you want to snag me on a technicality, go ahead, but blocks are not to punish editors. -- Ned Scott 02:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And editors acting in good faith to keep our policies from being abused should not be treated like this. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion (part 2)

Ned, I have a suggestion, and don't take this the wrong way; the entire Juice Plus thing is silly for both sides (especially the "buddy-editing" as you rightfully put it), and reminds me of the opening act of World War I (which I'm sure you've studied).

There have been a few instances where you seem to get entrenched in debates. With your most recent block and contributions to the Juice Plus debate, I see it more prudent than ever to point this out to you. There is no need to get so passionate about minor things or things that your friends/enemies are involved in. It is not productive and often just complicates the situation when users bring their friends into their discussions (a reason why I've been avoiding Juice Plus like a plague). I've noticed this with everything from the early policy debates to the handicapped symbols to Juice Plus (which you seemed to randomly pop into).

You might enjoy passionate debates and arguments or getting entrenched into a side for the challenge of proving your point (I recommnd a debate class when you go to college if you're into that sort of thing), but it can eat you alive, trust me. I know firsthand, because I used to be similar in discussions a few years ago. Here's what I suggest: take some time off the controversial discussions and work on articles. Try elevating a few articles to GA status. It will give you a newfound respect for the project, and will let you return to these issues or other issues (if you choose) with a fresh perspective and a positive attitude. Try to edit uncontroversial articles, like video game articles or spoorts players. Don't get involved in debates/disputes. This should cure the problem easily.

Hopefully you'll take this advice into consideration. — Deckiller 02:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deck, tell me you didn't just copy and paste that. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I did. I highly recommend you heed this advice. You clearly have too much potential, intelligence, and enthusiasm to get lost in endless debates and blocks due to accidental slips. I used to enjoy participating in many debates as well, but it became detrimental to my output. — Deckiller 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I don't enjoy it at all. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate what you are saying, though. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't enjoy it, then perhaps you should try GA/FA writing. It's much more enjoyable, more rewarding, and more beneficial. — Deckiller 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:DHARMA

Template:DHARMA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Wikipedical 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Dated notability template

Seems to be a slight problem, as the template has not added some episodes to the category when it should have, and we cannot figure out why. See discussion midway down Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage/Articles for review#King of the Hill. Thanks, Gwinva 19:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I found the problem. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott

Ned, if you disagree with my executive decision based upon guidelines and policy then please bring it up on the talk page. But sheesh, don't start revert warring the moment you get off your latest 3RR block. I'm ready to converse, are you? Matthew 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nice cheap shot, but it won't work. Not every revert is a revert war, Matthew. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And even if you remove the tags again, we'll just manually link to each of those articles and review them anyways. By removing the tags you only prevent other editors from being informed and becoming involved in the discussion. You can't actually stop the review process. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes

Hey Ned, I just nominated List of Lost episodes for Featured List status again and was hoping you could support or comment on the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 07:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Shome mishtake shurely

"SlimVirgin does an awesome job most of the time, but she's not perfect."

What??!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WAF rewrite, a personal invitation

My proposed rewrite isn't "set in stone" at all, i.e. I'm very much interested to learn which parts of my rewrite you regard as useful (if only as useful starting points of a rewrite). For example, dropping sections is not a necessary part of the rewrite, it's just an idea I've had when I worked on the proposal.

You see, after spending several hours on it, I'd love to see it go somewhere instead of being roundly rejected, particularly since I did all the work on it: Others haven't as of yet taken the opportunity (and my invitation) to edit it, extensively if necessary, so the main opinion currently represented in the proposal is unfortunately merely my own. I'd like to see others join in, simply because I believe a rewrite could do the guideline good.

Maybe this precise point can serve as the kick-off to a hopefully fruitful discussion: In your own opinion, is a rewrite of WAF generally necessary in the first place? If so, which parts of it do need a rewrite, which don't? And which parts of my proposal do you agree to (in terms of being salvageable for a scaled down rewrite)?

—AldeBaer (c) 14:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on my lunch break right now, so I can't really go into detail, but I was thinking more about this today. It might simply be that we need to drop the sections for WAF, like you said, but maybe make some kind of glue / in-between pages for WAF and FICT. Like a guideline series for fiction that flows well, with pages leading into other pages. -- Ned Scott 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds definitely promising. I think I'm beginning to better understand where you're coming from when you say you'd rather not delete those sections. Did you have something specific in mind as to the areas/topics to be covered? —AldeBaer (c) 23:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability -- Popular culture

Ned, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Popular culture. I'm mentioning this to you because (a) you edit pop culture articles and (b) you seem to be a sensible chap whenever I've seen you around. There's a high chance you'll disagree with my position but I hope you can add something useful to the debate. You'll be more familiar with the relevant feature list quality articles than I am, for example. Colin°^Talk 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

The acrimony seems to have died down at WP:V and people are now co-operating on a single compromise version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reivew

Hey- you might just want to leave it alone. Most of the people who have been active in the discussion at TV:Review and such have agreed that we don't really want a deletion review, as it will be lengthy, and it doesnt really matter. Most people are for reviewing immediately. I encourage you to look here for the discussion. Thanks. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The review process was a second feature of the template. The first was simply to mark articles the same way {{notability}} does, as well as date stamp it. It was an improper closure, whether the review process uses it or not. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Despite being warned, you continued to be incivil - so I have blocked you for 12 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an extreme over-reaction. -- Ned Scott 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've been incivil for months. Mere warnings didn't seem to help. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, especially when I thought we were on good terms, even if we both disagreed about some things. I honestly do not think that the majority of my interactions with people in the last few months, or for my entire time on Wikipedia, has been uncivil. Finding a few examples of heated discussions over some of our most heated topics (fair use of images) is not a fair example of how I interact with people. -- Ned Scott 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that we've got along well lately. At the same time, you need to understand that incivility is never appropriate. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, but this was all within a few minutes, and I didn't even see it was an admin leaving me the warning. I'm not even sure what the first message was talking about, but I had gotten the impression that someone was simply poking their head in and acting like one of those people that love to point out other people's typos. I should have taken the time to read Ryan's message, instead of shooting first and asking questions later, but I didn't think the situation was anywhere near where Ryan felt it was. Incivility is never appropriate, but I'm also human. -- Ned Scott 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are going to start reading and considering people's comments and stop swearing at them when you delete the comments? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I will resume reading and considering other people's comments, and not swearing at them, as I usually do. -- Ned Scott 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. But please understand that now you really don't have an excuse if you do it again. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be a fool to not learn from this. -- Ned Scott 01:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ned Scott (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've talked with Ryan via IRC on #wikipedia-en-unblock. I tried to explain that this situation (two user messages being removed from my talk page with an edit summary of "fuck off") was the result of a short heated moment where I was not thinking straight. I had not taken the time to read his warning to me, nor did I even read who had left it. Like I said, I wasn't thinking. He declined to unblock me, but said "Ryanpostle: However, that's me - if another admin wants to review your block, then that's cool"

It was just a short burst of frustration, and that moment has passed. I do not normally swear in discussion, and more often than not, I am a reasonable guy who is respectful of others. -- Ned Scott 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A consensus at ANI is that the block should stand.— Chaser - T 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I want to lift the block, but I have to get a consensus of sysops to do so. The ANI post is here. It may be slow with many American sysops celebrating Independence Day. Please be patient.--Chaser - T 02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, I was wondering if you would be able to point out Elonka's misleading statement. She's done this before, for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Evidence presented by Radiant. Her assertion that I violated the 3RR is made by her counting a revert I did to myself, 24 hours before. Regardless if I'm blocked or unblocked, what she is saying is slanderous. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ned, slander is a strong word. Perhaps you want to rethink that? --Elonka 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, let's not restart a dispute that ended a week ago.--Chaser - T 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chaser, she's lying to you, blatantly manipulating the situation. A user who I was in a dispute with is somehow able to sway your opinion about my unblock request. Do you not see something wrong here? I thank you for taking the time to consider the unblock, I really do appreciate it. But if you don't see this conflict of interest, with a user who has been well documented by several admins in good standing for manipulation and making misleading comments, I don't know what to say. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ned, you're giving Elonka too much credit. Do you really think I'd just take the opinion of someone you'd had prior disputes with and not investigate the situation myself? Don't assume because I said her example changed my opinion that I think the same thing she said or that I took her word for it. In any case, no sysop favored lifting the block (so the issue is moot).--Chaser - T 03:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Her example was fundamentally flawed, and only two sysops responded.

They are acting like no one ever gets mad. A group of editors that does not allow any reasonably understandable slip up, that shows no compassion for something so simple and straightforward.. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not go around making blocks that serve no practical function. An admin is not a parental figure, not a judge in a court, but an admin. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And if you wish to view my above comment as uncivil, that's unfortunate. Being civil does not mean one cannot express something that might be perceived as negative, or in disagreement. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, clarifying that the bulk of that message was not directed at Chaser, as he obviously considered unblocking. -- Ned Scott 04:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You've taken an unrelated situation out of context, and are directly attempting to tarnish my reputation. On top of that you have outright lied about the situation. What you are doing is far worse and far more disruptive than me telling someone to f-off. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• While I agree that telling people to "fuck off" isn't particularly nice, I'd call it an overreaction to actually block a productive editor for what boils down to removing unwanted comments from their own talk page. There is a dispute going on, and both parties should calm down and have a nice cup of tea, but it has long been demonstrated that giving cooldown blocks like this really doesn't help anything. Hence, unblocked. >Radiant< 08:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've only now come home from work, but I greatly appreciate the action. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Four reverts without adequate edit summaries

You just made four reverts of my edits with the simple edit summary "rv" [6] [7] [8] [9]. As you undoubtedly know, this kind of edit summary is absolutely useless and very much deprecated. The edits aren't a big deal, but your failure to explain why you made them is problematic. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, are you feeling ok? -- Ned Scott 00:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine. Would you just annotate your edits properly in future? --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop it, Tony, you're scaring me. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it there for now, but your attitude here is worrying. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ned, I stand by my earlier suggestions, which I also suggested to User:Angie Y. I highly recommend you take a break from the debating and the policy discussions by focusing on article research and whatnot. — Deckiller 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Deck, there's no issue here. I was having a bit of fun with Tony, but I honestly don't know what he's getting upset about. He redirected some shortcuts because he redirected Wikipedia:Spoiler. Someone else reverted him, and I restored the shortcuts (there were four of them, hence four edits). And please, don't even put me in the same boat as Angie. I appreciate your concern and all, but there's no fire here.
  • And to Tony, seriously, are you feeling ok? I did a minor, non-controversial edit, straightforward and simple. I know the talk page of WP:SPOILER is on your watch list, I know you are keeping up to date on that. Where as you violate WP:POINT and redirect Wikipedia:Spoiler. Out of the blue, you are saying that my "failure to explain" is somehow problematic? Huh?! -- Ned Scott 05:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ned, I'm actually surprised you haven't chimed in to WT:FICT yet about the rewrite. Feel free to whenever you want; we're trying to get a consensus among established out-of-universe-perspective advocates before we move to the in-universe-perspective advocates. — Deckiller 07:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome.

Seraphim ^Whipp 17:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

ISA image

You quoted on the template's talk page:

No one, not even the government (unless it is via a law) can take someone else's copyrighted work and make it free. This is not optional

This "mistake of some government employee who didn't note the copyright" has been going on for a couple of decades. In addition, the publication does make the work free by virtue of a law, which seems to be your criterion for what is right and isn't. I'd also like to point out that not just the United States government, but at least three other governments have released publications with the symbol or its derivatives into the public domain. I asked it on the Commons, and I'll ask you here again: do you really think that 4 unrelated governments got it completely wrong? Seriously? —lensovet–talk – 05:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

They obviously have. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad at least you know better. Visions of grandeur much? —lensovet–talk – 01:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

These are just agencies of those governments, basically companies, and are not the same thing as "this government itself made the law like this". If the post office suddenly took an image owned by someone else, and declared it was under PD, that wouldn't be legal, even though it's the Post Office. No different for these highway departments. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

tv episode notability

Hi, I've been looking into this whole issue - and ran smack into those opposed to the idea. I've made a few edits that seem to use a now-dated procedure. The pages about this guideline and the review process seem to be a bit out-of-date as the templates have been in flux due to opposition. I'm going to go slower today and read some more. Any pointers would be appreciated.

The episodes I was looking into were the first six from an old show called Dad's Army. They all seem to be about the same and, to me, seem in no-way notable. I'm wondering if these would be appropriate for Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review? I'm not going to try this myself, but want to see how it is next done - for whatever tv show. --Jack Merridew 06:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

re 24 - just saw that you've just proposed this; should be interesting given that it is such a popular and controversial show. --Jack Merridew 07:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dad's Army episodes sound like perfect candidates for the review process. The process itself is still developing, but basically, notify a bunch of people, have a centralized discussion on a talk page (with context to notability, source, and organizational concerns), determine if they should have articles for said episodes. It's just all the little things to clean up now, like how to notify, or what to say or do when no one is sure about the discussion, or how long to keep the discussion open. Each time I go to place a batch of episodes for review, I want to improve how it's done, take from the good and change the bad. Hopefully we'll have a really good process developed from all of this. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the live demonstration of the process used - at least today's version! The Dad's Army series has a wikiproject, so that would be an appropriate place to include in the notification. A fellow was busy adding imbd and tv.com links yesterday and as I see it these fail to address notability in any way - the links were mostly to off-wiki stubs, so it would appear that there just isn't that much out there other than, "Ya, the episodes exist (available on DVD, Buy'em Now!").

One thought re 24: The show depicts torture frequently and I recall reading a newspaper article that quoted American soldiers in Iraq as saying they were using the show as a how-to guide. (I haven't looked, this may be in some article here already). --Jack Merridew 08:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of the things about 24 is that the organization might not be best for a 1episode:1article format. Notable information most likely does exist, but I'm not sure if it is specific on an episode to episode basis. It's one reason I like the idea of season / story arc articles as alternatives to episode articles. -- Ned Scott 08:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A season/story arc approach would probably not work for old shows as the format was often a story contained within one episode and nothing ever spanned more than two episodes ("to be continued!"). --Jack Merridew 09:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Article review process

You've put a lot of work in and it is an improvement, however I still feel there can be simplification to the level of "discuss this at the merge target" so people are more inclined to discuss and less to vote as you've being doing up to now. Tim! 10:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Stereotyping"?

I see you've removed my Conservape-tan image from the Wikipe-tan image gallery with the comment "stereotyping people isn't really welcome here." [10] Pardon me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole page one big stereotype to begin with? I meant the image in good fun, just like the rest of the pictures on the page; wouldn't Image:Wikipe-tan (burqa).png and Image:Afro-wikipe-tan2.png be construed just as stereotypical, if not more? Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 04:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified that to offensive stereotypes. Getting into heated areas like religion and politics.. that image isn't a good idea. -- Ned Scott 04:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, however, there are already images based on religious and racial stereotypes that have been there for quite a while, such as Image:Wikipe-tan (burqa).png and Image:Afro-wikipe-tan2.png, both of which could potentially be considered just as offensive if not more so depending on how you look at it. However, it seems clear they are all only intended in fun. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 04:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You might have a point with Image:Wikipe-tan (burqa).png, but the afro ones are pretty harmless. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I added it back in. We'll see what others think about it. It's not really that bad, but it does seem.. negative. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

2nd Hannah Montana Review

Who is going to be notified? Just so I know. I'll comment shortly. I  ^{(said) (did)} 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. A lot of people, I guess. I'm using {{subst:TVreview2|for ''[[Hannah Montana (TV series)|]]''|link=Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#2nd episode article review}} -- ~~~~ to notify people, so if you see any I miss feel free to poke more people. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well who, and what pages specifically? I  ^{(said) (did)} 05:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm scratching my head about right now. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, just ask yourself, "Who will whine about not being notified, and will then use it as a reason to claim there was no consensus?" You notified Matthew didn't you? I  ^{(said) (did)} 05:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

So far I've notified each episode's talk page, the main show talk page, as well as the Disney WikiProject. I've also notified some of the editors who appear to be regular editors from the talk pages. And I even left a note for Matthew. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. BTW, I added ratings for both Achey Jakey Heart episodes prior to the re-direct. WAVY 10 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

I finally finished the work on the season page. Take a look and tell me what you think. It needs a good copyedit for wordiness and word choices, but that's easy to find if the page is implented into the mainspace.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry

I'm sorry but I have no intrest in Hannah Montana at all. So you are wasting your time telling me about updates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SerpentsTail (talk • contribs).

Well, neither do I, but whatever. You probably got a message because your name was on a talk page. -- Ned Scott 19:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Daedalus class battlecruiser (operated by the Russian Air Force)

Care to comment on this discussion I started? Talk:Daedalus class battlecruiser#lack of sources --Jack Merridew 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seasons summary articles

We were talking about this a week or so ago--you may be interested in the AfD at [11]. This is the sort of thing I feared would happen--but it's a little more complicated, because while the season 1 summary is relatively decent, the season 2 summary is almost impossible to follow. On grounds of literary form and such things, I think it would also be helpful to know the boundaries between episodes, since they are each intended to have their own usually unfinished narrative. DGG (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. -- Ned Scott 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion

Why is it all the Cardcaptor Sakura Original Soundtrack articles deleted? I am the one who created the article in the first place. You should have consulted me and there was no one there stating that this article should be deleted. Why wasn't I informed of the deletion? Furthermore, believe me, I intended to update it with more information. Lastly, please do not put a redirect link of the soundtracks to the media page. The media page does not have information on the soundtracks.

Thank you,

Samantha Lim88 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it was nothing but track listings.. We don't have to consult people before redirecting track listings. If you actually have encyclopedic information to add about the sound tracks then I suggest you add it to the media list first. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, they weren't deleted. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may ask you, where have the pages gone to?

Samantha Lim88 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right where you left them:

• Cardcaptor Sakura Original Soundtrack 1
• Cardcaptor Sakura Original Soundtrack 2
• Cardcaptor Sakura Original Soundtrack 3
• Cardcaptor Sakura Original Soundtrack 4
• Cardcaptor Sakura: The Movie Original Soundtrack
• Cardcaptor Sakura Movie 2: The Sealed Card Original Soundtrack

When you are redirected to the list article, look at the top of the page under the title. It will say "redirected from.." with a link. Click on the link again, and you will be taken to the article (which at this point shows the redirect). To look at the article simply click on "History", click on one of the old versions, and if you wish to restore the article, click edit (while looking at an old version) and then hit save.

If you feel so strongly about it, revert me, or ask me to do it for you. But if the articles don't contain some actual content they'll likely be nominated for deletion. Some pages that might help you out are WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:MUSIC. You might also want to ask for help on expanding the articles on WT:ANIME, which is the talk page of the Anime and manga WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Anime South Deletion Review

I would appreciate any comments you may have on the Anime South Deletion review page. -Animesouth 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF

You inadvertently "reinstated" a paragraf that was still in the guideline, in slightly rewritten and even extended form (under Contextual presentation, to distinguish it from being purely related to plot summaries). I fully agree that paragraf is important, that's why I kept and extended it in the first place. —AldeBaer (c) 09:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I don't know how I missed it. I thought it was odd that it would have been gone in the first place, so I really looked for it, but apparently not too well. Whoops. -- Ned Scott 18:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Storylines of East Enders

[12] Here's a case of an attempt to combine plot summaries into a season article--a method which you told me you favored for dealing with plot summaries; its not a good article at this point: confused and over-detailed, but apparently there are those who would rather delete it than improve it. (at least as I see it). Perhaps you have an opinion on it. DGG (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please use talk pages

Ned, please use talk pages, instead of single-handedly trying to trigger a one-man edit war on every fair-use policy page in sight. And please stop vandalising Template:album cover fur. There are discussions open at both WT:FAIR and WP:AN if you have issues to raise, but so far it has found widespread support, and is in good-faith use for over 500 images. Please stop behaving in an inappropriate way. Jheald 21:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ned, let me point out that your change at Template:album cover fur has effectively marked many dozens of pages for deletion simultaneously. This kind of mass-tagging is inappropriate because (1) people should have a realistic chance to fix the problems and not have to fix all the problems on all those images in such a short amount of time, and (2) you haven't notified any of the uploaders. Please either undo your change, or take responsibility for every individual one of those deletion requests and notify the uploaders. Mangojuice^talk 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Modifying: the template is protected so you can't self-revert, but it would be helpful if you could post at WP:AN agreeing to the revert. But it looks like that will probably happen anyway before long. If you really do want each and every one of those pages marked for deletion, there is a normal process to follow that you can easily do. But please don't attempt mass-deletion tagging like this, it's definitely problematic. Mangojuice^talk 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Anime Ep TV

Was it intentional to remove the LineColor parameter? I viewed the page in IE and it was as viewable as it was as legible as it was in FireFox.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

IE has been inconstant with how it displays a line color when the line color is a blank cell with a colored background. It does seem that it was actually working before because of the forced height, but it's still sloppy HTML. The new code generates a line color, but it will lack a border, as it is not a cell, but the border of the summary cell. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yargh, you broke it again. D:—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

IE is picky about how it displays the line. If I recall correctly, it doesn't do it when it's done per row, but only per column. So, no, I didn't break it. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservape-tan

Ned, when Conservape-tan was first added to the Wikipe-tan page, you removed it, then replaced it to see what consensus would be on its removal. We're having a discussion about it here if you'd like to participate. TomTheHand 15:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of my removal of the example from Criterion 1

I'm very annoyed. Why TF didn't you object when I raised it on the talk page? Tony 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't be everywhere at once. Starting a discussion on talk does not always mean you've gotten a consensus. -- Ned Scott 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to White Cat's talkpage archives

I know White Cat would prefer that you stop reverting his edits updating the links to his talkpage archives. Could I ask that you refrain from doing so and make other, more positive contributions. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He has been told multiple times to not update the pages like this, by multiple people. If you look at his edits, he's even going so far as to change other people's comments just so his whatlinkshere page is clean for Cool Cat. He had the option of using redirects, and he chooses not to use them. That's his fault. -- Ned Scott 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. I came to you with some problems that I'd like to help you, me and Cool Cat/White Cat to resolve. You reverted my comment with the edit summary "so tired of your bullshit, tony". I don't know whether you realised that I was acting here as Cool Cat's mentor. Could I ask you to examine my comments again? I'm not bullshitting, and I ask you to treat my request for conciliation in good faith as a fellow Wikipedian. Please help me to resolve this problem. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Until you go to the appropriate policy pages and propose making it official that users who change their names must redirect their user pages, there is nothing wrong with White Cat's actions (as long as he does not make misleading changes to archive content). I will block you for harassment and disruption if you persist in "fixing" that which does not need to be fixed. Thatcher131 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The community disagrees with you, Thatcher, and your block would not be supported. We don't let users throw a fit to get their way, or to make a mass of changes when several people have told him to stop. That is not harassment, and I will not stop preserving archives from his edits. If you have a problem with that then take it up on WP:AN/I, or maybe bring your concerns to User:Cyde and User:Centrx, who are reverting him as well. -- Ned Scott 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing username, where it says Be aware: This change will not effect signatures you have already left on talk pages, or other places where you signed your username with Thatcher131 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC). Those pages will continue to display your signature (including the link to your old username) unless edited manually. Unless this policy is changed to actively prohibit editing old sigs, then I see no reason to sanction White Cat for doing so. Thatcher131 19:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I would agree that White Cat should not change archives inside other users' user talk space, but that same principle applies to editors reverting changes within White Cat's user space. And I don't care if people object to changing his sig in project spaces. Thatcher131 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been leaving his changes to his userspace alone. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless it's a right to vanish or some privacy concerns, he only needs to use a redirect. He refused a redirect, for some insane reason. He doesn't just stop at his sigs, but even changes other people's comments. We've told him no, and if you want to single me out, then that's really messed up. -- Ned Scott 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Change the policy then, Otherwise, leave him alone (or show me where he has been changing the substance of archived comments and not just his own sig). Thatcher131 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to change in policy, the consensus of the past discussions was that he doesn't need to make these changes, and that he needs to stop making them. Don't tell me we need to make a WP:BUTITSNOTPOLICY link for such arguments. -- Ned Scott 19:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of Zoey 101 episodes#Episode article review

Hi, I started a review of these not-exactly-impressive tv show episode articles. If I missed any steps that you think should occur, either let me know or fix things up. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 11:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Statements like this might be worded too strongly. No progress will be made on the nonfree content issue unless everyone keeps a cool head. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm watching myself. I just got a little too close with that one comment. -- Ned Scott 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Montana episode review closure

Hi, I tried to close the discussion, but had trouble because the blocks were nested (I think); could you please take care of this? Thanks, Jack Merridew 10:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

I support delete or merge. I was wrong. My bad. Please except my apologies. I think the backgound section is unrelated and does not belong in the article. Please join in. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Update. The Wikipedia community article has been redirected and merged. Happy now?  Mr.Guru  talk  19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

False dichotomy?

Hi Ned. You're generally a pretty levelheaded guy, but I was a bit concerned by your remark to Violetriga: "Wheel warring is never good, but neither is letting something wrong go uncorrected." I agree with you that both of those things are Bad Things, but I'm concerned that you may not have considered alternative courses of action. That is, it seems to me thatt your statement is correct and sensible, but incomplete. Perhaps you meant it to read, "Wheel warring is never good, nor is letting something wrong go uncorrected; seeking advice from neutral third parties is good, and a preferred choice."? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA etiquette

Ned, regardless of our disagreement on the suitability of the candidate, it would defeat the point of people not commenting before RfAs have started if all those comments were automatically restored when the RfA does start. Its up to individual people to comment on the RfA once it starts. WjBscribe 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also common sense. He's not going to magically change his mind just because of the start time. -- Ned Scott 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure he might have, especially because he and I have exchanged multiple emails since his attempted post. Maybe we've resolved things, maybe we haven't. He still may choose to oppose at my RfA, and that is definitely his right. But if he wants to restore his original wording, I'm sure he's perfectly capable of doing it himself. --Elonka 23:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And there you have it. Surprise surprise, he still opposes you. And personally, I am disturbed to find that you also endorse censorship. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

geraldckane: feedback request

Please see the following page in relation to our discussion regarding my survey. user:geraldckane/feedbackrequest I'd appreciate your feedback before I continue my work. --geraldckane 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott

White Cat has filed this RfC regarding some fairly longstanding issues with your conduct. As one of several who have attempted without success to resolve the dispute, I have certified. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you please not edit the complainant's sections of the RfC? I refer to edits such as this. If the evidence presented is irrelevant, point this out in your response. --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Thatcher131 11:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If I see total bullshit then I will remove total bullshit. It's unfair to me and to others to have the situation misconstrued like that. -- Ned Scott 21:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RfCs are for dispute resolution. If somebody thinks there is evidence of a problem, they can put it there on the RfC. If you have a refutation (for instance it may just be someone dredging up irrelevant blocks to make you look bad) point it out. It enables everybody to see what the dispute is and the nature of the interactions that have led to it. It doesn't reflect badly on you if someone is misrepresenting the situation. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's comments like these that got you in this situation Ned. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You got a point there DJ, but my point would still stand even if I sugar-coated the words.

Tony, I'm not sure what to think of you. Sometimes you're going off on weird things, like those edits I did where I said "rv" in the summary, then other times you're making sense, like now. I let Cat's mudslinging get to me, and I shouldn't have. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I made it plain in the "Four reverts without adequate edit summaries" case that "this kind of edit summary is absolutely useless and very much deprecated. The edits aren't a big deal, but your failure to explain why you made them is problematic." I'm very surprised that you regard this as a "weird thing". Presumably you have used Wikipedia long enough to have absorbed best practice or at least to have read and understood Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain_reverts. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"rv" should never be used by itself, communicating your intent is an important part of collaborative editing. See here for example, or here. Thatcher131 13:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no problem. You changed shortcuts, someone else changed the target, so I restored the shortcuts. There's no way you could have not known what was going on. Stop being silly. -- Ned Scott 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing/votestacking

User talk:Ned Scott/archive8#VS < either that thread or the one below. Will ^(talk) 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that I was canvassing because I pointed out two users who were canvassing? I will admit, the way I did it wasn't nice, and I could have done it better (no flashly box and all), so I am not without error there, but it's not canvassing on my part. -- Ned Scott 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Through the Looking Glass (Lost)

You seem very busy right now, but if there's time, please comment. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's RfA

I think you're being unreasonable by reinserting this. Civility is important and Matt can make his point without being so blatantly rude. Pascal.Tesson 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, he could have said it nicer, but it's hard to sound nice when you are bringing up a concern of that nature. Sensing frustration in his comment is not the same thing as him being rude. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually two editors had already expressed concerns that Matt was starting to sound more like a rabid dog than an editor participating in a discussion. I have no problem whatsoever with him voicing his concerns but it is rude and inflammatory to accuse a longstanding editor and RfA candidate of fostering trolls. Rest assured that I did not comment on the RfC to get back at you in any way: I learned of it by going to your talk page, got curious and I have to agree that you have a long history of incivility towards fellow editors. Pascal.Tesson 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call myself perfect, but having said uncivil things in the past is not the same thing as being an uncivil user. I don't think Matt was trying to say she fosters trolls, but that her advice would teach people on how to game the system. When I saw the advice of 5 to 1, I actually thought the same thing, that it was bad advice. Now you think that since I felt it was an honest concern, restoring his comment was an act of incivility by myself, or an endorsement of incivility? It comes down to me saying "I don't think that was uncivil" and you going "Look, he did something/endorses something uncivil!" How does a difference of opinion make me uncivil? -- Ned Scott 04:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ned, when two editors independently reach the conclusion that an RfA participant has gone too far, it's best not to restore the comment that was removed. Matt has made his point over and over, and has now started quoting other people's points in addition to repeating his own. A certain amount of advocacy for and against is acceptable in RfAs, and is sometimes even desirable, but it must have its limit, and I feel Matt has gone over it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Slim, two editors have independently reached the conclusion that the comment was fine. You're personal feeling has been noted, but I simply don't agree that it was over the line. -- Ned Scott 08:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 03:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)