User talk:Ned Scott/archive11

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

You must really hate Pushing Daisies

Because you don't want fans to come and learn about their favorite characters or people who missed episodes to read the recaps. Jasonbres

If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines then I suggest you go to the talk pages of those guidelines. This has nothing to do with my like or dislike for the show. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems very inconsistent with what has been standard practice on other shows, especially for one with this amount of buzz and critical acclaim. Why are television episode and character articles so suddenly a primary target? -- 128.138.42.218 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The only inconsistency that exists is because of a flaw in how Wikipedia works, and a lack of man power to address every issue before it grows out of control. More often than not, new editors do not know of our existing guidelines, or the rationales behind those guidelines. Even existing editors make these articles, with the argument that other articles exist. Sub-articles for fiction are a "target" for cleanup right now because they're one of the largest areas of articles where we have such problems. The popularity of a show is normally not a factor, but rather how much real-world information these articles can give us. At the very least, these articles need to be trimmed and grown on a list article until they contain enough real-world information. -- Ned Scott 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Television review

Ned, It should not be in use unless it reaches consensus and is accepted as a guideline. Maybe you should get a significant number of users to show some support and get it approved. The policy has recently been clarified that proposals need to progress or be marked rejected. We've had too many persnial proposals confusing the users. I'm just trying to clear the list of stale proposals. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 02:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like being lectured for no reason.

Perhaps you saw something which wasn't actually sarcasm as something that was. TTN is not the sort of person, from what I've observed, to be sarcastic with; everything I say on his talkpage is very serious. But if you're going to go and tell me not to be "sarcastic", pardon me for saying so, but I think there should be a liable basis for it. Wilhelmina Will 06:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For example. Or plastering his talk page with cookie templates while asking him to undo his changes. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

'Twasn't sarcasm. Besides, he and I had some "issues" several weeks back, and those cookies were my way of being sweet and appealing for others sake, rather than saying that he's a coward not to even apologize to the creators of those pages, or people who claimed credit for them, and explain what's wrong with them - which I shamefully said in several incidents. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, and while everyone may think he needs to take a tip from that statement, sometimes even the tip-givers need a taste of their own medicine. There was no sarcasm with the cookies. As for the crack-dealing stuff, like I said, I knew a man once, who always inserted "I'm not going into it with you" in every discussion; and he was in the cocaine dealing business. I can be very paranoid at times, and even the slightest, most-absurd-but-still-possible implications to these things heighten my suspicions. But if you're asking me to force myself to change my personal demeanor, which is a difficult, twelve-years-at-the-least-are-wasted-on-it process, I'm afraid this is the only thing I can say in response: "You can greet me sometimes in the moonshine." Which is a basic way of saying "I am not even there", or "Not even crazy, uncle", or "Not even dead, daughter", or "No door". Wilhelmina Will 07:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambrose Chase

Based on WP:WAF and WP:FICT, as well as WP:PLOT and WP:V I redirected Ambrose Chase back to Planetary (comics). To my mind there's no real need at this stage for an article on a bit-part character in a minor series to receive an article, especially not one with no outside sources and which simply summarises the plot of the comics. Someone has challenged that redirect, and I'd appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Ambrose Chase. Steve block Talk 15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

fair use images in character lists

Hey Ned Scott, I noticed your conversation about fair use in lists where you said that there is no blanket ban on non-free images in lists. I just wanted confirmation whether this definitely includes character lists such as this. I can see that illustrating every character was excessive, but after they were initially deleted we reduced our images to only a few per page; however, they have since been deleted too. Gungadin♦ 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification of Request for Arbitration "TTN, part Deux"

I've requested Arbitration regarding TTN's numerous edits to TV and other fiction articles, and included you as an "involved party" in the request. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#TTN.2C_part_Deux, and you should add a statement to the section somewhere under mine. Thanks. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Magic words

If you don't understand this, just ignore it.... You may be interested in meta:Help:Magic words. There are options for {{urlencode}}. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, this is exactly what I'm looking for :D Thank you sooo much. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cardcaptor Sakura images

Several Cardcaptor Sakura episodes and Clow Cards images was removed. In the Clow Cards article edits history, I was seeing your various edits, and imaginated you as the image removal. Was you the person who removed those Cardcaptor Sakura images? --Blean 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, most of those images have been removed because they have been deleted for not having a non-free rationale (see WP:FURG). I've been very busy lately, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to add the rationales to all of the images before they are deleted, so I've saved local copies of everything I could to my computer. I have, however, removed many images from Clow Cards, since we're only allowed to use one image per character in those kinds of situations. This is a better option than what some other editors wanted to do, which was remove the images completely. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I only wanted to know it 'cause the images stayed by a long time loaded in Wikipedia, and by this fact I don't understood at that moment the cause of the fast removal of the images. --Blean 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Clow Cards

85 fair use images which are under copyright restrictions is not only too much for one article, but if in effect breaking the law - please revert yourself. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing I didn't put 85 fair use images in one article, isn't it. -- Ned Scott (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just got up to my 68th Anime Edit, thanks for checking some mistakes I made on The Hope Card and some on The Bubbles. Thanks for not deleting my new edit of that the Bubbles Card. " On it's card, Bubbles...." Blueknightex (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked

I've blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on Clow Cards. Continuing to revert a user without proper discussion is very unproductive. Maxim 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|There is clearly a misunderstanding here. I not only gave proper discussion, but only reverted to weed out bad images. I do not intend to edit war -- Ned Scott (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)}}

Your edit warring was quite disruptive. Fair use is damaging to the project, and your continued addition (there were 85(!) fair use images in the article at one point) of them without any logical explanation is quite a serious abuse of editing privileges. Fair use images must demonstrate the subject of the article - the images in Clow Cards clearly did not. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ned Scott (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• However, there are still 44 (!!!) fair-use images in that article. I am going to stub it back down to the two that Ryan suggested earlier, then it can be discussed on the talk page which, if any, images should be re-inserted. ELIMINATORJR 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fine by me. I honestly am in favor of limiting non-free images, and I find it very ironic that people are talking to me about something I'm normally telling other people. -- Ned Scott (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yuri (term)

Thanks for putting up the unprotect request. :) -Malkinann (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Ned,

Your rhetoric was a little harsh, but I'll let that go. Here's the sad fact: as a closer of a DRV, I am constrained to abide by consensus at the DRV. While I can consult the prior XfD as a matter of record, I cannot make independent judgments about it: that is for DRV consensus to decide. Now that I have closed, I can look at this XfD and disdain what JzG did: he acted poorly, hurt the project by so doing, and should have known better. That is my personal opinion, formed post-DRV. At the DRV, though, there was a consensus that, process-defects aside, the deletion should be endorsed as the right result. You may call it a "slap in the face" if you like, but I could not -- in good conscience -- slap the large majority (who addressed the issue directly, and called JzG's harm minimal) in the face by overturning. Moreover, see the comments at my talk to Pixelface: the deletion supporters, besides addressing the JzG issue directly and rebuffing it under WP:NOT a bureaucracy, were the only folks to address the underlying merit of the template, an issue that deletion opponents (so roused by JzG, and past history of the category depopulation, completely irrelevant to DRV) failed to address. By the argument and by the numbers, the consensus was clear and I judged it in the only reasonable way open to me, despite the "bad taste" JzG's actions left behind. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As a closer of a DRV you are constrained by the deletion policy, not mob rule. The fact that the same discussion was closed by another admin as overturn (via a mistake in counting days) shows that the "consensus" you speak of is not something as clear cut as you make it sound like. Nor was this just about JzG's specific involvement. This is nothing more than one set of editors wanting to put the nail in the coffin, and I'd really like it if you wouldn't bullshit me otherwise. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And note that I have long since stopped supporting the template's use, but none the less, it is an insult to address the issue by abusing the deletion process. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaah, who the heck am I kidding. When I stop and think about it, I'm mildly irritated by the situation, but really can't blame you for doing what you think is right. Especially given that the outcome of all of this doesn't actually change anything. Sorry for my harsh words, and my over-reaction. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion help

Hi Ned, I note that you set up the transclusion between the Lost season articles and the Lost episode list. I wonder if you could help me do a similar thing for The Wire. I've set up the first season article at The Wire (season 1) and copied the transclusion as best I can at List of The Wire episodes. I'm wondering how you got List of Lost episodes to exclude the short plot summaries from the transcluded content?--Opark 77 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While I tried to avoid using a second template, I ended up making Template:Episode list/Lost. This meta template still uses Template:Episode list, but based on if it is on a list of episodes page or not, will decide which parameters to show. Any stylistic changes to {{Episode list}} will be automatically seen, so maintenance is rather minimal even with a second template. And since the template is a sub-page of Template:Episode list, keeping track of such templates will be easier. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So basically, every place where you use {{Episode list}} you would instead use {{Episode list/Show Name}}. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.--Opark 77 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki-ing

Hi Ned,

I'm writing an proposal to the Case Closed/Detective Conan community to start a CC/DC wiki, partly due to the consistant notability sword that is hanging over our heads. The problem here is, even I point readers to WP:FICT, it'd be a bit too complex to get the idea. What is your perferred way of saying the existance of such a "sword"? --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can see some of what I've said to the Digimon WikiProject on WT:DIGI. I've also got some notes on the transwiking experience I've had at User:Ned Scott/transwiki. I can probably summarize it a bit better at this point, but my mind is a bit of mush as this point, and I think this might be my last entry to Wikipedia for tonight (I still wanted to reply to your message to let you know that I got it). I can probably come up with a nice summary explanation sometime tomorrow that would be usable for not just your situation, but many others. -- Ned Scott 10:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a few days more than "tomorrow"-- it does not matter; see if I made it correctly: The interpretation of the notability guideline in Wikipedia on fictional material is still under dispute.As a matter of fact, some would consider whatever content that does not connect to real life would be Wikipedia:Fancruft and should be removed, and they are not in the minority. It remained the hanging sword over any anime/manga content, and Conan is clearly not exempt. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD?

Can I get you to retract that and come back to talking at the talk page? I'm not going to revert your redirect again, I've asked V not to, etc. Talking is better than process. (He says well aware of the irony.)
CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replaced the redirect until there is consensus that the RfC is not an earth-shatteringly bad idea. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

HaHa!

Both our brains exploded at the same time in Rfc. I think that means you owe me a coke! sNkrSnee | t.p. 06:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Importer needed

Do you know where I can find one? Is there even a list of them? There are many articles that are in need of a transwiki at WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. _{« ₣ullMetal ₣alcon »} 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. An importer is simply anyone with admin access on the target wiki. I can, however, assist in showing how to prepare the files for the admin. Anyone can export (using http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Export&pages=ARTICLE_NAME&history=1&action=submit and not Special:Export, since it is a bit.. broken). The file needs to be saved as something.xml, then use a text editor to find and replace all occurrences of "</username>" with "@en.wikipedia.org</username>". For many sites, such as Wikia, there is a file size limit of about 1.9 MBs, so larger files will need to be split, and smaller files can be combined to save time. I'm thinking of throwing together a quick how-to so that anyone can prepare files. Also, if you cannot find an active admin on the target wiki, and if it is hosted by Wikia, often a Wikia staffer will be willing to help out. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Digimon Page elimination

Are you the one whose been deleting the List of (Insert Digimon Level Here) Digimon pages? I remember the mass-merging of them, but linking them to another Digimon Wiki (there's already a Wikimon) is presumably ridiculous. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 3:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Two of the lists have already been deleted by AfD (not by me, I am not an admin on en.wiki), and it stands to reason that these ones will as well. I have placed softredirects so people will know where to look for them, and because I haven't imported the full page histories yet. AfDs on these lists are inevitable, and that is not something that I decided. -- Ned Scott 02:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Izzyq (talk · contribs) has been reverting some of these soft redirects, tonight; I wasn't sure what an appropriate response might be, as I haven't been privy to whatever discussions/decisions led to this. Just bringing it to your attention for whatever handling seems best. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So far, Rtkat3's message and the actions of Izzyq have been the only ones to really disapprove of all of this. Via the WikiProject tag {{WikiProject DIGI}}, every talk page has a notice about this, and the discussion was started late September. Out of convenance I'd like to have the page histories of the lists easily accessible, since I haven't been able to properly import them to Digimon Wiki (due to the file size limit on Special:Import), but other than that, there's not much standing in the way of more AfDs like the one for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1). -- Ned Scott 07:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Episode articles not asserting notability

The template that populated this is no longer extant, and even if it was populated manually, it's not useful, as it only lists by the title of the article, and not by the show, which makes it hard to get the entire season from it. So I nominated it for deletion. Just a heads up. I (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the current population of that category were manually added by me - I see that it's debris, so have no problem with it going. I'm sure the arbitration case will largely determine what's next... --Jack Merridew 08:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For trying to defuse a current, unpleasant situation with thoughtfulness, wisdom, and kindness, and to let you know that your efforts are appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not sure if it's right for me to have a barnstar of peace considering how I have gotten a bit hot-headed a few times in all of this. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

This is not acceptable. Please stop or you could be blocked. • Lawrence Cohen 21:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"You could be blocked?" That's going a bit far. You could have a sea-gull drop a coconut on your head, etc. It's much more useful to actually just talk to people rather than threatening them. <talking> While the thrust of your comment (re:attention whoring) was probably correct, the way you said it might inflame an already tense situation. Would you be willing to go and re-write it in a nice-as-pie way? Thanks </talking>
CygnetSaIad (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, just to be clear: I didn't mean you were correct to call KM that, but that you were correct we didn't need it in general. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clow Cards (list)

Cheers Ned, I was a little unsure how to handle this one - I just don't think there needs to be two articles on the subject. A redirect seems like the best course of action. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he was thinking he could add the images back in without being noticed if he did it on another page. -- Ned Scott 18:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well he's not sharp enough to fool us! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I only thinked I can add the images if they are added in an article focused in the list of cards, how they was putted in other articles by very time. And I don't liked this "well he's not sharp enough to fool us", because this was not my objective. --Blean 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections comments

Hi. Regarding your recent comments on candidate votes pages, unfortunately, they are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. I've gone ahead and moved them appropriately, but feel free to edit my move to your liking. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, belong on the talk page. Thanks, and forgive the inconvenience. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm seeing it. The few I thought you might be talking about still seem to be there.. -- Ned Scott 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John (2nd nomination)

Hey Ned,

I'm sure you figured you were going to take heat for that, so let me see if I can't reduce it to a mild indian burn. GlassCobra is right--MfD is indeed for the discussion of userpage content, while AN/I is for the discussion of editor behavior, etc. I'd like to suggest that you let the discussion resume; otherwise I can guarantee it will show up on DRV. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 06:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look a little bit into the history you'll see that this is a behavior issue. He's had other subpages deleted, and his userpage has even been protected over this. This isn't an issue you can just delete, because the issue is with the editor. Plus, the edit history of his talk page is a good way to tell people the kind of trolling he's attempted, so I'm not sure why you'd want to erase that. There are also some versions of his userpage that do not contain offensive content (at least not enough to violate policy). If he keeps doing this, he'll get blocked. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but admins can access the deleted history of the userpage if they need to--unless I'm horribly mistaken, there are even grounds for temporarily restoring deleted pages to another location with the history intact if a discussion demands it. As for the existence of non-controversial versions of the userpage, given that WP:UP specifies that a userpage is primarily the domain of the user it belongs to, the only binding way to affect change is to reach a consensus through discussion. No offense, but given the nature of the close (non-admin close on a clearly controversial issue), I'm going to go ahead and list it at WP:DRV provided someone hasn't already beaten me to the punch. Feel free to bring those point up there if you'd like! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm dumb. I thought WP:DRV could be used for contested closes as well as contested deletions, but after looking through the active discussions that seems not to be the case. I'll content myself with commenting on the thread you opened at AN/I instead. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to use DRV to contest the close, just revert my closing edit (which someone else has already done). -- Ned Scott 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I figured that if you reverted GlassCobra's edit, you would most likely revert mine as well, which is why I brought it here for discussion. I see you've left it open now; thank you very much for that, and I'll comment on it later today once things have settled down a little. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki'ing

Hi Ned,

I was reading your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters and found it most interesting.

I too have been concerned about the fact that there is a large overlap between the set of article subjects which aren't notable by Wikipedia's standards, and the set of article subjects which a lot of people really really want to write articles about. And I too thought that moving content to Wikia wikis might be a workable solution (I was coming from the point of view of seeing numerous World of Warcraft related articles being deleted, and wishing more people would contribute to WoWWiki rather than getting demoralised at their work not become welcomed on Wikipedia)

I tried to start a discussion about a month back at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 3#Soft redirects to Wikia wikis and other non-Wikimedia GFDL projects, didn't get a lot of responses though. One concern that User:Kaustuv raised was "Wikia is Mr. Wales' attempt to turn the wiki model into a profitable venture. Wikipedia has strongly resisted all attempts at commercial endorsements, and should resist promoting for-profit wikis even if they perform the laudable task of finding a home for articles that do not fit Wikipedia's scope." That doesn't bother me, I'm more concerned with the spread of free content and the encouraging of people who wish to create it, than with whether someone might be getting some ad revenue from it! But I can imagine quite a few people sharing Kaustuv's reluctance.

Anyway, keep me in mind if there's anything I can do to help with this sort of thing. --Stormie (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've written a few more things from the experience I've had so far with a transwiki for WP:DIGI, at User:Ned Scott/transwiki. It's funny that you mention softredirects, because I've already softredirected some of the Digimon lists, and there hasn't been much objection. There's also a template that you can use that will work with any Wikia wiki or any other wiki that has interwiki support, Template:FreeContentMeta. From that one can create a specific template, like the one I did for Template:Digimon Wiki. The main template was nominated for deletion in the past, here, which also touches on some of the issues you were asking about.

I think what users like Kaustuv seem to forget is that we don't support Wikia because it has any relation to Wikipedia, but rather we support it because they also support the GFDL. So while some users might view it as some kind of commercial endorsement, it's not, because the offer to link to an external wiki is open for any GFDL wiki. It's also a major misconception that Wikia is making big bucks over this simply because they are not a "non-profit" group. Realistically speaking, Wikia could not exist as a non-profit site. Wikipedia barely covers the bills with donations, and we're a lot better known than Wikia, so there's no way Wikia could support themselves the same way we do.

There's also a new website that has people talking, Veropedia. Some people don't like it because they're locked copies of good Wikipedia articles, and they're not non-profit. Other people love it because it gives a place to put articles that are, for the most part, complete, a place where they don't have to worry about vandalism or degrading over time. I'm sure the issues about Wikipedia and how we relate to external wikis will get even more exposure because of this as well.

I want to really dive into making some guidelines and other help pages for people, helping them to reuse Wikipedia content on other sites. I'm even thinking of making a WikiProject for it, so it's good to know that there are other people who have a positive attitude about external wikis. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those pointers, the TfD discussion on Template:FreeContentMeta was particularly interesting since the discussion largely concerned the "is it advertising? and is that bad?" question. Earlier today, purely as a "stick my head over the parapet and see if it gets shot off" move, I created a soft redirect from Kel'Thuzad to [1] - it was speedily deleted as "G11, blatant advertising". :-)

The transwiki'ing is less of an issue on the Warcraft side, as most of the time, it's not a matter of there being good content on Wikipedia that needs transwiki'ing to wowwiki, but rather there already being a superior article over at wowwiki that people just need to be pointed at.

But yes, it really is a multi-faceted and complex issue, and one which (as several people stated in that "Episodes and characters" RFAr) really needs to be sorted out. I liked User:Ursasapien's statement there: "Wikipedia must deal with the issue of fiction related articles, preferably sooner than later. Two broad groups are focused on this issue and a wiki-war has developed." A WikiProject might be a good approach, I'd certainly like to help however I can. --Stormie (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading further through that TfD, it gets a bit depressing. Phil Sandifer gave the example of Jedi using such a navbox, as seen in this version. The template that was done with, Template:Wookieepedia box was nominated for deletion, and the nominator immediately removed the template from Jedi ([2]) saying "rm {{Wookieepedia box}} per tfd".. then the TfD ended with a "keep" consensus, but the removed template was forgotten about. :-( --Stormie (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

I object to being labelled a troll. Think about it. —Ian Spackman (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ian Spackman's feelings are understandable. It would be more effective, and polite, to avoid using the word troll when removing talk page comments. A simple pointer to the correct forum for discussion would suffice, and reduce stress for all involved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

True. I guess I just reacted to the harshness of how he worded the comment. While I don't believe it to be fair to Durova, it still wasn't trolling. My apologies to Ian. -- Ned Scott 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

TestTemplates

hi - I often like the old ones better too. Glad the page is continuing. Tvoz |talk 07:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind

I know you and me have had our moments, and I still don't quite know what to make of you. But you sure made me blink twice with how well you handled that Spackman question. I'm not even taking sides in that whole mess, but you really stood up. Anyway, I'm probably not long for the wiki world myself, so I just wanted to say that before I disappear. Whoever you are, you showed me a good side. I hope you can believe that I'm sincere in that. Regards, sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

I'm not going to tag war, it's pointless. The people involved in the debate at that point felt it was the right tag, it'd been discussed and there was a consensus. I strongly object to your characterisation of the dispute as retarded, I expected more of you somehow, it felt beneath you. Still, this things happen. Happy editing, Hiding T 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

look, Ned, it is clear that there is no agreement on it. Why try to pretend otherwise? Lets either say so , and have a moratorium, or find some sort of temporary compromise. I dont know if consensus will or will not support me--it seems among equally divided among those who have joined in so far, but it is a little absurd to fight over whether we are fighting. We are, so lets do it in a reasonably orderly fashion at least. DGG (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go link diving tonight and show you otherwise. On one hand we've got people saying WP:FICT isn't strict enough, on the other we have people saying WP:FICT is too strict, and more often than not both hands are not reading the guideline, but complaining about how people use it in AfDs. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

But still.. I guess it was silly of me to remove the tag. I should not fear dispute, and have faith that the guideline will stand up or evolve properly. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got ownership issues?

Thank you for the personal attack on my talk page and in your edit summary. I'm going to consider an rfc because at the minute your behavour is objectionable. Four of us have been editing that page and we've all been happy discussing on the talk page and working out a consensus. You're the only one to insist on reversion. Happy editing. Hiding T 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? And now you're going to consider an RFC because you're not getting your way right away again? Jesus, Hiding, I don't even disagree with your view! Calm down. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to calm down here. People were engaged in a good faith attempt to establish something, and another editor just rides past and undoes it all for no other reason than because he can. It's not your ball to take away Ned. And you want to look at your language throughout all of this. "retarded" "hypocritical" "impatient" "ranting". You're not exactly the font of civility and good faith. You may need to reread WP:CONSENSUS, where it details how consensus is built through editing. We make edits, other people make edits based on their opinion. But no bother, I'll go and find some other people to play with. Hiding T 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you said to me "you've been pretty much acting on your own". Either there were four of us or there wasn't. I reckon there was and I think the edit history backs me up on that. Hiding T 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you to have some patience. No matter how much good faith there is, a guideline built with a weak consensus only works to bite us in the ass later on. You are also removing things that don't even need to be removed, and are wording some things in ways that could be better presented to avoid confusion. Heaven forbid you use the draft page that was set up for this. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You let us know when we can start editing the page again, or even better, the particular wording you have an issue with. I can't see any value in discussing good faith with someone who believes he will get bit in the ass later on. I haven't got a position to protect here, I'm just interested in getting the page to fit better with WP:V, WP:NPV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:GTD. Oh, and last time I checked this was a wiki. Every page is a draft. Hiding T 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With that logic how about you go make some large scale rewrites to WP:V or WP:BLP and see if you get reverted there as well? -- Ned Scott 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Go check the edit history of WP:V. I've never touched WP:BLP, that came down from Jimbo. I think I rewrote WP:WEB over 2 hours, from memory. I remember when we changed VFD to AFD one wet Saturday as well, and created MFD from the fluff found under the sofa. It's a wiki. I don't mind getting reverted. I object when people revert me with objectionable language, insult me and accuse me of ownership and yet fail to detail a single issue they have with the change. Reversion for process issues is no good reason, per WP:CONSENSUS. At some point you might even let me know what was wrong with the rewrite, and I might still be interested in discussing it. I appreciate the apology at my talk page, and I apologise if you feel I'm being harsh, but from where I'm sitting I have no idea what it is you object to. If you're looking for the killer idea that will get everyone to stop and agree, I think you have to give up the ghost. Still, all the best and see you around the place. Hiding T 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's something for you

My old notability proposal, back when we didn't have notability guidance. Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Significance. It might prove useful. I might crib the disputed section for WP:FICT. Hiding T 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:HOTTIE

Not that I'm going to complain about the re-creation of the redirect; however, you might wish to take a look at the MFD for the article, which ended in Userifying. :) GlassCobra 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice

I have listed Template:FGwiki on WP:DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 13#Template:FGwiki. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank Ned. If there is a particular issue you'd like me to comment on, please let me know. Otherwise I'll just watch with interest.

I'm on the fence with this one. I don't think the case for this deletion was entirely made, but at the same time the template didn't perform its intended function — Family Guy articles on Wikipedia continued to receive tons of unencyclopedic information better suited for Family Guy Wiki (Goofs and deep, non-notable trivia being my peeves). And per nom, that wiki still isn't up to the WP:EL standard, IMO. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Digimon Dynasty

Isn't there anyway to save it? I was trying really hard to create it. I was doing it for a friend, and I wasn't trying to advertise. I didn't even add a link. Please, isn't there another solution besides deletion? (I love entei (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

my reply -- Ned Scott 04:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I posted it there. (I love entei (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Merry Christmas

Blessed editing, and...

Happy Holidays from Marlith ^T/C

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Marlith ^T/C 05:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain?

Your comment? I was calling attention to the use of the word sociopaths, which struck me as uncivil and counterproductive. You indented my comment and replied, but I'm unclear how you intended that. Durova^Charge! 02:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The formating change should not have actually changed the indentation of your comment. ** and :* should result in the same thing. My reply was also to that user, and not directed at you. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea

Well done for this [3]. We need to archive the whole page if you ask me and provide an easy to follow summary with Masem's latest draft on offer for !voting. Eusebeus (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A gesture

Hi, I just noticed this edit. While I do applicate the gesture, I do not mind working with you. You are more than welcome to restore that specific comment.

The idea behind the RFC at least from my perspective was an over focus against my edits. That was my concern. That is how I viewed the issue. I am saying this merely to establish my perspective and not trying to accuse you or anything. I do admit being a bit jumpy on the issue of WP:HA, but that is per my experience with users unrelated to you. I hope you understand that. I merely do not want a rehash of that experience. This should not prevent me working with you or prevent you from working with me.

I am more than happy to work with people so long as they are not trolls or vandals. You disqualify being either a troll or a vandal so I would have no issues working with you on various topics. This is a collaborative encyclopedia and collaboration is the key to enhancing it. A good number of the people I work with closely on wikipedia now used to be former "enemies". Though I never viewed you as an enemy, I don't think that should prevent working collaboratively. :P I do not think you can really avoid me forever on wikipedia just as I cannot avoid you forever - given our common interests.

I look forward in working with you should you take this offer. If not, we can continue how things had been for a while.

Oh and btw I am taking things somewhat slow until the arbcom case concludes on episode/character articles.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. -- Ned Scott 20:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Hi Ned, thank you for your participation in my RfA, though of course I am a bit disappointed that you switched from neutral to oppose. Please do rest assured that I paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better admin. I am going to take things slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, or if you can think of any way that we can finally "bury the hatchet" and move forward, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

namespace check thingymajig

Hi Ned. Re: the delete "Template begin" discussion. I'd like to add something to the template to let people know not to use it but I don't know what a "namespace check thingymajig" is.  :-) Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks. —Noah 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Replace the template with this code and it will prevent the template from being used in the article namespace:

{{ #ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | | {{warning|[[Template:Taxobox begin]] has been depreciated and should not be used in articles}} |<nowiki/> {{{!}} style="position:relative; margin: 0 0 0.5em 1em; border-collapse: collapse; float:right; clear:right; width:200px;" border="1" cellpadding="0" {{!}}- style="text-align:center;" ! style="background: {{{color}}};" {{!}}<div style="float:right; font-size:70%; padding:0 .5em 0 2em">[[Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox|?]]</div>'''{{{name}}}''' }}<nowiki/> <noinclude> [[fr:Modèle:Taxobox begin|fr]] [[ru:Template:Taxobox begin|ru]] </noinclude>

-- Ned Scott 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And just to be clear, that notice would only show up in the article namespace. It will act normally in the Talk, User, User talk, Wikipedia, etc name spaces. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt I would have figured that out on my own. :-) —Noah 07:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE disputed.

See the talk page. See wikien-l. WP:EPISODE is definitely disputed. Stevage 05:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do not wish to leave a comment on the talk page, I will remove the tag again. The dispute tag is not meant to be used when a minority is at odds with the greater consensus. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any comment from Stevage about this; I'll remove the tag. --Jack Merridew 06:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to wait until morning, but I guess that works too. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

External links to wikis

• Hi. =) The conversation on the Heroes discussion page has continued somewhat, however I'm not sure if the points at hand are being understood by those disagreeing with the concept of external linking. If you have any helpful comments that may assist please feel free. =) --Centish (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rejected?

• Wikipedia:Television article review process and
• Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review

have been tagged as rejected — thoughts? --Jack Merridew 06:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT edits

Sorry, I caught yours in removing some un-discussed stuff. I am not really of the opinion that BOLD is really an effective defense in policy article edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiking, etc.

Thanks for coming by reading my list of templates to transwiki. I have added some more templates needed, but I'm not sure if that's all of it, especially there're some more estoric templates that gone down, downstream... Please add templates if you see fit to add, thanks. Also check if any of these of templates caused problems after transwiking, according to your experience.

On the other hand, while people are still discussing about WP:FICT, I wonder if User:Doczilla has been a bit early to start putting on in-universe tags on character articles...?

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For making a tough DRV nomination. You know which one. Someone had to do it; thanks for stepping up to the plate. DurovaCharge! 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

You're welcome. And thank you for leaving lame personal attacks on my doorstep. I shall clean it up myself momentarily. —Kurykh 07:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't expect to be treated with respect if you do things like endorse a backdoor deletion on that DRV. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I can do without your respect. I am not a pandering type of person. —Kurykh 07:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You OK in there?

I've been watching the FICT debate (which growing horror, as you'll know if you know me at all) and noticed the depth of your involvement. Initially I was largely amused at the way refreshing my watchlist would change all the rest but keep talk:fict by Ned Scott where it was. But let's be honest here - the quality of your comments has been degenerating. Today (the 23rd) you've lapsed into expletives, told other people what they think, focused on how tired you are and made statements that can be taken as insults without too much of a stretch. Coming here, I see you've made statements that need no interpretation at all to be insults because you don't need to respect their target. But how we conduct ourselves isn't a matter of how others act, it's a matter of how we act. We write in a medium of pure communication without really having a clue as to how to use it; limiting ourselves to basic politeness isn't as much a part of collaborative editing than a requirement for it to be possible at all. You're a long-time editor. You know this. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 05:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this. I re-looked at all of my contribs to these discussions after reading your message to me, and I'm not seeing what you are seeing. For one, the reason I'm showing up so often on your watch list is because I tend to make an edit for each comment I respond to, rather than making a single general reply, or making them all in one edit. Here's a few diffs I chose at random: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Even this is really isn't close to what you've described, but is probably the "worst" I've done tonight. Overall, I understand your concerns, and sometimes I let the frustration of the debate get to me, but this is certainly not a "degenerating" issue. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ned

We may not agree, but at least we know each other as hardcore pedians. Why is FICT needed? I've asked on that page, but I don't think it's constructive to ask it again. I've forgotten what the reasoning is. Could you refresh my memory? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Zanthalon

The block of Zanthalon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was based on his pro-pedophile activism. Fred Bauder (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Block discussion

We already told you that any discussions about unblocking this user must occur via private chat with the ArbCom. The relevant information can be read here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about problematic behavior or someone who was advocating pedophile userboxes. Fred's view might make sense in some situations, but this certainly was not a result of the arbcom case, and it's complete paranoia. Unless you actually have an arbcom ruling to back up the statement, Fred's individual viewpoint is not enough. It's absurd to think that a discussion of this nature would harm Wikipedia or the Foundation. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fred has contacted me before and stated that all unblock discussions about similar editors must be done off Wikipedia. I was also involved in an block and unblock of similar users and all discussions were closed by Fred or other ArbCom members, citing that very link I gave you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to Fred. Unless it was actually agreed upon by a majority of the arbs, and not just him. I won't revert the AN/I discussion, but I certainly will discuss this issue. Fred made a block that was outside what was applicable from the arbcom case. We do not ban people for being pedophiles, we ban them for making userboxes or trying to promote it. The user self-identified long before the arbcom case, and no one ever told him that the content needed to be removed. I'm sure he would have done it himself if he had known. (and for the record, I am not a pedophile). -- Ned Scott 05:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I know you're not one, that isn't my concern. However, I am doing everything I can to try and not have you get banned over something as this. If you are asking me if this was clarified in a case somewhere, I don't see it. I was just a clarification by Fred and enforced by the Committee. Even Jimbo enforced it on an occasion that I was involved. Just play it safe and email arbcom. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you for your honest concern. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My other suggestion is to scour the mailing lists and see if there is some sort of endorsement there. That seems to be where Fred wanted all discussion of this unblock closed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

He commented on this specific unblock, or are you talking about the past discussion? -- Ned Scott 06:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In the link posted on the ANI now (sorry about the rollback function, undo wasn't working for me), he commented on the general policy on how we deal with said editors. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season - but with this full bag! -- Cat ^chi? 17:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters

The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury's RfA

Just a heads up. Mercury did ask for the bit back at the bureaucrat noticeboard, but Dan (who has since supported the RfA) said that since he gave up the bit under controversial circumstances, he'd have to reapply via the normal means. AniMate 06:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw that and commented on the b'crat board. Thank you anyways for the heads up. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikia

• Welcome to the annex and thanks for the help. Much appreciated :) Renmiri (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Darn! forgot to sign in... That was Renmiri above Renmiri (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters/Workshop

Thanks for letting me know - where can I go to find the results? Geĸrίtz (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters#Final decision. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - doesn't seem like a very concrete action plan. For example, the user who deleted/redirected all Malcolm In The Middle and Scrubs episodes - should he revert his changes? (I would vote Yes). Thanks again... Geĸrίtz (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

m:Wikicommunity

Here is a proposed off-Wikipedia site for community-building. If you would like to signify interest in the Wikicommunity project, please put your name at m:Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikicommunity.Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

futurama list

Been thinking about it, and maybe its just better to keep it the way it was, as it somewhat clear already. The sortable list is just going to cause problems as I believe the sort will only apply to each season and not the whole list, so it wont automatically put all the broadcast season 2 episodes together in one place, but just sort those episodes that are under the current topic. Sorting works better if there is only one season of the show....just some thoughts Grande13 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but does the broadcast/production re-order cross seasons? I haven't looked at them all yet. -- Ned Scott 23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it does. Grande13 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be much of a problem, then. However, there might be a way to make all four tables change with one click.. I'll look into it. -- Ned Scott 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not in favor of fair use?

Please, I beg of you, do not take this as an attack. I'm amazed that you state you're not in favor of fair use yet [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] (and other edits) you seem quite happy to edit war the images back into the articles. I'm frankly surprised. Mind, I think you're right now...the only way out of this is to include as much and as many of them as liberally as possible as it's the only way out of this. I'm just startled to see you doing this. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe in limiting the amount of fair use images on Wikipedia, and allowing reasonable uses that our policy allows. Though, I'm not sure you are in a position to judge other people by their past contributions. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not judging you. I just had hopes that you were a detached voice in this debate who could come in and wield some good upon the debate. But, since you're obviously willing to edit war to your preferred version, I despair. Maybe Masem is that voice. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the merge of WP:EPISODE

I replied some on my talk page, however, I wanted to give you a more full answer here. I had set January 7th as a reasonable time to end the discussion/RfC. As I saw it, editors were generally in favor of merging EPISODE and this had been done in both the drafts already. I took it upon myself, yesterday morning, to redirect EPISODE to WP:WAF. I was reverted twice and called a vandal. That, incidentally, is why the merge tag disappeared from WAF. I had already redirected EPISODE and felt the matter was settled. I do not think EPISODE is even necessary. All the "clean-up police" need is WP:N, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. Bignole contended EPISODE needed to be archived/marked historical. I do not see a purpose for this. Anyway, I have developed some affinity for you as an editor much like myself. I see you as thoughtful and consistent, but sometimes your passion causes momentary outburst. You are quick to apologize and keen to renew your commitment to cooperation and making this encyclopedia great. I have some trouble with patience, especially when no patience is afforded articles lacking notability, but I am trying to work cooperatively to make the encyclopedia better. Ursasapien (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I can certainly relate to those moments of frustration. As for what to do with WP:EPISODE, well the page itself could be marked as historical, or it could even just be put back the way it originally was, and moved back to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. The redirect might be nice for a sub-section of WP:FICT or WP:WAF, or just some kind of "disambig" page for anything related to TV episodes, such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, etc. -- Ned Scott 09:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eyes

You're welcome to wade in on that page, for waterboarding. We've been trying desperately to get ever more eyes on there, as some of the SPAs have gone out of their way to stonewall application of NPOV, between the various sockpuppets and other SPAs launching into harassment and personal attacks. More experienced eyes and voices are always better. Lawrence Cohen 00:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ned. As you might expect, Lawrence here is only telling you half of the truth. Here's the other half. I suspect that I'm the "SPA" he described at WP:ANI as "very, very aggressive." I know a WP:OWN violation when I see one, and you are definitely on the right track with this group. They arrived at Waterboarding en masse from another article, Blackwater Worldwide. They have an SPA of their own called Inertia Tensor who mysteriously agrees with them about everything, and is really over the top while they appear more restrained. (Bad hand account anyone?) Ever since anyone had the nerve to challenge their WP:OWNership of the article, they've been trying to delegitimize us with one sockpuppet accusation after another. Personally, I survived two RFCUs in a week with findings of  Unrelated. In fact, more than half the people who have been accused resulted in findings of  Unrelated or  Declined.

What Lawrence hasn't told you is that a veteran WP editor who disagreed with him, who was never in the slightest bit of trouble before arriving at this article, was blocked two weeks for sockpuppetry because he has a shared IP address - and was unblocked by the Checkuser admin who originally ran the RFCU on him, after less than six days of a two-week block. And the admin who had blocked him, in response to the RFCU result, actually posted an apology on the editor's Talk page: "Sorry about the mess." Lawrence isn't telling you the whole truth about what's been going on at that article, or his multiple failed sockpuppet accusations. (He's only telling you about the third one because it was briefly, partially successful.) I encourage all interested admins to review the constant efforts to delegitimize editors who disagree with this cabal, by leaving reams of warnings on User Talk pages and misrepresenting the evidence in an RfC. Their constant efforts to bend the rules of honest inquiry are a sight to behold. They're pushing their POV with a Caterpillar bulldozer. Take a good look.

I already posted all of this at WP:ANI and the instant response was to archive the thread, so I am turning to you. You know that Lawrence and his little group of friends are trying to WP:OWN the article and they're Wikilawyering like Clarence Darrow. Give me some help here. Neutral Good (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping the reason you had removed your message was that you felt it was too harsh. I don't think Lawrence is trying to hide anything. My own comment about other users having ownership issues wasn't directed at on-going article issues, but rather at how I saw people react to an "external group" on the ANI thread. Outside of the incident tonight regarding the Harvard class, I have no opinion on the matter. Furthermore, while I might have disagreed with some editors tonight regarding this incident, I normally respect all of them, and often agree with them on other issues, or similar issues with different circumstances. If I have time I'll poke around and give you my thoughts on the matter.-- Ned Scott 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Ned. Lawrence Cohen 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! May I ask...

...why did you blank the rollback page? I've reverted your edit, and most users already have access to rollback. —BoL 01:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be undone. -- Ned Scott 01:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

please stop blankignt he page, this is nopt the way to protest. Viridae^Talk 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't start to edit war over the Requests for Rollback page. There are correct forums for expressing your opinion on such matters, if you would care to consider discussion, this would be most desirable. Nick (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Or avoid discussion and keep getting warnings and eventually get blocked. —BoL 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not users bypassing consensus. This is the developers reading consensus, and implementing.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 31 hours for disruptive edit warring. It's clear that you're doing this to disrupt, and I see from your extensive block log that this is far from the first time. Please stop this behavior. krimpet✽ 01:37, 10 January 2008 (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:

unwarranted block. What I've done is far less disruptive than allowing that page to exist.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but that is a non-reason. I am happy too review the unblock again should you come back with a real unblock request - feel free to email me. When I am happy you will use the proper channels, I will instantly unblock. — Viridae^Talk 01:40, 10 January 2008 (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.

Edit conflicted on that decline, but I'll endorse it. Your edits were clearly made to disrupt the project, and your unblock request does not convince me you will not continue making the same edits. I believe an assurance that you will stop your disruptive behavior must be made if you would like to be unblocked. - auburnpilot talk 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, I will refrain from blanking, reverting, and other such disruption. -- Ned Scott 01:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I am happy to unblock. Feel free to complain via the usual channels - far more productive. I will run it past Krimpet as a matter of courtesy, but she should have no problem either. Viridae^Talk 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh btw - you are unblocked, someone beat me to the punch. Viridae^Talk 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Thank you anyways for offering to unblock. -- Ned Scott 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback ArbCom

Good to see that you're unblocked. I'd be willing to be listed as a party if you want; like Doc glasgow, I strongly oppose this new feature. Please let me know if there's any way I can help. Thanks! GlassCobra 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh God, no moar drama please. John Reaves 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is already way beyond drama. And a lot of us (including your overturn of the page protect) are adding to the drama. ArbCom is a great idea on this one, because it centralizes a discussion occurring on at least 3 pages, and it resolves the issue once complete. One thing I should point out, when writing up this ArbCom request, be sure the purpose of the request is questioning not the devs actions, but whether or not a consensus to USE the tool was reached. Also, it might be pertinant to discuss that discussions on WT:RFR are suggesting modifications to (at best) a controversial policy that's been active less than a few hours. In other words, don't indict the dev, but the fact that so much of this is occurring out of process. Justin ^chat 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Justin. The big problem here is that this was implemented way before anyone knew how we were going to deal with it. GlassCobra 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. I missed that you edit warred and got blocked over this! Regarding your statement at the ArbCom request, I just wanted to point out that your draft statement is also being referred to at least twice (by me and Sean Williams). If you want me to remove that reference, let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with anyone using any text from the arbcom draft. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Protection

I felt it was an inappropriate protection and other admins agreed with me. John Reaves 05:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

.....and other admins felt it was completely appropriate. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point!

It would take more time, of course, but it's worth the effort. Thanks for pointing that out!

Beside the point, I don't know if you're a mergist or not, but I actually get a pretty good feeling when I'm redirecting the articles I am. You know, you're doing something you know that many users - epsecially fans of the show - are going to hate you for, and then there's that cold, paranoiac feeling that maybe they'll report you to an administrator! Then, though an administrator most likely would not block a user for redirecting an article of a non-notable SP episode, the administrator might also be an obsessed fan, who doesn't realize that the information which was once in the redirected pages is now being used in the wikia dedicated to the show! Then they block you! Or, the users might continually try to revert your redirects, and then you become the one accused of starting the edit war, and then the administrators come and block you from editing! But while you're doing the redirecting and transferring, you get a really good feeling, from all that thrill and excitement. It's way better than all that thrill from videogaming and stunt-sporting (pardon my manners, I forgot that there's a possibility you may like those things). Anyway, in short, I enjoy it.

Again, thank you for your tip! On my future redirects, I'll remember to do that (or something similar). Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be surprised to find yourself blocked for WP:POINT. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh you are wonderful! So kind, to give me these warnings, and suggestions on how to avoid potential consequences! There ought to be a Wikipedia award for that! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, now I'm confused. Do I put the template on the article which was redirected, or on its doppelganger in South Park Wiki? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You put the template on the article that is on wikia. I normally place it on the bottom of an article. If the original title differs from the title on Wikia, you can do {{Wikipedia|Article title}}. This generates a template with links to the article history back here on Wikipedia, which is required for reuse. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, wikia:southpark:Casa Bonita#External links. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the nowiki tag on my image at Wikipedia talk:Notability. And that's not sarcasm: I mean it.

It would've been better, though, to just delete the image tag entirely and leave me a notice. But thanks anyway. Zenwhat (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [15]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized discussions have taken place, but they have not attracted a large amount of editors. I have the feeling that this will happen to the discussion you've started as well. If you want a good way to attract more people to this, we need to have an environment that is more open, less hostile, and less circular. We need a structured RfC. -- Ned Scott 00:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think an RfC would add to the conversation, I welcome you to include one. However, it is my goal, and I have already achieved it, to bring more voices to the table. If both sides could has this out, then perhaps things will be worked out. Right now we have seven, that I know of, different conversations going on about the same issue. My goal is to bring it all to one centralized spot. --Maniwar (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's sort of been the point of WT:EPISODE. It is the talk page for the episode guideline. All you did was scatter some notices around, which isn't any different than what other people do every few weeks or months. If you want meaningful, lasting, intelligent discussion, then more needs to be done. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The rollback mess

Hi Ned, thanks for the note - sorry for the late reply, I enforced a wikibreak because things got way to heated for me. I want to appologise for any perceived problems I caused - it really wasn't my intention. With all my actions throughout the incident, I honestly thought I was helping wikipedia, I really did believe people would be pleased with what I did. I never expected the problems that occured after the implementation, if I knew it was going to be anywhere near as bad as it turned out to be, I would have dropped it right away. I wanted what was best for Wikipedia with this (and looking at the situation now, I still believe it is in the best interests of the project), but I do accept responsibility for what happened. I really wish we just had time to discuss the actual implementation so we were ready, but unfortunately that didn't happen. Anyway, I hope there's no hard feelings, you're a good guy and a good user and I really hope we can move on from this and go to the future as friends. Best regards and take care, Ryan Postlethwaite 03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

chopping up messages

Ned, I don't quite understand your edit summary here.[16] It's a wiki. We're free to move about and refactor, and all text is released under the GFDL. The method of your response to me implied you wished to discuss the way I responded. If I got that wrong, I apologise, but this is the third time you've used an edit summary which attacks me. It's starting to become frustrating on my end. Hiding T 13:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, that was just a pet peeve of mine, and not really related to the dispute itself. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that Ned. What I would appreciate is an edit summary which reads refactoring and a message on my talk page which deals with your frustration. I don't appreciate an edit summary which states don't chop up my messages, something we guide against in a couple of pages. WP:ES states "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates" and WP:CIV states "Silent and faceless words on talk pages and edit summaries do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious comments being misinterpreted." Now I know I'm no angel in this regard, but I've been working hard to keep my talk page edit summaries succinct, usually using either c for comment or r for reply, don't know if that helps. Anyway, all the best, Hiding T 13:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Episode list/Degrassi}}

Hi Ned. I've been away for a month, so I've only just noticed you carried out the changed I asked, ie. unbolding the title and removing the quotes so they can be manually added.

Over at Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), the headers "Series #", "Canadian airdate" and "Production code" are all left-justified in the table, while the "Title" and "U.S. airdates" are centered. This happened when {{episode list}} was being used, though. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the tables, or with the way it's being used at the article page. I was wondering if you'd be able to take a look and see if you can see what's causing the problem. Thanks, -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Looks fine when I view it in Safari, FireFox, and Opera. What browser are you using? -- Ned Scott 06:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, IE7. It's not my puter though, it's my wife's. Don't shoot! -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07

Ned, I'm cleaning out old and dead proposals. Are you still working on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, or is it OK to mark it obsolete. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. The current active proposal is in someone's userspace, so I'm 99% sure no one is using that one. -- Ned Scott 09:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

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

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

This is going to be the best Christmas ever! -- Ned Scott 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

request to refactor

Ned, I believe it's unfair to charactarixze this as a bad faith statement. In particular I made a good faith effort to refactor within minutes of a conversation with KWW to add context. I never accused anyone of doing anything maliciously. Just that it was unwise to hold separate secret discussions. I's appreciate a rewording of your comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So be it, at least I know what sort of man you are.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to judge me on that comment alone, I can't stop you. Ironically, this presents more bad faith. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A proposition

Not sure if I should have taken this to WP:ALBUM first, but seeing as you have been involved before in the creation of {{Japanese episode list}}, and have expressed interest on creating a similar template for manga chapter/volumes, I thought you'd be a good person to ask this. My question is, would it be possible to make a template that would make rendering the track listing for an album easier than what we currently have? To my knowledge, the basic convention in WP:ALBUM is just to list the tracks and give the lengths at the end, without the use of a table. Now, this similar convention has been used for Japanese albums in the past, but I personally think a template would be of more use and that way we could standardize track listings, at least for Japanese albums to start out with, and if WP:ALBUM likes what we're doing, then they could adopt the template for general usages.

Also, it crossed my mind that this may be too much work for such a narrow band of articles, especially when the template I intend to use will be for Japanese albums. Not to mention that it would be too difficult to systematically convert all track listings to the new template, so I thought the creation of such a template could be used as an example of sorts, and after the template is created, we can start using it on newer articles and hope that it catches on.

The thought crossed my mind when I was overlooking the articles in Category:Key Sounds Label which all use a similar table originally constructed by User:White Cat back when he was heavily involved with Air in June 2006. I liked the table, and has since adopted it in use in all the Key-related music album listings, though I do find it difficult to reproduce without an example handy, and the fact that it's very bulky and takes up a huge amount of vertical space in the code window when editing which can be a major pain when you're trying to find a single thing to fix in the tower of vertical text, though I guess this would more apply to albums with multiple CDs, like the original soundtracks. Not to mention that while I do like the table, there are problems with it I have been meaning to fix, but I think constructing a template would be more useful for everyone.

So, what do you think? Is it a good idea, or just too much?--十八 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be simple enough to try out. I'll throw something together when I get a moment. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply -- Ned Scott 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good start, but I wasn't intending it to look exactly like the previous code. I thought a setup like {{Japanese episode list}} with the English/Kanji/Romanized title all in one box would work best, and then we could add additional (auxiliary) fields for lyricist, composer, and arranger. Other than that, the color scheme was also something I wanted to bring up since Japanese episode list uses a gray background, so I thought it'd be more consistent if this one had one too. But those are just my personal opinions; we really need to setup a discussion at WP:ALBUM or WP:MOS-JP to get more reaction from the community.--十八 10:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like good ideas to me. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Template for track listing and posted a notice on the village pump. -- Ned Scott 22:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised that there wasn't much immediate attention, since if there was interest already, it would have happened a long time ago. Looking back on it, it's weird to imagine episode listings before {{Episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list}} were made, but the transition was nice and clean and had a lot of help in the beginning. WP:Anime may be interested it in the idea, but I think it'll take a while to catch on. Trouble is, I'm horrible when it comes to complicated code entry, so I need someone of your expertise to help me out with the idea, or else I probably would have already done it. Something simple and similar to {{Japanese episode list}} would work wonders to make data entry quicker, which is what a template is supposed to do anyway, other than making it more organized and standardized.--十八 08:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

To get an idea of what I meant about pretty much adopting the episode lists format, I used the episode list template to input a very short album, viewable at User:Juhachi/sandbox. The template only goes up to 3 auxiliary fields, so I couldn't also include Arranger, but there is just enough space left for one more field, so I don't think it's a problem. Also, the template would have to be at 74% length I've found, since any longer and IE/MSN browser bumps the table down underneath the infobox if it's any longer. To see for yourself, open up this revision in IE (width at 75%) and this revision in IE (width at 74%). Also, would there be a way to tweak the code so that if all the songs on an album are sung by the same person that we can only list it once and have the cells merge together for that column? As you can see from my example, it's very redundant to list the singer or lyricist multiple times if once will suffice.--十八 07:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That should be very doable, both the title and the merging thing. I really like that cell merge idea... I might work on that tonight, who needs sleep :D -- Ned Scott 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion help

Could you help me, point me in the right direction, or tell me if this is even possible/permissible? I have been working on the Head louse article. As I see it, this article should be focused on details about the creature itsself rather than issues involving infestation. I move a mass of the treatment information to the treatment article, but some sections like "No-nit policy" remain in both articles. Can I somehow transclude these sections so that edits made to one article will automatically show in both? I have manually done this, but it is getting tiresome. Thanks in advance for your help. Ursasapien (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides making the specific section into a template, you could place <includeonly></includeonly>tags on that specific section, then transclude the article with {{:ArticleTitle}}. Because of the includeonly tag, only that section will show up when you transclude the article. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

this statement seems to have come out of nowhere, is it in response to something? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a response to Pixel. He brought up that Jack left him a similar comment, where Jack linked inflame to WP:TROLL. It's in the diff in the last sentence of Pixel's proposal statement. -- Ned Scott 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. It seems that in almost every statement he's made at WT:EPISODE, PixelFace has suggested that people go after The Simpsons episodes, and it is getting annoying. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your issue?

Exactly what part of WP:BURO covers archiving discussions? You seem to prefer discussions going on in several unrelated places at once (or maybe you just enjoy tweaking my nose). Ursasapien (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Formal closing of discussion is a pet peeve of mine when it's just on a normal talk page. If you want to add a note that says the discussion has moved to another page, fine. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, edit warring because of a pet peeve seems lame to me. I have seen this practice used many times on regular talk pages when a discussion has moved. I hope that someone will go over to EPISODE and find the current discussion. I hope that no one will continue to comment in the stale and overly long discussion on WAF. But, if the discussion was formally closed, folks would know not to comment there. Ursasapien (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should they not be allowed to comment there if they wish? Did you not see the large banners I placed on the top of all of these TV-related talk pages? What about the poll you recently started, can't these same things be said for it? -- Ned Scott 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And no, I have not violated WP:POINT. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The poll is specifically where the merge discussion should be going on. Not on two pages or in the midst of a long and now stale debate. I never said you violated POINT (in fact, my pet peeve is when editors talk about violating some guideline like it is a law and they are defending themselves in court), I simply noted that enforcing one's "pet peeve" by edit warring is a way of making a point. Ursasapien (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I've self-reverted. -- Ned Scott 08:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You, sir, are a credit to WP. Despite how much we may disagree at times, I appreciate how much you listen and try to work together with others. Ursasapien (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do get worked up in all this sometimes.. Feel free to whack me upside the head when I do :) -- Ned Scott 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ec on workshop page

Hi. I had an edit conflict with your edits on the workshop page in Rdfox's section; I believe I glued everything together correctly, but you might want to check. Apologies, if I stepped on something. --Jack Merridew 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything seems fine :) -- Ned Scott 09:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

You have one. Not urgent. seresin || wasn't he just...? 05:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied :) -- Ned Scott 05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vectorising Wikipe-tan

Hello! I'm SO so so terribly sorry about taking so long to reply, I've been sick for ages... I've started work on vectorizing Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png since I finally have a tablet (I was using a laptop touchpad before, it's not easy to use to draw!). The other Wikipetan svg I did was a basic edited traceover since it was needed quickly, but with this one, since it's replacing a featured picture and is more important, I'm doing a full redraw and top-quality job on. Judging by the amount I got done working for about 4 hours yesterday I will say I can probably get it done in about about one to two weeks - depends on how much time I have to work on it and how kindly my illness treats me!

Again I'm so sorry for the delay, but please tell everyone at WP:TAN I'm working on it and haven't abandoned them ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm taking breaks when I need to and only working on it if I can - if I keel over vectorizing her she'll never get done! ;)

I finally managed to finish the main colour sections; you can see the temp and 2/3rds-done upload here. All that's left is the lineart, and that will cover up the tiny little white bits poking through pieces and such - so don't worry, it will be smooth and perfect once the lineart is done and she's all assembled properly.
I took a bit of artistic license (a very tiny bit) and fixed up some minor things like the shape of her eyes and smoothed some rough patches, but other than that she's pretty much identical as far as I could make her. If there are any changes people think should be made now is the time to request them, before the lineart is completed! Tiny or not-so-tiny, I'll see what I can do; I just need to know and try to see if it works. I love critique so don't be afraid to give me a huge list, the only way I can improve her is if I know what's wrong!

Best regards and hope things so far are up to expectations, -- Editor at Large • talk 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC) by the way, an utterly irrelevant aside - I'm Ayelie and a woman, rather than an overweight man as people oft misconstrue my username! ;)

Awesome! I'll let everyone know and see if they have any other suggestions. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

Crude sexual references like this in the middle of a heated discussion are completely inappropriate. Please maintain the decorum expected of discussion here at Wikipedia; this isn't e.g. ED or 4chan, and comments like that really aren't welcome here. krimpet✽ 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. Do you even know where the term "butt-hurt" came from? Do you even know what it means? You think it came from 4chan? WHAT?! -- Ned Scott 09:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And it sure as heck isn't sexual. -- Ned Scott 09:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a childish reference to anal sex. If you think it's acceptable to equate folks' legitimate concerns about personal attacks to "become offended or upset (such as you would after taking it in the ass in prison)," as Urban Dictionary eloquently puts it, you probably need to learn a thing or two about social skills. krimpet✽ 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is not a reference to anal sex. You read your definition on Urban Dictionary, and you have the nerve to tell me I need to learn social skills? Your blatant ignorance about this simple word astounds me. -- Ned Scott 11:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Before 4chan, before Urban Dictionary, this was a word I would use even around my mother. It's a word that implies someone is over-reacting, much like a kid of gets spanked or falls on their butt and cries about it. But no, you saw the word butt, and you assumed it was sexual. It's not even in my nature to make sexual remarks like that. -- Ned Scott 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I can understand how you could make the mistake, but honestly, when I grew up it had nothing to do with anal sex. -- Ned Scott 11:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Ned! Nothing special, just want to say "hello" and thanks for doing me a favor in this. :) @pple complain 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Approval of Pay Per Play

Hello. How long should it normally take for the incorrect spam tags/categories to be removed from the Pay Per Play topic? It has been rewritten to provide a detailed explanation of the advertising system, pros and cons of the system, and no specific company is promoted or advertised in the article. The only mention of a company, is the company that holds the patents on the technology that makes the advertising system work. I've looked around, but could not find a timeframe for normal article approval, etc. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CohibAA (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, was this placed here by mistake? I don't believe I have any connection to that article.. If it's just that you need to ask someone about this issue, I'm not sure if I'd be able to help, as I'm unaware of the issues for that article. You might want to try asking at the Help Desk or place {{help me}} on your talk page. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to episodes and characters

The Arbitration Committee, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, have voted to implement a temporary injunction. It can be viewed on the case page by following this link. The injunction is as follows:

For the duration of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators. Please note that, for the purposes of enforcement (c.f. the final line of the text of the injunction), all parties in this case at the time of this message (link) have been notified of this injunction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, this injunction applies to everyone, just not parties. The only requirement is that the editor be aware of the injunction; should a violation occur and the user wasn't notified on their talk page, the administrator is to revert the change by the unaware user and inform them of the injunction. Furthermore, I don't believe you can remove yourself from the list of parties of an active arbitration case except through a motion which is passed by the arbitrators. Daniel (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Episode-unreferenced

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

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

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Episode-unreferenced/doc

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

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

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Old template

A link is sufficient to show that CSDT3 is currently disputed, and there was no reason to put a link to your subspace to track the template that you are contesting is a bit disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong, it's not disruptive at all, not even by a long shot. I'm not in any position to force anyone from not using T3, and I'm not trying to do that. To suggest that tracking 6 day-old templates is disruptive is absurd. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

With a single page? The category system that is used for images and prods is sufficient. Apply that instead of using a page in your user space to track them all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would, but I figured someone would object to an "entire cat" being created for that. If you had bothered to look at my edit summary, I note this. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted it is a weird method to some, but how can you come to the conclusion that it was disruptive? How does that even make sense? It wouldn't even be effective as a disruption even if that was my intent. So please do me the favor of not assuming that I'm trying to disrupt something simply because I have an objection to it. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It all really seems to be an effort to subvert the new CSD criterion that you are opposed to, despite there having been a consensus and posts at AN and VPR to direct discussion to. Doing this while saying that the guideline is disputed is a bit disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to systematically remove the tags I could do it without the 6 day category. I'm not all together opposed to the concept. I've already reviewed at least 30 templates from the main category, and obviously I've left most of those tags alone. Believe me, I'm not trying to be disruptive. I might be paranoid, and wish to evaluate templates that are tagged, but that is anyone's right to do. If T3's usage continues to grow then the "day before" category will be a great value to anyone who does want to double check on those tags. It's too bad that WikiMedia isn't currently dynamic enough to have such a feature built in, where you could filter categories by time, but for now this is what I have to work with for this tool. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please reconsider

T3 was widely announced. There was a consensus to implement it, and it was implemented. It's fine if you think it shouldn't be policy, however, consensus currently is against that. As such, the burden's on you to show that it should be removed from CSD. I understand that you watchlist a lot of discussions and you may have missed this one, however, reading WP:SILENCE may be helpful. Wikipedia is huge; I regularly miss discussions about things. It happens; you move on. What you don't do is suddenly declare that something is disputed and is only "proposed" just because you missed the discussion. That's not fair to those who worked hard to get the change implemented.

Modifying a template the way you did was clearly pointish. You've created a "watchdog" category, which is contrary to speedy deletion. Trust me when I tell you that these templates are, by and large, entirely worthless. There's already a category to see all pages that have been marked for deletion, Category:Deprecated and orphaned templates. Use that. What you created was a category so that you could step-in at the last minute; and do what? The only things I can think of that you would do with these templates that are going to be deleted does not cast you in a positive light (e.g., de-tag them, list them somewhere like TfD, try to transclude them somewhere, redirect them somewhere). Is there any other reason for this category than to try to subvert a deletion? If not, then it shouldn't be used.

Per your comments about deleting templates, it was a pretty weak one. We delete articles, images, and templates every single day. Does it screw-up oldid's? Certainly. Does that matter? Not really. It's a reality of the current system. We have about 13,000 unused templates. In my estimation, it is the one of the most un-maintenanced namespaces. It needs to be cleaned out; consensus formed for T3, and that's what I and other admins will use when we delete the templates, unless policy has changed. For the moment, policy (and consensus) are for keeping T3. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's a weak consensus, and there isn't a single mention about the GFDL. If you guys didn't even think about that consideration, then I wouldn't be flaunting around how well discussed this was. We are talking about an addition to CSD, and you are questioning my plea to be cautious, to consider things that might not have been considered? This has nothing to do with being fair to those who worked to get the change implemented. It doesn't matter how hard one works at something, what matters is the arguments at hand. Just look at WP:A. People worked their asses off on that. Not fair? yeah, it wasn't fair, but being fair to editors doesn't determine what's best for Wikipedia.

Please read the section right above this one (#Old template), I've already been going through a ton of those templates, and I have no intention whatsoever of systematically detagging them. I'm not that stupid, so please give me some credit. Man, I really wish I had made a better impression on you, so you wouldn't think I would be as stupid as to translcude a few hundred templates and attempt to wiklaywer my way into keeping some mindless templates. I created a category so I could step in in the last minute and do what? Look at the template before it got deleted, to see if it was of any value. I know it's hard to believe that someone can object to something and still be constitutive, but is what you have with me.

If it were just people like you tagging templates, I would be less likely to oppose something like T3, but it's not just you. The wording on the criteria itself is weak, and needs clarification. There are hundreds of templates that are not marked in how they are used, making it easy for people to assume they are orphaned, and since templates are hardly watchlisted (compared to articles) notification of the author alone, and only having it up for seven days, is hardly enough. -- Ned Scott 08:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Or I could redirect at the last moment, which, depending on the situation, would be likely desired. Such as those GFDL concerns, or if there really is something worth keeping in the edit history. I don't believe that would be considered disruptive. I certainly wouldn't be trying to save those worthless ones, in any case. -- Ned Scott 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned, could you explain to me the GFDL concerns you are worried about? Someone else has started mentioning GFDL, but I can't see any common scenario in which GFDL would inhibit the deletion of a template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When prose is taken from one template and used in another, and/or subst'ed. I also think, to a lesser extent, that non-prose templates might have GFDL concerns, but I'm not really sure on those kinds of details. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Digimon Navbox

The colors were removed to standardize the templates, I'm going through the entire list of video game related templates and conducting this. Right now I'm limiting my changes to code polish that reflects a visible change. non-standard colors, non-standard dimensions, and in a few cases table-based templates that haven't even been converted to the Navbox standard yet. As per the Navbox doc changing the color of template elements is strongly discouraged (Template:Navbox#Styles (NOT RECOMMENDED)). There's a reason this is in all caps.

If you have a genuine reason why the Digimon Anime/Video game template needs alternate colors to aid presentation please let me know as soon as possible, or my next sweep of the list will revert them back. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the doc page of a template doesn't set the guidelines for such things. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a look and feel thing, this is not a Digimon fansite, it looks pretty silly for that particular Navbox to have custom colors that are not needed, nor improve the box or articles it's in. Again if you have a reason to be adding it let me know otherwise this is a non-issue. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a color theme the editors of the articles have been using for the other nav templates, as well as for Digimon infoboxes. You might think it looks silly, but they do not. This has nothing to do with being a fansite. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It does if you raise a fuss over the color of a box, if the rest of the Digimon templates are all this color I'll leave it alone until I can standardize all of them at the same time. That way no one stands out and looks off against the rest. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"It does if you raise a fuss over the color of a box", uh you're the one raising a fuss over it, so I'm not sure how that works out. If you wish to standardize them please discuss it on the template talk pages first. Compulsive standardization doesn't help anyone. WP:MOS says: "When either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so (for example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic). Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." -- Ned Scott 08:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: User categories

You may be interested in participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Proposal. Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Old templates

I apologize if I've seemed rude lately about old templates and how to handle them.

I guess my frustration stems from the fact that I've been dealing with this issue on-and-off for about the past eight months. In June, I posted to WT:TFD, and eventually that discussion led to the creation of WP:DOT. However innocuous or not DOT was, there were objections to it that led to an MfD and a DRV. I did some work under DOT and then stopped. Eventually, Happy-melon came in seeking consensus for a new speedy criterion. At first I was hesitant, but eventually I saw a new criterion's virtue and began advocating for it. It went "live," and then an editor or two jumped in and said there hadn't been enough discussion. It was put on hold again, went "live" again, I did some work with it, and then you came along over a week later and raised objections.

I appreciate your dedication to this project and some of the points you raised were good ones that should be brought to the attention of the full community. Perhaps we should not delete so many templates, images, and other pages. Perhaps not. My frustration stemmed from the fact that it seemed (to me) to be an inappropriate "place" to discuss these issues, because the objections weren't to T3 necessarily -- they extended more to the broader deletion of content in general.

You're a very passionate editor, and I respect that about you. Thank you for allowing everyone to move forward and I look forward to spirited discussions ahead. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Ned, I've mentioned this before but you really need to learn to moderate your language. Examples are [17], [18],[19]. I appreciate the arb-com matter is an issue you care about very passionately, but you need to present yourself in a far more civil manner, that's a fundamental principle on WIkipedia. Take time to compose your replies and do not hit the save button straight away. Rewrite and weak until you get your message composed in a civil way which still makes the point you wish to make. I also appreciate the fact that you apologised to TTN, but it seems to me you need to better control your first impulse in some way. Hope that helps in some way. Hiding T 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You know I respect you, but I have to agree with Hiding on this. Sometimes it is better to write your replies in an external editor (like Notebook), remove any accusatory profanity, polish it, and then paste it in and push save. I truly value your service to Wikipedia and I do not wish to see you get into trouble. Ursasapien (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiding, honestly: "in a far more civil manner?" That is a bit schoolmarmish. Eusebeus (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I always try to better myself, but I also don't sweat the small things. Also this is isn't an example of incivility. And while my messages to arbcom where not "gentlemanly" I stick by them. Surely I could have presented the same messages in a more intelligent way, but I can't conclude that it was a bad message to make, just not the best one.

But I do appreciate the message and your concern. No doubt that, regardless of my stubbornness, I will hit that preview button a few more times before submitting it. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have misread your statement at the end, so if MZM or anyone else wishes to throw out everything I've said as "madness", and Steamroll me on this, it would be a good chance to do so. If I have, I apologise. This may seem like a small thing Ned, but really and truly, it isn't. We have to lead by example on Wikipedia. We have to maintain our standards, otherwise the whole house will collapse. Maybe I'm just getting grouchy in my old age, but I really believe if we followed WP:AGF and WP:CIV a lot closer half our problems wouldn't exist. Still, all the best, Hiding T 13:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. I have been letting loose on Wikipedia a bit too often. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		For listening. Hiding T 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mass reversion of complex edits

Ned, your recent mass reversion of many video game templates accidently removed changes and improvements made to the them. This might not have been your intention, as you were making the reverts due to your personal objection to the removal of un-recommended styling and formatting, however hours of work had to be reinserted due to your oversight.

I have gone over this with you before, and noticed the long string of POV edits made by you. They caused more harm than good. Again, there is reason that the colors and custom sizes were removed, see Template:Navbox#Styles for the specific tags that were removed to clean the Navbox templates up and allow them to coexist better with the rest of the templates on Wikipedia, pay special attention to the first sentence. As you are clearly one to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit, the letter clearly states that you should not revert good faith edits (Orange Pillar), especially without reason. If you continue to object you should discuss the issue with me or other members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games.

In light of your actions, I have started a discussion at the project talk page, you should voice your opinions so that consensus can be reached. I am not concerned which way the final decision goes I am concerned with the childish manner in which you have "dealt" with my improvement and what you make yourself out to be as another user. If you want people to defer to your wishes you should start by acting respectfully.

You also knowingly reinserted meaningless trivia into the Dance Dance Revolution article that already has more problems that one can count and does not need additional cleanup work. This information was already cited as being spam and pointless by me and others. Either integrate notable parts of the trivia into the article or related articles and properly cite them or do not at all. Un-cited and un-notable text can be challenged and removed. And has. Granted the article needs work, I'm close to applying an overhauled version of the entire thing anyway, but until then I'm not going to let what it is go to hell in a hand basket.

You have a history of being stubborn it seems, I don't consider that a negative trait, but you need to learn to be CIVIL and assume good faith (again, Orange Pillar). Addressing a complaint to me on another person's talk page is also extremely rude and needlessly clutters their talk page with information that has nothing to do with them. If this pattern of destruction continues I will use tiered warning and begin to notify Admins of your actions. My talk page is open if you have anything to say to me. Spirit of the Law & The Cardinal Law --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would very much disagree about your assessment of my behavior, as well as your assessment of my impact on those templates. Minor style edits were lost when reverting back to custom looks, and nothing that couldn't be easily fixed, or that was vital. You continue to assert some sort of consensus based on the document page for a template, one that was written up by a single user. One does not have to argue or ask you for permission to use custom elements of a nav template.

You've over reacted with this entire issue, and yet you call my behavior childish? You go and yell at other users, saying they are trying to be a fansite by wanting different widths.. That doesn't even make sense. All I did was revert your edits, which in many cases really made the templates look much worse (on that same line of thinking, I left most of them alone, because they were improvements).

Also, assuming good faith has nothing to do with what I did. I have assumed good faith, in that I assumed your motive was in the best interests of Wikipedia. There is nothing about assume good faith that means one has to agree with decisions made in good faith, or that it breaks this faith to revert it (which it doesn't).

Most importantly, this isn't a big deal. It certainly irritates me that you feel the need to go through and do this to all these templates, when it is often not needed or makes little difference, and where local editors want to use custom colors and are being told no "just 'cause". I'm all for standardizing things, but if it doesn't hurt then I think it's great that people sometimes draw outside the lines.

I can understand if the trivia thing was because the relevant content already was in the article. It just seemed that it was being removed because the editor including it didn't want to integrate it with the rest of the article. I probably shouldn't have reverted that, since it isn't something I really know about, so I do apologies for that. However, the template stuff, I stand by my edits. One of the reasons Wikipedia is great is because we don't have to do one-size-fits all. Nothing personal. I'll give my thoughts to that discussion on the Video game WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Template:Naruto info

Actually I was talking about the width, to me it looks jumbled up when it is the other way. Though if you or another editor like it the other way, I will change it? Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 05:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Earthbendingmaster 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thats perfectly ok. Cheers, and don't forget to smile. Earthbendingmaster 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope to see you around

I'm going to be publishing my essays at Wikimedia and I will be using Wikipedia in order to help Veropedia. That's all.

Don't expect me to "collaborate" with the Wikipedia machine.

Also, an important message I just posted that's of critical importance to all Wikipedians:

Whistleblower: Wikimedia has been squandering your donations. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You know better than to simply tap undo, you've been told by me, you've been told by an admin, yet you continue to knowingly erase improvements and edits made by me and other users. I have been extremely patient with you and have given you the opportunity to make good on your word, however you continue to exhibit the patterns of a vandal and your edits are being dealt with appropriately. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you not listening? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• The AN/I should see that this is highly querulous user is issued the appropriate warnings and as necessary blocks. I'll kick in a few cents if it's necessary. Eusebeus (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

comment from El_C

So, am I going to have to suffer disruption on your part with this latest block? El_C 10:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where'd that come from?? -- Ned Scott 10:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was wandering: what is up with this edit summary? El_C 10:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the part where I messed up because I didn't notice one of his edits (the hospital one), then tried to joke my way out of it, but only ended up making myself look like an ass? I just.. yeah.. I'll shut up now.. -- Ned Scott 10:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow that. I just think it's best to keep things calm, with both sides in mind. That includes edit summaries in all-uppercase; or innuendo such as "while I do get a small kick of out people panicking over what you've said." Thanks. El_C 10:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I meant that as some kind of innuendo, but point taken. -- Ned Scott 10:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. (I am not postulating on what you meant, of course, just how that comes across) El_C 11:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

Please take part at this discussion. Yellowbeard (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it true?

That people have actually panicked when I make my curses over them, or tell them not to vandalize, otherwise I'll claw them? Well, then I've done better than I thought I did! I only knew of one instance when it actually worked, and that was with a User:Bloodgod - somethingorother, who had vandalized User:Bongwarrior's userpage. He was actually scared silly when I described myself revealing my "claw-like" nails, and he promised he would not vandalize anymore! But you and the others are right; I had a good long run with it, but it's time to end the ruthlessness - online - and go back to the sweetie-pie they say I was, and you've said I can be. Thanks for your consolation! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about that, I just want you to stop trolling and making disruptions to prove a point. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I am User:DragonBallZ on wikia, and wanted to know if you knew anyone with the time, know how, and willingness to set up a bot on a small wikia? Thanks. Cheers. Earthbendingmaster 03:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes

Hi Ned, I would have commented but I don't know if I was completely up to speed with the whole situation; it just seemed to me to be pretty much an open and shut case that you didn't do much wrong. Did it go OK? Miremare 18:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it went fine, I guess. No one really noticed except for a few people. -- Ned Scott 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please reverse your edits to your user page and to Equazcion's user page. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it for me, I won't revert you, but I'm not going to undue it. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done 138.88.60.141 (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That better be MZM logged out, because I don't remember talking to this anon. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not my IP. I don't edit logged out, and I certainly don't do AfD. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX

I'm glad someone else noticed it - I thought maybe I was seeing things!  :) DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to join Category:Wikipedians who have read the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and good to see you're still here. -- Ned Scott 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)