User:Ned Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


While I try to keep up to date with discussions I'm in, it's very possible for me to miss something. For this reason or any other, feel free to send me an extra poke via e-mail or AIM, for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi).
Help track images! User:Splarka/watchimages.js Cut and paste the script into Special:Mypage/monobook.js, and you'll get a link in the toolbox (on the side bar) that lets you add all images included in an article to your watchlist. Changes to the image description page, new uploaded versions, and deletions will be displayed on your watchlist.
Wikipedia
en This user is a native speaker of English.

(contribs)
This user runs a bot, NedBot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
AF This user is able to make high quality audio files.
{{t|c}} This user can use and program conditional templates.
This user is an Audio Engineer.
WikiProjects
DIGI This user is a participant of WikiProject Digimon.
This user is a participant of WikiProject Anime and Manga.
Wikiproject:Television This user is a participant of WikiProject Television.
The WikiProject Council logo This editor participates in the WikiProject Council.
This user is a participant in
WikiProject Japan.
This user is a member of
WikiProject Video games.
Sign up for the VG Newsletter.
This user is a member of the
Stargate WikiProject.
This user is a member of the B.E.a.T. Taskforce.
This user is a member of WikiProject Free images.
This user is a participant of WikiProject Lists
This user is a member of WikiProject Classroom coordination.
Technical
This user edits/views Wikipedia with a Power Mac G5 (10.5), a MacBook Pro(10.5, W 7), an iPod touch, a Nokia phone (via Opera Mini), and an HTPC (W XP).

sfri This user contributes using Safari.
Firefox This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox.

Contents

I am User:Ned Scott on all Wikimedia Projects with the exception of wikinews:es:User:Ned Scott. I'm in my mid-twenties and live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.

Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.

Useful links


List templates

Projects

Transwiki

  • User:Ned Scott/transwiki - A rough rough draft and collection of thoughts for guidelines and advice about transwiking articles.

External contact project

Lets you find users who have external contact info. For use with WP:CATSCAN

Discussion tracking

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • Discussion: Who has the burden of proof, the creator or the AfD nominator of the article?
  • Feedback requested: Wikipedia Committees, a draft proposal for long-term, scalable governance of English Wikipedia.
  • RfC about the "Advisory Council on Project Development" instituted by the Arbitration Committee.
  • Poll: Should <ref>/<references> be modified to allow changes in where reference content is defined?
  • RFC: How do you appeal a DRV?
  • RfC: Editors are invited to propose articles that would not be delinked by the date unlinking bot.
  • Review: Review of English Wikipedia governance
  • Review: Provisional draft #2 of the new arbitration policy.
  • Proposal: Proposal to create user-space redirects.
  • Poll: Should WP:NOT#PLOT be reworded, moved, removed, or kept the same?
  • RFC: Is there community support to change the constitutional relationship between ArbCom and Jimmy Wales?
  • Poll: How does the community feel regarding how the civility policy is applied and enforced on Wikipedia?
  • Discussion: Should notability criteria for pornographic actors be rolled back?
  • Preliminary (userspace) discussion on Wikipedia governance issues.
  • RFC: Should Wikipedia prevent Google and other search engines from searching User pages?
  • RFC. Outside opinions are solicited on self electing groups.
  • RFC: What is the community's opinion on using {{Italictitle}} to italicise certain articles' titles?
  • RFC: What is the community's view of paid editing?

A new page to keep track of discussions throughout Wikipedia has been created: Wikipedia:Coordination

A new noticeboard has been created: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
archive • talk • edit • history • watch
Notice Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board
vdew
  • [June 5th] A request for comments as to whether a consensus on how WP:N applies to fictional topics is opened and seeking additional input, and can be found here.
Delsort
Delsort categories
RfC/General notice
XfDs
Other


Village pump sections
Policy
post | watch | search

To discuss existing and proposed policies

Technical
post | watch | search

To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports use MediaZilla

Proposals (persistent)
post | watch | search

To discuss new proposals that are not policy related. See also: perennial proposals.

Assistance
post | watch | search

To post requests for assistance not covered by the Help desk or the Reference desk

Miscellaneous
post | watch | search

To post messages that do not fit into any other category


RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Manually-added entries:

Should excerpts from this review be used in this article? The review in question is published in Dr. Stockwell's weblog, and hence falls under the rules for Self-published sources. Previously involved editors disagree on whether Stockwell meets this test: is Stockwell "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications?" 18:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)



RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Heaven and Earth (book) (RfC: Is (sic) appropriate for "ascientific", a word not found in dictionaries? ) — Is the inline template [sic] appropriately used when quoting "ascientific"? Other words formed by using the prefix a- (such as apolitical or amoral) exist in all dictionaries, but ascientific exists in none, and may be a neologism, although it is to be found in some published papers. Some editors feel [sic] is derogatory and they oppose its use. Please leave a comment. Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 05:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • [[Talk:Planetary habitability#RFC on suggested title change to "Habitability (Astrobiology)"|Talk:Planetary habitability]] (RFC on suggested title change to "Habitability (Astrobiology)") — in the discussion above a few people suggested the new article title Habitability (Astrobiology), and given the intro of the article refers to extrasolar life and there are other Habitability concept articles, should the articles title continue to refer to Habitability of Planets or be changed to the more specific to life "Habitability (Astrobiology)." GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Freeze (exhibition) (Hirst photo) — The photo of Damien Hirst has been removed from the article. It is entirely appropriate to have an image of the figure who was the main organiser of the show and whose name is recurrently identified with it in sources (see references in previous section). Ty 02:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Full-date unlinking bot (Proposed exceptions) — Per Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot, "An exclusion list will contain the articles the bot will not edit. This list will contain the few article titles where a link to month-day and/or year within at least one triple date meets the relevance requirement in MOSNUM. (In these cases, it would be easier to edit the page manually in accordance with this at a later time.) Articles will be added to the list after manual review; there should be no indiscriminate mass additions of articles to the exclusion list. The list will be openly editable for one month before the bot starts running." This is your opportunity to get pages — whether specific articles or groups of articles — exempt from being edited by the bot. Be sure to state a reason with each addition, or it will be removed without warning. This list will follow the bold, revert, discuss model with adjustments; contested additions to the list will be relocated to a section of contested exceptions where they will be discussed. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Tip (What should happen with this article? ) — This article contains an enormous list of descriptions of how tipping occurs in each country. Almost all of these are unsourced. Those that are sourced are to non–reliable sources such as DHL, a postal company that has no editorial process and no real expertise in the area of tipping customs. The article has been tagged with "needs sources" since August 2007. During that time someone split the page off to Tipping by region, a page with the same problems, but the section has remained intact. A lot of arguments have ensued, but this page hasn't seen any progress.My questions here are:* Should all the unsourced material be removed?* Should material sourced to unreliable sources like DHL (and other travel websites) be removed?* Should "tipping by region" even be included, since there appears to be a dearth of accurate, peer-reviewed information on this subject?Noisalt (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision (RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles ) — What sources are considered reliable and can be used in Eurovision articles? Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:

Why are the right and bottom scrollbars hidden on all Wiki pages? It's as if the pages are too wide for the screen. I don't see this problem on other web pages.



RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Wikipedia talk:Deletion review (RFC ) — The question is: How do you appeal a DRV? Although most of the time, DRV ends a debate over deletion, sometimes even DRV ends up with a lack of consensus. Per Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Lacuna in the process, an admin can use discretion when closing a DRV. But what if the article is relisted on AfD, and then someone brings it to DRV again? Clearly, we need a definitive way to solve this ongoing problem. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 14#Where do you appeal a DRV decision? and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Proposal: DRV no consensus --> relist for previous discussions on this matter. -- King of ♠ 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Citing sources (Straw Poll on modifying <ref> ) — Based on the previous discussion, there would appear to be three possible courses of action at the software level for improving <ref> at the present time.#Alter <ref> and <references> as initially proposed so that the content of references may be defined within a <references> ... </references> block.#Alter <ref> so that the content of references may be defined in some other way at an arbitrary point in the page (such as at the end of the relevant section).#Do nothing now, and wait for a WYSIWYG editor or other solution to present itself / become widely adopted.I would note that the first two of these aren't mutually exclusive, so one could support both and envision changes to allow for both. In order to move forward, I would like to know if a supermajority of Wikipedians support any of these options, hence the purpose of this straw poll, which I will try to advertise in the appropriate places.Rgardless of any possible changes, the current <ref> syntax would continue to be fully supported, and changes would affect only how wikicode could be written with no change at all to the rendered page. Dragons flight (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Falun Gong (RfC tag) — Some editors have expressed concern over the neutrality of this article and have suggested that the overall tone and certain editing practices of devoted editors have damaged the neutrality therein. In a good-faith attempt to draw attention to this and work towards improving the neutrality of the article several editors have put up the pov tag at the top of the page. Other editors have removed the pov tag, arguing that the concerns on neutrality are baseless. The request for comments in this case is on whether the Wikipedia policy on neutrality tagging has been adhered to correctly in the case of this article and whether the tag should be placed on this article until substantial changes to tone and content are made.Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Teachings of Falun Gong (RfC on the issue) — The question here has to do with verifiable sources, legitimate sources and the insertion of POV. The FLG supporters argue that the New York Times is not a reliable source for information on things Li Hongzhi has said. I say that the New York Times is a reliable source and feel it is not notable that a Falun Daffa webpage which purports to contain transcripts of the interview does not include these comments. I assert that the Falun Gong may have edited their transcripts for PR purposes, something supported by the fact that the New York Times has not printed a retraction and Li Hongzhi has not brought libel charges against them for that statement. I have not removed statements derived from Falun Gong sources when those statements state what the website does say. Rather I have simply removed editor commentary on what is not said.Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Full-date unlinking bot (Proposed exceptions) — Per Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot, "An exclusion list will contain the articles the bot will not edit. This list will contain the few article titles where a link to month-day and/or year within at least one triple date meets the relevance requirement in MOSNUM. (In these cases, it would be easier to edit the page manually in accordance with this at a later time.) Articles will be added to the list after manual review; there should be no indiscriminate mass additions of articles to the exclusion list. The list will be openly editable for one month before the bot starts running." This is your opportunity to get pages — whether specific articles or groups of articles — exempt from being edited by the bot. Be sure to state a reason with each addition, or it will be removed without warning. This list will follow the bold, revert, discuss model with adjustments; contested additions to the list will be relocated to a section of contested exceptions where they will be discussed. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:George W. Bush (RfC: What are reliable sources when it comes to waterboarding? ) — The operative dispute between the various parties centers on whether waterboarding is torture, fact or opinion? There are two primary viewpoints here:*Viewpoint A: Waterboarding is, in fact, torture: This group of adherents believes that waterboarding is commonly viewed and defined as torture, an assertion that this group believes is supported by all reliable sources on the subject. This viewpoint asserts that individuals who claim that waterboarding is not torture are not reliable sources because they are either not third parties (i.e., have some conflict of interest; Dick Cheney was an example given) or are not authoritative on the subject (Tom Tancredo was cited as an example) or that various authors that reported the views of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales in the news media are reporting on the viewpoint of these individuals rather than supporting the viewpoint of these individuals. This group seeks to have the words "...waterboarding, a form of torture..." used in the article.*Viewpoint B: Waterboarding may be torture, but it is not an established fact that it is torture: This group of adherents recognizes that there are a majority of those who believe that waterboarding is torture, but that not all experts on the matter believe it is torture, as reported in various reliable sources. This group also believes that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales are experts on this subject and have valid viewpoints represented in reliable sources. Hence, this group seeks to have the words "...waterboarding, widely-considered a form of torture..." used in the article.There is also disagreement as to what constitutes a reliable source. Is it the news media that reported the viewpoint (e.g., CNN), the holder of the viewpoint (e.g., Dick Cheney), or a combination thereof?The issue has been discussed at length above, with little give on either side. While it has generally remained civil, there are signs that it will digress into personal attacks, and charges of wikilawyering and bias. I welcome others who have been involved in the discussion to correct anything that I may have unintentionally misstated. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) (RFC: Non-trivial or significant) — The term "non-trivial" has replaced "significant" in regard to the level of coverage that is required to establish the notability of fictional topics. The term "significant" implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, and may imply a higher standard than is required. Comment is requested on whether "non-trivial" or "significant" should be used to describe the type of coverage that address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Rorschach test (RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? ) — Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? –xenotalk 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User talk:ScienceApologist/Approved articles (Cautious territory section) — Should a "cautious territory" section be included along with a list of articles that User:ScienceApologist is either permitted to edit or refused permission to edit?I believe that the "cautious territory section" is extremely problematic. There is no indication from any of the rulings made against my account that there are gray-areas such as the ones the cautious territory section is implying. Also, I think the labeling of "List of cosmologists" as "Cautious territory" but not other articles is arbitrary and capricious. I would prefer that this section not exist and that arbitrators decide either that an article is appropriate for me to edit or is not appropriate for me to edit per the sanctions imposed upon this account, specifically: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#ScienceApologist_topic_banned. I would like to get wider community input on this before I make a formal request to arbcom on this matter.It is one thing to be subject to restrictions that arbcom has agreed to. It is quite another to be subject to restrictions that seem to be developing "on the fly" as it were. I have, in principle, no issue with any user requesting an amendment to the rulings against me for inclusion of a "Cautious territory" idealization of areas appropriate for me to edit, but I'm a little upset with the unilateral imposition of a new category of editing. Since there has been no specific wording as to what the consequences are for any supposed "breach" of this new sanction, I'm simply asking that either we formally impose this sanction upon my account or we decide a demarcation for List of cosmologists one way or another.Thanks.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing () — A request for comment on the indexing of userspace. Gigs (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:List of Video on Trial episodes (RfC: Is the List of Verdicts trivia? ) — Okay, someone keeps reverting my removal of a huge fancrufty part of this article as vandalism since he disputes its definition as trivia, and yet even also has a disclamier in an article (which I thought we were supposed to avoid). Anyway, if anything, what is part of the humorous part of the show, I think is just trivial and does not need to be included. I also have some other doubts about its inclusion. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (RFC: Replacement Wording for PLOT) — This RFC seeks to determine whether a modified version of WP:NOT#PLOT, rewritten to address concerns raised in a previous poll/RFC, has consensus to remain as policy or should be moved elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Grief porn (RfC: How do we decide the above? ) — ===conflicting facts===1. When presented with two opposing citations (one claiming the coining of a term and a number of others being shown to exist before the coining), what is the proper method of resolving those differences?:Here is the edit with statement of "fact" (Claim that the term "Grief Porn" was coined on April 7, 2005) that is being questioned: [1] :Here is the supporting references as evidence showing prior use of term "Grief Porn" in literature and printed press: [2][3][4][5] exist from many years prior.99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Giano/The future () — The object of this page is to assess if there is sufficient feeling amongst editors, one way or another, to have a proper, honest and frank discussion as to Wikipedia's future management and administration. I don't suggest that debate is held here in my user space, but that we just see if there is sufficient support for such a debate. If you want to make a statement for others to comment upon, please do so below. Please try to limit statements to 500(ish) words. Hopefully, there will later be plenty of space elsewhere to fully express views and ideas.To keep this page at a reasonable length and easy to read, could people please limit their countering of other's points (in the agreeing or disagreeing columns). It's fine to do it, but please keep it to a sensible minimum and try to remember some people are more easily intimdated than others. If you really want to query a point, then please consider starting a section on the talk page and linking to it from the relevant spot here. Anything reasonable and worthwhile will hopefully be seriously debated elsewhere. This page is just to assess views not try and change them - that comes later. Thanks. Giano (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:External links (Why we link official websites - proposal ) — #What should be linked currently reads: Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. • "We get a lot of questions about official websites (usually about multiple websites and MySpace links). In the interest of better explaining the issues, I'd like to propose a new section that unifies all of the "official website" stuff." —Quotation from User:WhatamIdoing, 19:47, 22 June 2009; RfC posted by Milo 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User talk:Gekkoma (Machine Translation) — Why don't we harness tools such as Google's language translation in the form of wikipedia bots to carry out bulk machine translations of articles? The imperfect articles can then be quickly 'polished' off by a human. Firstly, this is much faster and cheaper than individually translating tens of thousands of articles. Secondly, it rapidly allows for knowledge to be converted and transferred into other languages. Any feedback?:Cheaper? Whats cheaper than free? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:



User sub-pages

Ned Scott Ned Scott/Editcounter Ned Scott/FICT
Ned Scott/FICT/Aug07 Ned Scott/FICT/Dec07 Ned Scott/FICT/Feb08
Ned Scott/FICT/July07 Ned Scott/FICT/June08 Ned Scott/FICT/March08
Ned Scott/FICT/Nov07 Ned Scott/Infobox Digimon character
Ned Scott/Navbox/core Ned Scott/Template:Track list
Ned Scott/Template:Wpp1 Ned Scott/Upper Peninsula War Ned Scott/User categories
Ned Scott/Wikinfo Ned Scott/Wikipedians who use StatusBot
Ned Scott/arbcom
Ned Scott/header Ned Scott/monobook.css Ned Scott/monobook.js
Ned Scott/recent update Ned Scott/sandbox Ned Scott/sandbox2
Ned Scott/sandbox3 Ned Scott/sandbox4 Ned Scott/sandbox5
Ned Scott/sandbox6 Ned Scott/sandbox7 Ned Scott/sandbox8
Ned Scott/subpage Ned Scott/transwiki Ned Scott/unicode
Ned Scott/watchlists Ned Scott/watchlists/all Ned Scott/watchlists/arbcom
Ned Scott/watchlists/fiction guidelines

User talk sub-pages

Ned Scott Ned Scott/Archive 13 Ned Scott/Archive 14
Ned Scott/Archive 15 Ned Scott/Infobox Digimon character
Ned Scott/Upper Peninsula War Ned Scott/Wikinfo Ned Scott/archive
Ned Scott/archive1 Ned Scott/archive10
Ned Scott/archive11 Ned Scott/archive12 Ned Scott/archive2
Ned Scott/archive3 Ned Scott/archive4 Ned Scott/archive5
Ned Scott/archive6 Ned Scott/archive7 Ned Scott/archive8
Ned Scott/archive9 Ned Scott/archive current Ned Scott/sandbox
Ned Scott/sandbox/IncidentArchive405 Ned Scott/sandbox/IncidentArchive406
Personal tools