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.
AF This user can make high quality audio files.
{{t|c}} This user can use and program conditional templates.
Mixer-icon.jpg This user is an audio engineer.
WikiProjects
DIGI This user is a member of the Digimon work group.
Wikipe-tan head.png 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.
Miyajima-Torii-Modified.jpg This user is a participant in
WikiProject Japan.
Gamepad.svg This user is a member of
WikiProject Video games.
Stargate-color.png This user is a member of the
Stargate WikiProject.
Schwarzbeck UHALP 9108 A.jpg This user is a member of the B.E.a.T. Taskforce.
Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Free images.
List This user proudly participates in WikiProject Lists
Graduation hat.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Classroom coordination.
Technical
Power Mac G5.jpg This user edits/views Wikipedia with a Power Mac G5 (10.5), a MacBook Pro(10.6, W 7) and an iPod touch)

sfri This user contributes using Safari.
Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.

I am User:Ned Scott on all Wikimedia Projects with the exception of wikinews:es:User:Ned Scott. I'm in my late-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: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Notice Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board
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

Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon

With this edit I corrected the UK release date of the album to March 16, citing an article in Billboard magazine as the source (see "EMI Offers Special Deal to Dealers") but it was reverted to the date Saturday, March 24. The Billboard article, in the March 24, 1973 issue, states:

EMI is to offer stock on a sale-or-return basis to selected dealers taking part in a $50,000 campaign on four albums released March 16. The four albums are: Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon," T. Rex's "Tanx," the Electric Light Orchestra's "ELO 2" and Roy Wood's "Wizzard Brew." Already 100,000 copies of the four albums have been sold even before the promotion.

The article very clearly indicates the album was released (past tense) on March 16 and even states a sales figure for the number of albums already sold.

While I see no reason to question the reliability and accuracy of this source, and it is sufficient in itself to cite the release date as March 16, I will offer further corroborating evidence. The Dark Side of the Moon entered the New Musical Express album chart dated March 24, 1973 (sales week ending Tuesday, March 20, 1973) at #4. This entry coincides with a release date of March 16 and, like the Billboard article, precludes the possibility of a release date of Saturday, March 24. The New Musical Express chart in the August 11, 1973 issue (shown here) shows The Dark Side of the Moon in the chart for 21 weeks, verifying the debut date in the March 24 chart (simply count back 21 weeks). For comparisons sake, below is a table showing other EMI albums with documented release dates and the corresponding debut dates that also appear in the August 11 chart.

{

Talk:Azure

Should the namespace "azure" be changed from a disambiguation page [back] to an article specifically about the color?
  • I realize there was some discussion about this a few years ago on this very same talk page, but am concerned that the solution arrived at was suboptimal. I believe rather firmly that anyone typing the word "azure" into a search box is expecting to get taken (directly) to an article about the color, not to a disambig page that lists such things as titles of songs or magazines, cities in Canada, or types of barley. "Orange", for example, is different: there is the color and the fruit, and both are obvious and different (if related) meanings. Not so with "azure", which to most readers means the color first and foremost. In this case, it seems to make the most sense to make the search term "azure" point to an article about the color rather than a disambig page consisting of widely separated topics. Other's thoughts? KDS4444Talk 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu

Should the lead paragraph state the genres of Mr.Iñárritu's films, based on WP:RS? OnBeyondZebraxTALK 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Version 2.0

It is my contention that this revision by Lapadite77 does not improve the article, for the reasons I've outlined below in my comments. This is the current version of the section in question, after I tried to condense what was added accordingly. Dan56 (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor

The Doctor (proper name starting with “The”) currently redirects to this disambiguation page, Doctor. Should it redirect to Doctor (Doctor Who) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for “The Doctor”? Note that this disambiguation page for the word itself would remain here at Doctor. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bloody Saturday (photograph)

MOS:TITLE and MOS:VISUAL aren't clear on the point: is this photograph considered a separate, major work on the level of a film or TV series (Bloody Saturday) or a minor work on the level of a poem or episode ("Bloody Saturday")? Right now, we've got the main title set one way and its alternate names done the other. We should certainly be consistent in the article and ideally consistent with the other articles. — LlywelynII 13:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Weeknd

Is this recent revision by DA1 acceptable per WP:OR? Dan56 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dabangg

There's nothing in the Chulbul Pandey article to justify a separate page. (Current timestamp so the bot will not remove the RfC notice. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The present text of the Manual of Style's guidelines on gender-neutral language is as follows:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neutral forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See WP:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns.


The proposed new text is as follows. Bold print indicates a change:

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. For example, avoid the generic he and prefer words such as "chair"/"chairperson" or "firefighter" to "chairwoman" and "fireman." This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), which should not be altered, or to wording about one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school (When any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges).

Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neutral forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See WP:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns.

An editor at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style has proposed this new wording, and it has been introduced here so that the community can comment on whether it should be adopted. RGloucester 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

 :::Therefore, based on Fruit of the poisonous tree logic, IMHO the proposed move that ended on 29 January is invalid, and should be reverted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor

The Doctor (proper name starting with “The”) currently redirects to this disambiguation page, Doctor. Should it redirect to Doctor (Doctor Who) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for “The Doctor”? Note that this disambiguation page for the word itself would remain here at Doctor. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Enid Blyton

Earlier today I removed what I think are oxford commas from an article that otherwise eschews their usage. Per MOS:SERIAL: "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Sagaciousphil has reverted my edit. So I just wanted to get some clarification on this. For example:
  • There have also been several adaptations of her books for stage, screen and television.
The last sentence in the lead avoids the serial comma that might be placed before and television, so why would we include it here:
  • She wrote on a wide range of topics including education, natural history, fantasy, mystery stories and biblical narratives, and is best remembered today for her Noddy, Famous Five, and Secret Seven series. before and Secret Seven series? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:New Morning (Misia album)

Should [Option A] the (stylized as... ) parenthesis in lead be retained but make clear "in Japanese" only? There are no English print sources and English books do not normally capitalize Japanese album or song titles, while Japanese habitually displays Romaji and English words as CAPS within Japanese text. Or [Option B] should the (stylized as...) parenthesis be removed as irrelevant, since Japanese habitually displays Romaji and English words as CAPS within Japanese text in most cases, without any special stylization being required. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Should the phrase "and pre- and post-nominals;" be included in the section "What generally should not be linked"? 19:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bloody Saturday (photograph)

MOS:TITLE and MOS:VISUAL aren't clear on the point: is this photograph considered a separate, major work on the level of a film or TV series (Bloody Saturday) or a minor work on the level of a poem or episode ("Bloody Saturday")? Right now, we've got the main title set one way and its alternate names done the other. We should certainly be consistent in the article and ideally consistent with the other articles. — LlywelynII 13:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags

Figured having an RFC on the issue would be more beneficial than not having one. MOS:TITLEQUOTES tells us to enclose the titles of certain works in quotation marks. We avoid doing this in the titles of their articles. But should we do it in the displayed article titles with {{DISPLAYTITLE:<q>...</q>}}? Example:

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<q>A Touch of Class</q> (''Fawlty Towers'')}}

RfC extended by -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)



RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback 2015

Should rollback be changed form a user right to a gadget? 21:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

 :::Therefore, based on Fruit of the poisonous tree logic, IMHO the proposed move that ended on 29 January is invalid, and should be reverted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015

Purpose

During the last discussion of reforming the Ban Appeals subcommittee there appeared to be a rough consensus to change the way the subcommittee is structured, moving it away from a duty for active arbitrators. However, no consensus was reached as to what exactly the new committee might look like. This second phase is intended to complete the process of changing the subcommittee to some new form, or possibly to do away with it altogether.

Additionally, there is some concern that the Unblock Ticket Response System is experiencing issues involving backlogs of large numbers of requests with no merit, is simply replicating the on-wiki request for unblock process, and as such is suffering from a lack of interest.

Note that this discussion applies to the review processes for bans or long-term blocks imposed by administrators. It does not affect bans imposed by the Arbitration Committee or through a community based process such as discussion at WP:AN.

Proposals

Several proposals are presented below, each with a section for discussion. Users may support or oppose as many of these proposals as they wish, but should note that some proposals are mutually exclusive of one another. It is therefore suggested that users review all proposals before deciding which to support or oppose.

Anyone is free to add new proposals, but should carefully read existing proposals first. If you only wish to see a minor change to one of the existing proposals, the best way to do that is to just say in that proposal's discussion section instead of presenting it as a whole new proposal.

Just get rid of BASC

Review of email ban appeals have taken up a large amount of volunteer time with little benefit to the project. BASC is therefore permanently disbanded. Talk page appeals and WP:UTRS will be the only avenues of appeal.

Discussion of just get rid of BASC

  • Conditional support: I'd like to see some additional leeway for administrators to establish conditions attached to unblocks, which is currently the only advantage that the BASC system has over straight unblock request/UTRS request. What isn't necessarily obvious is that the vast majority of BASC appeals are decided by a single arbitrator as well, and many are automatically rejected because the user hasn't jumped through the right hoops. Risker (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 02:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Enid Blyton

Earlier today I removed what I think are oxford commas from an article that otherwise eschews their usage. Per MOS:SERIAL: "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Sagaciousphil has reverted my edit. So I just wanted to get some clarification on this. For example:
  • There have also been several adaptations of her books for stage, screen and television.
The last sentence in the lead avoids the serial comma that might be placed before and television, so why would we include it here:
  • She wrote on a wide range of topics including education, natural history, fantasy, mystery stories and biblical narratives, and is best remembered today for her Noddy, Famous Five, and Secret Seven series. before and Secret Seven series? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Should the phrase "and pre- and post-nominals;" be included in the section "What generally should not be linked"? 19:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bloody Saturday (photograph)

MOS:TITLE and MOS:VISUAL aren't clear on the point: is this photograph considered a separate, major work on the level of a film or TV series (Bloody Saturday) or a minor work on the level of a poem or episode ("Bloody Saturday")? Right now, we've got the main title set one way and its alternate names done the other. We should certainly be consistent in the article and ideally consistent with the other articles. — LlywelynII 13:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

There has frequently been discussion about making some of the administrator tools available to a lot more editors, and User:Jackmcbarn presented a great idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15#New "vandal stopper" user group. The proposed vandal fighter user right would have the following rights:
  • Blocks:
    • Can block unconfirmed accounts for a maximum of 48 hours
    • Can soft-block IP addresses for a maximum of 48 hours
    • Can unblock users blocked by other vandal fighters
    • Can NOT unblock users blocked by administrators
  • Page protection:
    • Can semi-protect a page for a maximum of 48 hours
    • Can Pending Changes 1 protect a page for a maximum of 48 hours
    • Can unprotect pages that were protected by other vandal fighters
    • Can NOT unprotect pages that were protected by administrators
  • Notes:
    • All vandal fighters would also be granted Pending Change reviewer status
    • All vandal fighter actions will be viewable on one or more special pages
    • An administrator can turn a vandal-fighter action into an administrator action, which would prevent other vandal-fighters from removing it.
  • Requirements:
    • Vandal fighter rights would be granted by administrators after requests at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions
    • Rights would only be granted to user who meet the requirements of both roll back and pending changes reviewer
    • Vandal fighter rights must only be used for obvious spam and vandalism. Anything else will be considered abuse of the tool and the right will be revoked.

I look forward to your comments. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Given that MOS:LEAD tells us that the lead is a summary of the body, and WP:SAWW tells us that Muhammad should only be described as "the Islamic prophet" once in an article, does this mean that any mention of Muhammad as "the Islamic prophet" in the lead precludes describing him so anywhere in the body? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment

This concerns the first paragraph of WP:OUTING as below:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information (including any other accounts on any other web sites), or photograph whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.

The bolded words were added on 22 October 2014 by GRuban on the basis of a discussion with the functionaries on their private mailing list. This has been subject to some discussion above though it was never resolved. I have reverted this to seek clarity from the community before an alternate version is inserted (or before this is reinserted if there is no suitable alternative, or to confirm that the text need not be inserted again). Is the blanket statement that 'any other accounts from any other websites should never be posted' consistent with the community's view? If not, but something does need to be in the policy, how can it be reworded or reintroduced - as I am not sure myself how to cater for this yet. Also pinging the other users from the above discussion: Fut.Perf., A fluffernutter is a sandwich!, Obsidi, Johnuniq, NE Ent, Super Goku V, Kyohyi, as I'd rather put this right the first time around than find ourselves here again when something doesn't work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Edit warring

The exact text of the addendum would be as such: 8. Reverting the removal of speedy deletion, articles for deletion or miscellaneous for deletion tags. The reversion of the removal of speedy deletion tags must only be done is only exempt against the article's initial creator. I'm proposing this because it's already treated as such, might as well be within the policy. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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/User categories
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/Archive 16 Ned Scott/Infobox Digimon character
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