From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| 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. |
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
 |
Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board |
v • d • e • w |
- [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
|
- RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
- Talk:Gliese 581 (RFC) — http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gliese_581&diff=prev&oldid=302070291
Rather than getting into an edit war with DEVON, the owner of the article, over the use of this stupid image, I opt to get a third opinion. Does this image accurately depict the actual data, or is it blue star trash deserving removal?? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Slipknot Demo (Requested comments) — Is this demo notable enough for it's own article? REZTER TALK ø 18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:1960s in heavy metal music (Request for comment ) — Numerous users re-adding unsourced material. Myself removing it and insisting they provide sources. No sources given. 86.146.158.22 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- [[Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Rfc on Merger proposal into Independent Media Center)|Talk:Bristol Indymedia]] (Rfc on Merger proposal into Independent Media Center)) — Has consensus been established for merging Bristol Indymedia into Independent Media Centre? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:40, 12 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)
- Talk:Gliese 581 e () — :*Delete - There are supposed to be 4 planets lined up in the picture (file name says photo) and the blue dot that looks like a moon of the so-called farthest planet out is supposed to be one of those 4 planets. Just because someone contributed their picture to an official site for a judging contest doesn't mean it is an official picture, it's still trash. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (Request for Comment ) — Is the television show about the intervention of Gordon Ramsay, about the restaurants, or both? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Rap rock/Archive 3 (RFC: Merger ) — Should any of the articles: Rap rock, Rap metal, Rapcore be merged into a general article? --neon white talk 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Rap rock/Archive 3 (RFC: Merger ) — Should any of the articles: Rap rock, Rap metal, Rapcore be merged into a general article? --neon white talk 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Rap rock (RFC: Merger ) — Should any of the articles: Rap rock, Rap metal, Rapcore be merged into a general article? --neon white talk 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Rap rock/Archive 3 (RFC: Merger ) — Should any of the articles: Rap rock, Rap metal, Rapcore be merged into a general article? --neon white talk 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:News Corporation (RfC: request-for-comments on disputed editing ) — disputed editing: "... News Corporation... also called Murdoch group in neolatin languages .... ". In my opinion the object is serious: "internationality rule of Wikipedia" here at risk. Caceo (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Kittie (RfC: What should be done?) — The major "sources" for this article are YouTube. I patched some major problems and added some minor fixes, but I can't get a sense of what, if anything, should be saved.Novangelis (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
- Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-14/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) − WP:SYN, part of WP:OR, prohibts taking two sources to construct a new conclusion or opinion, and thereby failing WP:V. Does this still apply if the new information, that is the result of comparing two sources, thereby interpreting (dis)similarities, is verifiable on it's own? Does it make a difference if the information under discussion is visual or pictorial, as opposed to verbal or written?
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba. A discussion as to whether we should be able to use the word "Nakba" on Wikipedia to describe what happened to the Palestinians when the state of Israel was created. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups. Outside opinions are solicited on the issue of self electing groups on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Bristol Indymedia#Merge into Indymedia. Bristol Indymedia is non-notable; at best, the article is a [[tiny notability tail wagging a huge dog of an article. Nevertheless, an AFD was successfully stonewalled. [6] Several editors participating in the AFD proposed that instead of deletion, whatever could be salvaged be merged into Indymedia. I have proposed just that at the talk page, and although it's my view that we already have sufficient consensus for the merge, I'd like to get some third, fourth, etc. opinions before proceding, please. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development. Community input is sought on the recent creation of the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. 17:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Research Study on Request for Adminship Process. Community help is sought in getting your input on the Request for Adminship process to a group of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. We are conducting a survey of anyone with experience in the RfA process, whether in the discussion or as a candidate. Please take a few minutes to give us your comments, you help is greatly appreciated! See our user page for more details CMUResearch (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
User sub-pages
User talk sub-pages
