User talk:Ned Scott/archive7

; 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

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ned Scott. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

SAVE MY BABY

Having some fun with edit summaries? ;-) Circeus 04:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speed (disambiguation) again

Mikkalai is suggesting in Talk:Speed (disambiguation) that you have a "solution" as he called it. If you have a solution, could you please clarify? I was under the impression that you agreed with me that there was a point of obviousness about notable places named "Speed" being listed. If we can achieve a consensus, then we can perhaps make some progress. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem and help

Ned, saw your revert on WP:VP, don't worry you didn't make an ass of yersel at all. You're not the first and certainly won't be the last that's going to go What the f..... happened here?. There's reams of talk pages to go through in both projects and in this regard you may be able to help me/us. What I'd like to look at was your first impression, the second you walked in and went Eh? is there anyway that we can highlight the changes that have gone on, show the four months worth of work behind it all, to lessen some of the culture shock to editors? You've had a look round now that's pretty clear, so if you could let us know the salient feature that we need to stick on the front page in radioactive lurid lettering, that would be appreciated? Regards ^{Khukri -} 12:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What a difference a night of sleep makes. Most of them are fine, I haven't looked at them all. Still not fond of the little blue icon, but other than that they're great. I guess I need a little more faith in my fellow Wikipedians. Good job on the templates. -- Ned Scott 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Template: CATV_USA

I've replied to your comments here if you'd like to continue the discussion. --Bill Clark 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If I Did It

I commend the boldness, but I'm not sure I understand why you removed the {{canceled}} template. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 5#Template:Cancelled, granted that it's not over yet.. but WP:SNOWBALL comes to mind. -- Ned Scott 08:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on your user page

There's been lots of vandalism on your user page lately, so I requested semi-protection for it on WP:RFPP. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT

I suppose, as opposed to "cooked" plot summaries? >Radiant< 09:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Digimon merging

Just curious, why are you (or the WikiProject Digimon) merging all of the digimon together as one whole article? I find that they should all be separate, like the Pocket Monsters articles are... Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could give a better example, but after explaining so many times... see WP:FICT, WP:WAF. Also, Digimon is different from Pokemon, but even there I don't think there should be an article for every Pokemon. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And we're not merging all digimon together as one article. We currently have about 400 -mon articles. By the end of this merge, we'll probably still have about 60 articles for -mons. --`/aksha 13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dad's Army episodes

I've done some heavy editing. Would you consider taking another look and reconsidering your vote? Thanks for your input, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Ahahahahahahahaahhaahha tooo funny thuglas^talk|edits 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

^_^

Pea ceNT has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

→ For being the only one to answer my question about removing comments on talk pages. Have a good day, Ned! Pea ceNT 07:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Warn

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--CyberGhostface 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject template banners

Another thought about this. What do you think is the best way to handle articles covered by multiple WikiProjects? WikiProject advertising probably only works when there are only one or two WikiProject banners. When there are 3 or 4, then people are probably put off joining any of the WikiProjects. This is, as you say, a separate issue from whether the template under discussion at TfD is suitable. But I'd be interested in any thoughts you would have on how to show people, with a minimum of talk page clutter, that there are 3 or 4 WikiProjects that consider an article to fall within their scope. Of course, that still doesn't avoid the problem of people clicking on a WikiProject link and ending up at a dead-end, inactive WikiProject (unless of course they revitalise the WikiProject). Tricky balancing act here. Carcharoth 11:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost images

I apologize too for losing my temper. If you check out my recent contributions, you'll see that I uploaded some new lost pictures which are scenes from the actual episodes. Tell me if you think they are suitable enough for the articles. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Flashback characters

There has been some revert warring over which characters should be listed for flashback/featured in Lost episodes, and it is being discussed again to either reassert the old consensus or see if there is a new one. I saw you were previously involved with discussions of this, so here's a heads up Talk:Characters of Lost#Flashback characters. Input would be appreciated, thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:AnaLucia.jpg

I was wondering if you could restore Image:AnaLucia.jpg, as this image was actually used to replace Image:Anamich.jpg which is the same picture on the article now, just under a different file name. It was deleted in favior of Image:AnaLucia.jpg via Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 November 27#Image:Anamich.jpg. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The same image is still available on Season2-ana.jpg. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Or not. I've restored the first one. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess it worked out, thanks anyways. -- Ned Scott 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Template stuff

You may be interested in this discussion. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3RV

Just a friendly warning that you have had 3 reverts within 24 hours on Justin Cook. I am sure you wouldn't want to overstep the mark :Abtract 02:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Template

I prefer that one actually; I will edit my statement to reflect that. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Thank you for trying to help rein this in, I was trying to figure out how myself. Chris 08:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I just kinda said "screw it" and stuck something up there. It could probably look nicer, but it's a start :) -- Ned Scott 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re

It is fine with me this banner as well.--Yannismarou 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought regarding wikiproject templates

(Cross-posted to Kirill's talk page too)

First, I wanted to say that I agree 100% with what you said here. I had an idea, and wanted to know what you think about it. I suggest that there be an absolute limit of no more than two (2) reasonably-sized wikiproject templates on any talk page, and (per my previous comment) that "daughter templates" (like the one on Asperger syndrome - "This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.") be strictly prohibited.

Reasonably-sized, in this case, means that they are the same size they are now. I'll leave it to the wikiproject council to decide, in cases where an article has more than 2, which ones get priority (I think it should be the ones that have either made significant improvement to the article, and/or the ones that have the narrowest scope). This would alleviate the need for the metatemplate.

What do you think of my idea? Raul654 16:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry in advance if it's wrong of me to respond on Ned's talk page (I happened to have it watchlisted). Please consider bordering cases such as Talk:Sea of Japan as possible exceptions to the rule of "max 2". There may be others. (That page doesn't look too bad, since the project templates have small=yes). --GunnarRene 16:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with exceptions is that as soon as you carve one out, everyone tries to claim it. What's to stop people from arguing that Pacific ocean is just such an exception, and deserves wikiproject tags from all the wikiprojects for all the countries that border it? Raul654 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I don't know. By the way: We're not talking Echo and 1.0 here, but rather the usual Wikiprojects like Anime and manga or Japan here, right? --GunnarRene 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Two more points: "Narrowest scope" sounds like a reasonable rule - that would also ensure maximum importance ratings. I'm a bit more uneasy about "significant improvement" though - that might be reasonable in some cases, but in other cases articles might have received a lot of attention from one project, while still being horribly needy of attention from another. --GunnarRene 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

re: template:Japanese episode list

Is it planned for actual use? It's not clear whether it will actually be used.Circeus 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Used in general or for the Digimon lists? I switched List of Digimon Savers episodes over to it, and keep forgetting to do the same for the others. In general it has about 150 pages it's being used on. -- Ned Scott 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that question. I misused Whatlinkshere. (I used the links for the talk page instead of the template). I'm doing stupid things today. Protection is still appropriate. Circeus 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfC summary

Thanks. I can turn a phrase when I try hard :) Teke^(talk) 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

I've noticed you post on the proposed projects page a bit, so I thought I would ask you this. Maybe you have an answer? Is there any chance show specific projects can just be changed into taskforces? Examples here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Show-specific WikiProjects. Many shows are broad, and simply should be turned into a taskforce. In my opinion: people create projects as fanclubs sometimes (not always..), and the project doesn't end up helping much. The Baywatch project (inactive) is a good example of this. Also, a project for a new show such as Heroes seems a little soon. RobJ1981 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

I have would prefered that El C reopen it, but I understand that he wants no further involvement. Anyhow, I moved the article back down to semiprotect and restored the AfD (rather than DRV) notice. I have no prior involvement with the AfD and no strong feelings either way, but the DRV showed way too much built up pressure.

Thanks for being bold. Cool Hand Luke 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay redirect

That looks ok to me and thanks for taking the extra effort to straighten out the whole problem. Gwen Gale 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to be an admin?

I...you got balls. I've got my own opinions about the Essjay scandal but I'm staying far far far far FAR away from that article. To get the title of that article changed and actually get it to stick...maybe it wasn't difficult, but from where I'm standing, that took guts. Godspeed, man, godspeed. Indiawilliams 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it just didn't seem like an intimidating situation to me. -- Ned Scott 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Centralized video game navbox discussion

You previously expressed a strongly-stated opinion about a video game navbox or all video game navboxes in general, or perhaps I clicked on your talk page by mistake. Whichever it is, you are invited to offer your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Animanga infobox

When I tried to impliment that change, it ended up adding the licensor field to all the boxes, even the ones that were not licensed yet. This left a blank line for a field that didn't apply for anime that were't licensed, so it didn't seem like it could work with my current knowledge of how templates work. Is there a way to impliment the licensor field so that it doesn't appear in the box until someone includes the licensor= {{{licensor}}} parameter into the article that is using the template?--十八 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that. ^^ --十八 06:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's response

I will wait and see. I look forward to your contributions to the Essjay controversy article. I supplied the references on the talk page about Larry Sanger is the co-founder. It would not hurt to search for more references if you are so inclined to participate. Just a little careful wording is warranted. May your edits last the test of time. QuackGuru ^TALK 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion was to just use wording that didn't involve bringing up the word founder at all, so I don't see why you are telling me this... Wrong talk page? -- Ned Scott 07:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

bot work?

Hi Ned I just redirected {{Infobox Entourage episode}}. If your bot can replace usage of that template with the standard infobox template however, then that would be a good idea perhaps. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problemo, NedBot is working on it right now. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Griswold Talk Issues

It's nepotism for some and supposed Wiki guideline violations for others. Or is it something else? Because if that's the case, I'll just wipe my talk page clean. Is that cool with you? Or do I have to reach the level of admin to hide discussion? --SpyMagician 07:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

SpyMagician

About this, Ned, you're not associated with this situation at all, so would you mind taking a look at this user's conduct? My discussion with him started off fairly friendly, but he began to try to turn the tables on me when I had a real concern, looking for hypocrisy in me, rather than addressing his own actions. This is not the first time I have seen this happen with this user. If he had not begun to act this way toward me, I would have handled the situation myself, but now that I am directly involved in this, I know that it would be a conflict of interest for me to do too much. I appreciate your time with this, regardless of your opinion on the situation. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Chris Griswold has no problem wiping out the exact same discussion from his talk page, yet gets upset when I did the same on my talk page. It's clear hypocrisy. Why can't you leave things be Chris? My beef with you was over until you decided to wipe the slate clean on your end. And then decided that I somehow can't do that myself? Clear admin hypocrisy. I don't have time for this B.S., but if you're going to engage in these kind of destructive debates Chris Griswold you should not behave like a hypocrite. Unless you have some barnstar for hypocrisy you haven't placed on your page yet. Apologies for the tone but nothing gets under my skin more than an admin—anywhere—using their privledge to behave one why while mere users are held to another standard. 100% ridiculous. I'm adding this can all end well if Chris Griswold just left the discussion on his talk page. And I will gladly do the same. --SpyMagician 08:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Spy, listen to Chris, he's actually a really nice guy and there's logic in what he's trying to tell you. You didn't do the same thing he did, and this is not about admins vs "normal users". (notice that I am not an admin) Removing personal attacks is ok; blanking your talk page because you're mad is just silly. -- Ned Scott 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the whole talk page is made up of Chris Griswold's posts that are an exact parallel to what is on his page. Plain and simple it is indeed one and the same. Long story short, I could care less about Wiki admin egos. You can't convince me that someone who proudly claims they have 20,000 edits in Wiki is not throwing weight around. And in this case, admin weight around. I'll leave my page as-is since the info he was so eager to gain from me is clearly visible on Jack Szwergold's page right now. All in all, he got what he wanted. So win win! --SpyMagician 08:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh grow up. "oh no, the man has got me down!" If you act like an asshole then you have no right to bitch about people telling you to stop being an asshole. Trying to make this seem as "the man" going after you is laughable. Acting like this just makes you look bad, and pisses off users that would otherwise be happy to work with you. Why do you have to come around here and be a jerk like that? -- Ned Scott 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Question as an admin

Since you're involved I don't want to ask you to do anything directly, but what is the next appropriate course of action with QuackGuru? Still think he's disrupting the page and the ANI thread seems dead/overlooked/ignored by him. - Denny 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Summat that might interest you.

Hey Ned,

We/WP:UW are looking at redirecting the old templates to the new ones with a strawpoll here and remembering our previous discussions, thought you'd want a say.

WOAH!!!! before you fly in ;) we've added optional icons to all the uw- warnings which you mentioned previously might interest you.

Cheers ^Khukri 16:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

older photo?

I was looking for some sources to add to the Lina Medina article and came across an answers.com version of the article with what appears to be a clearer version of the image currently in the article [1]. It also appears that you uploaded both of the images. What happened to the clearer of the two? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've only uploaded one photo for that article.. -- Ned Scott 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Digimon Articles

Many people know all those digimon have mega forms that didn't appear in the show, and can't find them because there names have nothing to do with the form before them. I had a hard time finding them. I think it is fair and logical to have a link somewhere on those digimon's pages to there mega forms. Otherwise, make a separate page for each of them that referrs to there card/videogame versions and includes there mega form. Then include a link on the character page to the digimon page(other page on the same charcter). NOT EVERYONE HAS MEMORIZED ALL THE DIGIMON IN THEIR SPARE TIME, help them out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.115.108.238 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that it's not canon to the anime. Many video games, card games, and v-pets will come up with their own line that you don't see in the anime, but that's really unrelated to the anime characters. Bandai is really willy nilly about the evolutions and is hardly consistent between media. The main articles are now for anime/manga characters, who may or may not have mega forms. If it didn't happen in the manga or anime, then it's not relevant to that character. Bandai might want us to believe there is a significance, but really it's just an arbitrary decision someone made without the help of the anime writers. Maybe as a note of trivia, but that's about it. -- Ned Scott 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Future episodes

Maybe we could change WP:EPISODE to say individual eps are preferred over season pages, and future eps shouldn't have pages. Good compromise? - Peregrine Fisher 06:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But the whole point of WP:EPISODE is to discourage individual episodes... -- Ned Scott 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. It doesn't line up with what's happening on wikipedia, though. All the new shows with a significant fan base have LOEs with individual episode pages: List of 30 Rock episodes and List of Heroes episodes for example. EPISODE is basically saying; if a show started long enough ago that people created season pages for it, don't change them. I wasn't a pedian back when these season pages were created, but I imagine it was because, at that time, an individual episode page would fail AfD. It seems like, times have changed. I think we should adjust EPISODE. I think it should unequivocally allow individual episode pages, while putting limits on them. In this Lost episode case, maybe we could say that upcoming episode info should go into the LOE, and only if backed up by RS. Also, I spend a lot of time removing copy vio summaries from LOEs. I wouldn't mind if it said that upcoming episodes shouldn't even have cells in the LOE table. Basically, I think WP is going to have enormous amounts of TV info inserted into it in the coming years. Instead of trying to keep it out, we should work on a system that allows us to manage it easily. I think adjusting EPISODE could be just the tool. - Peregrine Fisher 07:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the real reason we get so many episode articles is because people have the misconception that they're supposed to make them (see it once place and it spreads like fire). It happens with tons of things on Wikipedia, like with TV-show specific WikiProjects. People think that if one show has it, all shows should have it. I just don't think things like that can be considered "consensus".. it's just monkey see monkey do. Even if we say they're all automatically notable, we still have issues with sources, indefinite stubs (that could be easier organized as a single page), possible copyright vios, and so on. -- Ned Scott 12:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More Bot work

Hi Ned, do you think that your bot could replace the following templates transclusions:

with their contents? That should rid us of more duplicating templates. I think it's best to start with the Ed, Edd n' Eddy one, because it's not used that much. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean like, remove them? -- Ned Scott 10:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he means the templates are currently transcluded, but he wants them to be subst instead. --`/aksha 11:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? 'cause I'd love to nuke them... -- Ned Scott 12:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They could all be easily replaced with the standard TV infobox as well, which is why I thought maybe this was a removal request. Might just want to take these to TfD. -- Ned Scott 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say i don't feel like adding Infoboxes to all those articles :D So this is the lazy and quick way out of it for now. If someone wants to do it more thoroughly, by all means :P --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How would using subst instead of a transclusion made any difference then? The templates will still be on the article, we'll just have a lot of code in the middle of the article instead of a transclusion from the template namespace. --`/aksha 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to tell that i fixed all these templates to use {{Episode navigation}} ?? As such a subst: of the above templates is basically replacing these template with one template which at least isn't show specific, making way to remove the showspecific ones. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense now. Seems like a pretty clever trick to make it easy for a bot to change templates around on articles. --`/aksha 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

NedBot's subst'ing them now. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So in the being lazy department... What the above does is not really good on infoboxes, because it can leave a {{{optioname|}}} as the actual option for a {{Episode navigation}} call. Now for the above templates, i didn't really care, but for {{B5 episode}} It looked kinda messy to leave around such stuff in the page source. But I think I found a way to do it properly. For {{Desperate Housewives episode}} change contents to [2]. See the demo here: For a moment, you get very ugly pages: [3]. But now after you subst: the Desperate Housewives ep template you would get [4]. Totally 100% clean. In between the subst: of the template on all the episode pages, you would have total mess, and it's kinda dangerious because it almost can't be reversed, so you need to tred very cautiously, but I think it's possible. What do you think Ned, is this acceptable to deal with {{B5 episode}} and {{Desperate Housewives episode}} ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. saw your changes to the Futurama episode box. Note the above stated problems on a plain subst: with this method, and also note that there is now a "Season list" if people prefer this. See also Pilot (Prison Break episode) --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was more of a testing of the waters than a long term thing. I'm hoping users break away from the idea of putting the entire season list in the infobox itself (a separate nav template, maybe). It's an easy revert, if needed. As for the other issues, the bot can do some nifty find/replace text stuff that shouldn't make it a problem. Basically it will just equivocate template values with the new template instead of using the subst method. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And for Futurama I did end up just taking the episode succession box out, since they also had a season/series nav box as well. All the others were just subst converted. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Futurama Infobox and Navbox

Hello, thanks for trying to fix the Futurama episode infobox, it has needed cleaning up for a while now. I noticed you bot has removed the navboxes from the bottom of the page because of this which is all fine and good except that the navigation in the infobox is currently broken, it doesn't point to either the next or previous episode. I'd be happy to fix it myself if you have other things to do but I'm not entirely sure how it works. Will I need to enter the episode title/links manually on each page or is there a better way? Any assistance with this new change would be appreciated. Stardust8212 12:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Banning spoiler warnings on the Final Fantasy Wikiproject

Hello, I've noticed that you're interested in the video game articles. You might be interested in adding your opinion to the discussion currently taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Banning spoiler warnings completely. Kariteh 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

You pointed out that the page Crests (Digimon) was a needless article because some of the stuff was discussed on other pages. However if the crest page was deleted, how comes you did not delete the digivice page. Alot of that information is on other pages throughout the site.

thelastvamp

Unique fields on episode infoboxes

First of all, I am an Infobox newbie. But it appears that when you changed the episode boxes for American Dad! and Futurama to refer back to the standard Television episode box, we lost some of the unique fields for those series. American Dad! episodes list newspaper_headline and Futurama lists opening_subtitle and opening_cartoon. Is there a way to add those fields back in without reverting your edits? (My attempts have all failed.) I realize your project is aimed at reducing episode articles, but I have to admit I enjoy reading them. Hoof Hearted 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This information should not be lost. But I think many people will also contest it belongs in an Infobox (And the fact that Simpsons, Futurama, American Dad etc do put these running gags in there is no justification). But I think there is a better way to do this by adding the current information to a seperate section. I think that Ned wants to use his bot to do this at some point in time. Ned ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

While I'm inclined to agree with your actions, you could have used a more civil edit summary. Please do not try to stir up conflict. Thanks – Qxz 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia community

Hello Ned, this edit summary of "what a fucking joke" is not appropriate. if you feel the article is without merit, feel free to AfD it for community review. I undid your no-consensus redirect, and added another source, a UK article written about the community today. thank you. - Denny 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the edit summary was appropriate, just uncivil. For the incivility I'll apologies, but only for that. I also remind you that there is no consensus to keep the article, as shown by the last AfD. There is no sourcing issue, so I don't know why you bother to mention that. It's a retarded article split, and it doesn't make sense from an organization standpoint. -- Ned Scott 14:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ned, thanks. The problem with merging it (it's already been discussed on the talk page) is that it's just about too big to merge already, and in the wake of Essjay and the fact WP is cited more and more often in the news (almost weekly now) the amount of material written about editors is just going to grow... if it got merged today, for example, and if I were to follow all the RS that came out, I'd easily myself have enough content myself to have to split it righ back off in another month or so per the actual policies on forking. this was the closing admin's comments on the Afd. Numbers 2-4 are most important:

WP:ASR is a logically fallacious argument in this case. We are not making self-references here in anyway. See the examples provided on the guideline page, and you will understand what I mean.
Secondly, there isn't a little coverage on the topic, there is a lot of it, over the internet. Some of the sources have already been provided on the article. There are multiple, reliable and secondary sources available on the subject, we aren't merely quoting ourselves or providing primary references from Wikipedia or a mirror.
Thirdly, article has the potential to develop and grow into more than a stub, redirection and merging would definitely restrict that.
The article on Essjay controversy was later kept because of some of the reasons stated above.

This article will easily be as bulletproof content wise as Essjay's article in short order, and is already there sourcing wise. I will move this discussion back to the Wikipedia community talk page, where we should continue this. please respond there! - Denny 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's community is really just explaining how Wikipedia works. If the Wikipedia article is too big to describe such a fundamental concept as our editors.. then we should move other things to a second page if we have to. Separating the article just doesn't make any sense to me.

The Wikipedia community can easily be defined by one's perspective and isn't something we can just tie down to some specifics. A separate article will likely encourage a false impression of what the community actually is. -- Ned Scott 16:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage redirects

Hi. I saw that you recreated the userpage and talkpage of a user who has changed username, pointing to the new username. Of course I understand why this would be done as a general matter, but the user in question is a minor who had been editing under his real name and has been subjected to off-wiki harassment and trolling, and I would prefer to delete these redirects. Please advise if you see any problem with this (if appropriate, respond by e-mail instead of here). Thank you. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not do this again, Ned. I deleted the pages on request of the user, and he wants to vanish under that name. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I did not know that was the reason for the change. In that case I'll ask the user if he'd like bot help in changing his old sigs so they do not show his real name (since old sigs was the reason I thought a redirect might make sense). -- Ned Scott 16:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Guerrilla Mediation Network

>.< I'm... just going to take this off my watch list and pretend it doesn't exist. You people are insane. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, Ned, in which way are we insane? I am sure that most Wikipedians will agree the present mediation systems are not coping with the workload expeditiously enough, causing disputes that could be mediated to become exponentially worse the longer that they are not addressed by a competent person. The aim of this initiative is to avoid the issues caused by cases "rotting" on mediation request lists by providing rapid mediator assistance. Does this seem insane to you? Please, I implore you, remember WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Civil.. it gets to a point where we all just sound like phony jackasses. It's important to be polite, but it's also important to be honest and react in an honest way. I'm not going to tailer my comments to be "PC" out the ass, but I'm usually a pretty nice guy. As far as the Guerrilla BBQ Cook Off or whatever it is, I don't care, one way or another. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

List of The Wire episodes

Noting that you edited List of The Wire episodes within the last few months I wonder if you have an opinion about the use of screenshots in this article and would welcome your opinion here if you have time.--Opark 77 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

'a' wikipedia founder

Not that I care much, but really, Wales is one of the founders, not the only founder, and that's often forgotten in media and apparently here. I won't change it in either direction, but I don't think Quack was necessarily wrong. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Quack keeps trying to make a point over a separate dispute on that article, and it's long since gotten old. I don't care one way or another, as well, but the guy needs to knock it off. -- Ned Scott 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably so, but he then needs to be knocked where he's violating rules, not what essentially is a good edit. All IMO, of course. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Community

The discussion for merging the article is long been past. The article has expanded. It is too big to merge. If it is not to your satisfactory then AFD it. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how things work here. The topic does not stand alone, and just because there's crap to be cut from both articles is not a good reason to not merge. Taking down the merge tags and thinking "Since it hasn't happened, I must have consensus" is absurd. Tags should be left for a good amount of time, especially considering the lack of input from others beside the few who already know about the situation. Your judgement on this issue is flawed. You continuously make needless conflict and push issues to the point of disruption. Some of your suggestions on the talk page of the article are down right absurd, and show just how much you don't understand how such articles should be written. -- Ned Scott 23:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Grossly inappropriate

This is out of line. Stop. - Denny 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that message was sooooo unexpected. and ZOMG, you said "Stop (period)". Get ever it, it's not a big deal. Quack has been pushing people's buttons on that article for a long while now, and I don't respect that. I doubt I'd say something like that again, but it just got to me this one time. I'm human, not an emotionless machine that can take his abuse all day long. -- Ned Scott 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, put to ANI. That is beyond hostile, sorry. - Denny 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins are not police. Unless you need admin privs then admins are no more involved than anyone else. You also might want to take a look at your blocking policy as well. -- Ned Scott 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but people do get blocked for personal attacks. If I was an admin I would have blocked you. - Denny 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You're my hero. Risker 04:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, but still... that was brutal and mean. - Denny 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Hi Ned. I am forced to block you for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. Although this was a tough decision, it might help give you some valuable hours away from the site — you've been taking a lot of heat today, and it's understandable that you are upset. — Deckill er 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This was hardly something normal, and had that poll been kept open any longer then the hopes of closing it back up would have been lost. This situation was very unique in that it could not just wait, unlike other page/article issues. Under normal situations I would not violate the 3RR, and I understand and respect the reasons we have the 3RR. Now I can't even participate in the discussion to help improve the poll. This block helps nothing, and I ask that you consider the situation at hand. There will be no more reverting, no more edit waring, only discussion on an important issue. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

At least let me get back to articles. I'll stay away from the ATT poll, but there's no reason to block me from even editing articles. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User has agreed to at least temporarily withdraw from the edit war, and has assured that no more revert warring will occur over this issue. — Deckill er 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Request handled by: — Deckill er 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Query

Ned, can I ask what you were doing? The poll is open, people are voting, and the question is very open-ended so people can say whatever they want. I strongly dislike the fact that we're having a poll, so if your objection is a general one, I totally agree, but others decided we have to, and so given that, this very open question is probably the best way to proceed. What exactly is your objection to it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I object to a handful of users forcing their way in because they don't care anymore. I've already noted what I feel is wrong about the poll itself on the talk page. A handful of users, after failing to be able to delete the poll, decide to push out this crap-basic version, and I'm supposed to have faith in that? We can do a better job on this, and don't think so highly of yourself that you think you've considered every possible option. You don't have more of a say in this than the rest of us do. In only a few hours time, not even enough to let know there is help needed for the poll, all this was decided without consensus. You don't even give a chance for the rest of the community to help. We thought it was under-control, and would have come sooner. This poll format does not have consensus, unless you only listen to those forcing the issue. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ned, you're speaking to me as though I'm somehow in control of this. In fact, I've taken very little to do with the development of this poll, because I think it's a bad idea. Others developed the questions, then there were arguments about that, and then a poll about the poll, and the whole thing became farcical. Therefore, others decided just to ask for people's opinions. It's a fair enough compromise, far from ideal, but at least people will now have their say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You started it again after it had stopped. We were lined up for some discussion with people who were fresh to the situation. Because you don't like the poll, because you just want to get it out of the way, is why you shouldn't have a stronger say in all this (speaking both of you and others). But now I've just been steamrolled, and as pissed off as that makes me, I can accept that. I'm an editor in good standing, let me at least get back to editing articles and I'll leave that whole poll thing alone. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it had stopped. Once a poll is up and running, publicized, and people are voting, it's disruptive to try to stop it. Also, please stop trying to characterize my views, because you've got them quite wrong. I didn't want the poll, still don't want it, have had very little to do with its development, don't want to "get it out of the way," and the first I knew it had started was when I saw it appear on the mailing list. You're ascribing a centrality to me here that I just don't have. I've quite deliberately kept away from it because of the craziness. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I give you my apologies. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

I unblocked you because of the notion that you understand the significance of the issue at hand, and such a major shift should now be taken to the talkpage. It might also be good for you to take some time away from ATT to work on articles, like you suggested. — Deckill er 05:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It still says I'm blocked O.o -- Ned Scott 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My IP still seems to be blocked. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's fixed; I used the autoblock ID finder, unblocked, and now it's struck out. Still having problems? — Deckill er 05:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now, thank you again. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. — Deckill er 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)