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.
From time to time, as the "Bibliography" section has grown to dominate the article (due to the author sometimes releasing several new items each month), editors have suggested/executed removal of it, or editing it for noteworthiness. Other editors have objected to this, and restored it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It's time to put an end to this dispute. I, for one, believe that Kodomo no Jikan is undeniably lolicon, as it is blatantly pedophilic in nature. Why? Because of the sexualization of 9 year old girls, the forbidden relationship between the 23 year old teacher (the main character) and his 9 year old student (they even engage in sexual intercourse in the manga's final chapter), and the fact that this stance is further validated by an industry professional, Zac Bertschy, who writes for Anime News Network. Quoting his Answerman entry, " This is - I think, anyway - the first lolicon title that's explicit enough to be released here with shrinkwrap, so the potential for danger is probably higher than it is with yaoi manga, but for right now I'm not sure I'd be panicked about this release." Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"Since May 2015, Chinese Wikipedia has been blocked in mainland China. This was done after Wikipedia started to use HTTPS encryption which made selective censorship more difficult."
I think it is unnecessary to keep and should be deleted because highlight Wikipedia is contrary to the statement that China has censored many websites and contents (Wikipedia already refered enough realiable source to prove this) and the sentence looks like China ONLY censored Wikipedia or ONLY actions to censor Wikipedia is special. Also, we have a page to talk about censorship of Wikipedia. Mariogoods (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I'm hoping to add under section 7.6 (Israeli-Palestinian conflict) details of the recent publication of an anti-semitic cartoon and acknowledgement of such by the NYT editorial board . This is the first time NYT has acknowledged the publication of something which in its opinion, contained anti-semitic tropes.
This is especially to better counter-balance the statement in source citation 244 that by the NYT public editor Clark Hoyt that the newspaper "has tried its best to do a fair, balanced and complete job — and has largely succeeded".
I also think comment from the cartoonist can be added, in which he contends that there was no anti-semitic intent: JoshgladwinJoshgladwin (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Should the contents in this diff be included in the article:
The anti-German poem Rota, was proposed in the 1920 as the national anthem by the Polish right which opposed the Józef Piłsudski government. In the 1930s amidst anti-German violence against the German minority, Rota was sung so frequently that some considered it the second national anthem. During World War II, the Communists used Rota to demonize the German enemy and the song was made the official anthem the 1st Tadeusz Kościuszko Infantry Division. Rota is taught at Polish schools, and despite its use by the communist governments to drive up anti-German feelings in Poland it was also sung in Polish churches. Almost every Polish person educated during the communist period is familiar with the song. It is the official anthem of the Polish People's Party. In the beginning of ceremonies by self-professed "patriotic" movements, such as the All-Polish Youth, Rota is sung.
Please indicate Yes, No, or something else - with a rationale. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This article previously used a picture depicting this character as seen on Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, but it has since been reverted to a much older one. Aren't video game character articles meant to use the latest depiction available?
The topic of this discussion originated from a content dispute at one of these album articles, so it seems best to solicit outside opinion. How should the first section be categorized? (Feel free to come up with a different idea that has been mentioned so far, by the way) Dan56 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose copying NASA's style guidelines verbatim: "In general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned). The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spaceflight Center (also known as the Manned Spacecraft Center), the predecessor of Johnson Space Center in Houston, or to any other historical program name or official title that included “manned” (e.g., Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight)." Kees08 (Talk) 19:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Each of these parentheses represents an optional descriptor which can be seen in many English-language sources about China. (I have omitted the city level as it is very uncommon to append "city" or "prefecture" to the end of these.) For each level in question (town, county, province), we want to answer:
Should the administrative level descriptor be present?
If so, should it be written in uppercase (Chenjiagang Town) or lowercase (Chenjiagang town)?
Thanks, RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In December 2015, this category was deleted as a result of a CfD and a parallel discussion at BLPN (Archive 231). There was consensus to delete the category on grounds of being "contentious", but was this decision appropriate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The arbitration policy's section on "Ratification and amendment" says, "Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing."
This is the petition part of the amendment process. The ratification process may be started if and when the petition is signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing.
The first paragraph of the "Policy and precedent" section of the arbitration policy is amended to add the following underlined text:
The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. The Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace.
Questions on inclusion of self published contents and slip streaming things into existing contents.
I'm still foggy after reading through WP:YT and WP:ELNO given a line like. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Please see "Voodoo doc film" section in this talk page. Initially, I removed a YouTube video from the article here. The video was made by three individuals and hosted on one of the individual creators' personal YouTube. The subject of video is about the article's company. Anyone with a camcorder, some skills and editing can call themselves a director. So if someone, or a group of indie directors make a short video about a company, when would it be generally acceptable to be inserted? At the time I removed it, there was no context of why it should have been there. It was restored later which referenced a source that mentioned the video (one line) in an announcement in another city that a location of VooDoo was opening in that city.
On Wikipedia, it's too common to see something like "notable people such as A, B, C, D, E..." only to see F, G, H and so on getting added onto it. I've even come across people who go and insert certain people/companies as examples into many articles. Since YouTube carries monetizing potential, it's especially a concern that motivates people to find a way to insert something into a high view count articles. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators can bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media that are within scope of a community general sanction only when the pages or media meet the requirements for speedy deletion.Administrators cannot delete pages or media within the scope of a community general sanction without a deletion discussion unless the pages or media fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. Such deletions are ordinary speedy deletions so have no special restrictions on reversibility and can be appealed at deletion review. Page-level sanctions refer to limitations on the ability to edit pages, or to edit pages in a particular manner, not to deleting pages.
The first sentence was stricken by Cunard (talk) at 00:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This page and WP:PSG talk about the same exact thing in the same exact words. I was thinking about merging these articles together. Any thoughts on this? Interstellarity (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)