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.
Should this article have a lead image? One view is that we shouldn't use a lead image because no lead image can adequately represent this topic, and MOS:LEADIMAGE addresses this type of thing. Another view is that a single lead image does not give the impression of representing all people, but simply represents an example of a person or persons. For backstory on this matter, see the Talk:African Americans#Reverted recently added lead image section on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Recently, I've seen at least two VA articles where the ADR acronym is unnecessarily written out in full in the lead paragraph. There's a stubborn user that insists on writing out "Automatic Dubbing Replacement", so I'm bringing this issue here to achieve a consensus. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
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) RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 04:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it time to say in our own voice that RT (formerly Russia Today) is a propaganda outlet? Below the flip are some sources for verification. There are plenty more; other editors should feel free to add them. R2 (bleep) 22:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
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 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Option 4: Follow the established policies and guidelines. Do not have so many similar subjects featured on the Main Page during the same week.
AddedOption 5: Use the Obama/McCain model, randomizing which FA appears on July 21.
AddedOption 5a: Use the Obama/McCain model, randomizing all 4 FAs to appear for 48 hours on July 20 and July 21.
Options 1, 2 and 3 require a some application of WP:IAR. Note that there has been a previous RfC about DYK.
A notice has been posted at the Village Pump, WT:DYK, WT:POTD, and WT:OTD to garner wider input.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Will it be fair to cite (and include an external link to) "Huawei Facts" from Huawei's PR team? It seems Huawei has been heavily defending themselves in recent years. Of course, if such claims from Huawei are indeed refutable, we may include those counter-counterclaims. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Until a few years ago the sole purpose of PRIMARYTOPIC was to arrange articles by titles in a manner that made the articles most likely to be sought the easiest (fewest clicks) ones to find. As such, the only criteria associated with it was the usage criteria:
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
The idea is that anyone searching with, say, "wish you were here" is most likely looking for the Pink Floyd album, and so that's where they should be taken. However, some editors felt "primary" implied some level of relative long-term importance, and, after much discussion, the long-term significance criteria was added so that there was policy basis for taking relative importance under consideration when deciding on primary topic. However, this leads to conflicting guidance in situations where the two criteria indicate different titles. Should we help readers get to the Pink Floyd album because that's what the vast majority are seeking, or should we put a dab page at Wish You Were Here and make everyone go through all that even though the vast majority is looking for the album?
I've long believed that if PRIMARYTOPIC was named something else, without the term "primary", then people wouldn't be so hung up on putting what they believe to be the "most important" article at the basename of the title. Therefore, in order to resolve these conflicts in a consistent fashion, and to help our users by arranging our articles so that articles most likely to be sought with a given term are where those terms lead, I hereby propose: