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 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.
A. He looks up to see a statue of General Thade in what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial.
B. He looks up at the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument to General Thade
C. Leo crashes in front of what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument honoring General Thade.
Express your position with a short reason in the Survey. You may propose another last sentence. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The notability of photojournalist Nilüfer Demir, known for taking a picture of the death of Alan Kurdi, has been contested. Shall the Demir article be merged into the Kurdi article? George Ho (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the entries for the cast and characters of the television series, and based upon the above discussion, should the characters in the Cast section, which are based upon historical figures, be linked to:
The article of the historical figure, with no linking to sections (e.g. Ragnar Lothbrok is linked to Ragnar Lodbrok),
The article of the historical figure, but to the section which describes the character in fictional media (e.g. Ragnar Lothbrok is linked to Ragnar Lodbrok#In popular culture),
"Album-oriented rock" (or "album-oriented radio") may be deployed interchangeably with "adult-oriented rock". In 1978, KGOU manager Roy Lamberton identified "adult-oriented rock" as a mellower version of album-oriented rock.
As of Jan 9, Adult-oriented rock redirects to Album-oriented rock even though "adult-oriented rock" doesn't appear in this article. The dispute over including these sentences comes from the fact that "adult-oriented rock" is a loosely defined term, sometimes also referring to Arena rock or Yacht rock, which are not radio formats. Some sources (cited above) say that the terms are regionally dependent, and that "album-oriented rock" was the format as it was known in the US. Other people claim (without sources) that "album-oriented rock" was the official name of the radio format described in this article, and that "adult-oriented rock" is a meaningless term that ought to denote Adult album alternative (this notion is also contradicted by music industry textbooks). RfC relisted. Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I see that that the references have been removed again. I have been told this is regular practice and the WP:PRIMARY should not be included anyhow. It's my opinion that references should never be removed. The discussion started at User talk:Klock101#February 2017. This is where the discussion should take place. I fully expect It would be appropriate for anyone who is a member of the TV project to identify themselves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
At K-pop#Social_media we have the "List of 20 most viewed K-pop music videos on YouTube". While we have an older source which gives a version of this list, we do not have a single source for the current list. Instead, editors have taken the earlier list, updated the numbers from various sources, and added and removed songs as needed. - 14:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The lead sentence/paragraph of the Emmett Till article currently reads : Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American teenager who was murdered in Mississippi at the age of 14 after reportedly flirting with a white woman..
Recently (interview in 2007, published in 2017), the "white woman", Carolyn Bryant, revealed that she had lied regarding the events at the store. “That part’s not true,” she told Tyson, about her claim that Till had made verbal and physical advances on her. As for the rest of what happened that evening in the country store, she said she couldn’t remember.
The parameter Form= is a carryover from the merger from Template:Infobox standard. "Form" refers to a song's musical structure, e.g., repeating verses, sections, etc. (see Musical form for an explanation). This is different than "Format" and "Genre", both of which have separate fields. The Form parameter has little use and is often used incorrectly in place of genre or to mean style ("Jazz standard", "Ballad", etc.). Very few articles discuss musical form or reference it. Should it be removed? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have seen several editors attempt to remove or add "rapper" to his BLP. However, the sources are contradictory.
I am not going to accept this source http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/daddy-yankee.html because it appears to just be facts aggregated from Wikipedia, and it neither confirms nor denies him being a rapper. It calls him a "World Music Singer" and a "Popular Latin recording artist".
Google displayed this hit: http://www.axs.com/the-top-10-best-daddy-yankee-songs-83194. It says "For anybody that says that reggaeton is not really rapping, let us point you to “Gata Gangster.” This single is basically Puerto Rican rap, and that’s a good thing as the track is easily listenable and likeable, unlike most of the gangster rap that’s out today." That is what it says for number 9. check out the desc. for 7 and 4. Daddy Yankee may be the closest thing to a Spanish gangster rapper since, well, anybody.…though most of his tunes were geared towards “Latin gangster rap,”…
Billboard in 2012 called him both "Daddy Yankee, Puerto Rican Rapper" and "Reggaeton star Daddy Yankee " and "The Grammy-winning rapper" and "said the rapper". 
So it is obvious to me at least that these music sites consider him to be a rapper, either because of his work, or because they consider Reggae/reggaeton to be rap. I am calling this RfC (my second) to see what yall think, and to save me having to prove this over and over again as editors attempt to change one way or the other. Nominator has very little bias towards or against the subject. L3X1My Complaint Desk 18:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I see from the edit notice that the current standard for inclusion on this list is coverage in reliable sources, per a discussion here in 2011. I think it may be time to review that decision and consider a simpler approach. Therefore I propose the following:
All entries must have their own Wikipedia article. Entries with no article, or where the article has been deleted, will be removed. It will no longer be necessary to add sources when adding a new entry, a link to the Wikipedia article is sufficient."
Why is this better? It aligns this page with the WP:GNG and eliminates the need for debate here on the validity of an entry. If it can't support its own article, it will end up deleted, the link turns red, and it can be removed without controversy. If a new article is created with better sourcing that will stand up to scrutiny, it can be added back. All these discussion templates and so forth in use here, like this was a noticeboard, can just be swept away as they won't be needed anymore. The edit notice and the notice at the top of this page can be reduced to one simple sentence that is not open to interpretation. In short, it puts the onus on those wanting to add new entries to insure that the subject is sufficiently notable according to our long-accepted guidelines for inclusion before they are added here, thus eliminating the need for debate on this talk page, pushing it over to WP:AFD which is exactly where discussions of notability are supposed to take place. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it established WP:CONSENSUS to mention relevant foreign names (in this case German names of Pomeranian villages) in the WP:LEAD section?
@Rockypedia: deleted several dozens of German placenames from such articles (e.g., , ,, , , , , For a complete overview see  I already pointed out WP:PLACE and the Gdansk vote  but Rocky removed my message from his talk page  and instead continued to delete foreign names . HerkusMonte (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Should articles with "Narrow gauge railways" and such in their titles include a hyphen as "Narrow-gauge railways"? And is there any tweak needed to the guidelines at WP:HYPHEN to be more helpful in deciding such things? Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
(The question cuts across several categories, obviously.) Should military vehicles and purely commercial vehicles be listed completely intermixed with "sports utility vehicles," or are SUVs essentially consumer vehicles? Anmccaff (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Editor WWGB has reverted a number of what I believe are accurate corrections in the Perpetrator section. The Perpetrator's own written words, either as reproduced in Secondary Sources (in this case as screenshots) would seem to be the most accurate source for the capitalisation and spelling which should be used in the article. I will hold off further corrections until this issue can be discussed here. — JEREMY 04:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I had submitted this article for featured article review last summer, and one of the main criticisms was that many people felt it lacked notability to be a Wikipedia article. Thoughts?
I personally feel that this is identified as one of the more notable events in NFL history, and I believe that the extensive third party media coverage that is cited in the article supports this fact. Helltopay27 (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
We have an interesting case. I reached out to a journalist as an editor was claiming to be them. The journalist assured me that this was not them. I have asked them if I can post their reply to Wikipedia. If they give consent can one link on Wikipedia to their reply? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)