User talk:Ned Scott/archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives

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

Suggestion

Hey, I have a suggestion on the CCS albums (tracklisting and all). I saw the Code Geass article on the Drama CDs and Original Soundtrack. I suggest that we create a List of Cardcaptor Sakura albums. What do you think?

Samantha Lim88 08:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. -- Ned Scott 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. Make sure to help out, I can't do it all alone.

Samantha Lim88 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

re:RfC

I think he was being a bit too unfair and ridiculous, but I endorsed because I agree that you tend to get too passionate or entrenched about some topics. I don't have anything personal with you though, as we've always settled our own differences very politely :) — Deckiller 11:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tis true. Well, as always, thank you for the honest feedback. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

You have had valid opinions in the past regarding Wikipedia:Television article review process. I have now written an essay/implementation guide, and would like to know what you think. If you can suggest changes to it, please do so too.

Kind regards, G.A.S 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tv.com_show

I was wondering, why did you separate the /doc from the page on Template:Tv.com_show? It seemed like a really small page to add, and not of any benefit. --Odie5533 14:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Friends season 1 is up for review

I think we're going to need all voices! -- Jack Merridew 11:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Degrassi episodes

Hi, I've edited the above list to use the {{Episode list}} format. The list is really a list of two related shows and this is causing duplicate IDs for the episode numbers and production codes. The wiki-generated IDs append a '_2' in this sort of case, but the template doesn't (nor would I expect it to be able to). So what should happen here? The list should probably be split in two, but I really don't feel like fixing all the links. The numbers in the cells could have some sort of prefix or suffix on them but I doubt other editors would like or maintain this. Thanks, Jack Merridew 12:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry potter

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Androids

I propose that if Sesshomaru does not participate in the discussion, his opinion on it shouldn't count. Clearly, Sesshomaru's involvement is limited to opposing it without discussing the actual issue (most of his comments after I became involved were threats and/or insults). - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You can ignore Link's "threat and insult" claims, as he is only doing this to be disruptive. Though I agree that someone needs to move Android 17 to Artificial Human 17 and correct the histories. Deskana is a bit occupied, I have to go Ned so can you request the move at WP:RM? Lord Sesshomaru 18:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Both of you have some very good points, but I wish both of you would listen to each other a little more (without insults, and without assuming the worst from each other). -- Ned Scott 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I know how that looks, and I was actually waiting for some warning, but for what it's worth that was an accident. I had a couple of windows open and was trying to figure out why I couldn't make the page Artificial Human #18 (instead of 18). Long story short, I was dicking around on a couple of pages and previewing, and screwed with the redirect and accidentally saved. *shrug* sorry.Onikage725 10:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite alright. Were our positions reversed I'd probably come to the same conclusion. I'm sorry for the confusion/trouble (hell, my blunder even stopped myself from being able to fix my own typo in the page). I figure we'll have to get Deskana or someone to fix it, though I suppose we ought to figure out what we'll be fixing it to exactly. Onikage725 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Hope you don't mind, but I've removed your RFC from the list of open RfCs, because I think it's resolved and it wouldn't make sense to flaunt that dead dispute. Please do restore it if you disagree. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Ned Scott 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry Potter

I really liked your thoughtful comments; thank you for injecting some needed logic into that DRV. — Deckiller 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with Tamers

Thank you for your help - I think if we work together, we can get all the spread out, crufty, non-encyclopedic info boiled down into an exemplary article (for an anime character article, at least), even if we probably won't get much of the info that would make it GA or FA.KrytenKoro 04:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! :) -- Ned Scott 04:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! Tim Vickers 18:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


RE: A Link to the Past

Link moved the Artificial Human 17 and Artificial Human 18 articles to Android 17 and Android 18 without even going to a discussion page. Then when me, Lord Sesshomaru, and Takuthehedgehog reverted the move, he reverted back. This happened four times. Then he kept arguing with everyone here. Currently, we already got the 18 article to Artificial Human again and now all that's left is 17. It's true that the popularity is important, Wikipedia isn't about that. It's about providing the readers with correct and accurate information and this includes naming. And it is contradictory when the article is called Android 17 and within it, it says that he's not an Android. That's confusing to the readers. Ryu-chan 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note the misspelled "Artifical Human 18"; not to worry I already requested here that it be moved to the proper name, Artificial Human 18. Lord Sesshomaru 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Link did a proper move per the common names guideline. The article was originally titled this, and was only moved to the other name on July 28th. These types of page moves should be done through WP:RM. -- Ned Scott 00:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing you understand how we do things when you recently reported SineBot as a vandal... -- Ned Scott 00:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And I know Link gets on your nerves, but he does bring up a few good points, and should not be treated in the way you guys are treating him. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

I've tried to revitalise discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Terrorism_and_counter-terrorism#Proposed_merger_with_WikiProject_Terrorism and would welcome any input you could offer, as I think it's in the best interests of both groups, and of the Encyclopaedia in general, to try and collaborate. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 12:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: WT:FICT

Not wanting to write any more than necessary about details in the Boiling down the issues section, since that would rather defeat the purpose, but what I'm tossing around in my mind for the draft version would probably contain some text roughly along the following lines.

"Articles covering in-universe elements of fiction which do not possess notability independent of their parent work(s) should focus only on information directly useful to understanding the out-of-universe articles they are linked to."

Probably not the best way of phrasing it, but the point would be that all the content in these articles should be of actual and specific use to some part of an existing out of universe article.

For instance, explaining a character's complicated power in the character list article is of specific utility, because then you don't have to rehash that information in each of the three season LOEs, and the main article, and the article about the movie that had him in it, etc.

Including "expanded universe"-type junk about how he likes dogs is not of specific utility though, and shouldn't be there, unless his interaction with dogs is a major part of the plot throughout the entire show. If it's just a plot point for one episode or whatever, then in the summary of the one episode where he helps a dog, you say "Joe Protagonist helps a dog he likes". --tjstrf talk 08:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this. This wording, or something similar, would be very good. -- Ned Scott 18:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I was going to self-RV that edit([1]), but I forgot since I went immediately into making another post. My apologies. --tjstrf talk 07:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF

Regarding this: Would you mind giving some sort of explanation for your revert on the talk page? I think at least parts of my changes are quite helpful. —AldeBaer 08:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the changes I made, and decided to revert. It's not a big change, but I'm convinced my wording is clearer and more helpful than the earlier version. But let's hear it from others at WT:WAF. —AldeBaer 08:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Remind me to get my eyes checked. I'm not sure what I thought I saw last night, but I can't seem to remember what reason I had to revert you. It is indeed an improvement. Sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Phew. Totally no prob. —AldeBaer 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TV Squad reliablitly

Could you elaborate on your comments please. - Peregrine Fisher 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, but I might be confusing it with another site that I saw someone use that was just a bunch of ranting visitors. But when I looked at the site it appears that site visitors can only comment, but don't write the actual reviews. -- Ned Scott 02:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fiction "glue"

I saw you mention the idea of having some sort of central WAF/FICT related place several times. I'm not totally sure, but how about creating a WikiProject Writing about fiction? The central page could serve as that "glue" page, there could be smoe sort of central quality assessment, tie-ins or exchanges with related projects etc. Or would that be overkill? — [ aldebaer⁠] 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My Userpage

I just had it fixed and you buggered it up! Tyler Warren 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There, just fixed it again. Don't bugger it up.....P.S. Whats a Pogal? I saw your edit to "Community Portal" as "Community Pogal". -.- Tyler Warren 04:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm, my edits were after your first edit.. Not sure what you mean about Pogal.. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Syaoran Li relatives

Why'd you remove Syaoran's mother and sisters from the character box? It's true that they're not major characters and they only appear in the first movie, but they are his immediate family.PeRiDoTs13 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they don't have articles, and because it's not necessarily useful to list them in the infobox instead of in the article itself. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WAF

Hey Ned, I saw you already commented here. I noticed G.A.S. boldly implemented the changes he proposed, which I don't think has consensus (at least not with me). Instead of reverting, I commented there so that we can establish consensus on this. I would appreciate any further input you can provide. — [ aldebaer⁠] 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Regarding this edit

Ned, there was no reason to be insulting or judgemental WP:CIVIL#Examples. If you do not like the edits, please explain instead. G.A.S 09:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about that, and I'm confused to why you think it is. -- Ned Scott 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Your tone was unnecessarily judgmental. G.A.S 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Let it go, GAS, you're reading too much into this. I made a judgment on your changes, which was the topic of discussion. It wasn't personal, it wasn't mean to hurt you, it was nothing. -- Ned Scott 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
OK then G.A.S 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert of proposal

This edit refers (rv, the proposal to merge notability sub-guidelines to WP:N was already rejected. The case for addressing individual situations, even if slightly redundant, has widespread support)
Please revert the revert. The purpose of the proposal should not be interpreted as a move. There are some good concepts in there that should be added to the main guideline. Please also note that only two notability guidelines has such a section. G.A.S 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's not a move then make a copy of the section. A merge tag means to move content to another page. Specific examples of what to do for fictional articles makes sense, and if we are to remove the section then it would likely be apart of the proposed reorganization of fictional guidelines. -- Ned Scott 18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If you still feel strongly about it, I'll revert myself and add back the tags. -- Ned Scott 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it.
While the merger of the sub guidelines were opposed, I am of the opinion that the common sections can and should be merged into the main guideline. This would allow the sub guidelines to concentrate on the concepts unique to them, and refer to the main guidelines for common content, per WP:SS.
Remember that the main purpose of maintenance templates are to bring suggestions under the attention of the wider community.
There is one problem however, WT:N is still missing after recent vandalism.
G.A.S 19:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, WT:N is back now, it seems that it was deleted accidentally:) G.A.S 06:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Their Colors

Leave their representative colors alone don't touch them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.23.57 (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's considered original research. -- Ned Scott 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Crest Colors

Leave their representative colors alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.23.57 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

reverted, blocked, ignored. Circeus 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Digimon season

Please look at Talk:Digimon Adventure —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talkcontribs) 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Material on Hentai and Sexuality in Manga

I left a comment on the Talk:Hentai page in response to your request for references. As you may know, a number of Wikipedians and I are in the middle of a major revision of the manga entry (some material has been put up already; see the Talk pages for manga and on the manga/anime project page for lots more details).

We are planning to include a section in the revision about sexuality in manga, and if you would like to join us, you'd be most welcome. We're not up to that section yet, but that's just a matter of time.

If you're wondering about my credentials for saying any of this, please take a look at my user page. I'm a subject matter specialist in this area, and have published a number of scholarly papers about sexuality and manga, some cited on the Talk:Hentai comment I just mentioned.

And please do come and help us!

Timothy Perper 19:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hey Ned. I've been seriously remiss in not taking part in the forming of WP:FICT. It seems everyone from the Episode thing (You, Gwinva, TTN, Eusbeseus et al.) are there. It was just cited at me, and I don't really understand the wording for the notability criteria. Because of different wording, it seems that it is different than just the blanket notability. So firstly, would you explain the guideline (specifically, the notability aspect)? Also, tell me how the apply in this situation? I'm not asking for support, but like I said someone said this passes WP:FICT, and I dont understand it, and would like to know if he is right. I'll try to read the behemoth that is the archives and see what's been going on before jumping in. Thanks. — i said 03:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, a sufficient amount of sourced real-world information can make fictional characters/elements "notable" for Wikipedia. It's actually a pretty low criteria considering most topics on Wikipedia, but it aims to hit the greatest weakness of fictional articles, a lack of real-world information. Within the article, though, I'd say it does need a trimming of the plot summary, and to expand on the real-world information. The Simpsons have an interesting situation, having been on TV for 20 years, in that we have far more sources for it than most other shows. I wouldn't say that means anything from the Simpsons should get an article, but Itchy and Scratchy is one of the more noticeable elements of the show, also having existed for the full 20 years, providing a platform of plot development, jokes, etc. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

heads-up

Just a quick heads-up: [2] — aldebaer⁠ ] 08:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

Stop x nuvola.svg

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by Animum. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ned Scott (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I certainly have not been trolling, and this certainly is not an acceptable block

Decline reason:

It seems that despite past personal conflicts with User:White Cat, you chose to nominate an article for deletion especially because he wanted it kept [3]. Your choice of edit summary betrays a certain glee in nominating the article [4]. You continued to follow White Cat to pages after doing so, admitted it and mocked likely concerns that would result [5]. You have been asked before disengage from White Cat - your conduct here seems to have been designed expressly to hound him and as such was not acceptable. WjBscribe 03:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

RfAr

I've taken the disagreement between you and White Cat to requests for arbitration and you're named as a party. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for escalating the dispute, great job there. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WAF

Over the last days, User:G.A.S and me have been working on a careful rewording of the intro, which we are now jointly proposing here. Since you've been recently active on WT:WAF, I think the proposal may be of interest to you and we both would appreciate your input. Also, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, please forgive the timesaving templated wording. — aldebaer 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your message

If you guys really think the case is necessary, then ok, but given how infrequent I even cross paths with Cat I'm really confused as to how it even got proposed as an arbcom case. The only thing listed as an attempt to settle the dispute was an RfC on myself, and that did resolve at least part of the issue. I still don't believe I crossed the line in listing an article for deletion (but I did cross the line in being down right rude to him), and it's already apparent that the evaluation of any given admin regarding Cat and I, is enough to block either of us. Aside from a finding like "Ned and Cat should try to stay away from each other" I fail to see what starting up an entire arbcom case is going to achieve. As I said in my statement on the request page, I also think this will fuel the drama more than it would help. I'm open to mediation of some kind, and hearing how others suggest we handle such situations (although I already know what went wrong this last time). There are many other ways to resolve this dispute, lessen the drama, and take up a lot less of our time. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can stay away from each other on your own then we do not need to take the case. I'm willing to take an wait and watch approach for awhile longer if you both agree to put effort into staying away from each other. This may mean that you stay away from situations where Cat is involved since you getting involved is going to cause more problems than it fixes. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Tony Sidaway

[full discussion preserved/expanded at User talk:David Levy/Tony Sidaway]

I know this has nothing to do with me, but I just gotta butt in here and support Tony and Phil. How is the community supposed to decide anything if they're not allowed to discuss it in the first place. The close was undone with good reason, snowballs or not. You don't have to agree with the reason, but have a little respect for it. It is not the end of the world to revert a discussion closure, and that too is apart of how we work. Discussion is a fundamental right, in a way, of Wikipedians, and unless there is some tangible evidence of disruption, we shouldn't be closing discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the bureaucrats' job to close RfAs! Unilaterally undoing this most certainly is not a part of how we work.
And again, this has nothing to do with the wisdom behind the closure (or lack thereof). I'm not even certain that this was the correct decision. I just know that Phil's response (however well-meaning) was ill-advised and unhelpful. —David Levy 07:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I saw it was a non-crat who did the close. Specifically because discussion is so important on Wikipedia, I think there is a certain amount of extra weight that tips the balance in these kinds of situations. We have a right to discuss things as a community. Judgement of a bureaucrat, just as judgement of an admin over an AfD, doesn't override the process without good reason. If you close a discussion without good reason, don't be surprised if someone reverts them, regardless of who they are, because we are very defensive about our right to discuss. It's not something to do often, for a number of reasons, but it certainly is understandable in this situation. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You might only have seen the earlier closure by Navou (which was an application of the snowball clause). Phil reverted the subsequent closure by Nichalp (a bureaucrat).
Though it definately was backed by policy, whether said closure occurred with "good reason" is open to debate. The problem is that Phil made no attempt to initiate such community discussion. Instead, he unilaterally decided to overrule the closing bureaucrat's decision. Regardless of whether the RfA should have been closed or should have remained open, there was absolutely no realistic possibility of this accomplishing anything beneficial. It was highly disrespectful toward Nichalp and the community that entrusted in him the authority to make such a decision. —David Levy 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is highly disrespectful to the community for Nichalp to have closed the discussion. We trusted him to have made a better judgement call, but he didn't. Given the activity of the RfA, the strong desire of the community to comment, Kelly's request to keep it open, and the lack of tangible disruption, the obvious thing to do was to reopen the discussion. To say that a crat can close a discussion does not mean that any close they make, even on a whim, is supported by policy. Don't get caught up in the exact wording of the policy, it's pretty clear that crats should not be making judgement calls when the community clearly disagrees with them. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw far more people calling for the RfA to be closed than calling for it to remain open. But that's beside the point. As I said, the wisdom of Nichalp's decision is debatable (and I'm far from certain that it was the right one). The correct course of action, however, was to discuss this (and perhaps call upon the other bureaucrats to act in kind), not to unilaterally revert. —David Levy 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I do understand your point. I tend to be defensive of situations where discussion is closed early when it wasn't a major problem. Now I'm getting all worked up about this, but Nichalp didn't really do anything bad, but nor do I feel Phil did anything that bad. But, yeah, this is something to try to avoid. -- Ned Scott 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4 Please endorse the statement of dispute if you feel it is appropriate to do so. ViridaeTalk 02:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

List of LGBT people

Hi, Ned! Saw the moves you made to a couple of the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and was wondering a) the reasoning, and b) if *all* the sub-pages should be moved? In your edit summary, you mentioned WP:NC#Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply here, since there is a hierarchy - A, B, C-E, etc are all sub-pages of the list. Thoughts? I'll watch here, so no need to reply on my page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought they meant so it doesn't appear that it is in a file, like a normal file path in a computer, or to avoid confusion with actual subpages, which are not enabled in the article namespace.
I first saw one of these article titles on the sign post (listing FAs and FLs), the one for List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/T-V, and was at first confused about what the T-V even meant. I thought it was short for something, and that the slash was signifying something like "or", or something to that extent. So while it probably doesn't make a big difference, it just seemed a little bit clearer to use List of Blank: A instead. And from a style perspective, we're not trying to say where a document is, we're saying that this is a list of people starting with the letter A (or whatever). -- Ned Scott 04:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
<shrug> I guess I don't care too much either way, I'd just like all the lists to be the same :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I moved them all. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Doh! So you did. My bad! Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 2

Courtesy blanking has been standard practice for quite some time now (since at least the middle of 2006). Please do not revert the template. Thanks. Shell babelfish 22:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is unnecessary for this situation, and inappropriate to enforce without careful consideration. This poorly defined practice needs some evaluation, so that it does not get abused. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support courtesy blanking if and when this shameless font of self-aggrandizing misinformation (e.g. discovered geosynchronous orbit) is deleted. The subject's life shouldn't be any kind of wiki-football, but should merely be left alone. Meanwhile, bio subjects who beg us to leave them be, such as Don Murphy, cannot get their articles blanked. The difference hasn't to do with any facts or principled reasoning, but only who is friends with whom on Wikipedia.Proabivouac 06:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And its comments like Proabivouac's that garnered the blanking in the first place. Ned, you have a long, troubled history with Elonka. Had you done more than just reverse the blanking on that single AfD, you might have a case here. If you have a problem with the courtesy blanking system, making a point on this AfD was a bad choice; go discuss the policy on the Village pump. Continuing to disrupt a closed AfD without reason could result in your account being blocked. Shell babelfish 20:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"And its comments like Proabivouac's that garnered the blanking in the first place."
I spoke no ill of Mr. Dunin.Proabivouac 20:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
How would you characterize comments such as "shameless font of self-aggrandizing misinformation"? AfD's on living people are routinely blanked, especially in cases where the debate is so heated; articles, unfortunately, are a different matter all together. The debate itself is very easily accessible in the history of the page. Shell babelfish 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Shell, while I did have disputes in the past with Elonka, and in some areas I don't trust her judgement, this has nothing to do with those disputes. Before I saw this AfD I was complaining about this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats#Blanking is lame. I actually put a disputedpolicy tag on WP:DP#Courtesy blanking, but shortly removed it myself since I didn't feel that I had a dispute with the policy at hand, but rather how these specific situations were being handled. So I guess by your criteria, I have a case. I'm sorry you feel I am disrupting a closed AfD, but I am not, and my actions are not without reason. Please do not give block threats simply because you disagree with my view, and for heaven sakes, is AGF just for show? I do not take kindly to being talked down to, and you are not in a position to do so. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As Mr. Dunin didn't write the article, it would be nonsensical to accuse him of self-aggrandizement. Even so, I didn't write anything like that in the AfD. It's not a BLP violation to observe that someone didn't accomplish something which was falsely attributed to them, is it? That we've been wildly misinforming people about the history of space travel is a fact. That certain administrators don't seem particularly concerned by this, but in fact have defended this material, along with other unsourced material - any or all of which, for all we know, may likewise be false - is also a fact. Someone ought to hand Matt57 the hatchet before we lie again.Proabivouac 06:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Arrow740 06:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not get into this dispute here. For myself, this really is just about the blanking itself and not much to do with what was discussed in the AfD. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Courtesy blanking is perhaps appropriate when the result is a clear rejection of the claims of unimportance, but this was a no-consensus, not a keep., and would thus be wholly out of place. the discussion should not be blanked in cases like this. It seems to be that Ned is doing right here, and I wonder a little at accusations that he is being disruptive. DGG (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lost LOE transclusion

Hey Ned, I was wondering if you could teach me about transclusion as I haven't been able to figure out how it works/how to edit with it yet. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Digimon

At Wikiproject Digimon, we are about to undergo a large project and we wish to see how many people wish to help and contribute. If you wish to help please sign here. Trainra 06:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

You told me that you would stay away from White Cat if I did not accept the RFArb. Based on your first comment there, you seem aware that your participation would cause a problem.

This particular comment is not okay as it does not assume good faith and focuses on the user instead of discussing the content.

"Don't play into Cat's game. He's nominating the lead characters in order to save the minor characters. There is no risk of deletion to save anything from. -- Ned Scott 09:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please do as you said you would. Do not comment on White Cat's actions if you want to avoid an ArbCom remedy to your dispute with Cat. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 12:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I told you that an RfArb would be a waste of time, and that I was already going to stay away from him. This is a prime example that Cat can have such a dispute with just about anyone who disagrees with him. Is it any particular user's participation that makes the situation a problem, or is it just whenever someone disagrees with him, and his reaction to that? I will avoid him, but I will not pretend he does not exist. My comment was perfectly ok, and anyone with half a sense knows that assuming good faith in this situation would be foolish. Believe me, it pains me to refrain from being able to be involved in this situation, not because of Cat, but because it's giving other Wikipedians the wrong impression (as seen on WT:ANIME), where users were getting concerned about the possibility of other character articles going to similar AfDs. But I am leaving that to other users. These few comments that I left are the extent of my involvement, and anything further wouldn't be worth more false accusations. If you honestly believe I have stepped out of line, I'm not sure what to say other than that I will try harder, and I don't mean any disrespect in my tone, but what I've just said is what I honestly believe. -- Ned Scott 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Piratey with mop.svg Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI reversions

Someone brought it to my attention that here you reverted the same IP 4 times. I haven't had time to look deeply into this. I understand why you would remove it, can you explain? GDonato (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty straight forward, the IP was trolling, and even got blocked for it. I can't know for certain if it's the same person, but it seemed to happen the last time userpage redirections were being discussed on ANI . -- Ned Scott 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice comment

Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
This is for the comment on WT:COUNCIL#Guidelines that seemed to reveal some common sense into everyone. Great job! O2 () 22:32, 15 October 2007 (GMT)

AFD struck comment - TY

Ned, just dropping you a line to say thanks for reverting my striking-through of that comment on the Warcraft AFD without fuss. I've seen other banned users' comments struck on several AFDs and had assumed that it was the done thing, when there must have been specific circumstances which I hadn't realized. If I'd known that wasn't the case I'd have left well alone. So cheers for sparing my blushes. Someone another 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it probably could have gone either way, considering his behavior. It's hard to say, but I guess I wanted to show the user that, if they would behave, they could still come back. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Templates in sigs

Oh sorry!! I didn't see that last time I changed that. Thanks for the heads up! Wikada - TALK - CONT ISU]] 19:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no problem :) -- Ned Scott 19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid Digimon Images

Hey. Just to point out, I tagged them for speedy since they didn't have a nonfree copyright tag on the page. If you could add those in as well that would be great. Wizardman 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't even notice that! I'll get right on it. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question at WT:UCFD

It's part of several recent disruptive actions, as a result of several editors upset with a a few DRV results, among other things. I'll find you some links if you'd like. (See User talk:Allstarecho for several.) Also feel free to check out the 2 threads on AN/I. Hope this helps. - jc37 01:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C

I like both of you. I've asked him to stop reverting, and I'm sure you'll do the same. I have no idea what state the files are in, but let's just leave them that way and discuss what to do at WP:AN. - Jehochman Talk 05:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll stop reverting. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)