User talk:Ned Scott/archive12

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

List of Armor Digimon (Part 2)

What's up here? This has been in this "sort of a weird middle stage" since mid-November. (ran across this while browsing Special:Random) —Random832 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Slow and steady wins the race? It's just something I haven't gotten around to. There's a lot of link cleanup for it, and I wanted to prevent articles from being recreated via redlinks that hadn't been removed. I also still need to import the history, but that's not really a big concern, since I've already exported the xml file, and technically a list of contributors satisfies the GFDL as well. I'm fine with completely redirecting it or taking it to deletion. -- Ned Scott 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That is, assuming arbcom won't block me for doing so. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Was just making sure it (and anything else related) was still on your radar; I don't particularly care what you do with it at this point. —Random832 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is, I'm just dragging my feet on that more boring clean up work :) -- Ned Scott 02:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese episode list updates

Hi. Can you take a quick look at Portal:Anime and manga/News to see if I summarized the changes to the Japanese episode list template correctly? Collectonian (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfect :) -- Ned Scott 03:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool...and I just realized that with those new fields, I can now more easily use this template for light novel lists since the graphic novel one isn't quite working well. *grin* Collectonian (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Have another question for you :) I'm working on the rather ambitious task of creating a List of Lassie episodes (588 episodes, 19 seasons). I remembered reading about what was done with Lost so that the episode lists were transcluded from individual season pages into the main List of Lost episodes, minus the summaries. I copied the code from the Lost episode list "hack" and made one for Lassie. It is all working great, except I can't figure out how to make it so it doesn't show {{ShortSummary}} if there is no summary to include (see the work in progress). With 588 eps, it will be awhile before they all have summaries. :P Do you know how I can fix the template at Template:Episode list/Lassie to tell it to leave the summary blank if there isn't one to show? Collectonian (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re

I have not understand your question. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But in this line tons of nonsensical userboxes can be created. Then wikipedia will be mess. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose to create a new guideline which will restrict users from creating such nonsensical userboxes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why you are so eager in these bogus and nonsensical userboxes. If you like this userboxes, then Uncyclopedia will be the right place for you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

She's done! (I think)

It's 5:18am here and I finally finished her. I've gone over the image a few times and tried to ensure all mistakes were fixed, and I've cleaned it up a little more several dozen times over, so it should be almost-perfect! You can view a larger version than the previews in the sandbox here. I'd like some feedback, tell everyone to nitpick it and point out things that should be fixed; I've been working on it so long I'm going blind so you guys might be able to find things I missed ;)
Also, the characters on her puzzle pieces; I'd like to be sure they're correct, since I was merely tracing over Kasuga's hand-drawn characters - somewhere in there there's likely to be small mistakes or such. If I can have the actual text characters to copy I can put them in as text and then convert that to paths for greater accuracy, as well.
I'm off to sleep, but I should be around again in 8 hours or so and will be free to fix any mistakes after then. All the best, -- Editor at Large • talk 10:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh - a friend and I went over her again and found a few little things I want to fix. I'm making a list on the talk page at Image talk:Wikipe-tan full length.svg, so if you and others can leave comments there I'll work on them this evening. Thanks! -- Editor at Large • talk 10:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome!! I'll be sure to tell everyone. Again, thank you sooo much for taking this on. She looks great. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi Ned. Since you expressed interested, I wanted to let you know that I have created a RFC regarding the temporary injunction so the community can attempt to reach a consensus regarding this issue. Please comment with your views at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Request for Comment. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's actually different from what I had in mind, but I'll check it out. -- Ned Scott 01:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Porting Template:Navbox to other wikis

In this comment you say "However, with a little bit of tweaking, it can be used without changing Tidy." Can you give me some hints about what you changed to make {{Navbox}} portable to wikis not running HTML Tidy? According to this other discussion (and down a few paragraphs from the link point), templates that need HTML Tidy to run correctly are "poorly designed." I would like to learn what sort of template coding errors HTML Tidy is silently fixing up, so I can help make Wikipedia's templates easier to port to other MediaWiki wikis. Thanks. --Teratornis (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tidy basically fixes when formatting gets mixed. For example (wikitag) (html) (/html) (wikitag) would work, but (wikitag) (html) (wikitag) (/html) will break. At least I think that's how it works.. it's been a while since I explored the issue. I've converted a bunch of templates for use on Digimon Wiki. When I first started exporting Wikipedia articles to there, everything broke. It drove me crazy for a week or so. Finally, after asking around, I was able to see how to write the wiki table code without it breaking. The reason we use HTML at all is because normal wikicode gets broken when used with #if functions, but the way around this is to use {{!}} to replace I (and {{!!}} to replace ||). I already knew how to do this, but when I did I got extra line breaks in my boxes, a lot of extra line breaks.

The trick that I found out was to use <nowiki/>after the #if statement, then go to the next line to start the table row or table cell. For example:

{{#if:|<nowiki/>
{{!}}-

In any case, I went ahead and made a version of {{Navbox}} that has all this converted already. Basically there's {{Navbox}} and {{Navbox/core}}. Navbox/core is the part that needs the update, and that can be seen on User:Ned Scott/Navbox/core. With this diff you can see what changes I had to make. Make sure that you have the templates {{!}} and {{!!}}, and everything should work.

Let me know if you need any more help, or if it doesn't work right. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the template talk page, thank you very much indeed for the most impressive answer. --Teratornis (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anytime :D -- Ned Scott 03:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:2008 01 25 Scientology site error message.jpg

Could you explain further on the talk page for this image, specifically why it is "ineligible for copyright" ? Cirt (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's just some text, common error message text at that. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's a screenshot that could technically include graphics/images what have you with a claim of ownership by Prolexic Technologies, no? Cirt (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't include any graphics or images. It's a picture of text. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, but with their style of text, font, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm the one who uploaded the image and I'm all for its use, I just want to make absolutely sure we can safely say that it is free-use instead of fair-use. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I tried to find a page to help describe it. I found Copyright#Typefaces and Typeface#Legal aspects that kind of explains some of it. Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright also has a lot of good examples. Many images can also be trademarked, which can restrict how one uses something, but it's considered a different issue than copyrights. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you just add all those links to policy pages also to the image's talk page, w/ some clarification as to why it is ineligible for copyright? Cirt (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Dear Ned Scott, because of the open-mindedness and reasonability expressed here, the friendliness expressed here, and the apology expressed here, I have removed the bit on you in my evidence of the ArbCom case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Although, after your own explanation of why you listed it, I no longer felt insulted or anything like that :) -- Ned Scott 06:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and that's encouraging to read. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

need a laugh?

See here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The episode list template

Hi Ned. I think that the "Written by" field should appear before the "directed by" field, because that is how they are usually billed on the TV shows, whether it's during the action after the opening credits, or on the scrolling end credits. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I had not considered that. I'll see what the others think about it, but since we've only just started it would probably be an easy change. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at Template talk:Episode list#Order of DirectedBy and WrittenBy. Feel free to notify as many other people/talk pages as you want, since there really wasn't a lot of feedback on this the last time it was discussed. The more the better. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories

Ned - I saw your question at the discussion about hidden categories. You may already have seen the note, but there is now a setting in the user preferences to toggle the display. It's under "Misc", titled "Show hidden categories". Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nice. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WikEd for Safari

I have a little present for you :D User talk:Cacycle/wikEd_development#Safari. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kick ass! -- Ned Scott 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that you will have to set wikEdSkipBrowserTest for my version. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! But I notice the on/off thingie in the corner, next to "log out" doesn't work, so it always defaults to being on when I edit. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are still several smaller issues, but its already working a lot better then I had ever expected it to work. I'll be working on finding the remaining bugs in the next couple of days or so. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to it :D -- Ned Scott 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion

I know it could look odd or out of place. Kasuga just does such beautiful work, and I'd rather have that adorn an article than a deletable (and often contentious) live image. I just don't know how backlogged he is. Cheers, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this ( . . . a kiss is stil a kiss)

I, too, want a good solution. Many editors (including yourself) from disparate points of view have been diligently working at FICT and WAF to resolve this problem. One editor I have not seen there is TTN. I have no personal grudge against TTN, other than the fact that he has been rude to other editors. As a matter of fact, I can not think of a single instance where we have had a conflict. Nevertheless, I feel that it is a good thing for the Arb Com to draw a line and say "this behavior is unacceptable." You may feel that they only did this two one side, but I feel like the rest of the proposals (especially the enforcement by blocks) has the potential to draw a line with the other side's tendentious edit warring. I think this may be an excellent way to get back to work. Besides, if they close the case, the "problematic" injunction will be lifted. Ursasapien (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My reply. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

Regarding this case, I know a lot of discussion is floating around, but I really feel strongly about this and wanted to get more attention to this comment I made:

If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. Like the others, I'm still not convinced TTN has even done something grossly wrong, but it's far better than the current proposal, allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions, and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements.

TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced when challenged, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Wikipedia. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I do respect and understand your point Ned Scott. However, please do understand that we are talking about a restriction and not a ban. In fact it may not be for the best of everyone but it clearly represents a consunsus between arbitrators and i personally believe it will benefit the project while it is not necessarily harmful for TTN who can have more time now to think about the way of editing instead of the content itself because afterall good editorialship requires good behavior and responsability. TTN could not do both of that at once. Wikipedia receives routinely requests from restricted and/or banned users who seek another chance. In the case of TTN, he's clearly getting a chance now. I just consider it a fair deal. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kirill Lokshin deletion

Hi, this is what I was reverting, I have no idea why anything else was deleted with it but I was only removing the one thread. Benjiboi 05:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you were viewing an old version of the page? *shrug* The section was removed though, so no worries on that [1]. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem and thanks for fixing it! Benjiboi 07:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

it is out of hand

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&curid=4833604&diff=195740692&oldid=195740454 --scuro (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Little good comes out of the way it is now. He has now instructed Ss how to be uncivil and given his seal of approval to do so. Today we saw the first example of an attack, more are sure to follow. Abd also speaks of restraining me. Did you actually read everything that he wrote? When, if not now would you file a complaint?--scuro (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reposted it. It will give them the chance to apologize. If not I will follow your advice.--scuro (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you posted your complaint about Ss there.--scuro (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefblock template

The instructions on Template:Indefblockeduser do point people to a "historical" parameter that can be used, but I fear many admins don't bother to use this when putting the template on the pages of established contributors that get blocked. One way to address this is to make the "historical" option the default, and to make "delete" the option that has to be typed or pasted in. Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the bad-faith assumptions

I had never, to my knowledge, interacted with Boodles. Your edit summary of "feel free to gather more friends to outnumber me" was wildly inappropriate, and a complete and utter violation of the assumption of good faith required. Just because you feel the guy deserves to have user page content does not make it true, nor does it mean anyone is "gathering friends." I have not, at any time, contacted Boodles (or anyone else) on or off-project, to blank that userpage. Perhaps the fact that you're the only one restoring it, and more than one other editor is deleting it, should let you know that perhaps you're mistaken. Bellwether ^B_C 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Friend was a bad choice of words then, and I should have simply said "like-minded user" or something. This user deserves a userpage because at one time he was an editor in good standing. I'm the only one restoring only because these are issues that most other people don't want to get their hands dirty with. No one wants to go to bat for a raciest, but I believe in standing up for users regardless of their personal beliefs. I don't agree with EliasAlucard's racial views, and I don't dispute his block. The guy was an asshat who had it coming. However, he did some good work, and one flaw, no matter how angry it makes some people, should not be the sum of his existence. -- Ned Scott 19:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• You're still assuming bad faith. I've not contacted any "like-minded users" to "help" with the reversions. No one "deserves" a userpage, which is why indef-banned users often have their's blanked. Bellwether ^B_C 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say you contacted anyone or asked them. There's no reason to blank the page, and the only rationale anyone has came up with is that "we did it for someone else". That translates to: no consensus to blank. -- Ned Scott 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No one contacted me, you are indeed demonstrating bad faith Ned. I'd be interested to know what "good work" you feel this user actually did. In addition to exerting great effort to put absurd amounts of lipstick on assorted Nazi pigs who are subjects of Wikipedia entries, his other activity largely consisted of pushing his own POV in more obscure debates on Assyrian nationalism, where he received similar accusations of making heinous, despicable remarks against his opponents there. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone contacted you either. If you want to assume that I'm assuming bad faith (zomg), go ahead. My point still stands, there is no consensus to blank. I'm being objective here. I don't care about nazis or jews or any of that, and I'm not here to debate those topics. -- Ned Scott 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem; my question concerned your statement about the racist editor above, "he did some good work." Since you mentioned that as part of a justification for not blanking his page, I was wondering what "good work" you were referring to. And you're certainly not obligated to care about Jews, but I feel sorry that you feel the need to say you "don't care" about them. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait what? I'm talking about in context to this situation. Why would you try to turn around my comment to make it seem anti-semitic? That's obviously not what I meant. -- Ned Scott 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, my question was what "good work" are you referring to in your defense of keeping this racist editor's user page up. If you dont have an answer, or don't wish to answer, I'll move on. I was just responding to what you said as support for your view. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

ShortSummary and LongSummary parameters

This is in reply to your comment about the ShortSummary and LongSummary parameters. I hope that you as the developer of {{Episode list/Lost}} can help.

I messed around with the Short/LongSummary idea in User:Sgeureka/Template last month, but I gave up because I couldn't get the following case to work: When an templated episode (think {{Episode list/NAME_OF_THE_SHOW}}) in a season article doesn't have a LongSummary parameter (because most episodes using the old {{Episode list/NAME_OF_THE_SHOW}} don't have that parameter yet), the ShortSummary should be transcluded correctly on the season page. If however LongSummary is added for another episode of the same season (work-in-progress kind of a situation), then LongSummary should be transcluded per the updated {{Episode list/NAME_OF_THE_SHOW}}. ShortSummary should always be transcluded on the LoE.

I used User:Sgeureka/Sandbox#Real_Sandbox as "season" test page with User:Sgeureka/Template as the episode template, and used List of Stargate SG-1 episodes as the LoE page where User:Sgeureka/Sandbox#Real_Sandbox is transcluded (just using the preview, no saving). The episode "Prophecy" of this test case just has ShortSummary, and "Full Circle (Part 1)" has ShortSummary and LongSummary as parameters.

What I really haven't figured out yet is how to make the template check whether a parameter (i.e. LongSummary) even exists, and switch to ShortSummary otherwise. I already read meta:Help:ParserFunctions and the related pages, but was unable to find a solution. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Long answer short: {{#ifeq:{{{PARAMETER|ʁ}}}|ʁ|IF NOT THERE|IF THERE}}

This is actually the trick that the main Template:Episode list uses to trigger table cells based on the existence of a parameter, rather than if it is filled out or not. I don't think the trick is actually documented anywhere. I figured it out one day when I noticed {{{PARAMETER|DEFAULT if not defined}}} worked when a parameter was listed (|PARAMETER=) but no text was entered for it. When you did that, DEFAULT would not show up, and instead you would get nothing (since nothing was entered). By using #ifeq this can actually be usable to trigger other things. If PARAMETER is not listed then it displays the default "ʁ". ifeq checks to see if ʁ is used, if it is then it will do one thing, if anything else is used (including "nothing") then, it will do something else. ʁ is used because it's unlikely that ʁ would ever be used for a parameter value. -- Ned Scott 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically {{#ifeq:{{{LongSummary|ʁ}}}|ʁ|{{{ShortSummary}}}|{{{LongSummary}}} }} -- Ned Scott 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Works great. See "The Enemy Within" (ep 3) in Stargate SG-1 (season 1) and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re User:VivianDarkbloom

Thanks for your message on my talkpage. I note that the editor has now been unblocked by another uninvolved admin. I would comment that I blocked the account because of the incivility, with a tariff of indefinite because I was aware that they had another account. Per AGF I don't suppose that they used that other account to edit while this one was blocked - but that is the reason why alternate accounts are blocked when the individual is in violation of WP policy (see Good Hand, Bad Hand). I explained that if they were to identify their previous account by email to a CU or similar and it was determined that it was not being used then the tariff on this account could be adjusted. They did not choose to do so. In the end another sysop looked at the facts, and decided to unblock. That is fine, it's how things work around here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and sorry if I seemed a bit harsh. I was just a bit frustrated with the situation, having thought about some past situations where sockpuppet accusations pushed others away and turned out to be false. I now see your note on her talk page, and I guess this would have been cleared up faster if Vivian was simply a little clearer about what had actually happened. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ned, your efforts to see VivianDarkbloom unblocked deserve some serious credit. You've also defended me and TTN on separate occasions, and for that you have my thanks and respect. I'm happy to have you as a fellow editor, and as a fellow human being. --Pixelface (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that you said that. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: [2]. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page [3] in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, [4]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if I have anything to add. I was really interested in seeing what would happen regarding our privacy policy after finding out about that situation. Thanks for letting me know about your proposals. -- Ned Scott 07:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

nofollow

Hi Ned, I saw your comment on Luna's page in response to my post there. I've created a meta account, but do not know my way around over there. A few pointers would be appreciated. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really do much over there either, but I have commented a few times on the talk page for m:Interwiki map. Someone did tell me that a dev could probably change this, so maybe filing a bug report is the way to go. Recently the Wikia interwiki link broke and we changed a bunch of links to use normal ELs. It's since been fixed, but I'm holding off reverting back to the interwiki version until this can get fixed. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Giromon (Digimon)

... has now been deleted so you can do your page move. kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ned Scott 09:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your NFC revert

Such a senseless revert is likely to make the copy-editor very annoyed. You provided no reason. Did you actually compare the two versions? WTF was controversial about the changes, which, to my eyes, removed fluff and strengthened the existing meanings without changing their substance. Frankly, it's the way it should have been written in the first place.

Proper reasons please???? Tony (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In your eyes this was non-controversial and didn't change the meaning. I disagreed, and this is your response. It's a policy page, and no matter how sure you think you are, when someone questions your change you're supposed to discuss it like an adult and not throw a hissy fit. If you want to make the change then go to the talk page. -- Ned Scott 12:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Digimon numbered list

Hi Ned Flanders, I have helped with the numerical digimon list. I real create the actual page now. [[User:Looney 176 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.79.141 (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stargate templates

Hi Ned. My notability merge drive of Stargate articles on single elements is nearing its end (there is still much to do afterwards). Since you have the SG wikiproject userbox on your userpage, and since you participated in some SG TfDs with keep, I ask you about your opinion on the following. I have the intention to propose it in the SG wikiproject later (I don't expect much of a response there, as it is pretty much abandoned).

I've been thinking for a while about merging all the SG templates ({{Stargate Races}}, {{StargateLists}}, {{StargateTech}}, {{StargateTopics}}, {{Stargate Characters}}, {{Stargate SG-1 Seasons}}) into something like this (which still lists some of the to-be-merged articles). The good about it is (1) it gets rid of a lot of redundance and (2) it lists all wikipedia articles (except episodes) that there are about the SG universe. Template:Harrypotter and Template:Buffyversenav also seem to do this. The bad thing is it is pretty big (I have a widescreen monitor, so I don't really mind). Also, if Stargate Universe gets picked up, the template will get even bigger. I don't know yet how many of the lists (especially RACE characters and RACE technology) will be considered for mergers into Miscellaneous lists, which in turn would reduce the template a little again. What do you think? – sgeureka ^t•c 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove my comments

I consider rather rude to remove someone else's comments, as you did here. If you think the situation needs clarifying, you could add a further comment. Alternatively, if you think I should remove my note, you are welcome to discuss the matter with me on my talkpage (as I would rather have hoped you might have done in the first place). Regards, WjBscribe 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My reply. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki help

Do you know where can I find a pure Mediawiki code version of Template:Infobox animanga character?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Made one a while back at wikia:digimon:Template:Infobox_animanga_character :) -- Ned Scott 05:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Template help

Hey Ned,

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons we're working on condensing our thousands of creature pages into a number of list pages (see the discussion at User:BOZ/Monster Sandbox). We haven't decided how to do it yet, but it looks like a template is going to be needed. I'd like to create a template like Template:Episode list, but I'm out of practice and reading that page's code is difficult for me. If it's easy for you, could you chop Template:D&D creature list down to size for us. I copied the episode template over to it already. What I'd like is fields for "Name", "Page", and "Other Appearances", with a column spanning row called "Description" (instead of ShortSummary). If this is an easy thing for you and you want to, just go ahead and do it. I think once we have that, we can modify it. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry for the slow response, too. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia in the last week or so. Let me know if you need any help. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mbstpo

I blocked him indef as a temporary measure purely to stop any more vandalism, and posted at ANI to see what the community thought. The general consensus there was that given all the problems with his SIX previous accounts, and now this, that his chances had run out. I can't say I disagree; he had some good edits, but was getting to be a major time-sink for other editors. Black Kite 07:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He seemed to be more of a benefit for our project on balance than a detriment, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if he was or wasn't, but an indef block is skipping a lot of steps in resolving the issue. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The block was stated as being "indef" pending a resolution, I don't disagree with that, though it should not become an "indef" block as a permanent ban. I'd prefer to see a declaration that Mbstpo can get access again upon request, perhaps upon conditions. I think he would actually prefer to remain blocked at this point, it interrupts his ability to immediately dive in again. Mbstpo is a "time-sink" for other editors through disruption created in reaction to his ideas; actual disruption by him is minor at most, and done, twice now, when he has decided to burn a bridge. Voting canned comments in MfDs, for example, isn't disruption, it's actually common practice, the only difference was that instead of "Delete per nom," he wrote more explaining his generic reason for keep. I examined all these deletion debates and ended up concluding the same vote as him, I think. (There may have been one or two where I didn't think it worthwhile to make a comment, or I made a more specific recommendation.)

Given the history of this editor, which I've seen back to 2005, with no earned blocks at all, and no warnings that I've seen either, his suddenly having two indef blocks, also without specific warnings, is pretty abrupt. The proper warning for the "vandalism," -- I think that technically one of these was vandalism, the other was a hoax article, which is generally not treated as severely as vandalism, I think, unless repeatedly done -- would have been a warning only, with block if repeated. A 24-hour block would have been justifiable. Beyond that, because of his history, it's possible to treat this as a second offense, so the block would escalate to the next step. Which has already expired, I think. So what I'd ask from the blocking admin is that he state that he will lift on request. He can make conditions for that, which might or might not be challenged. Mbstpo's position was that he did not wish to edit the encyclopedia if he was denied the normal facilities of editors. He'd actually been a very productive editor in article space, and had simply begun to apply that experience in the area of policy and process. With, shall we say, spectacular results. Sometimes very good ideas, when first introduced, do set off some fireworks.... --Abd (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New user proposal

Could you please read this proposal and my comment on the RfC? Then could you A.) post a reply to my idea and B.) if you agree, discuss how we could create and implement this robot? I truly believe this could help new editors before they create articles. Ursasapien (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that your silence means that you are uniterested in this situation. I know I can't force any editor to care about a particular situation, but I wish I could get you to comment as I think your insight would be valuable. Ursasapien (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just been spending a bit less time on Wiki lately over all. I'll give it a look now, since from what I skimmed through it seems like a very good idea. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't picked up on that this would be a technical restriction for new users. I'm not so sure about that, but at the same time I can't say that it's a bad idea. There was a time when we wanted quantity over quality on Wikipedia, but maybe we're stepping away from that stage (though we do have a lot of topics still left uncovered). We might be able to combined a form of this proposal with a form of flagged revisions. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about a Welcomebot? Has anything like that been tried before? I certainly believe we could do more to educate our newer editors and I like the automated tutorial idea, I just think it should be voluntary. Ursasapien (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we need a way to help educate users before they just dive into editing. It might even be something we can fix with the interface of Wikipedia itself. Some kind of thing where tips and parts of guidelines could come up, as they're editing, maybe. I remember being a new editor and being frustrated at why someone didn't tell me about something before I worked a lot on something, only to find a better way or that the idea was rejected, or something like that. It would also be a lot more efficient. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles

I started to get truly exercised about this when I realized that the ArbComm decision was being misrepresented before the MfD. ArbComm specifically encouraged PHG to continue to contribute to the articles, simply not through direct editing, and not with incivility. Ironic, is it not, that PHG's error -- ArbComm did not impute bad faith as being involved -- was to cite sources when the sources contained contrary information (apparently in addition to what he cited or was implying, not as direct falsification), and then the same thing is done by them with respect to reporting the arbitration. Or possibly even worse.... It is very clear to me now, it was not clear at first. The ArbComm decision almost requires keeping these pages. Sure, PHG can take them off-wiki, which then makes it more cumbersome for him to then pull material from them and copy it to the relevant Talk pages. That is inhibiting what ArbComm specifically encouraged.

Thanks for all your support for good causes, by the way ... --Abd (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

guestbook barnstart

I un-closed the deletion nomination because it has not still been 5 days since I put it up, and I want to make sure there are no complaints later about no consensus or about rushed deletions. If the barnstar gets re-created on a different form, I want to make sure we can point ot this debate without getting lame complaints of un-appropiateness.

I understand your decision of userfying and not losing time with this sort of stuff, but, if the result is deletion, then it should be deleted even if it's userfied, since the point of the deletion is that it shouldn't exist at all anywhere on the wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.:Of course, feel free to give your opinion that it should be userfied, but please let an admin close the debate, since I want to be sure that the process is 100% adjusting to procedure --Enric Naval (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Procedure means noting in a debate like this. What you don't understand is this isn't something that you can actually delete. Even if there is no on-wiki copy, there is nothing stopping anyone from pasting the code onto a user's talk page, just as if it were subst'ed. You can't XfD the act of giving the barnstar. -- Ned Scott 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

answered on nomination page --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you rushed it a bit there. I know that it's frustrating having to wait a few days for a deision that you think is very clear, but on a collaborative project it's always important to be ultra-patient, wait for consensus, abide when the majority is against you (this is what annoys me more, but many times I discovered I was the one that was wrong), and follow the procedures. Well, you didn't cause any non-reparable damage, and the next time you know what *not* to do on a nomination process. You could say that you had an educative experience :D --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Please stop forum shopping the deletion of the Daniel Brandt redirect - it is extremely disruptive. This will be grounds for blocking if you continue. krimpet✽ 05:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong in every sentence of that message. There is nothing disruptive about letting others know about this with a neutral message on relevant and non-biased discussion pages. If you dare even think of blocking me for such then don't be surprised when you lose your admin bit. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

...I've blocked you for 24 hours. Re-adding the thread to an unrelated noticeboard it was explicitly removed from that page is crossing the line. krimpet✽ 06:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm divided about this block. Simply bringing up a thread elsewhere (albeit in an area I would not have) does not justify a block of a long-time user. On the other hand, Ned you do have a history of being less than a model Wikipedian in how you handle these sorts of things so I can somewhat see where Krimpet is coming from. Frankly, this strikes me as a block which adds drama and doesn't do much else. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said it once before, it doesn't matter if you're right or worng when people assume the worst. No policy was violated, and "forum shopping" is very speculative. The disputed edits were a whooping total of three with a single revert. -- Ned Scott 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who is reading this later on, I was unblocked by Krimpet shortly after being blocked. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it. I was debating what to do (what I could do and what would be an appropriate response). I think we all would agree (including yourself) that you are a passionate editor and that you might get emotional from time to time. However, I felt this situation involved asking a valid question and the block was overkill. Ursasapien (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I also am glad to hear you were unblocked shortly after being blocked, though I don't think you should have been blocked in the first place. Posting neutral messages regarding a discussion on appropriate locations on the Wiki does not in any way violate any guidelines or policies here. It is not considered forum shopping as long as the notices are clearly NPOV. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The matter of the redirect is now at DRV, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24#Daniel Brandt. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

reply

Thank you for your belated communication. Neither of us handled the situation well, and it became extraordinarily destructive. In a re-run of that scenario, you might have been better to revert just the third point—the only one with which you took issue (it was the ham-fisted total reversion of my work, most of which was a clear improvement and not at issue, that particularly rankled me). You might also have brought on board someone like Geist as soon as possible to tease apart the issue, rather than letting it fester without apparent reason—that, as you can imagine, fuelled the impression that you were merely power-playing and seeing through ownership. I'm sorry that it happened this way. Tony (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call

Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of your comment from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Following your edits on Village Pump and the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents, I had a strong impression that you were trying to increase drama levels over the Daniel Brandt affair, and may have overreacted. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, but drama was never my intention. I even made my message even more direct and neutral from the previous time in an attempt to still give notice, but to minimize drama (that might result from my notices). And while I still strongly believe that a notice should be at the Village Pump, I kept the notice to only places that would be directly related. I understand that more people involved in a discussion sometimes has the effect of more drama, but that drama is short lived (and hardly that bad), and the value of having more comments from the community far outweighs the annoyance. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blanking

See: User talk:Thebainer#Blanking

DRV

Thanks for the notification, I assume it will be at the usual place? (Also, do you want any further explanation from me regarding the deletions?) Cheers, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I of course respect your opinion and will respect the consensus of the community as decided at the deletion review. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor

I noticed that you gave this to Viridae, and I'm just wondering what's so funny about adding a vulgar personal attack to every article. Thanks! —David Levy 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a JOKE. -- Ned Scott 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You honestly believe that it's acceptable to add a message claiming that certain sysops have sticks up their rectums to millions of articles? If so, I'm curious as to what you consider unacceptable. (Goatse images?) —David Levy 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about that one specifically. No, I do not think that is acceptable, but the other versions were pretty much fine by me. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We obviously don't see eye-to-eye on the issue of pranks in general, buy yeah, that's the only one that I regard as vulgar or a personal attack.

Aside from the individual messages' appropriateness (or lack thereof), would you not agree that edit-warring to re-insert jokes is inappropriate? I don't condone any of the April Fools' Day pranks, but most of the users behind them had their fun and moved on. Viridae, conversely, continually fought with other administrators to include a joke on every page in the encyclopedia. When a particular sysop countered his efforts, he retaliated with the aforementioned vulgar personal attack and by vandalising that sysop's user page. That's when I blocked Viridae, and only for the remainder of the day (which amounted to twelve hours). —David Levy 02:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is bad, but considering what day it was, I honestly can't see it as a big deal. It is something I hope we can avoid next year, which is one of the reasons I left my message on MediaWiki talk:Tagline‎. If we can find something mild and non-offensive, that most people can agree with, then things will go much better and we'll have a bit of fun too. That being said, while what happened this year is not desirable, I still thought it was funny. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't regard the simultaneous vandalism of every page as funny or minor, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. —David Levy 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And you've been a kill-joy on far lesser offensives. -- Ned Scott 03:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You can call me whatever names you please, but I remain unapologetic about upholding policy.

And in that particular instance, I wasn't even certain that the edit was a prank (as opposed to an honest mistake). If I had been, I would have rolled it back (instead of reverting manually) and warned the user. —David Levy 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then from this day forward your name will be Steve. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That amused me.  :-) —David Levy 03:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:New users to WP:NOVELS

Would there be any prejudges to a "new participant" category that implored a technical method of management? -- Ned Scott 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain I understand, could you clarify? - jc37 03:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A time switch on a user template. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how would you do the template coding for that? Modify Template:Birth date and age? --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a userbox with a hardcoded date. If the date is less than X number of days since, then place in the category. It would take care of all the maintenance. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have 1 category for each Wikiproject. We don't need a second for only the new users, and I'd nominate such a category for deletion even if it was possible to execute accurately. VegaDark (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be how you feel, but it's far more than reasonable. Having a second category doesn't add any more maintenance, nor does it create any more of a burden on the servers. I'm inclined to make one to try it out, and you're free to CfD it, but don't be surprised when it's kept. Not only is there a good reason to have such a category, it might even be more used than the general participants category. WikiProjects often maintain several project-specific maintenance categories, as well as having more than one participation category via task forces. Your objection to this really doesn't make any sense at all. -- Ned Scott 01:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pages

Which pages do you want? Give me a list and I'll post them to your userspace for a day or so (protected of course), assuming their not BLPs and no one jumps on me in the next 5 mins. MBisanz ^talk 06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell what was deleted, and I have no way of knowing which ones even have any real content, but here's what I've got right now:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States (2nd nomination) -> User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States (2nd nomination)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human -> User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human

• Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/George W. Bush -> User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/George W. Bush

• Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Jimmy Wales -> User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Jimmy Wales

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/temp -> User:Ned Scott/Page1

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism -> User:Hut 8.5/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Main Page -> Single edit nonsense

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion -> User:Ned Scott/Page2

And maybe:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion -> User:Ned Scott/Page3

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion -> User:Ned Scott/Page4

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion -> User:Ned Scott/Page5

Thanks! -- Ned Scott 06:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will get through all of them, but I must sleep right now. So add any others and I'll get them tomorrow. its not like their going anywhere. MBisanz ^talk 06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No problems, and thank you again. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. Temp pages will be deleted in 24 hours or sooner if you tell me to. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ned Scott 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All clear? MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

All clear, feel free to delete them at any time. Thanks again. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

g'day ned...

and thanks for signing up as interested in the 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' conversation project - we haven't yet suggested a date and time, so I thought I'd pop round here and ask you if something along the lines of Monday 7th April, 22.30 UTC might work ok? - It's great to have more people interested, and I'm very keen to be able to include as many folk as possible - hence my trip here! - how does that sound? - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to find out tomorrow what my work schedule is. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous of Project Chanology

Would it be possible to locate a reference that claims these attacks were perpetrated by the same group, that does not first cite Kevin Poulsen or Wired as its source? Reprints of the same source that cite that source are effectively just the same source, reprinted. As far as I can tell, the fountain of information regarding this claim still belches forth from a single point, that of convicted felon Kevin Poulsen via his position at Wired magazine. Zaphraud (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for helping on the unblock. 50MWdoug (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Uw-lblock}}

Are you sure you meant to decategorize the template? :P -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I see what you mean now. My mistake. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD closing

Could you please not close the MfD? At least two (perhaps three) users feel the page should be deleted. I understand you don't, but couldn't you just vote rather than close? Deletion takes at least 5 days anyway. There's no "rush". Equazcion •✗/C • 06:34, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Which MFD? <gets sneaking suspicion> --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring Equazcion •✗/C • 08:42, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I invoked WP:IAR to close the nomination. Only two users endorse the deletion, and mainly because of misuse of userspace. However, the interpretation of WP:USER that the page being discutted is for a project not enough related to wikipedia is graping at straws. It's a research project about how experts collaborate on wikipedia, I think it qualifies by a wide margin. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and I invoked WP:IAR because it's a project with a lot of potencial to be beneficious to wikipedia, and we shouldn't allow rules to disturb it without a very good reason --Enric Naval (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan FPC

Hey! I'm sorry I've been MIA for so long... I want to at least fix poor Wikipe-tan's right foot before she's put up for FPC, and now that I got my tablet working again I'm going to get that done within the next couple of days. Sorry about the delay, but hopefully she'll look better when I'm done and the FPC will go that much better ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 11:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, feel free to take your time. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User categories relating to media and genres

Ned Scott...You are invited to discuss a guideline for the naming and organization of user categories that involve media and genres. - LA @ 10:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, I'll be sure to check it out. -- Ned Scott 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

re: April Fools joke?

The comment about deleting the pages by the end of the day was a joke, but the pages are all under MfD. I trust you have seen that. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Sorry if I was on edge there. -- Ned Scott 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template Temporary userpage category

I've reverted your change to {{temporary userpage}} in which you removed CAT:TEMP. This is the only real point to the tag to begin with so I think it needs to be there. To the extent that it is correctly used on some indef blocked userpages it is an appropriate category (as much so as using the same cat in indef blocked tags). On the other hand, I think we should consider deleting the tag altogether or merging it to an indef blocked tag. Of course, whether or not such pages should be deleted is a related but different issue, which I encourage you to drive forward on. I am going through and looking for {{temporary userpage}} tags that are used on pages that are not indef blocked and removing them. The majority of pages have duplicate tags (both {{temporary userpage}} and an indef blocked tag), but a few have only the {{temporary userpage}} tag.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryan Postlethwaite beat me to it Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_10#Template:Temporary_userpage.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk pages for redirects

Talk:Clow Card Arc: 1-18 and Talk:Clow Card Arc: 36-46 didn't have anything other than a redirect. The edits to Talk:Sakura Card Arc: 60-70 were not significant enough to require keeping the page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, just left a message on your talk page asking if it was simply that, but I guess this answers the question. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I've always liked the fact that you always do what do you think is right. Thanks for the heads up. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I've stopped deleting them. Some of the arguments presented in favor of keeping them are kinda silly and remind me of think of the children. However, I can see the rationale behind people not wanting to create red links simply to create red links, which is why I only delete(d) ones that had no incoming links. I don't foresee any deletions of orphaned redirects in the near future, however, I will say that under CSD, I would consider this part of the housekeeping criterion. That said, I will be doing talk page cleanout for quite some time and may even restart some article work(!). I wouldn't worry too much about the redirects, I really wouldn't. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reactions to Jack Merridew

Evening. I recently noticed Jack Merridew's indefinite ban. I gather that the two of you were compatriots of a sort, and I had defended him from vandals despite our directly opposing views; I wanted to discuss editing philosophies once I could muster that sort of coherence again.

If we find ourselves in the same city in the near future, want to go get drunk and brood? --Kizor 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much for getting smashed, but I wouldn't mind meeting others in real life :) . If you're looking to contact Jack you can still find him on commons:User talk:Jack Merridew. There's also a chance he might come back to en.wikipedia, with some sort of restrictions, but that's up to the ArbCom if they want to try that. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Degrassi episode template

Hi. I'm trying to transclude {{Episode list/Degrassi}} from each season page onto List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, but without including the ep summary. Is this fixable? Regards, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This should do the trick. It's an ifeq statement that surounds the entire ShortSummary section, and triggers depending if the current title of the page is List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes or not. In this case, when the page is List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, the ShortSummary section is excluded, but on all other pages it will be included. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's much appreciated. I'm about to take it all to WP:FT. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, could you do the same thing at {{Episode list/7th Heaven}}, as that's my next project and will eventually be transcluding the same way. Cheers. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost episodes

I just noticed the transclusions of the season tables which you introduced. Pure genius. One thing I don't understand is why the summaries aren't transcluded with the rest of the tables? Is there a trick to that? Dorftrottel (vandalise) 21:40, April 15, 2008

Nevermind, you've answered the same right above. Dorftrottel (troll) 21:52, April 15, 2008

Jacob Green696 (talk · contribs)

I unblocked Jacob Green696 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about 10 minutes ago, and I apologise for the unorthodox approach I took to the blocking. In retrospect, however, I do find it a little concerning that first edits like this (where some experience is shown and hinted) and in combination with the recent activity regarding ElisaEXPLOSION, I felt a block had been warranted–but in the absence of any further evidence to conclude the account could be under the control of Elisa, an unblock was necessary. Regards, Rudget 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and no hard feelings. We're a wiki after all, and nothing is ever set in stone. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ned. I don't know why you helped me but you did so I thank you.If there's anything you need I'll see what I can do.Mr. Green^chat 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

edits to Template:Knot-details

Hi there... I reverted the edits you made to Template:Knot-details because they were creating formatting issues with the infobox becoming much too wide on many (all?) articles. Your edit looked well-intentioned so please feel free to try again. But please verify the results by checking a few knotting articles (e.g. Constrictor knot, Buntline hitch, Carrick bend, etc.) after changing the template. Thanks. --Dfred (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ack, I removed the formatting that was supposed to go back in. Sorry about that. I probably won't bother with it until getting some more feedback on the RFC at Template talk:Infobox. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Kanabekobaton

Take a look at the behavior as a whole. There was no explanation for the edits. Even when warned, the only reply was to blank his talk page. Then he apparently switched to an IP to continue along as if nothing ever happened. I was not the only editor who tried to get a response out of this user. There was none. At one point he chopped the Pauley Pavilion article in half. Still no edit summary oe explanation for these actions. If he had spoken up at some point to let someone know why here was doing this, this whole sorry mess could have been averted. But he didn't. That made it harder and harder to assume good faith as the behavior escalated. DarkAudit (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I went back and looked at Kanabekobaton's contributions, This user has been here since 2005, and has almost never used an edit summary at all. From 2005-2007, I found only one example that wasn't automated, like a page creation or from editing a subsection of a larger article. Someone needs to get this person's attention to let them know why this time it's become an issue. One edit summary yesterday would have prevented all that happened after. DarkAudit (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't required, they're just encouraged. We always have the option of looking at what they're actually doing. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But combine that with the stone wall when asked to explain, and it starts to become a problem. Language barrier or not, Kanabekobaton should have taken the hint that other editors were trying to communicate with him. To just blank the talk page and continue right ahead without a peep in any language is extremely rude. An attempt was made to communicate, it was apparently rejected. DarkAudit (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a problem, and I hope the user puts out a better effort in the future. I just don't think it's something to jump on a block for, and a lot of things were being over-looked. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

With regard to your comments on User talk:Niteshift36: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. attacking my decisions. Comment on content, not the contributor Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on your decision is not a personal attack. I thought it was a poor decision, and I still do. -- Ned Scott 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User Unblock Request

Hi. You are among the few ones that noticed that my comment on the discussion page of the article FIFA World Cup was something I apologized about, and it was not a serious threat. Can you please help me get my user page unblocked? I am an old active user contributor and I have a bunch of material for articles I have been working on. I appreciate it. User:Camilo Sanchez Posted via IP: 68.197.6.70

The best thing to do is to simply apologies and make it clear that you'll try your best at not making any comment that could be considered a physical threat. You and I know you weren't serious, but not everyone knows that, and it really bothers some people. It's basically a no-tolerance kind of issue. We actually have had Wikipedians who have had some scary encounters in real life because of wiki discussions. On User talk:Camilo Sanchez, make an unblock request using {{Unblock|Request}}. Be polite, apologies, and tell them you understand why we take the no-threats issue so seriously (I'm hopping that you actually do understand this, and would not just be saying it to just be unblocked). We're pretty good about giving users another chance, so as long as you mean it, you'll probably be given one. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus

Thought you might like to know the above editor is being discussed at WP:AE#And so it begins again. Thought you might be able to contribute something there. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

McLeod's Daughters episode list hack

Hi. Following the same example used for Template:Episode list/Lost and Template:Episode list/Lassie, I helped another editor learn do to the same for List of Blue Heelers episodes and List of McLeod's Daughters episodes. The Blue Heelers is working fine, but the one for McLeod's Daughters Template:Episode list/McLeod's Daughters is not working. The summaries are still showing on List of McLeod's Daughters episodes. I've checked the code and can't see anything wrong, so I was wondering if you could take a look.

As a side note, I was wondering if maybe a generic form of this hack might be something we could make that could be passed params for the episode list name so we wouldn't have to make a new one for each show that is basically the same except for the name of the list to hide summaries from? Collectonian (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about how to make it generic, but I'm not really sure how to do it yet. The best I can think up with is if we could find a way to just trigger on "List of" regardless of the show, but I haven't figured out a way to actually do that. -- Ned Scott 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit stumped on Template:Episode list/McLeod's Daughters, since it should work like that. I'll give it a shot, though. -- Ned Scott 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also started a thread on the VIllage Pump at WP:VPT#Apostrophe in ifeq to see if anyone else might be able to help as well. -- Ned Scott 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm suspecting its that apostrophe too since I think its the first I've seen using it. Collectonian (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians by OS

Before you finish with those deletions, I should tell you that I plan to bring that to DRV. The category was not meant to be an article collaboration category, but a technical aid category, and there were many things not even considered in the debate. -- Ned Scott 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. As an aside, I'd be interested what facet of "technical aid" wasn't brought up. (I thought Black Falcon was fairly thorough.) - jc37 19:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 22#Category:Wikipedians by operating system and subcats. -- Ned Scott 19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but parts of your deletion endorsement, and similar rationales that I've seen, really troubles me. It seems to be that we have it in our minds that if other users don't notice a deletion debate then their opinions don't matter. "If you don't get in by the deadline you comments means nothing". If that's how we're approaching CfD and DRV, then we're doing something really wrong, and are missing the entire point behind having XfDs. I've seen this happen before, on XfDs that involved no less than three users. What ever happened to saying "I disagree with you, but I see your point and wouldn't mind giving something like this more discussion?" Is it that far fetched to see this as a pretty big decision, and where it would be wise to prod the community for more of a response? I don't bring uCfDs to DRV very often, and I'm an editor in good standing, and I'm asking that we simply give more attention to the issue (I'm not even asking that we undelete what's already been deleted). Is that really too troublesome? -- Ned Scott 20:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First, absolutely "nothing personal" taken. Discussion is a hallmark of Wikipedia. And by the way, I appreciate your thoughts, and your notes/notices.

Second, it sounds like you have concerns about the process. And not just UCFD specifically, but XfD in general.

I tend to follow the convention that if someone wishes to join in a discussion, they will. (Barring Wikibreak, or such) This has been illustrated for me time and again by the fact that we'll see lots of people commenting on a page, but very few actually commenting on more than just the nom of their own personal concern.

Do some things slip through the cracks? Yes. And WP:Consensus can change. But I think (for the most part) these things are handled tolerably. And I have to say I respect nearly every regular closer of WP:DRV.

The other concern you appear to have concerns the number of commenters which may equal consensus. What seems like a "long time ago" to me, I suggested a minimum "quorum", but was shouted down due to it overlappingly violating WP:BOLD, and WP:NOT#BURO. So here we are.

That said, please feel free to start a discussion about the processes somewhere. I know I'd be interested in them. - jc37 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, CfD and uCfD specifically have a low participation rate. RfD even moreso. I'm far less worried about MfD, AfD, and DRV. I noted that this is likely a more global issue in my DRV nom, but I don't think that is a reason to ignore this situation simply because we haven't addressed the global issue. Even with that, for most situations uCfD is probably fine, and editors there are making decisions that most of the community would feel comfortable with. I'm talking about a specific situation, a specific discussion that I feel should have more attention. I'm not proposing any of those past ideas, nor am I saying that we shouldn't see normal uCfDs as something to worry about. However, this is one that is being challenged, and by a Wikipedian in good standing.

Like I asked you before, is it really too troublesome that that we simply give more attention to this situation? -- Ned Scott 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer, I'll quote myself (directly above):

"That said, please feel free to start a discussion about the processes somewhere. I know I'd be interested in them."

Noting that "starting a discussion" implies some proposal page or WP:VP page. Trying to clump it into an XfD/DrV nomination, merely confuses the topic, and is unlikely to gain you the actual "discussion" you're seeking. - jc37 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it done both ways. My worry was that some people will come in and say "it was decided, go away" to any further RfC. And I honestly do not believe that the uCfD represents a true consensus, and that we should be able to challenge those things in DRV so that the results can be clarified. I wish I noticed the discussion before it ended, so that I could ask for one of those extensions/relisting, and then note the discussion on other talk pages. I'm troubled by this concept that "you're too late" means "you don't matter". -- Ned Scott 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I closed the DRV early. I'll take the issue to WT:UCFD or something. -- Ned Scott 21:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (I had thoughts in response to your last comment, but I think I'll wait for the new discussion.) - jc37 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly support you in more general discussions. (and I far you made a mistake withdrawing the Deletion ?Review--in my view, it's a good visible place for a general discussion) But I think you should then start a new centralised discussion about such categories in general. Besides abolishing/changing/merging UCfD, I think the way to go is to change the actual policy for what categories are permitted in user space. What you--and I--really want is a reversal of the guideline for them. That said, I can give it only a limited amount of time, as I am much more concerned with articles and at present maintaining NPOV for BLPs against those who want to follow Subject'sPOV. DGG (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I realise that this has the potential of opening up a huge kettle of worms (to mix metaphors), but since both of you are here in the same thread, let me ask:

Could you (plural) explain your position on User categories. Please also include why you feel that way. - jc37 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A thing you should be aware of

I noticed your revert edit on April 6 of the Terriermon article to clean up a made up attack. But the problem is that the one responsible was also a repeat offender who did it with other Digimon articles which I took notice when I was cleaning up vandalism done to the Koji Minamoto article and found out that this person was never sent a warning for his work despite the weeks that his information. Since I know you are involved with the Digimon project I should let you know especially since in most cases the material lasted weeks before someone noticed. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I'll be sure to check it out. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

as of

Hi, I notice your "speedy keep" there, but wasn't clear about the meaning of your comment "Speedy keep, at most we would mark it as historical (or some other tag)." Do you mean "as of" should be retained in some kind of historical category, but not be a standard link? TONY (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, proposals that don't gain support, or that are even totally rejected, are very often kept and placed with a tag such as {{rejected}} or {{historical}}. For example, see the pages in Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So do I understand that you don't support the proposal to delete, aside from your technical suggestion? TONY (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't support deleting the page itself. I have no opinion on the advice the page gives. -- Ned Scott 09:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for helping me with my unblock request. This has been a stressful week for me.R00m c (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I hope your future experiences here on Wikipedia are more positive. If you ever need any help (with anything) feel free to ask me. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Advocating for blocked users

I first want to say that your efforts to advocate for blocked users are commendable, however I think your specific approach may be counterproductive for several reasons.

1. Asking for general block reviews by using the unblock template is unlikely to generate positive results. The proper forum to ask for a block review is at WP:ANI.
2. Your tone sometimes borders on the adversarial. When you say things like "Seems some admins need to actually review WP:SOCK." which you posted at User talk:CharlesFinnegan, you are unlikely to gain sympathy from those same admins. We're all on the same team, and taking the stance that admins are to be mocked or reprimanded is unlikely to get positive results.
3. If you take up the issue at WP:ANI and do so in a neutral tone that does not accuse admins of sloppiness or bad faith then you are likely to get better results. If nothing else, a block review at WP:ANI may reveal more information from the blocking administrator that would indeed show that they were quite justified in making the block.

Please stop posting so many unblock requests for other users, and if you wish to advocate for them, use WP:ANI instead so that many people may review and fuller sense of consensus on the matter can be reached. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to add up all the times I've gotten a user unblocked by using the unblock template? I don't see a need to change my methods of requesting unblocks. Also, I normally do post on ANI regarding the unblocks as well. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for giving a non-sock reason for declining this block. The rationale you used there is far more acceptable than the reason given by the blocking and reviewing admins. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologies if I seem a little short tonight. I'm just very frustrated at how so many admins are not understanding the concept that blocking is a last resort, and shouldn't be done based on speculation. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above 2 posts... This is a reply to 05:58 post) No, no, there's no need to get defensive. However, please tone down the rhetoric when doing so. As I said, when you say things like you did at User talk:CharlesFinnegan, it shows a lack of good faith in the abilities and motivations of administrators. Such attitudes are not in fostering a collaborative and conducive working environment. There's nothing wrong with advocating for blocked users; there is a lot wrong with claiming or implying that admins intentionally or neglectfully use their tools. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, very sorry about that. And thank you for your honest feedback, I will consider it. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above again. Damn, I am still behind...) Also, to respond to your last two posts... You may believe anything you want about admins (myself included) however, it may not always be prudent to say so in such blunt terms. You may have good reasons for believing what you do with Admins as an entire group (and all 1700 of us admins can't ALL be worthless, can we?). However, keep in mind that regardless of what you feel, making those feelings known is not always the most prudent way to get what you want done. Feel what you want to feel about us admins. Just don't type it and hit "save page"... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ned: How many of your unblock requests have been declined? I think you don't truly understand how these blocks work (like when you said "only if good hand/bad hand", which is not true). You should research the edits or reasoning more. You often come off as just attacking the blocking admins based on his superficial reading of the issue. I think it'd be better if you told users about how to unblock rather than submit the request yourself via the template, or use ANI for a review like Jayron32 suggested. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, most resulted in unblocking. I understand how these blocks work just fine, and a disturbing number of them are being made in error. -- Ned Scott 01:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reordering my comments

Ned,

Please don't reorder my comments - they're replies to specific points and they don't make sense out of context. Now that I know you don't like having your comments split I'll try to avoid doing so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Differenciating between WP:FICT and related guidelines

I note that the preamble you introduced to an earlier draft has been removed. I am of the view it should remain, and I wondered what you opinion is. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk

Well, everything is available in my archives. I try to keep the number of revisions below the bigdelete threshold, and I prefer not to have all the vandalism and suchlike in the history. If you want me to selectively restore some, I can, it's just that I find it easier to just restore 1. It's available for viewing by admins, of course, it's not like it's been oversighted. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Opposing viewpoints

Re: your question. Since you've aligned yourself with those who do not have an interest with having Wikipedia fulfill the following quote of Jimbo's: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." I could name names, but I believe you are aware of them already. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So you treat me as your enemy because I don't shun people like you do? The world is not black and white, and I find nothing wrong about working with editors who I sometimes disagree with. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't go out of my way to keep trash around when we're better off without them. The users you have stood up for have a bad habit of being less than civil, of treating the encyclopedia as a battlefield and have serious problems with playing well with others. I like anal retentiveness in my maid... it keeps the dust away. I find it annoying and useless in someone who pretends to be working on building this encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

These users are not trash. I find it shameful that you would crap on me, who's obviously an editor in good standing, because I have stood up for them. You've had your own difficulty with being civil, treating discussions like a battlefield, edit warring, and acting like a child, but I would still stand up for you if you were ever wrongfully blocked. No matter how much you insult me right now that's something that will always be true. Keep that in mind. -- Ned Scott 08:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

re User: Esanchez7587 reported to ANI

Hi. I have been WP:BOLD and reformatted the header to allow faster review of the concerns you have raised. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiThanks

When a "thank you" is due... :) -- Cat ^chi? 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Again with the orphaned talk page redirect deletions..

Maybe? Sort of. Kinda. I got rid of some that had absolutely no incoming links, hadn't been touched in over a month, and had only one revision. A pretty narrow subset, which I think in the overall scheme of deletions, is uncontroversial housekeeping. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility and personal attacks

Ned, I have asked you before to keep your comments civil and avoid personal attacks, especially in edit summaries. This edit summary is neither civil nor in keeping with our policy on personal attacks. Please could you modify your behaviour. All the best, Hiding T 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

amen. DGG (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

More often than not I am civil and I don't make personal attacks. I apologies for not having the foresight to avoid the discussion while I was pissed off (about unrelated issues in real life), but it doesn't happen often. We're humans, we make mistakes, and the only person I need to answer to in this situation is Percy for an apology. And while it was a little too late, after making the edit summary and a following talk page comment I became fully aware that I needed to step away from the situation, which I did. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ned, you need to answer to the community, it's the community which sets the standard and the community which upholds it, for example blocks can be issued to people for persistent blocks, and we have notice boards where we can ask for help regarding user's who breach etiquette. I am not suggesting either process in any shape applies to you, I merely wish to point out that all of us have the right to ask a user to modify their language, something I would hope you can agree with. As I have stated on a number of occasions, you may find it best simply to place very basic information in edit summaries. These are permanent and can never be revoked. Still, I'm sure you'll find a way to avoid such instances in the future. All the best, Hiding T 12:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea, don't flip out just because you saw someone have a bad day. I had already backed off and recognized my error. So thanks but no thanks, "Dad", but I got it from here. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't flipped out, I am simply reminding you what the accepted behaviour is on Wikipedia. Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Just to let you know that I've requested input on this matter from outside parties at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Hiding T 12:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's like you're one of those typo nazis that just have to correct people every time they make a typo. Give it a rest and go report some of the guys who are actually trying to drive people off the project because they disagree about content issues. -- Ned Scott 12:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know you're just trying to help, but that's how it feels from my perspective. -- Ned Scott 12:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, you need to learn to take a break, and also consider how your comments can affect other users. We have standards of behaviour which document what is expected and why:

“ Incivility creates a hot, unfriendly space and a sense of threat; with civility, there's respect and a sense of safety and collegiality between all concerned, producing ample room for negotiation. Incivility puts people on the defensive, closing their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming.

More seriously, it makes people unhappy, and their discouragement could lead to departure from Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is at heart an online community, to maintain the effectiveness of the community, all members must be civil to one another and remember why they have joined the community in the first place. Create an environment that supports other editors, and that does not encourage or support breaches of incivility. Editors can apply peer pressure by voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens. All contributors are expected to assume good faith towards each other (within reason), in order to try and uphold a reasonably civil atmosphere.

”

As you can see, it is possible your behaviour is driving people from Wikipedia, and also that editors are encouraged to discourage incivility. If you do not have the self control in order to prevent yourself from posting comments in which you accuse people of being a Nazi, the onus is on the community to help you achieve such self control, or otherwise ensure such behaviour does not happen. I don;t really wish to see this issue escalate, but I'm not sure how else to solve the problems your incivility presents. Would avoiding debates which make you frustrated help? Hiding T 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's ok if you just want to talk to me normally. We don't have to be formal on my talk page. -- Ned Scott 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am talking normally. What do you want to talk about? Do you feel I am being unreasonably harsh? How do you feel about the language you've used in the past, and do you think you need to better modify it? Hiding T 09:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just meant the quoting of policy. It's all in my head, though, just some personal stuff happing in real life that I've obviously let spill over on the wiki. I have to head off back to work right now, and will be home later tonight, so I'll be able to do a full and proper apology then. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ned, speaking as a guy who really likes your style, I have to say it seems like you have had a rough couple of days. I love the way you are passionate you stand up for what you think is right, and always defend the little guy. Nonetheless, you seem to be increasingly snippy and easily drawn into conflict recently. You mentioned that you are having difficulties in your real life, as well. As a friend, I would encourage you to take a little break if you have not already. If you have feel free to ignore and/or delete this message as you see fit. Remember, in the end it is just an encyclopedia. I wish you the best, on and off wiki. Ursasapien (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Ned I thank you for your support as well! <font color="red">Battoubro</font> (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to the NotTheWikipediaWeekly

G'day NotTheWikipediaWeeklian (p'raps we need a catchier nom de plume?) - it's terribly short notice but I'm going to be hosting a discussion tomorrow, Thursday 15th May at 23.00 UTC (head to the 'NotTheWikipediaWeekly' page for full info, and a date and time convertor) - that's about 21 hours from now....... There could well be an additional conversation 24 hours later - so take your pick! - I will likely cover the topics which I nominated, and am aiming for a snappy 40minute conversation - do come along if you can! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and Characters 3

Your input welcome about the question.Kww (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yessir

Well done. Thanks for your reply btw - the Zen will start to work our way at some point. We are right after all. Eusebeus (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought

ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, Conman, SQL, Ned Scott and AussieLegend

I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians.

TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now.

I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful.

But now is the time to get this debate finally finished.

I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies.

Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided on Talk:Chilean Australian. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part.

I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling.

Thank you. Kransky (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If I have time I'll check it out, but for the most part I just occasionally check people who are requesting unblocks, and comment on the specifics of those blocks. Other than that, I'm not really involved in this. But like I said, if I have time I'll check it out and give an outside opinion. I wish you both the best of luck. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)