User talk:Ned Scott/Archive 14

__INDEX__

Proposal to change CSD G7
Notifying you directly because you took part in the preceding discussion. Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How much bigger?
Could you offer some examples of how larger images or alternative placement has been done? I've noticed that in another article I am working on, Sun Prairie, had a bunch of images down the right sight of the page, which tended to screw up how the page displayed (edit links, etc). Now that might be a browser issue (I use Safari), but I am interested in building FA articles, which would be read with all types of browsers and connection types (the latter referring to lad times). Input? - Hexhand (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ned, short of reloading larger images, how do I make the gunpowder images larger in the article? - Hexhand (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Imagename.jpg|thumb| 250px |description]] the bold value controls the size. Is that what you were talking about? -- Ned Scott
 * Well, I tried that here, but there was no image size increase. - Hexhand (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess it won't go any larger than the original. You'd have to upload a copy that was larger for it to work. -- Ned Scott 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:o
Ahoy, Ned! - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 09:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahoy! -- Ned Scott 01:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahahaha. Thanks for sticking up for CakeBot. The bot approval dudes seriously need to find their sense of humor. o.o - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray on Cake 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

re:CindeRiley / Skate-Gate
Thanks for the reminder. It's been deleted. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bonds Ngala
No probs mate, even the admin who closed the AfD missed him bundled in there! Thanks for the heads-up anyways --Jimbo[online] 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

About your message
First, yes, Betacommand and I did argue about an image I placed on my userspace. Yes,I got totally incivil about it, and yes, I got blocked for it. I admitt that freely. I also admitt that I deserved to be blocked. I also draw your attetion to the fact that this is the first post I've posted since the whole drama with Betacommand began.

Your "explanation", on my page, was pretty good, but not entirely accurate. Betacommand has three known accounts, Betacommand, Betacommandbot and Betacommand2. The account he was blocked for (for socking)right here was none of the above, it was a totally different name. In particular, he went to the BOTS group and reverted Locker Cole, who he'd previously reverted under his name | as shown here. He got blocked for it and as an explanation stated that he was attempting to start over as a new user.

Starting over is fine, it's allowable, however, when one starts over, don't they normally also allow their old acoounts to vanish ala, right to vanish ? He didn't, he kept he previous three accounts opened. Wouldnt' that strike you as a bit odd, considering he wanted to start over ? Why not just invoke "right to vanish" and start over ?

In addition to this, he's edit-warred on the Bots group | see here, has edit warred and used incivil edit summaries, even though he's been warned not to do so |as seen here....and the list goes on. YES I know what he does is difficult and he takes a load of shit from people for doing it. However, that doesn't exempt him from following known policy, like Ignore and deny or civil. Bottom line here is, his hands are far from clean, and his latest attempt to keep his RFCU out of sight, in my opinion, is nothing more than gaming the system. Thank you.  KoshVorlon  -rm F.U.R -r   16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's pretty normal for editors to continue to edit for a while with their original account while building edits with the new one. In fact, he could keep both of them as long as they didn't edit the same pages. When he made the edit with the other account it was by mistake. It wouldn't make sense for him to infentitally make that edit, because it obviously showed who he was.


 * I never said his hands were clean. What I'm saying to you is that it is not alright to just assume someone is dishonest simply because they have some civility issues. Stealing doesn't make someone a murderer. He might be a jerk, he might be an asshole, but he's not dishonest.


 * I didn't even know what your dispute was with Beta, and I don't care what it is. That's completely besides the point. You think he's guilty of something, without any realistic evidence, simply because he's been rude before. That's the bottom line, and that's what I take issue with. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to intervene
Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a passing familiarity with Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you will appreciate the issues in an instant; but I wonder if determining the distinctions beween "correct" and "not-quite-correct" might become secondary to the ways in which ordinary Wikipedia policies are illuminated by the exchange of views here?

In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--Tenmei (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

List of episode summary size
Since when is 100-200 words too small for a plot summary inside a list of episodes? We allow 400 words for an individual article, which has more detail because it has enough OOU information to support it. Smallville (season 1) uses the 100-200 word limit and is just fine. Most television shows, next to maybe Lost which has far too many storylines lines taking place in any one episode, do not need more than 200 words to summarize the basic element of the episode. We have to remember that they are in an LOE for a reason, because they could not support themselves in an individual article; they don't need the plot coverage of an individual article if they cannot provide the OOU coverage of an individual article.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more of a middle ground kind of thing, for those who think there should be episode articles and those who don't. Plus, it should be based more on how long the episode runs, since we have shows that run in 15, 30, and 60 minute chunks (minus about a third for commercials and such). -- Ned Scott 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't even base movies on that. If I can summarize The Dark Knight (film) (a 2.5 hour long movie, with a hell of a lot going on) into a 700+ word plot summary, then a 42 min. long episode can be summarized into a 200 word plot summary.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't see the problem with giving the same advice for a 11 minute show and a 42 minute show? -- Ned Scott 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What 11 minute shows are there? What I do think is that anyone with a list of episodes from an 11 minute show that has 350 words summarizing their plots would have some serious detail issues. What you have is "100-350 words", flat. That means you are saying that this "11 minute show" can use 350 words to summarize their plot? I've looked at several recent FLs and 200 words seems to be a stretch for some of them - and by that I mean that they aren't even using that number. The O.C. has like 60 words, and they summarize the eps rather succinctly. I've read the Lost summaries, and even if I think they need more words than most shows, I can still see where I can cut some of the wordy descriptions down. Plots should be kept to the bare facts, not elaborations on what happened. We aren't here to entertain, or provide a substitution for watching the show. The reason they are in an LOE format is because they fail notability and cannot support their own page...so why are we saying that it's ok for them to have a plot summary the length of what we would allow for an individual article?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aqua Teen, Power Puff Girls, Sponge Bob, etc. I didn't put down the 350 part, that was someone else. I was going to try to think of some other way to word it.


 * I don't really disagree with you. When episode list was made I specifically made the summary field "ShortSummary" instead of just "summary" to discourage detailed summaries. I'm just reluctant to be so strict about it. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it always depends on the show itself, and who is writing the plot summary. If I'm writing, it's probably been stripped to the bare essentials of the plot elements in the episode. Others tend to provide more details, some that may or may not be pertinent to the summary. I understand your concern about being "too strict", but I also don't want it to be so ambiguous that someone reads "short summary" and then writes a 400 word summary with the rationale that they could have written the summary with 800 words.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A very good point. I'm fine with the original wording, since I don't really feel strongly about it. -- Ned Scott 02:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: DRV close of PIR
Then I shall go ahead and make the draft. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, in the future there's really no need to close the DRV for your reasons. Reviewing the deletion does include issues such as user drafts. I've seen tons of MfDs because people have asserted that a certain AfD would prevent even a user draft, or any kind of article recreation. And regardless of a draft being created first or not, a DRV is generally required in controversial situations like this to create any new article, such as one with merged content, which would make it substantially different from the old version. No offense, but I can't help but wonder if the real reason you closed it was just to shut people up about it. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, seeing my own comment just now, getting people like me to shut up about it wouldn't be such a bad idea :) My apologies. -- Ned Scott 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's kind of nice when people have the conversation all on their own :) --bainer (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Akimichi clan
I believe that to be an accurate statement of the debate results. There was objection to soft redirecting to Wikia as it is not a Wikipedia sister project. I'd note that Template:Softredirect specifically calls it out as for use with "different Wikimedia projects". Aervanath's summed it nicely with his statement of "if the content wasn't notable or verifiable to stay in Wikipedia, or any of its sister projects, then it's not notable or verifiable enough for us to redirect to". By the way, my statement was specific to this closure and was not meant globally (as not all cases are the same). Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on ned...
Did you REALLY have to resort to an F-bomb in your ANI comment? Really defeats your whole purpose. Refactor, please? SirFozzie (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Much appreciated. SirFozzie (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking about those. I saw one in edit summary. Don't get too discouraged. Someone needs to stick up for those who are unable to stick up for themselves. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted
Was this apology directed at me? If so, I accept. I must confess I was rather taken aback by the harsh tone of your comment, and I'm glad to see it was a misunderstanding. -- SCZenz (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:User:JohnLeoWalsh
I'm not sure what the fuss was about. The page was clear patent nonsense. It's been some years that I have closed an AFD, so I guess I'm not 100% tuned to the goings on these days. Has the policy changed in anyways? =Nichalp «Talk»=  17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Newfound(land) popularity
The popularity of my talk page seems to have increased in recent weeks. Odd as I was never the popular kid and even skipped out on the prom to go to a muffs concert. I don't suppose I'm on somekind of 'hey whats this crazy mofo doing? list' Its ok you can tell me, Haven't you heard? I'm one of the popular kids now. If you do I might even mention you to Stacy Sewell; I hear she thinks your cute. --AdultSwim (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh gawd Stacy's tits are so fucking huge, too. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC certification
Thanks for certifying the Elonka RfC. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of correcting the mention of "blocked" in your statement to "banned" (Elonka never actually blocked me). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ned, you need to provide diffs to show where you've tried, and failed to solve the dispute previously. Although you've signed to certify it, this means nothing without any diffs. I'm sure they're about, but I'd appreciate it if you could find them. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check these diffs. There does appear to have been an attempt at dialog.  Jehochman Talk 00:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jehochman for finding them - they just needed to be documented on the page and now the RfC is certified by two users.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick tip: If you look at a user's contribution history and select, for instance, last 500 diffs, you can edit the URL to change the number 500 to 2500 and get the last 2500 diffs (or however many you need). At that point it is trivial to search the output for keywords such as "Elonka" and "ChrisO" to find the relevant conversations. Jehochman Talk 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but my four year old, dirt covered laptop turns itself off if I try and view any more than 500 pages, so it's hard for me to do that! :-D I think it might be a good time to go and buy a new one!!  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ned. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the diffs Jehochman added on your behalf all seem to point to your having an absolute objection to 0RR in principle. That does not seem to form any part of ChrisO's objections to Elonka's behavior: indeed, he appears to feel that the problem lies not with 0RR, but with unequal enforcement of it, not at all the point you're making. Did you have other diffs related to other problems surrounding the al-Dura article? If not, I wonder if you'd reconsider certifying. Thanks for your consideration. IronDuke  04:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read ChrisO's summary on the RfC for a second time just to make sure, but it does seem Chris has a clear objection to the 0RR approach, and it is the direct cause of most of the other issues. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you say where he does that? As I read the thread on the tak page of the RfC, it seems Chris specifically disavows your interpretation where he says "My "disdain" is not for the 0RR editing restriction but the way that it is being applied....". IronDuke  15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chris seems to have a different way to word it, but the meaning is the same. The reason I believe a 0RR restriction is a bad idea is because it will prevent the removal of edits that have no redeeming value, and possibly violate policy. "0RR should never be interpreted in such a way that it penalises an effort to resolve (for instance) indisputable factual errors added by another editor - there has to be some latitude, not just a rigid application of it." -- Ned Scott 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You say the dispute is about "X". Chris says "the dispute is not about X". Yet you're somehow talking about the same thing? "A different way to word it" is putting it mildly. Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to tell me what the hell I meant? Stop acting like an idiot. It's pretty damn clear that the entire reason I objected to a 0RR was because it prevented correcting things that violated other policies and guidelines. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wilhelmina Will
Something very strange is going on with the flap around this user. I saw that User:Ottava Rima might have been unfairly treated, and so I posted a consoling note on his Talk page, that didn't assume he had acted correctly but that expressed my suspicion that he'd run into a particular hazard that those of us with ADHD often run afoul of. There was nothing in my post that attacked anyone, or that encouraged attacks. What, by the way, had User:Ottava Rima done? I don't know the extent of it, but it began when he asked User:Blechnic to revert or strike an uncivil comment made out User:Wilhelmina Will. And Blechnic denied that it was an attack, blah blah, it's a very old story, isn't it? And it ended up with OR blocked, WW under a DYK topic ban, none of it clearly based, as far as I've seen so far. As usual, the blocked or banned editors made some mistakes.

So User:S. Dean Jameson attacks OR on my Talk!. The language wasn't that of extreme attack, though there was some suspicious hyperbole in it. Anyway, he "suggested" that I look "a bit deeper" into the matter. Sure, why not? So I did. Here is the thread to date. This investigation, as shallow as it has been so far -- and "shallow" investigations take hours -- showed me the likelihood that Wilhelmina Will had been mistreated. So, I posted a consoling note on her Talk page. She thanked me on my Talk, and we discussed a little -- at my instigation -- how she might be able to work toward her goals without disregarding the AN/I topic ban and the attendant risk of being blocked. From AN/I, you should know some of the details. I mentioned that others might nominate for her, and at the same time cautioned her about avoiding true proxying, though I didn't use that word. And, lo and behold, Blechnic appears on my Talk to threaten her with being blocked. "If User:Wilhelmina Will asks other users to promote her articles to DYK I will asked that she be blocked for a time. There is a policy on this, it's already been made up, if you're going to advise her please advise her as to this existing policy."

Blechnic is apparently a fairly new user, first edit, 21 March, 2008, with a serious misunderstanding of how the project works. His pursuit of Wilhelmina Will, on such thin grounds, I find highly offensive. I was worried about it before I found out that she was a sixteen-year-old girl, but that kind of frosted the cake, and me. Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but there is something about seeing someone that young being bullied, pretty much simply because of some harmless immaturity. (Such as lying -- making excuses for herself -- about the code she had written in an edit summary, to cover up what was low-level incivility. I'd call her "guileless" or "naive." Which can actually be good qualities, in a way.)

Blechnic had his user page deleted. Three times. Odd. Holy sh...!!! I just looked at Blechnic's block log. Can of worms. People who live in glass houses, etc.... This user was found to have been harassing others, but, from the log, was given a pass as a newbie. In May of this year.

We've worked together a little before, Ned. I tend to get involved when I see bullying going on, particularly relatively experienced editors wikilawyering newbies to death, instead of welcoming them and helping them. --Abd (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

redirects outside of the MediaWiki family of projects
In several recent RfD discussions, you have advocated for the keeping of redirects (at least temporarily) which point outside of the MediaWiki family of projects. I replied in one of those discussions but, on reflection, thought I should drop you a message directly.

I think that the decision to endorse redirects (whether hard or soft) outside the family is a decision that really ought to be made in a more comprehensive forum than an individual RfD nomination. I would suggest either a Centralized discussion or Village pump proposal. Once we have a centralized decision, we can then bring that consensus back to the individual RfD discussions for specific decisions about whether and how to apply the central consensus.

I've done a couple of centralized discussions and would be willing to help you draft the discussion page if you are interested. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I've found a couple of previous discussions about links specifically to Wikia.  None were especially well-attended but they all raised a common theme that I hadn't previously considered - the impression that reflects upon Wikipedia (an aggressively non-profit organization) when we point content to Wikia (a for-profit organization that just happens to be run by our benevolent dictator, Jimbo).  I still think a centralized discussion might be a good idea.  It's just another factor to consider in the debate.  Rossami (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you've found so far, but here's some more: Linking to other wikis, Template talk:FreeContentMeta (and listed TfDs), Template talk:Wikia (and listed TfDs), and a bunch of others ones (mostly other TfDs, IIRC). We've never really talked about soft-redirects, though. I used a bunch when several lists of Digimon were moved over to Digimon Wiki. This was partly because I hadn't finished importing the page histories, but nostly to smooth the transition over. A bunch of people knew about it, and no one really raised any fuss about it, which is why I'm so surprised at these recent RfDs. They were there for like 8 months too (longer than planned, but I didn't really think much about it since we were depreciating links to those soft-redirects anyways).


 * But yeah, I'd be totally interested in setting up some kind of larger RfC about this. -- Ned Scott 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you appreciate the spirit
Of this edit. It was not meant as a dig at you in any way - as I've said before, you keep me honest. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. You're one of the nicest guys on here, even in the face of heated criticism. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PROD on User pages
According to Proposed deletion it is ok to PROD user pages. Am I mistaken? ~ JohnnyMrNinja  05:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, no, you're not mistaken. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD
Are you mad about the comment I made in the edit summary, or did I just do something else to piss you off? -- Ned Scott 06:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither, though now you had me re-reading my edit summary in order to determine how you came to that conclusion...
 * I was responding to: "...do you have any clue about how this template is supposed to be used?"
 * When I said: "...I think I do, though I seem to have missed your name in a discussion on the talk pa[ge.]"


 * The reference being that to claim a dispute, there has to actually be a disputation. No talk page notice, no dispute.


 * In getting the quotes for the above, I now see that you've reverted me as well. I won't revert yet, since you claim to have something to note on the talk page, but I would request that you add a null editto the page to "undo" the name-calling in your last edit, please. - jc37 06:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what to say. I don't have an excuse for acting that way, or even being passionate about something that's been sitting on that page for years. I wasn't thinking rationally, and ironically I was the one acting like a dick. I'm really sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the retraction there and here.
 * Been there once or twice myself. So I know the feeling of: Did I really type that?
 * Anyway, thanks again. - jc37 07:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Now at WT:PROD -- Ned Scott 06:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to help out?
Hey, Ned. User:Pah777 left a note on my talk page requesting assistance related to images and copyright. I looked into the situation only slightly (enough to see his/her [ discouraging talk page] :\), but I'm busy lately (and will be out of town soon) ... anyways, do you think that, if Pah777 would still like assistance, you could help him/her out? I'd appreciate it. --Iamunknown 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack
Which not only involves a slur against the disabled community but is a completely inappropriate personal attack on another editor here. Please remove this and reconsider your words. ~Eliz 81 (C) 08:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just going to roll my eyes and remove this comment, but I'm honestly confused at your comments "a slur against the disabled community". I've worked with disabled children in the past, and have disabled family members, both physically and mentally, and I'm unclear as to how I've commented about anyone disabled. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see spastic, which includes a lengthy section on 'spaz'. Thank you for at striking the baby comment. ~Eliz 81 (C) 08:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just saw that link in your MfD comment. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the word from my vocabulary a few years ago. As the spastic article makes clear, it's far more well known as a derogatory term in the UK than the US. I honestly had no idea of its origins when I used to use it. Perhaps I should have assumed a little more good faith, but given the broader context of the comment it was in, hopefully you can understand how I assumed it was intentional. ~<font color="1E90FF" face="Comic Sans Ms">Eliz <font face="Comic Sans Ms" color="9966CC">81 <font color="1E90FF">(C) 09:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's cool, and I'm sorry if I myself was being a.. err.. acting irrationally :)


 * I think I need to stop looking at that MfD and focus on something else. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's ok. And despite our opposing views, that's one conclusion I totally agree with! Unwatchlisted :) ~<font color="1E90FF" face="Comic Sans Ms">Eliz <font face="Comic Sans Ms" color="9966CC">81 <font color="1E90FF">(C) 09:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eliz kinda hit the nail on the head there. Where I'm from, spa and spaz are seriously nasty terms of abuse. Here in the US, they're almost throwaway, it seems. Cultural difference, I guess ... - A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

MFD move?
Ned, the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Users Advice Bureau was pretty clear. What gives?  MBisanz  talk 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask you and the other MfD participants the same thing: what gives? Unless the page is problematic, we generally don't bother deleting it completely. We have historical and rejected tags, as well as userifcation, for a reason. I also doubt that most of the MfD participants would have had any objection to userifciation. This really is a no brainer. -- Ned Scott 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's confusing to new users to see some page that never was finished and is inactive, and at least 7 other people thought so and voted to deleted (as oppose to userfy).  MBisanz  talk 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why we have the historical/rejected tags. I'm an MfD regular, and in my experience it's pretty common for people to support deletion, but not consider userfication. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanabekobaton
This user has continued to make hundreds of edits a day without bothering to explain themselves when challenged, including page moves and redirects. All inexplicably deemed minor. A discussion has been opened here. DarkAudit (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried using babelfish to get his attention. The response was to undo my post. When I reverted that, he undid it again. That shows a clear unwillingness to discuss the matter. DarkAudit (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I should be the angry one here. In the very first sentence of my AN posting I asked for someone fluent in Japanese to step in and try to get the guy's attention. By very late in the evening, no one had bothered, so I tried Babelfish to do it myself. I got told I was doing it wrong by someone who apparently does understand Japanese, but would rather point out *my* failings in it's usage than actually help. He did it again after I used the message *he himself* suggested. No one else could be bothered, but the one making a good faith attempt shouldn't have tried? What good is that? DarkAudit (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Halo/Users Advice Bureau
Are you planning to resurrect the Users Advice Bureau project? If so I'd be happy to restore it your userspace. If you'd just like to keep a copy of it I'd be happy to send the latest version to your email. --Stormie (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, given that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Users Advice Bureau was unanimous apart from yourself, if you don't have any plans to do anything with the page and just want it undeleted because you disagree with the decision, I'm going to have to ask you to take it to Deletion review. --Stormie (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"More than one warning"
The warning to User talk:212.66.132.170 was non-specific as to which of the edits you were warning him on and he did more than one edit of that type of vandalism. For that reason, i left a warning covering the last edit he did of that type. Quaeler (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, seems reasonable. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Right to vanish
See User_page. There's nothing wrong with deleting everything they have unless there's an administrative reason to keep it. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Username FyzixFighter
'''Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page'''

Non-admin closure
Hey Ned, I noticed a couple of closures you had done at MfD didn't disclose your non-admin status. I'm a strong supporter of your right to close even contentious discussions (as long as they aren't deletes), but I consider the disclosure to be part of the tenuous deal we have at WT:DELPRO/WP:NAC (essentially that this issue is so contentious that no changes will be considered), so please make sure you use it even for procedural closes. Thanks, and keep up the good work. I don't always agree with you but I respect your standing on your principles regarding keeping userspace stuff.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I normally do, in both the mfd discussion and in edit summaries related to the close. I tried to look for some where I forgot to mention "non admin close", but it must have been a while ago.. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're right, I goofed. You placed the non-admin closing part really near the beginning on a couple of closes and then had a lot of text after it.  I'm used to seeing it immediately before the signature.  Sorry.  Keep up the good work and keep me informed if you see any significant NAC issues as I'm not around as much lately as I wish and I might miss something.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

manga request
do you have a manga for digimon tamers?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boytamiya (talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your request. I don't believe a manga version of Digimon Tamers exists. There is a manga called Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01, but it is unrelated to the plot in Digimon Tamers. -- Ned Scott 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

External links and blanket reverting
In my edit summaries, I clearly explained the removal of each of those links. Your mass rollback of those edits, without comment, is very impolite and violates External links. Please read that page to understand why those links are inappropriate: An external link added to an article should provide information specifically about that article's subject. Per External links, one should avoid links to
 * ''Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject.

This is why, for example, we do not link to http://www.imdb.com/ in every movie article, only the subpage of imdb.com about that movie. Cf. Template:Imdb name.

Inclusion of such links into a template might be very desirable for the site's owner to maximise the SEO/page rank benefit, but please note that External links explicitly discourages
 * Links mainly intended to promote a website

Please do not insert such links again, and do not make blanket reverts without addressing the arguments that other editors gave for their edits.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mfd note
Left a question there. Trying to understand your thinking. - jc37 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tygew

Thank you
Thank you for your appology :). In removing your comment, you caused my response to hit an edit-conflict, so here's the bulk of it for your perusal, in case you're interested:
 * "With regards to the edits in question, I don't think I was particularly clear, and that's my fault. Regardless of whether the original sanctions included or didn't include something, nothing should be changed whilst these discussions are ongoing - it's common sense. You may be right about there being no consensus to leave that in, but equally and just as importantly, there's absolutely no consensus to remove it, so just leave it intact until some form of consensus is obtained, m'kay?"

<font color="DarkGray">Talk<font color="Blue">Islander 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right
About ArbCom's power (your AN comments). Not that being right is worth much. —Giggy 08:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For this. It was never my intention to restrict anyone of current discussion. <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently I'm the world's most dense idiot today. It's a good thing I'm going on vacation in a few hours. -- Ned Scott 10:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're not. And have fun on vacation. Get some relaxation. <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__
Hi Ned,

I'm interested in your comment about using __NOINDEX__, presumably to stop webcrawlers and search engines from indexing pages. Where can I read more about this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I read about it on Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Technology report. It allows us to add a noindex tag manually using wikicode. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IIRC, this feature does not work in the main namespace. Is that correct? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that is what I heard as well. Certain namespaces and areas (such as the main namespace and AFDs) are "hard wired" and can't be overridden. -- Ned Scott 07:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, anything defined as a ContentNamespace is excluded by the software. (On en.wiki, this is only the (Main) namespace. Other wikis may differ slightly.) In addition, certain sets of pages are excluded from search engines using a robots.txt file, specifically this one. Those (I think) are not override-able with or, but that may be wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

De-catting
Ned, why did you de-cat this indef blocked users talk page? The category is there so over time we can clear out pages of editors who will never edit again.  MBisanz  talk 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, that user contacted me by e-mail because they felt their block wasn't right. It's pretty common for admins to clear out those pages without waiting even a month, so I'd rather be on the safe side while looking into their request (although, as I told the user, I doubt they will be unblocked). -- Ned Scott 07:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey.  MBisanz  talk 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gustav
Yeah, I know, there's been enough discussion/revert wars about the red box today... apparently people are happy about that box being red, so I'd wait to see how that discussion ends up. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Freecontentmeta
I know. The template is clearly doomed on this one, so I'm not bothering. It's clear the project has no qualms about simply telling a large chunk of its readership to go fuck itself. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

BC
Hi Ned. If the page about Beta's restrictions is not on your watchlist, I've left a comment for you there which I believe is important if we hope to ever stop all this nonsense. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

LGRC's talk page
If you request a deletion review, I will support, just link me.— <font color="Green">Dæ dαlus<font color="Green">Contribs /Improve 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, per the thread on GG's talk page.— <font color="Green">Dæ dαlus<font color="Green">Contribs /Improve 05:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Difference?
Not sure what you mean by this edit summary. WP:SOCK is quite clear about block evasion as a form of abusive sockpuppetry. Anyway, I won't fight your edit since his block is no longer indefinite anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's one of those things covered in the sockpuppet page, but it's not the same as a sockpuppet, which people tend to associate with some form of deception. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what dictionary you're using but talking to your own sock is either deceptive or a sign of mental illness - I'm guessing the former in this case. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that diff. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's talk page
Don't know if you've noticed, but for some reason, Ian13 has split the past three days of page history off to an archive subpage. This means that e.g. our comments at the talk page are now effectively hidden as the talk page has been courtesy blanked and the edits are not in the main user talk history any longer. I asked for the reason at Ian13's talk page. Just a FYI. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 08:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, appears to have happened on Sceptre's request. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises
Dear Ned Scott...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page.) @ 19:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop it, both of you
Suggest you talk to Aunt E before you do anything else. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He can do what he wants. I back down from "Who the hell are you?" I had no right to re-add those comments, because they were a personal attack on Ned. I made a mistake. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Old template
Template:Old template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rumping (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Usurp request regarding dewikinews
Hi Ned, i've seen your usurp request for "Ned Scott"@dewikinews on the talk page of Mathias Schindler in german wikipedia. I'm now also a bureaucrat at dewikinews so i want to followup with this request. Are you sure that the account in question was not created by you? The SUL Util says that the account was created on May 19th and i noticed you created some accounts (which you have merged) the day before. Or are you suspecting a user acting in bad faith trying to block your account unification? -- Kju (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now created a page for bureaucrat requests on german wikinews to which i have copied your request. If possible please answer there: wikinews:de:Wikinews:Bürokraten/Anfragen. Thank you. -- Kju (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do, thank you. -- Ned Scott 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Renamed „Ned Scott“ into „Ned Scott (usurped)“. -- Kju 12:15, 16. Sep. 2008 (CEST)


 * Awesome, thank you very much! -- Ned Scott 03:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks!
..for the barnstar, Ned :-) I think we're on the way to sorting the whole thing out now - but your thought was greatly appreciated! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Help in transwiki
My wiki already has all the needed templates moved in, and now what is to be done is the guidelines. I have read your transwiki article, but I still wonder: How many transwiki guidelines should I export to my wiki? I have currently moved the essential pages of WP:C, Non-free media and WP:GFDL, but I wonder if there is a need to move more, or just have you mentioned, have a blanket statement of "Use Wikipedia guidelines unless specifically mentioned"... (Certainly I would overrule WP on Notability, some issues on Verifiability and have some additions on the MOS.)-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. We're doing much of this right now on Digimon Wiki, drafting guidelines as we need them and such. To start off it would be good to include stuff like basic editing help and how to revert vandalism, etc. One of the things I want to eventually do is compile a list of guidelines that would be good for most wikis. If I think of anything specific I'll let you know. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wonder what help page is worth exporting.-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, did I supercede too much with this?-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

.hack characters
If you care at all, I'm merging and slowly trimming the .hack characters. I'll be leaving the list alone after that's done, so you may want to reorganize and clean it up if you're interested. TTN (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
'''Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page'''

Tardis template
Hey, thanks for the null-edit to correct your edit summary. I appreciate it. As for the template, the rework is to bring it in line with similar links (such as the IMDB template). Basically, the "reverse-C" icon sticks out unnecessarily, and the duplicate link to the wiki isn't needed. (The IMDB template, again for example, has a link on IMDB, but it is to the Wikipedia article. I couldn't find a similar article about the TIF to link to, and we generally don't do "double-links" in the EL section.) Please let me know if you have any other questions about this. Thanks again. --Ckatz chatspy  04:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I was going to add a link to this discussion, but now I'm puzzled. Why, exactly, are you just reverting with a blunt "no"? --Ckatz chatspy  05:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Template talk:TardisIndexFile, Template talk:FreeContentMeta, Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 30, and Wikipedia talk:Linking to other wikis. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Response?
Waiting for a response to my discussion page. I wish the site would get its staff emailing system together. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (Ragemanchoo)
 * I left you a message at User talk:Ragemanchoo. I see your ability to use Wikipedia's e-mail form has been blocked, so if you wish you can also contact me via  -- Ned Scott 05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't use IPs to evade your block. I've blocked that IP now and would request you use your user talk page or the unblock mailing list to handle further unblock matters.  MBisanz  talk 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new templates on WT:CATSCAN
Hey Ned, I just started a thread over on WT:CATSCAN concerning the creation of two (or possibly three) templates for wikiprojects to use to simulate the functionality of the occasionally-proposed X-class, Y-importance topic articles categories, and I'd appreciate you giving a quick glance over my proposal, offering your own thoughts, and, perhaps, posting notices to other relevant locations pointing to the discussion. Thanks in advance! — Dino guy  1000  18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What's a "date diff link"?
You made a suggestion about using a "date diff link" instead of a copy and paste move. I haven't the faintest clue what a date diff link is or what difference it would make, nor was I able to figure anything else out rereading the article on archiving talk pages. Can you point me to a resource so I can understand your suggestion? This was the first or second archive I've done, and that was only to rescue the talk after someone blanked the entire page.

Also, am I missing something here? I thought talk pages were always supposed to be archived instead of blanked or deleted. Is there some policy or guideline I haven't run across that says to delete it if people call each other names? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:ARCHIVE is what I was talking about. I only glanced at the archive, but I didn't see any major issue either. I doubt it would get deleted. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, I'd never heard it called that. Thanks for the explanation, and for reassuring me that I'm not losing my mind. At least not in relation to this anyway. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Digimon in Digimon World DS
I was wondering if there were any revisions to List of Digimon in Digimon World DS since December 2007 (other than AfD and really minor stuff). If so I was wondering if it could be temp undeleted so that I could export it, for use on Digimon Wiki. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, all the edits were minor/formatting changes. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion about TV episode redirects
Hi, Ned. It's been a while since the dispute about TV episode article naming, and I'm glad to see that you've been thriving on Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that there's a new (much smaller, I hope!) discussion about whether to keep the redirects that have "unnecessary" disambiguation or not — one of the byproducts of an early compromise move in that debate. The new discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), with related discussions at Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. Hope to see you there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked
'''Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page'''

Reply to your comment on my talk page
I've reviewed the on site discussions and the email correspondence, and I continue to think that the situation was handled in manner that best serves the interest of the SteveCrossin, the other involved parties, and the Community as a whole.

The Committee was aware of the situation because we were contacted privately by Community members about concerns. After discussion with SteveCrossin and the other involved parties, the Committee brought the situation to the attention of the Community by way of an announcement. At that time, the Committee made it clear that we were still looking into the situation. After further review we made a ruling about the situation and announced it.

Based on the information that I've seen, I sincerely believe that a break from editing Wikipedia is best for both SteveCrossin and the Community. Steve Crossin was not making good choices, and his decision making was getting worse by the minute. (eg. disclosing private discussion with at least in one instance sharing sensitive information.) That was the reason that I supported prompt action by the Committee to intervene using the quickest method to reach a good and fair decision.

There was an internal Committee vote that had good support for a 6 month ban to enforce SteveCrossin's break. Rather than imposing the break/ban with a block, there was internal Committee agreement to allow for voluntary cessation from editing along with the understanding between Steve and the Committee that a block could be used to enforce the ban/break. The ban/break was announced on site and also addressed at RFArb when inquires were make. As is often the case, there was not complete agreement in the Community with an Arbitration Committee decision, or how the situation was handled. But in this instance, based on the comments that I've reviewed, there is support for the ruling by a large segment of of Community. Unfortunately, you do not agree, and I have noted your dissent. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects and SmackBot
Thanks all fixed. Rich  Farmbrough 11:33 21  October 2008 (UTC).

per character images re-insertion
Ned, I've reverted you across the board. Look, the guideline is pretty clear on this stuff. Indiscriminate addition of per character images just isn't supported anymore, and hasn't been for a long time. Further, there ARE cast photos available. For example, for List of Monk characters there's all of these. Also, have a look at List of Stargate SG-1 characters. There, they use one cast photo then use free content licensed images of the actual actors to depict the individual cast members. That's the way to do it. Please don't blindly re-add fair use content. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

re Guido block
Hi, you are currently being supportive of Guido, so pehaps I could make a few (sort-of positive for once) comments that you might like to pass on (my posting directly to his talk page currently might just inflame further). Guido mentioned email block aspect in his last posting, this is something already mentioned on my talk page by admin GDonato, and I've indicated I'm happy if they (or indeed any other admin) wish to review that aspect. I note GDonato has been editing quietly over the last day, so perhaps they are still to comment on this over this weekend. If GDonato chooses to not comment further, then you might consider after perhaps a further 24hrs setting up a separate talk page thread to consider just this aspect, although Guido's stated intent of "get into contact with any of the users on my side of the dispute" risks falling under Canvassing and thus a counterpoint (the block was for process of edit warring & 3RR, rather than per se his having a particular side or content viewpoint)
 * (for what it is not worth: IMHO clearly ME vs CFS is a controversial debate and equally clearly to me notably so, and thus needs be covered in some manner - the degree, POV/NPOV, weight and best sources are outside of my knowledgebase)

Secondly I note Guido just rejected someone else's proposal for self-imposed topic ban, which is fair enough (given his extensive knowledge of the topic that was a rather massive suggestion to have put to him). I wonder therefore if you might like to advocate with him over perhaps the merits of WP:1RR, as that is generally seen favourably and might be a basis for further comment & consideration on the block's duration ? David Ruben Talk 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GDB
Hi Ned,

I'd put a comment in response to your reply to me on Guido's page, but he has removed it. Here is my original diff if you're interested. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Guido - not just edit warring "two or three times a year"
I just want to point out that, contrary to what you said on Guido's talk page, he has not been edit-warring "two or three a year". It is closer to once every 2 weeks - he just hasn't been blocked each time. Have a look at the 3RR page and the admin incidents page and you'll see the details (and also look through his edit log). I made this comment on Guido's talk page, but he deleted it for being a "rant". So even now, after being blocked, it appears he is engaging in uncivil behaviour and edit-warring. When someone has been blocked multiple times and is still causing trouble almost every week, it is naive to believe the person will change. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure
Meh, I shouldn't be editing right now, but I got side tracked and read up about this. They sure gave you a hard time for having a perfectly valid concern :/ Don't let the man get you down, or something like that. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support : ) - jc37 06:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note
I've had something in the back of my brain that I've been thinking should be on your radar, but it's such a "beansy" thing, that I've hesitated.

Let me put it this way. I think you may wish to start watching WP:RfD, and checking for edit histories of those up for discussion. - jc37 06:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's been a few of those RfDs. The ones deleted so far don't really bother me much (IIRC, they didn't contain any real history and existed for more than a few months), and the ones I were using all got converted into actual article redirects (they'd been around long enough to help with the transition). I've thought about making some kind of RfC about using redirects like that, but it might be one of those "let sleeping beasts lie" kinds of things. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. I merely have been noting a few trends lately and thought it worth placing on your radar. You already seem to have AfD well-watched.

Incidentally, please feel free to drop me a note if there's an XfD which you think I might be interested in. Fiction-related topics in particular. (And yes, since this is a request from me, it shouldn't be considered canvassing : ) - jc37 07:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SW
While considering to change the rd at WP:SW from Spoilers to WikiProject Star Wars, I noticed that you have reverted two prior attempts to do so. Since the page was moved from Spoiler warning to Spoilers over a year ago and since the term "spoiler warning" is, to the best of my knowledge, rarely used and SW is particularly rarely (if ever) used as an abbrev for "spoiler warnings" in comparison to Star Wars, would you reconsider your position? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">Everyme 12:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. -- Ned Scott 17:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI AN/I thread
FYI, Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, check this out
[Discussion about Wikipedia (with a derogatory reference to one of your edits back in 2007 in an image) http://plus4chan.org/boards/n/res/58869.html] 204.52.215.107 (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh, I probably had it coming. I've joined the discussion with the tripcode Ned Scott !!D3MzL4ZwMx. -- Ned Scott 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:EssjayBot II/message
I deleted it since it appeared to be an orphaned subpage of a bot no longer in use. If it's still used i can restore it, it just didn't seem necessary to have it when i stumbled on it. Wizardman 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rep. on ANI
Here's what I wrote: Anti-Jew POV pushing diff and here is where he referred to Muslims as "Islams". His ignorance irritates me; especially when he refuses to work with other members of the community. <font color="black" face="tahoma">Scarian Call me Pat!  13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some help in transwiking
There are very long articles like List of Case Closed chapters that would have problem if I export the entire article's history; that file would be at 10+MB and would unlikely to be uploaded. What should I do? -- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have problems on those ones too. The best thing is to split it into smaller files, while keeping the correct XML headers. Then you just import the smaller files, and the software will sort it all out. Let me see if I can find a good example. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, just use a template like on wikia:digimon:template:Wikipedia, if it's a situation where the Wikipedia copy isn't likely to be deleted. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, do you have a good program to split them...? (OK, of course, list of manga chapters and anime episodes are hardly the kind to get deleted.)-- Samuel di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried to make a script for it a few times, but I'm not very good at such things. I have talked to some others who have made scripts for doing this, and I'm now trying to see if I can find those. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookie
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

gdaly7 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!