User talk:Ned Scott/archive4

List debate
Sorry, it kind of got out of hand. But, the debate is over, because I found a Centralized Discussion about TV show formats, and technically both of good. We are currently working on a middle ground for the Smallville pages. Sorry that it got out of hand on "your" page. Bignole 01:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries, I've been guilty of dragging debates around like that myself many times. We all can get very passionate about these things. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish you would see that Talk page for "list of episodes". Pere requested a vote to determine if the indy ep pages should be created (which I thought was clear on the other page), in the mean time he has gone ahead and created Season 2 pages and plans to go ahead with others, completely ignoring everyone. Bignole

Metallica
The thing I put in my edit summary was ripped from bash.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Triikan (talk • contribs).
 * aaaaah, that's where I've heard it from. Awesome. -- Ned Scott 22:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Smallville episodes
I wish you wouldn't relink the Smallville LOE page. There is an ongoing discussion over whether season pages or individual episode pages should be used here. Could you please revert your edit? Thanks. - Peregrinefisher 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Invalid warning
Please do not make invalid warnings against me. I will not sit here and be abused. -- Selmo (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Telling a specific editor to "back the fuck off" is pretty damn personal. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Non-Notable Organizations" & Wikiality
So what if the organization's Wikipedia page was deleted.. I guess nothing they do, even if covered by the major media, is "notable" in your eyes. And yes, the Wikiality was second place, however a quick Google News search shows most news stories are touting it along side Truthiness as "Co-Words" of the year.

Anyways I can tell from your condescending tone on my talk page that you're pretty defensive regarding that article so I'll leave it alone, even though your explanation that articles aren't created on significance pretty much destroyed your whole argument on how wikiality is too insignificant to have an article LOL --Frantik 06:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not really. It's a two part issue, one is of notability and the other is of information organization. Wikiality itself is not notable. Colbert made it notable, so it's notable in context to Colbert, as well as Wikipedia (since Wikipedia was the subject of the joke that Colbert made). The fact that wikiality continues to be associated with Truthiness and The Colbert Report shows that it does not have a life of it's own yet. However, my point in naming two issues is that, even if it did get a life of it's own beyond the context of the Colbert Report, that alone doesn't mean it should get it's own article. It depends on how we should organize the information. It's even been said on Talk:Wikiality that other far more significant topics share an article with something else, because it makes sense for organization. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And other, far less significant topics have their own page, so that point is moot. :D The word is in headlines around the world as something distinct from truthiness, so I figured it was worthy of its own article. If now isn't the time, the time will come eventually, considering the word is less than a month old and is already making headlines. :)
 * --Frantik 07:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because someone hasn't cleaned up those other articles doesn't make it ok. I can find a typo on just about any article, does that mean we should leave typos alone? Also, each one of those links also mentions The Colbert Report and almost all of them mention Truthiness.. so.. no.. you're wrong. -- Ned Scott 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Girl Hitler
Okeydoke, thanks! -th1rt3en 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw
I saw the message. Yes it was mass released, but it would have been the same had I written each out individually (minus a couple words). It isn't my intent to belittle, because we are all ignorant of most of Wiki's policies, guidelines, rules, etc. My intention is to enlighten other Television articles as to the proper way to create an episode page. Extended plots is a no-no regardless, it says "you don't have to watch it, just read it here". It's part of the "what Wikipedia is not". That is my biggest problem with all those pages, along with other things like unreferenced material that is just sitting there untouched because fans created the page and no one is bothering to care about it. If I had the time and resources I would do it myself, but I don't. That is why I sent out a generic message for those that regularly monitor the pages to take the initiative and correct the pages. That's where I left it, it's up to them to do something. Bignole 13:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One more question...
Thank you for your response on my Talk Page. Though, I have one more question that recently popped into my mind. Like you Wikipedians who have already signed up and created your own crafty userpage, as an anon, am I able to create my own user page, or would I get in trouble (if it's illegal)? 65.8.35.224 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be a problem, it's just you might not always have the same IP address. -- Ned Scott 23:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Links of videos for episodes?
Many Naruto episodes can be found at Youtube. Should we put links to the episode video at the articles about it?  Th e   Gerg  17:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't, that's a copyright violation, even if it's not hosted by Wikipedia (see WP:EL). Sometimes a small amount of video used to demonstrate something about a show can be used under fair use, but definitely not a whole episode, let alone several. -- Ned Scott 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are very few. This is due to YouTube's policy of video length (Unless you have special account, they can be no longer than 10 minutes). They are generally about 9 minutes long. Would this work?  Th e   Gerg  21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Search results of Naruto Episodes at YouTube.


 * Yeah, but everyone knows you just make it multi-part to get around that :) And even then WP:EL strongly discourages such links. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Smallville
If you are willing to adjust the individual episode pages, will you help me find a place for them? Also, can you give me a link to where it says what quotes are and aren't OK in an idividual episode page? - Peregrinefisher 07:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really want the episode articles then go and do it. I think it's better to write about things we can't just learn from watching the show, and it's better to not just summarize the plot for the sake of summarization (it hardly does the show justice), but that's just me. I don't feel strongly enough about this to do anything more than give my advice.


 * As far as the quotes thing, WP:NOT part one: "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." and there's probably a few other pages that also recommend this. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you know how to fix the references I'm trying to add to the producton code header in List of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody episodes - Peregrinefisher 08:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Lady Oscar episodes
I apologize, I just thought that, as an anime series, it should be in the designated anime format. It has worked for many series before (see: List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of Oh My Goddess episodes). Also, I find it more aestheticly pleasing when the kanji titles are present. I wish to discuss this further so that we may come to a reasonable conclusion, please respond at the Talk:List of Lady Oscar episodes page. - ChibiViqor 09/14/06


 * Discussion moved to Talk:List of Lady Oscar episodes . -- Ned Scott 04:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler redirects
Please explain why you changed spoiler redirects into hard redirects without bringing it up on any talk pages. —Keenan Pepper 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It violates WP:NDT. The only exception to NDT is spoiler / WP:SPOILER, and there was no discussion of it there. -- Ned Scott 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and you can't see the similarity? Not even enough to talk about it first? What about the people who haven't seen or read the works yet, and get redirected? I don't understand the purpose of your change. —Keenan Pepper 04:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please make your case at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. —Keenan Pepper 04:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool it
With regards to your comments on Talk:Fire + Water: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Naruto DS game
I've provided a source, and you stated that if I provided a source, you would retract your vote to delete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well hello there...
...am I correct in assuming this is the same Ned Scott that I knew oh so many moons ago in #ev?

(if not... uh, nevermind) EVula 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is indeed :D Although I thought I saw you somewhat recently on #ev3 not too long ago, as I'm occasionally in there as well. -- Ned Scott 19:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Would have been a few months back; I've been too busy to login there. Oy vey, if only life would calm down some... EVula 20:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:Point
I apologize for addign the templates, I thought you were referring to them all, as you never said which ones you were proposing. To make up for it, I proposed sort of the same thing, leaving out Squareenix, as I disagree with that one. --PresN 06:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * oh. Well, I'm sorry too then, I guess I jumped the gun on what you meant as well. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Episode list
I reverted Template:Episode list because the table wasn't showing up properly. I would appreciate if you would take a look at it and make sure I didn't screw anything up. It was your edit |here that did it. It may just be MY browser of something though. - Peregrinefisher 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What browser are you using, and what articles were showing up weird, or were all of them doing it? That edit was a few days ago, and I've checked a bunch of lists after it was done and since then, haven't noticed anything weird. The only thing I can think of off hand would be an article that didn't start the template on a new line, but instead }}{{ had each template right next to each other. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice it messing up any real pages. It just messed up the actual Template:Episode list page, as far as I know.  Here is what it looked like . - Peregrinefisher 04:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, that's alright, most templates don't actually have an example on the template page itself. Doesn't really matter ether way, though, as the reason for it didn't actually fix the problem it was supposed to. Basically the self-including example was removed to make the template less complicated because a weird limit was found (something like 213 episodes on an article). But removing it only let in 10 or so more episodes, so to actually fix it something else will need to be done. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT vandalise my talk page
WHY are you editting my talk page? i consider it vandalsim. A person has ALL the rights to delete comments and messages on his OWN user poage and TALK PAGE-


 * PLEASE SEE- Talk_page


 * 

i had EVEN requested and RECEIVED my own Wikipedia advocate to resolve this issue-


 * 


 * 

PLEASE do NOT try to restart this dipute once again especially AFTER its already been resolved!!! --Too Cool 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, but I have a right to edit your talk page just as much as you have. If I wish to restore someone's comments then I can do so, just as you are allowed to delete them. It's a two-way street on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete Snowbotamon
Hello.

You have nominated the SnowBotamon article for speedy deletion. I realize you are doing it so the YukimiBotamon page can be moved. But i already did the move manually (i moved content from YukimiBotamon to SnowBotamon, and turned YukimiBotamon into a redirect for SnowBotamon.

I'm just a bit confused about the point in deleting SnowBotamon then? When YukimiBotamon is going to be moved to SnowBotamon anyway after the delete?

Saintmagician 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just got your message right as I was leaving you a note on your talk page :D -- Ned Scott 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me with something?
Hey, if you're still online, can you help me with something? I have a *very* wierd problem. This page Musyamon doesn't seem to exist for me.

When i go there, (whether by a URL edit, or through the search function, or through a link), i get the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Musyamon...." etc message.

However, i can view the article's discussion page and history pages; links to Musyamon do appear in blue (not red) on other articles. Even wierder, i can click the "edit this page" button, and i can see what's supposed to be on the article (as in all the Musyamon information). I can even use the "show preview" button in "edit this page" to view the page as it should be.

But the Musyamon article page itself just doesn't appear for me. It keeps giving me the "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Musyamon in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings."

I've tried clearing browser history and using ctrl+F5. And i just can't seem to see the page. I don't suppose you've ever encountered something like this before and know why it's happening?

Thanks you. Saintmagician 08:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
Well spotted. He's been permamently blocked. However he seems to know how Wikipedia operates and uses the Popups tools to perpetuate his vandalism which is worrying. I'd imagine he'll be back in another guise. Ben W Bell talk  10:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

SunFlowmon
So official info from the Anime does violate the rules, while fake info like Mikemon evolving to Bastemon ( which was made up and has not been proven by any official sources ) or the existence of DarkGatomon X ( another madeup with the power of Hentai ) doesn´t ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.137.237.25 (talk • contribs).


 * No, just saying stuff like "she proves her power by" is original research, but you've already retracted that part so your edit is now ok. -- Ned Scott 11:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That was it ? Simply using "she proves her power" ? I wouldn´t have minded if only that was removed.

Saberleomon/Dinobeemon
Also its my talk page stop reverting it its not right if i want it deleted you have no right to that IS being a VANDAL so stop.

I am correct for both occasions. I reverted it back to what i said. I have both cards and the detail for SL was in depth with proof. If you have an issue don't screw with what i wrote its correct and what did i do to you? bad faith?Wk21030 22:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * my reply -- Ned Scott 23:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also as far as the whoe Dinobeemon situation. It's common sense. Exveemon is the dominant form of the Paildramon. So therefore Stingmon would be for dinobeemon. I mean if you look at Dinobeemon you can see that the body is primarily Stingmon.


 * I gave proof the episode etemon's comeback tour. He digivolved from leomon directly to mega. Also i don't read the magna it shoud be based on show alone. even though its not it should be. Anyways you show me proof that he has an ultimate.Wk21030 23:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What you are describing for Dinobeemon, no matter how obvious or factual, is considered original research, and thus is not allowed on Wikipedia. As far as Leomon goes, we include information about both the animes and the mangas, so just because you haven't read them doesn't mean we go around deleting information. -- Ned Scott 00:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OR issue on Deus Ex page
Please explain to me how that particular section qualifies as "Original Research". All it does is describe some obvious fictional references encountered in the game, and other obvious main themes such as conspiracies and nanotechnology. It is perfectly obvious to anyone playing the game that that is true. It is about equivalent to someone saying that "Hell" is one of the main themes of Doom in its article. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks for your help. -- Grandpafootsoldier 02:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * my reply -- Ned Scott 03:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. Conspiracies and nanotechnology are basically the two main bases for the entire game (as anyone who has actually played it can attest) and is therefore directly comparable to the Doom example I gave. Regardless I still do not see why this faulty "issue" warrants the complete distruction of that section. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My user page
Do not touch my user page again this is your last warning.

I do not want anything on there. That needs to be stopped you shouldn't be able to edit peoples pages.

Be bold!
Be bold is a prinicble in Wikipedia where if you can't seem to get your contribution to fit all the rules of Wikipedia then should ignore some of the rules providing you can explain why.

In this case because of the sheer senstivity of the CCS article group i think it is necceary to show both title screens. That way all of the English speaking regions that it has broadcasted in will have been covered, ergo removing bias.

Also there has been proof of where the image came from, failing that, i have a copy and it came from CCR. -Dynamo_ace Talk


 * That has nothing to do with being bold, and we don't give special treatment to "sensitive" articles. The two logos are almost identical and nothing of significance is added by the second logo. Because of this it fails WP:FUC. You cannot ignore policy on this, it is not optional. -- Ned Scott 22:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Templat:Episode list
I've been remvoving style="width:98%;", width=150|, width="120"|, etc. from the list pages because the tables aren't showing up right for me. I did it about 20 times and it made me wonder if they're in there for a reason, future compatability or something. Are they? Also, why does ProdCode need to be removed when it isn't used? - Peregrinefisher 20:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What browser are you using? ProdCode, or any of the other optional parameters, will automatically open a table cell even if it is not filled out. -- Ned Scott 22:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Opera. I checked with IE and the problem wasn't there.  If it doesn' mess anything up, I guess I'd like to have it work with Opera as well. - Peregrinefisher 23:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't touch my page again got it.
I don't care who you are you do not touch my page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wk21030 (talk • contribs).
 * Under what authority do you say this? -- Ned Scott 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he lives in Suncrest, Washington --GunnarRene 05:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Stay cool
Don't forget to stay cool and be civil at all times, even when the Wikistress gets hot. Provoking other users, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong," is probably a bad idea. 

Ginkgo100 talk · e@ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It was still funny. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt he thought so. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)