User talk:Ned Scott/archive5

Template:Episode list
It isn't showing up right in IE right now. It has a little |- style="" kind of floating at the top, that's all. - Peregrinefisher 04:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The template page or how it appears in lists? If it's Template:Episode list itself, then that's normal. It's a temp fix to help with the weird template limit problem. The full example is available on the talk page, anyways. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's on the Template:Episode list itself. If wer're in a transitional stage that's cool.  What is this transition that's being made? - Peregrinefisher 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The template has a limit of how many times it can be used in an article, and simplifying the template will push back the limit. Like I said, this is a temp fix till I can figure out a way to make the template itself be more efficient. It won't actually effect any of the articles that use the template. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Digimon fair use images on Digimon Episode template
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FUC

I removed the images on the Template because just recently I heard that we can't use alot of fair use images on episode lists.

I had a problem with the Pokemon episode lists for the same reason, if you don't agree with me please goto the ANI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_over_too_many_fair_use_images_on_one_page

I'm sorry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Digimon_episode

(Yugigx60 18:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC))


 * I know about the debate, and I've been involved in several similar debates in the last few months. So far it has been inconclusive and no consensus reached on whether or not the images in a list of episodes meet WP:FUC or not.


 * On another note, Digimon episode has actually been replaced (just not in all the articles) with Japanese episode list, which was also made from the Digimon template but for use in any anime episode list. It's a lot more flexible, too, and can be used with or without images. -- Ned Scott 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessments
Thanks! However many of Dark Shikari Bot's recent additions have been Naruto stubs of which there are hundreds. I thought I was finished :( --Squilibob 07:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Naruto Episodes
What are you doing destroying all the episodes? There was a Keep vote rendered for them all under the Articles for deletion/Naruto Episodes. shadzar|Talk|contribs 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the AfD discussion before I started. A "keep" does not protect the articles from being merged into another article. This is being done per Centralized discussion/Television episodes as well as WP:NOT part 7, the latter is a policy. I'm sorry the AfD didn't get the attention it needed to be a useful discussion. Also, there were a few keep votes that noted merging as an acceptable option. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's not a vote.. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the merge was in respect to the spidoes themselves being merged and shortened with each other, not eliminating them all together to just a simple itemized list. The WP:NOT arguement was made and mentioned MANY other episode summaries that existed. I am just trying to figure out why all the info is being eliminated rather than waiting for each episode to have a "short summary" added fromt hem to the episode list itself if that is what should be done... shadzar|Talk|contribs 04:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to be selective and only redirecting articles with little to no content. In other words, episode articles that already have a summary that says about the same thing in the list article. This is not elimination, and turning them back into full articles is always an option. The idea is to promote growth on the list article first, then expand to individual episode articles. Although, it should be noted (as I am on the remaining episode articles) that such articles should be written to WP:WAF and WP:FICT guidelines. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So basically, no meaningful content is being lost in this process. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles. is stated in the Centralized discussion/Television episodes so i am unsure still wy to delete them? Trying to learn about Wikipedia here not faulting you for your actions, jsut trying to understand them myself. If it is because they are not expanded, that is what is trying to be done as the episodes come out from verifiable sources such as their DVD releases. Thanks for your help in understanding this all. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that statement, and if you note I am merging only articles which do not say anything more than what is already included in the list of episodes. Some of them say nothing more than "this is an episode" and then have several large templates that don't actually count as article content. Others have maybe two or three sentences. So I am following the centralized discussion's guidelines. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So for my sake at least, when the episodes are released or televised in North America so that there is verifiable content to include as per the Centralized thingy, how would one go about "unmerging" them back to repair? I recently noticed a "move" tab in my page functions. Is this what would be needed to put the article back and add its proper summary? Again thanks for the help cause I feel like I am always getting lost in help pages trying to find my way around to contribute to Wikipedia. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When the redirect takes you back to the list of episodes it says (redirected from .....) under the title. Click on that link again and it will show you the article without redirecting it. Then you can edit it and remove the redirect line and replace it with article content. -- Ned Scott 05:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Sorry for taking up your time. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

nedbot
hello, I was looking at your nedbot and I thought the button was a linked image. I tried to right click to bring up the image but clicked the button. I don't have admin status (obviously) and so the bot was unaffected. I don't know if such attempts are logged though so I wanted to drop a line and let you know it was accidental. Na uf an a : talk 07:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think they're logged, so unless you're an admin it won't do anything at all ;) -- Ned Scott 08:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in portals
I created an amendment for fair use in portals, as well as submitted to village pump, see here: Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals. It would be great if you could express your support there. ddcc 21:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request
I made a request you may be interested in. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

oro valley article.
Removing original message because it was long, insane, and already posted to Talk:Oro Valley, Arizona where I've responded to it. original message and then my response. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Fair Use
Sorry about adding quite a few fair use image onto non-article pages. I didn't realise that they weren't allowed on these pages.

Is there any images that we can use on the My Chemical Romance WikiProject page and template within the fair use guidelines?--Lotrgamemast 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can always create a new image that clearly refers to the band. for the Pittsburgh Wikiproject, I made a new image that is a minor part of the Steelers logo. Just find a simple, small, iconic image. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 19:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries, I made the same mistake myself when I started out on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Check Please?
Ned, do you think you8 could do me a favor an pop over to the Because I'm the Goddess article at some point to check for formatting issues and categorization? Michael Hopcroft 19:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for that RPA template on Somerset219's Talk page. I didn't want to respond because I said I would not pursue the discussion further, and because I suspected there was no way for me to elicit civility at that point. But that was the harshest bit of name-calling I've received on WP to date. I'm glad to know now what to do if something like that happens again - and it's good to see those words go away without my engaging this person again. I really appreciate it! Karen | Talk | contribs 06:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What's up?
Please tell me what you think is wrong about WP:DDV. Do you think it was made in violation of our process to make guidelines? Do you think Wikipedia does use (majority) voting on a regular basis? Please don't cite only RFA, which seems to be the exception rather than the rule, and whose process is already under dispute elsewhere. Do you think Wikipedia should use (majority) voting on a regular basis? Is AFD a (majority) vote? What about RFC? Should disputes be resolved through straw polling? Should people be able to make a motion, call an aye/nay vote on it and have it stick? Please explain your opinion. &gt;Rad i a n t &lt;  10:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:DDV
Feel free to comment on the page at Wikipedia talk:Discuss, don't vote. The more people who are commenting on its status or its future text, the sooner this outstanding issue will get resolved one way or another. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Announcement: It's an administrator!

Ned Scott, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

Samurai Champloo
I don't feel strongly about modifying the Samurai Champloo episode pages. If they are left as they are, they still meet our needs. I'm a big fan of the wikiproject templates, though; I like to standardize the LOE pages as much as possible. It was funny when you gave a B to List of Scrapped Princess episodes (which I worked on), you said "dang, at this rate it will be a B before I go to bed :)," which was amusing. Anyways, List of Outlaw Star episodes needs to be evaluated again.  Thanks, Peregrinefisher 07:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut
Please don't take a shortcut used to link to one page for another page. Notably, I've used WP:EPISODE on the Mailing list as well as on my userpage. -- Chris chat edits essays  17:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Our little disagreement
I noticed your little "slip-up", and I would like to apologize if it seems I am showing you any aggression. I have no problem with you as a person or an editor. I think you and I are both mature enough to handle our disagreement like gentlemen. I think we've each made our points known and we can let the others decide at this point, since I doubt the decision will be made based on which one of gets the last word. So, I hope you and I won't have to continue arguing. Jay32183 04:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's mostly my fault, and I very much apologies. You stated how you honestly felt and I wasn't being very respectful. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads up on RfC
Per your suggestion, I started this: Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use--Fahrenheit451 03:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

SPA
You may want to read Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination) and then look at there contribs, that anon is a sysop at that wiki and is only casting his opinion as delete as bad faith because i am against inclusion of a spam article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Removal of exclamation points in Super Android 13
I don't think WP:NC would apply here, as it's not the title of the article he was changing. The original title of the episode has the exclamation points in them, and they shouldn't have been removed without a valid reason. --Core des at 04:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The title being used in the infobox is the most recognized title, the English dub by Funimation. I'm not a fan of the show, but I do know that much. As I pointed out in one of my edit summaries, part of the problem here is that we are using a template that is not set up for these kinds of situations. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, wait, I misunderstood something. The issue he was causing was that in the first sentence of the article (where the Japanese title was, not in the infobox), he was removing the exclamation points from the translated title. Other editors re-added them, and he reverted them as vandalism. That'd be a 3RR violation. --Core des at 05:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see... seems I overlooked that since both edits were going on at the same time.. I stand corrected. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost episode guidelines
Regarding your recent attempted change to WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, please keep in mind that those guidelines were the result of extensive discussion, as well as a formal mediation which resulted in unanimous agreement. It is not appropriate to simply come in and make a major change to those guidelines, especially without even an attempt at discussion on the talkpage. If you have concerns, you are encouraged to bring them up, but in the meantime, please respect the consensus decision. --Elonka 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, the mediation didn't result in any naming conventions to be used. In any case, it still doesn't override the consensus of WP:TV-NAME. -- Ned Scott 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The episode guidelines were discussed in the mediation, and approved. They've also been reconfirmed at the guideline talk page.  If you have concerns, please bring them up there. --Elonka 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article naming was not apart of the mediation. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in move wars. The proper way to handle this is via civil discussion, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, not in yanking articles back and forth. --Elonka 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs help
I see you edit the seperate Digimon episode pages alot. But recently the Pokemon episode(s) articles are being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please place a vote at Articles for deletion/Here Comes the Squirtle Squad. Thank you for your time. Pokeant (00:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC))
 * I did already. Personally, I'd be happy if they were all deleted, although I did support a merge. -- Ned Scott 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in lists
Hello, I see you have contributed your thoughts to Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. It's been dead for a while, but I have archived it and taken a new fresh start. I hope this time we will be able to achieve something as I have summarized the main points of both sides (feel free to improve them) and I call you to express your support or oppose on the concrete proposal that I have formulated. Thanks, Renata 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Ned, I am concerned about some of your recent edit summaries, especially where you are using a very angry tone, including profanity. . Can I please encourage you to re-read WP:CIVIL? --Elonka 09:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this concerns you at all. Considering we are both in a dispute at the moment I find it in very bad taste that you are looking through my contributions to find something to correct me about. It's considered wikistalking and harassment. (If it were not for our dispute I wouldn't have a reason to assume bad faith here, but, as they say, if the shoe fits.. ) -- Ned Scott 19:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ned, I believe that you have been uncivil in most of your exchanges with me, in the form of condescension and snarkiness. I suggest that you knock it off and adhere to the WP:CIVIL policy. By treating others in an uncivil manner, you are inviting them to treat you likewise. --Fahrenheit451 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I'm not perfect and I can lose my cool sometimes, but I don't believe I have been uncivil to you. I believe this is the comment (as the only comment I can see as being "uncivil" between us) that you are talking about: "Common misconception. You've been caught with your pants down, as you so obviously misunderstood the real definition of resolution. You're embarrassed, I understand, but get over it."
 * Granted I probably could have put that a better way, but there's only so many ways a person can repeat themselves. You're almost to the point of causing a distribution over this issue, and I felt it necessary to be a little bit harsh in my words (if you can even call that harsh) in order to make it clear what the situation is. You, not the fair use guidelines, are mistaken. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ned, you continue to be critical, but on NO occasion have you offered a definition of "resolution". Again, knock off the make wrong and be civil.--Fahrenheit451 03:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave you four definitions. Again, I have not been uncivil with you, so please stop with the false accusations. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You really need to cool down Ned, you make valuable edits but recently some of your edits (namely to WikiProjects -- without a consensus) have been very rude. I ask you to cool down and stop making significant changes to projects and "their" children pages and come to the discussion board to get a consensus. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to AGF and secondly I never said any thing specificly about the 4400, I amt alking about WikiProjects as a whole, thirdly please read WP:CIVIL. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What do I need to assume good faith on? You're making false accusations in hopes of making me look bad. Do you have anything, at all, to back up these claims? Do you understand that consensus is used for disputes, and not for every decision making process on Wikipedia? My talk page is not a place to vent your frustrations. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding visits to user talk pages to vent, I recently experienced that from MatthewFenton as well. It heats up discussions that would otherwise remain mild.  Johnashby 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I should make this clearer, consensus seeking discussions are mostly used in cases such as disputes or where greater opinion is necessary, etc. -- Ned Scott 21:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ned, while you have some good points to make in these and other discussions, and I think you're a valued editor here at Wikipedia, I need to say gently that I too am concerned at what I see in terms of frequent civility breakdowns in your interactions and especially your edit summaries, per the examples given above. I also asked you to tone those down back in June, here. No one is denying you your right to participate in heated debate, but let's all try to be respectful of one another. Thanks for listening. -- PKtm 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PKtm, the 3rd editor who is in dispute with me over the Lost episode titling, also leaves his comment. More often than not I am a calm and patient editor, but leave it to people who are in a dispute with me to dig up any possible bad thing I've ever done. Again, I fail to see any examples of recent incivility in our dispute, or anything that could be considered "frequent civility breakdowns". I'm not perfect, and I'm not saying I am, but it's extremely rude and immature to be leaving these pile-on messages like this when it has nothing to do with recent activities. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ned, I don't know why you say that I'm in dispute with you. I have barely weighed in on the titling dispute (my one edit on the naming conventions page being here) and haven't even voted in the poll that's underway. I've stated I don't have immensely strong feelings on the issue. My points above were general, and were kindly meant, not intended as anything that is "piling on". I would ask that you take them as such, and that you perhaps step back and think about the points that I and others are making, which have nothing to do with a specific dispute. Thanks, PKtm 06:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's just that in light of there not being a civility issue in the first place, I fail to find any of these messages helpful. Are you looking at just the messages left here or are you looking at any of the discussions that have stirred them? They're all directly relating to specific disputes. Sorry that I jumped to conclusions about your position on the dispute. The criticism of my behavior by the above three editors is grossly inaccurate. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Our criticisms are only inaccurate in your opinion, Ned. I suggest you take a look at the dialogue you have had with us from our point of view.  Take a look at how we can view it as uncivil.--Fahrenheit451 22:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying something that you disagree with is not uncivil. Being civil is not the same as being forced to be "warm and friendly", it means being reasonably polite and considerate. Obviously, I will watch how I word things around these people, but not because of civility, but because it's just not worth dealing with over-dramatic complains like these. I might not respond with a smile when people are being rude and / or ill-rational, but I will never intentionally try to harass someone or say something to make them feel bad.


 * I also find it very ironic that the people who are leaving these messages do not seem to hold themselves to the same standard they seem to be holding me to. -- Ned Scott 23:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it very ironic that we have repeatedly pointed out your hostile tone to you in a number of dialogues, but you refuse to acknowledge and correct any incivility. Curious, do you think we are all wrong and working against you?--Fahrenheit451 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I honestly am sorry if you really were that offended by anything I said. I stand by what I said to you just now, in that I might not be "warm and friendly" in every situation, but I do try to be polite.


 * Here's the thing, you haven't pointed anything out to me. Elonka had two examples, one of which was tongue-in-cheek and was not about "anger". PKtm had one example from June. I pointed out what I thought might be what got you mad and tried to clear that up as well. If you continue to press people (much like you're doing now) you'll only force them to become more and more blunt. I've asked more than once if anyone could point something else out to me, and no one has.


 * In the discussion about high resolution images I tried to explain to you, very politely, that you were thinking of printing resolution. Despite citing four separate dictionaries, you became very confrontational and decided to keep making your arguments. In the course of that discussion, in trying to help you understand the use of "resolution" in our fair use guidelines and policy, I found myself having to be blunt with you. The above example that I gave was as far as I took it.


 * Either you are mistaken about my "tone" (it's text, don't look for meaning you can't reasonably prove), or you're just angry and frustrated about the situation where those images got deleted. Even if you somehow proved I was a downright asshole that wouldn't change the situation of those images. I don't understand what you think you will accomplish by harassing me about this. If you feel this is such a strong issue then bring it to the attention of an administrator or make a request for comment on me. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost episode page names
Hi, Ned. As it happens, I had already seen that RfA and was getting ready to post when I got your comment. Thanks for letting me know, anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Template WikiFur and Wookieepedia
I don't think you're following my point: Wikipedia policy is that external wikis aren't reliable sources for articles. Now, you say that if we use their content, we have to source them in some way, per the GFDL. I agree. But there's no case where we COULD do that. I.E., say that CNN does an interview and it's so good that we want to quote a transcript of the interview from their site. In that case, we're just using their content, as a raw material, to directly quote it. Well, if we directly quote CNN for educational purposes, that's fair use, regardless. The same applies to WikiFur's GFDL license. And even if Fair Use didn't exist, there's no conceivable reason we'd use their content on Wikipedia, other than to just write an article. And articles written in such a manner aren't reliable. We can't have wikis sourced in other wikis sourced in other wikis, and so on. Robocracy 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent or not
The page is over a 100k and number of users and at least one admin asked for it. How can you make such drastic and radical reverts without discussing it first? Not very civil.--Eupator 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa, calm down there man. This had nothing to do with being civil, just that I noticed that discussion from the previous day was even archived, which is generally not acceptable for talk page archives. It seems there's a hell of a lot of disputes on that talk page, and I'm guessing you think I'm somehow apart of that. Sorry for the confusion, but I was only passing by and thought someone had archived too much (a common mistake that most people do not get upset about like this). I don't want to be any part of those disputes, so I'm gonna stay the hell away from that talk page. I mean, I made a good faith revert on there and you come to my talk page acting like this? Yeesh. -- Ned Scott 19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

signature
The way I read that is you cant use a template for a signature not that you cant have a tempalate in your signature. Am I reading it wrong? --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't use templates in your signature because you're not supposed to used templates in your signature. "because the developers have determined them to be an unnecessary drain on the servers", "Transcluded signatures require extra processing—whenever you change your signature source, all talk pages you have posted on must be re-cached." -- Ned Scott 06:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm offended by it or anything like that :) but I thought I might bring this to your attention. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nihongo
The presence of this template is hardly necessary in the list articles; it is already at the main page, formatted incorrectly, and is irrelevant. Furthermore, I also corrected grammatical errors. Please don't revert me again. 65.29.167.251 06:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode list
Hello! Thank for your help getting the List of Sailor Moon episodes looking as good as it does. ^^ I have a question about it. Somebody recently noticed that there are two episode 40s in English, and spent a lot of time reordering all the episode numbers in order to "fix" this. What's actually going in is that the two episodes were combined into one. Is there some way to merge those two cells (some kind of rowspan trick) so that that doesn't happen again? Do you know? --Masamage 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We could manually put in the table code for those two episodes. Not sure what else to do, since the templates already are so complex they have a limit of being used 230 times per article I'd rather not put more variables in it. I'll try to come up with some more ideas, but that's all I got for now. -- Ned Scott 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Chat
Hiya, do you by any chance use any of the instant messaging clients, such as AIM or Google Talk? Or do you use IRC? I get the feeling that if we could actually chat at a more rapid rate, we could probably avoid some of the miscommunications that seem to be creeping in. --Elonka 22:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee
Nothing I did hardly excuses a 48 hour + 48 hour block. I reverted something twice and InShaneee blocked based on bad faith. I blame him for violating more than five highly regarded policies. The fact that I try the patience of admins is a non-issue. If I try your patience enough that you will abuse your powers in frustration doesn't make you a victim, it makes you a bad admin. I'm nowhere near as bad as many users on Wikipedia, and if Shaneee can get pissed off enough to block me without me having violated any policy, it does not speak well for what he'd do to other users.

Basically, it's no surprise that an admin would defend an admin and try to claim that admin abuse is the fault of the blocked for getting on his nerves, not his inability to control himself. When I violate all of the policies he did, you can crucify me for it. But InShaneee did wrong, and his lack of maturity as an admin is no fault bit his own. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you admit to testing the patience of admins??? Testing peoples patience is an issue (see WP:POINT or WP:TROLL take your pick). semper fi — Moe  02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not an admin.


 * I'm saying it's human nature to lose your cool sometimes, but I never said that made it ok. I said what I said to illustrate that I believe it was an isolated issue. It's likely this whole RfC mess will be more than enough for him to learn from these mistakes and be an even better admin.


 * You need to calm down about all of this. -- Ned Scott 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He seems intent on defending his actions with the exception of doubling the block. That does not tell me "this admin has learned from his unadmin-like actions and won't do them again".
 * And Moe, I do not violate either policies. The most I have done is possibly unintentionally tested some admins, which violates no policies. And Moe, stalking is certainly against policy. I doubt that you happened upon this page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk to Moe then do it on his talk page, please. I am not discussing this issue with you, Link. I'm entitled to my opinion and you being annoying about this won't gain you any support. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to discuss this on your talk page Ned, but I thought I would just point out in WP:STALK something Link should realize: From WP:STALK: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason.", with that said I'm done discussing anything with Link. semper fi — Moe  14:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question
If you're asking about Goku's power level when he powered up to fight Nappa, then no it was not over 9,000. His was over 8,000 (in the Shōnen Jump Manga that I own) and in the Japanese anime it was just 8,000. The Ocean Group dubb obviously changed this for some reason (and I'm not sure too sure of this but I think the uncut FUNimation dub did too) just to make Goku sound stronger. This caused some confusion among fans. They also rounded Piccolo's, Gohan's and Kuririn's power levels before their battle against the Saiyans just to give them an exact fighting power instead of what they actually had. Example: Gohan's power before fighting was rounded to 1,000 instead of the 981 Akira Toriyama gave him in the manga and the 981 that Toei gave him in the anime. Personally, I would go by the Japanese sources because they came first and, therefore, are considered canonical by all means. -- Power level (Wanna talk? | Um, I did something recently) Power level (Dragon Ball) 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Edit Summary
Cheers, I think I ripped it off from a movie I saw. I am having an RfA just now, ahem, and I used it there aswell, I belive everyone needs a calling card

†he Bread 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You should probably resist the urge...
...to respond to comments like this. Or, if you do, point out applicable policies and guidelines like the fact that the edit of yours she was referring to clearly does not fall into the category of WP:NPA. Don't get into a sticks-are-stones type of debate. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

here's the deal
Stop instigating problems on WP:AUM. I don't know what you're after, but you're not a participant on the talk page, and haven't been a player. I don't know if you're just following me there from the TV naming convention dispute, but you are not help to progress anything forward. Judging by your main namespace recent edits, you seem more prone to revert rather than contribute, and more prone to revert than discuss on Talk, so please realize that you may not be working cooperatively lately. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not instigating problems. It's extremely rude to try to exclude anyone who wishes to honestly be apart of a discussion such as that one. I'm sorry, but you won't be able to bully me away like that. I great deal of my contributions (maybe not in raw numbers) has been to templates, and discussion regarding templates is of interest to me. And for your information, the only thing I need to do is expand on my edit summaries. Unless you think that vandalism reverts are a bad thing? Or maybe reverting trivial fan-fiction entries? Please, give me an example of any of those reverts that you disagree with (obviously other than the ones about WP:AUM). -- Ned Scott 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop spamming
If you want to advertise a proposal, use the proper venues Requests for comment and Village pump (proposals). —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not spam, and talk page boxes are very common for such notices. On a side note, I've really been sticking my neck out lately.. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For some context, here's apart of Wikipedia talk:Semi-protecting policy pages:


 * "Widely disseminating a policy proposal means post it on WP:RFC and Village pump (proposals), in addition to the talk page where it belongs, Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Centrx has been reverting the placement of these notices using administrative rollback. It's not surprising that the number of participants in this discussion is limited if it cannot be adequately publicized. John254 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Centrx blocked me for 20 minutes when I had reverted his removal. Totally not cool and unacceptable. He has given no explanation nor cited any policy or guideline to support his actions. Isn't this what they call censorship? I could understand that this might be seen as spamming, but to actually block me over this is.............. *deep breath* . It's totally disrespectful. If he had at least left something more than the small message on my talk page (that seemed to only indicate his preference), or even left a message here (I checked here before reverting the change, actually, since I figured he had a good reason, but he had given none) I would not have reverted his removal. There was no reason to block me whatsoever. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)"

See also User talk:Centrx. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

?
What? Yank sox  12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't
Please don't suggest that I have ownership issues because of my comments on the MfD of Coffee lounge/Games. I simply pointed out that it is likely to slant the vote having people who are not affected by the deletion vote to delete the page. That is not an ownership issue, nor is it inappropriate. This is in a grey area, but it might be considered to fall under WP:NPA. Al e  thiophile Ask me why 03:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's very inappropriate to say that people who are not effected by or involved in one part of Wikipedia should not have a say in that part. It is something that suggests the view of "owning" something, and pointing this out is not considered a personal attack. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. --  Donald Albury  03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

List of major opera composers
Could you please at least explain your reasoning and show that you've actually looked at the methodology and previous discussions? Please? Mak (talk)  05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though you've removed it from the AfD, I really don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith (and let's not argue semantics here, you basically declared that you presume bad faith). I stick to the 1rr on all my edits, and discuss if there is continued disagreement. It's not unreasonable to ask for an explanation of an OR tag for an article which is clearly thoroughly cited and has a methodology stated. How else is a good faith editor to know how to fix the article to make it not original research? That your response to my request for an explanation was met with an AfD disappoints me. Mak (talk)  05:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was about to leave a note on the talk page when it had been removed a second time. What disappoints me is that I actually have to explain this to people. It will fall on deaf ears, though, because this group of editors would rather ignore policy than delete a good article. It's using a specific criteria for inclusion that was invented ON Wikipedia. It's not a case of using multiple sources to show that someone is notable because of the requirement that it must meet 6 of 10 specific lists and excludes any other possible sources. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you could have left a note on the talk page and left the tag off, if need be. I think it's time to re-read the bit on original synthesis and perhaps look up synthesis, and also to look at WP:IAR - ignore all rules. It's a useful article which reflects scholarly consensus using good sources. It's a compilation of lists. That's not such a unique methodology. It's basically the same thing someone does when they're writing a standard article, only in this case, instead of each fact having one citation, it essentially has six. Mak (talk)  06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ..."Ignore all rules" does not and cannot trump WP:NOR. If we want to use a specific method of "scholarly consensus" then we need to show that method being used externally, or not use that specific method. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point
I'm glad you agree! Perhaps we could get this point reflected more explicitly at the highest levels... WP:NAME, WP:DAB, etc., and then have it trickle down to the lower levels like WP:TV-NC and WP:NC:CITY? --Serge 06:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OCD and Taboo
Well you might want to take a look at this book. The subtitle of the book is "Resemblances Between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics". The upshot of the whole thing is that the processes giving rise to taboo cultures and the processes giving rise to neurotic illnesses (such as OCD) are developmentally and psychoanalytically very similar. That's why I added Taboo to that section (those studying OCD also seem to be interested in the subject of taboo). But in any case this is certainly not a big deal, and I'm not going to even bother adding Taboo back in the list - but you could do that if you want :) Sofeil 09:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The link to the book seems much better :) -- Ned Scott 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?
Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My good sir, I thank you kindly for informing me of this important matter. I shall leave a note at once :D -- Ned Scott 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kate's Lost Image
What exactly is the problem with the image of Kate? All the other major characters in Lost have images of themselves standing looking at the camera. Please explain this to me, because I am very confused. - Codu 11:23, 15 October 2006 (GMT)
 * Trust me, it's really silly, and I don't completely agree with it myself.. But we just need it to be a picture that shows the character rather than the person in order to claim fair use per WP:FU. The same probably needs to be done on all the character pages, but I'd rather do something like this one at a time so I don't have to be in 10 million different discussions at once. -- Ned Scott 11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Participant
Hi Ned. I left a message for you at Template talk:Participant. --David Göthberg 20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to your POV message
Re: this edit, don't worry about that thread. The aroma of trolls is getting palpable in that area. Thanks though. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Virtual classroom moving right along
Based on your comments at the MfD, I thought you might like to see how things are progressing with the Virtual classroom. We've moved on to our second lesson, though each lesson is continuous so that we can all benefit from the experience of new visitors as they arrive. I expect to learn a lot more from the interface share and compare discussions, for instance. So far, I've created a new tools page accessible from my userpage menu, inspired by all the ideas shared in those discussions.

The current lesson focuses on "stubbing," with a short course to kick off discussion provided by our resident expert on the subject, Grutness. Please feel free to add your expertise and questions.

To help keep track of what's going on, here's a template you can place at the top of your userpage or talk page:

Hope to see you at the Virtual classroom again soon.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   14:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit other users' posts
I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, --Elonka 04:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If those edits were apart of your comments, instead of just being a list, then you shouldn't be making modifications to it after others have replied to it, per those very same talk page guidelines. Since you were editing to it after others have responded, I figured you considered that part of your message as just a list for reference. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Thanks for the link. But do you agree that the contrib history on and  (to give two clear examples), look suspicious? --Elonka 07:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see those two users as related. I've only seen Izzy Dot in discussion on WT:TV-NC, but I've been in other discussion with Yaksha, where he's been very helpful and productive. Izzy Dot on the other hand... I'm not sure how the contribs themselves are "suspicious", as when I click to see what they've done, most seem like rational edits. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that the two are linked together, but both of them are obviously "secondary" accounts (I routinely do CheckUser-like things in my day job). I just don't know who the master accounts are, otherwise I'd file a formal RFCU. --Elonka 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with secondary accounts, it's allowed. It is only a problem if both accounts are being used in a manipulative way, such as on the same discussion. I believe Yaksha does have a second account, but it has never been used in the TV-NC discussion. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And you know this how? --Elonka 09:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I'm apart of the secret cabal. -- Ned Scott 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle Royale character articles
Where did you find the in universe spots in the Battle Royale character articles?
 * I make sure all articles use present-tense EXCEPT for flashbacks
 * Characters are, at the start of articles, marked as fictional characters

Also, I would not suggest any sort of deletion to any of these articles. There are two acceptable options for fictional characters that have some presence in the story: keep and merge. All characters have names exclusive to the series, so simple redirects rectify the problems. All of the characters with articles (except for Mai, of course) have some sort of impact on the story.

By the way, I would gladly merge Mai into a minor character page. She's not notable enough to have her own article, though I would not delete the "Mai (Battle Royale)" - I would just redirect that to a minor character page.

WhisperToMe 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects for ADHD article
Thanks for agreeing to allow WikiProject Psychology on the ADHD talk page. Actually, I strongly agree that both WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Psychology should be listed on the article (and on similar articles), but since I'm not involved in WikiProject Medicine, I tend to forget to put its banner on pages. The field of psychology does study medical issues that affect behavior, but that's not meant to imply that they aren't legitimate medical problems as well. —Cswrye 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Buck Rogers
Ned, thanks for your comments. I feel KillerChihuahua can be a little bit awkward to deal with, but I think it's more crossed lines of communication rather than any malice. I've went through the remaining points and given opinions, what do you think? Douglasnicol 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anime - Fansub Citations
I've seen you have added the "citation needed" for the bit that talks about fansubs on Anime. Well I haven't been long enough editing here to know how (and especially what and in what way) to cite wiki-properly, but I have found a pdf that talks about fansubs, with examples of cultural information inserted into the sub that a non-japanese viewer might not otherwise get here: http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/script-ed/vol2-4/otaku_appendix.pdf I don't know if that helps as a citation but it would be very nice if you could look it up and add a citation if the source is useful. Thanks. Aetherfukz 01:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a start. I'll have to look more at it a little later, but we might be able to use this. -- Ned Scott 01:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In Universe
I have read all these things before about fictional writing. People know these characters are not real people, and that they are fictional. The in universe tags are stupid, pointless and confusing to people trying to read the pages. If you think the pages need editing then you edit them, and don't put up that silly tag. I stand by getting rid of the tags and will do everything I can to sort it out. Codu talk 13:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to add a quote from the "In Universe" section on the Manual of Style; "If you notice an article that predominantly describes a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective, or even provides no indication that a fictional subject is fictional, either improve it yourself or add the "In-universe" template to bring the issue to the attention of others". Please note the bit that I have highlighted. The first line on the character pages says "... is a fictional is a fictional character on the ABC television series Lost played by ..." I pretty much rest my case. The In Universe tags are not needed. Codu talk 14:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are confusing the in-universe tag for another tag that asks the article to make clear what is fiction or not. The in-universe tag is not about what is stated, but rather what perspective and coverage the majority of the article takes. -- Ned Scott 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona
Please DO NOT MOVE the Tucson, Arizona article back to Tucson. This DOES NOT fall into the ESTABLISHED CONVENTION for U.S. city articles, and not exception has been granted for this city. There is extensive debate and this topic and no resolution has been thus proposed. The article should stand with the city, state convention unless a consensus is reached, and you do not have the sole authority to do so. Dr. Cash 04:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be completely right, but you cannot do a cut and paste page move. See my comments on Talk:Tucson. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved it back. Let's not do that again, ok?  WP:RM is for controversial moves and clearly this would be extremely controversial. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't controversial at all... there was no page move war, only reverts because we don't allow cut-and-paste page moves, and only just now did this happen. Please, give me some credit and not jump to conclusions. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 80 zillion lines of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) regarding U.S. city article naming. It's one of the most contentious subjects I've come across here.  Just because none of the folks there happen to have Tucson, Arizona on their watchlist does not make its move uncontroversial.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my thinking at all... I honestly did not think that anyone would find it "controversial". The discussion was mostly about all city names, notable or not. I was of the thinking that Tucson was notable enough to make the claim. I even invited other people to revert the page move without objection. I'd really hate to pull an "E" here, but assume good faith, man. -- Ned Scott 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I gotcha. I'm not saying you're lying or meant harm - I'm just disagreeing.  Vehemently.  And asking you - and anyone else that considers the same - to go through WP:RM for any U.S. city article moves in the future.  —Wknight94 (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad this is cleared up. I know in that Lost debate I got a little.. worked up, and I just wanted to make it clear that this is wasn't one of those times. I have no major objections, and will treat any similar situation with extra sensitivity from now on. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)