User talk:Ned Scott

I am busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Feel free to poke me on my talk page or by e-mail for anything, trivial or important.

Archives • ℹ
1. 02/06 - 05/06 2. 06/06 3. 07/06 - 08/06 4. 08/06 - 09/06 5. 10/06 - 11/06 6. 11/06 - 01/07 7. 02/07 - 03/07 8. 04/07 - 05/07	9. 05/07 - early 08/07 10. 08/07 - 10/07 11. 11/07 - mid 02/08 12. mid 02/08 - mid 05/08 13. mid 05/08 - mid 07/08 14. mid 07/08 - 11/08 15. 12/08 - 05/09 16. 06/09 - 04/11 17. 05/11 - 06/18

Incivility at the Village Pump

Ned, this was out of line. I've replied on the VP page, but I wanted to drop you a line about the incivility as well. You shouldn't need a pointer to WP:CIVIL, especially so soon after being blocked for 3RR. Ned, you should know better than this. Try to keep it cool, OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on now, I could have said "are you nuts" and you wouldn't have left me this message. But because I said "batshit".. and here we are. And no, really, that guy's "nuts" to think that we need to use the copyrighted wheelchair image over the free one. It just really blew my mind that even that would have a FU debate. -- Ned Scott 10:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait.. you do know this is about using the wheelchair image in templates and infoboxes, right? We're all fine with using the FU image in articles that discuss the image. -- Ned Scott 11:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the debate is over template usage. I think that the use of the ISA in templates could serve a legitimate educational purpose that would not be served by any other wheelchair logo. The ISA isn't just any logo of a wheelchair: it's a specific, internationally recognized symbol with a very specific meaning. That meaning is not necessarily carried over to the free image (which may itself be a copyright violation, as a derivative image). The debate is a reasonable one to have. In future, if you think your opponents' arguments sound crazy, consider the possibility that you may not be understanding them correctly. You could even say something like, "I'm sorry — this just makes no sense to me. What's wrong with the free image?" That's civil. Saying "Are you insane?" isn't, with or without the "batshit".

I don't like giving this sort of lecture, but I know that you've got a history of expressing your opinions strongly, and you should realize that it's not necessarily good for whatever argument you're trying to present. When people are confronted like that, they tend to retreat and become entrenched in their positions, and compromise becomes that much more difficult. If you show that you're reasonable and trying to understand your opponent's position, your opponent is more likely to listen to what you're saying, and may even change his views. But if you call him names, that sort of conversation becomes almost impossible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to be lectured from you. I am dumbstruck that you support such blatant policy violating usage of images. I don't always agree with how strict our policies are, but they are what they are, and this one is not one that we get to have control over. Compromise? There's no compromise here, we can't use the image in templates. I understand that I shouldn't be a dick, because then even if I'm right people won't listen to what I'm saying, but asking for an exemption from a core project-wide policy for such a minor and insignificant use is batshit insane. -- Ned Scott 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And keep in mind, I'm not one of those "delete all fair use image" extremists, I do think fair use has a place on Wikipedia. Every image I've uploaded has been a fair use image. But they're asking for decoration for infoboxes... tell me this is your April fools day, Josiah. -- Ned Scott 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ned, do you know anybody who's disabled? The ISA isn't universally loved (since lots of disabled people don't use wheelchairs), but it is a very important element of disabled culture. Changing it is like changing a flag to something that looks a bit like it, but isn't. It's just a bad idea, and one we wouldn't even be facing if it weren't for the "delete all fair use image" extremists.

It's not an April Fools' Day joke to say that disabled readers should be able to expect to see the real ISA in article infoboxes, rather than a potentially offensive caricature. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do, and have explained via e-mail for privacy concerns. For others who might pass this message, here's the rest of my reply: I've never met anyone disabled that felt like that symbol was a flag or anything emotional or meaningful. It's not like that at all. It's a symbol, like the one for the rest room, and it's just an easily recognizable image. Please, believe me, the disabled do not think of the ISA image like that.. why would you think they would? I understand your thinking, now that you've said that last message, but you have it -all- wrong. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please take a look at {{disputedtag}}. It says that "the designation is under dispute", so I added a line that "if, instead, the wording is under dispute, use some other tag". This suggestion was immediately reverted without comment, so a third opinion would be welcome. >Radiant< 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about deleting bad episode pages

I did some work on the Xiaolin Showdown episode pages, but looking into it I realized they can't be more than just plot summaries and fancruft. Do I need to take them to AFD or should I do a test PROD to see if anyone contests? I'm afraid that if it actually goes to AFD people will say "merge", no content will be moved anywhere and we'll be left with a bunch of redirects with really long, but meaningless edit histories. Also, if I bring all 52 articles to AFD at once, we both know that people will vote keep on principle that episode pages are allowed. Jay32183 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A tricky situation indeed. It can be hard as hell to deal with these kinds of situations. Recently I tried to nominate a clip show episode for deletion, and it got no consensus.. a clip show episode.. Seems nominating any episode-related page for deletion gets people defensive, especially the large numbered ones. I'll give it some thought and see if I come up with any good ideas. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My test prod was successful. I'll start listing other episodes and hopefully the problem will go away. Jay32183 20:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Matthew objected to the PRODs per WP:EPISODE, so I had to take the series to afd. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles. Jay32183 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

He probably has my talk page on his watchlist. It's systemic bias, and it's becoming disruptive. -- Ned Scott 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tom (Lost)

Poke. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Need your view

Hi Ned Scott. I have expressed my view of how the "hide all WP banners" was handled in WP Council talk (in two sections), and in WP Films talk. We have been informed way too late to take any decision on the matter, except we were presented with two options to chose from. I doubt my complain plays any role, as "the dice has been cast", but I feel this is not a way to go. The various projects should have had a say in the initial decision (I don't even know which was the initial decision, even after all the search I've done) before it was taken. I am thinking of joining the council to make sure this (I would say totalitarian) way of deciding without the projects' opinion doesn't continue. If I am wrong (I wish I am), or if I am missing something, please let me know, as I don't like to sound as "a frustrated wikipedian" or to be one. Hoverfish Talk 07:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell with the articles I normally watch (usually anime related, which only have one or two banners at the most), but I don't think the hide-all-banners option is considered a guideline or is something enforceable. Basically people are free to add or remove it from any talk page. Although, some people are adding it in mass and are doing so even when there are only two project banners on a talk page. I've reverted the template off many talk pages where I felt it wasn't needed.

By all means, feel free to express your thoughts on this matter, as the discussion is far from over and there are many users like you who are just learning about this. Feel free to leave notices with any WikiProjects, as well. I haven't had a lot of time to spend on the issue, but my own approach to this has been in trying to improve how WikiProjects are started and organized, which make up the core issues.

The banner-template will likely fall apart once a better idea catches fire, so I'm not too worried about it in the long run. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand. The only thing that worries me is that if these users keep appying it to films they have a very wide field (22.000 articles) to play in, which is hard for us to monitor. Whenever all this falls apart, some film gnomes will have to do all the cleanup. It happens quite often, since it's more fun to apply a new concept that will save the day than to cleanup aftrer the party is over, so I often end up doing the cleanup. Of course I don't have to, but it is irritating. If you are aware of any reactions from other projects, please let me know in my talk page. I (over-)busy myself with WP Films mostly and don't notice. Hoverfish Talk 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actor templates

There are at least 40 actors in Category:Film actor templates. Why did you only nominate a few? And why not target Category:Film director templates? --Wasted Sapience 12:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't know all of those existed. Last night I was looking to see what year a movie was made, saw Template:Matthew McConaughey, and through that found some others. -- Ned Scott 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can help about directors: films have only one director in their huge majority. When a film is awarded, as such, the award goes to the director. Actors are many and we can't have many footer filmography templates in film articles.

On an other related point, Ned Scott, please help me to connect our new department (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List and navigation management) to all this. Part of the reason I started it is to start putting some limits and order in all these navigations. It is where such navigation template problems related to film articles should be addressed. The page is still under construction, but it will soon display our focus points. I'm just waiting for incoming issues to make priorities clear. Any ideas/assistence welcome. Hoverfish Talk 15:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move at Case Closed

I write to you because I have read your contributions for the discussion for the name of the article Case Closed/Detective Conan. A page move request has been made to move the page (and 11 related pages) to Detective Conan; please comment it on Talk:Case Closed#Requested Move.--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack RfC

Hi,

I'm writing up some suggestions on the RfC Talk page, along with some additional diffs for review. I'd also suggest that WikiLeon (who recommended an RfC yesterday) and Tjstrf may wish to comment, as they had each tried to resolve the situation. Gwen Gale also attempted to negotiate on the various issues Quack engendered on the Essjay article. --Leflyman^Talk 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru/Workspace (moved to RfC) for additional material; if you would prefer, I can add it as a separate section of information. Some additional diffs need to be added. Feel free to edit/add, if appropriate. --Leflyman^Talk 06:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure how to go about all this, as this is the first user RfC I've started. Feel free to change what I have so far, or just add it to it's own section, I guess either works. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and formatted my research to add to the RfC; it may have a bit of extraneous material, but I think it does well to document the pattern of behaviour from QuackGuru in regards to his continued insertion of undue POV criticism of the Wikipedia project and its participants.--Leflyman^Talk 22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• At this point, it appears that Quack is unwilling or uninteresting in engaging in the RfC process; he's repeatedly removed the notice from his talk page, and continues making edits that fall within the discussed concerns.--Leflyman^Talk 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Season Pages

• May I ask why you redirected all the South Park season pages? Mr. Garrison (talk • contribs)

Huh? -- Ned Scott 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• You know, South Park (Season 1) etc. The page history said you redirected them to the episode list. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Holy crap, I think I just trolled my own talk page

What he said. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: ANI#I want to know what exactly I can and cannot do

The thread was closed by the time I saw it, but he wasn't blocked because I'm any sort of "moral police". He was blocked because he was warned multiple times by multiple editors to stop asking for simulated child pornography in the page and he continued to do so. To me that is trolling and an attempt to make a point by being disruptive. If someone was asking for pictures of fluffy kitties on an article talkpage after they had been warned to stop by numerous contributors I would view that as disruptive too and probably issue the same 48 hour block.--Isotope23 16:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and stand corrected. -- Ned Scott 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE

Hi ned, care to pop in at this discussion when you have time? Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Evaluating_consensus --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style for Fiction

Hey there. I reverted your change to WP:MOSF. Please see the note I put in with my change as to why. To give you some detail: the given explantion makes no sense when you consider that wikipedia is a living document... in fact... you're giving fodder for people to argument for the removal of the succession box prohibition completely.--Dr who1975 18:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I accept that using a succession box for in unvierse informatio may be taking it too far. But the idea that you shouldn;t use a succession box becuase "things may change" is silly because wikipedia is a living dicitonary, In any event, the things that may change are in universe perspective information and thus are already covered. Can we please rmeove the lines about authros rewriting or change their works. It really confuses the issue.--Dr who1975 02:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject banners and scopes

moved to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#The_scope

Digimon link deletion question

Patamon's World

Twice this particular site keeps getting deleted from External Links. Any reason? I've viewed it quite a bit, and it doesn't seem like it's spam or pornographic. Whatever the reason, you never include it in the edit summary. 71.115.194.238 05:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just a run-of-the-mill Digimon fansite with nothing more to add than what's already linked. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has some full episode transcripts, something I don't recall seeing on the other sites. Would it help if I were to include that in the links section? 71.115.194.238 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WPLISTS

why is tagging for a wikiproject bad?. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're tagging every article that is a list.. that's insane. Please please PLEASE put this on hold until we have some discussion on it. -- Ned Scott 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

PS your note on the talkpage killed the bot. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the point... -- Ned Scott 01:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok

As I said, whatevah, it's not important, the point remains the same.--T-man, the wise 02:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm just leaving you notice for those images as required by WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well thanks a lot, then. I created this Template:BTAS screenshot to make the process of adding the copyright info. If some data is missing it can be added directly to the template page. I did about 1/3 of the images, but I won't be finishing the rest. These images also serve the individual episode articles, but the stupid orphanbot just blocked them from appearing, so somebody will have to take the work of unblocking them again.--T-man, the wise 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

VS

Hi Ned. Peregrine/my edits are perfectly legit, this concerns Wikipedia as a whole (and articles with episode articles) and so notification is perfectly fine. Matthew 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both of you about this kind of disruptive behavior before. Giving notice is one thing, what he is doing is vote stacking and distorting the situation. -- Ned Scott 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Laudable - His/mine actions are perfectly fine, if anything they're countering AN/I stacking. Matthew 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I just noticed you used "vs" as the section header for your note. You just don't get it, Matthew. You treat it like a war, where you go and blindly defend any crap article. I have no respect for you, and you are constantly disrupting things because you fail to understand the actual issue. You waste my time and the time of others. -- Ned Scott 19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I must apologies for part of my message. Despite how frustrated Matthew can make me, saying I have lost all respect for him is incorrect. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Vote stacking"

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Saying what someone is doing as "vote stacking" is not a personal attack, and I would not be blocked for making such a statement. -- Ned Scott 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are canvasing with a big flashy box. It is over and beyond what Matthew and Peregrinefisher have done which just disrupts wikipedia further. Cburnett 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Except my message isn't pro or con/ keep or delete/ biased for the AfD. What they were doing was wrong, and it needed to be noted, in a big ass flashy box. Right then and there shout "WHOA! This AFD will not effect every possible episode article!" before people get all worked up (as futile as the effort is, since people always seem to get worked up about it). It's not alright to just let that kind of stuff slide. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And I would qualify your "big ass flashy box" underneath that which should not slide. Your actions are no better than their actions so you really need to get off your moral high horse. You could have accomplished what you wanted to without instilling animosity. Cburnett 13:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have used the warning box template, but only to not have been as harsh, so don't give me this "moral high horse" crap. -- Ned Scott 13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Aaah, who the hack am I kidding. You're right, and I was just pissed off at the time. I could have done what I did in a lot better way. -- Ned Scott 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I appreciate your honesty. Cburnett 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's not a personal attack, it's an egregious (if that's the word) violation of WP:AGF. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 01:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Will, it's not a violation of AGF either. It shocked you, is what it did. You didn't expect one Wikipedian to behave that way to another, and that's all. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Matthew is saying something like "hey, this AfD might create precedent. Hop by it.", slightly implying that he wants it kept. You're just accusing them of vote stacking. What if they were just alerting people to an AfD? Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 13:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, even if it wasn't personal attacking, it's violating POINT and smells a bit like STALKing. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you done? Because you don't know what you're talking about and now you're just wasting my time. -- Ned Scott 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Oh, I'm not upset about it at all, it's just that it's inconsistent. Regardless of what WP:TV or WP:ANIME does, no other WP:VG subproject replaces the banner. WP:ZELDA even includes as part of their template both the parent WP:NINTENDO and grandparent WP:VG templates. I see that you've reverted me, so I'm just going to go ahead and start a talk section on the WP:VG talk page about it, to see what everyone else thinks, if you want to join in. I really don't care too much either way. --PresN 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Video blog

Hey, I noticed you contributed to the podcasting article a while ago. The video blog article has been recently edited and I was wondering if you could take a look at it. Cut some stuff out or add some in or make comments? Thanks. Pdelongchamp 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I noticed that you usually edit the Cardcaptor Sakura related articles and was wondering if you could help me out on something: do you know what characters in the series (besides Cerebus) can fly so I can add them to Category:Anime and manga characters who can fly? Thanks. ~I'm anonymous

Are you available to answer the above question? That category still needs a bit more expansion. ~I'm anonymous

Request for Arbitration

I've made a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for policy change certification authorizing use of the ISA. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)