Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:49, 28 July 2008

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

Proposal to change CSD G7

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

How much bigger?

Could you offer some examples of how larger images or alternative placement has been done? I've noticed that in another article I am working on, Sun Prairie, had a bunch of images down the right sight of the page, which tended to screw up how the page displayed (edit links, etc). Now that might be a browser issue (I use Safari), but I am interested in building FA articles, which would be read with all types of browsers and connection types (the latter referring to lad times). Input? - Hexhand (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned, short of reloading larger images, how do I make the gunpowder images larger in the article? - Hexhand (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

] the bold value controls the size. Is that what you were talking about? -- Ned Scott

Well, I tried that here, but there was no image size increase. - Hexhand (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it won't go any larger than the original. You'd have to upload a copy that was larger for it to work. -- Ned Scott 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:o

Ahoy, Ned! - The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 09:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahoy! -- Ned Scott 01:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

re:CindeRiley / Skate-Gate

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

Bonds Ngala

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

About your message =

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

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

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

In addition to this, he's edit-warred on the Bots group see here, has edit warred and used incivil edit summaries, even though he's been warned not to do so seen here....and the list goes on. YES I know what he does is difficult and he takes a load of shit from people for doing it. However, that doesn't exempt him from following known policy, like Ignore and deny or civil.

Bottom line here is, his hands are far from clean, and his latest attempt to keep his RFCU out of sight, in my opinion, is nothing more than gaming the system.

Thank you.
KoshVorlon -rm F.U.R -r 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Invitation to intervene

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

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

List of episode summary size

Since when is 100-200 words too small for a plot summary inside a list of episodes? We allow 400 words for an individual article, which has more detail because it has enough OOU information to support it. Smallville (season 1) uses the 100-200 word limit and is just fine. Most television shows, next to maybe Lost which has far too many storylines lines taking place in any one episode, do not need more than 200 words to summarize the basic element of the episode. We have to remember that they are in an LOE for a reason, because they could not support themselves in an individual article; they don't need the plot coverage of an individual article if they cannot provide the OOU coverage of an individual article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a middle ground kind of thing, for those who think there should be episode articles and those who don't. Plus, it should be based more on how long the episode runs, since we have shows that run in 15, 30, and 60 minute chunks (minus about a third for commercials and such). -- Ned Scott 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't even base movies on that. If I can summarize The Dark Knight (film) (a 2.5 hour long movie, with a hell of a lot going on) into a 700+ word plot summary, then a 42 min. long episode can be summarized into a 200 word plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't see the problem with giving the same advice for a 11 minute show and a 42 minute show? -- Ned Scott 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Re: DRV close of PIR

Then I shall go ahead and make the draft. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Heh, seeing my own comment just now, getting people like me to shut up about it wouldn't be such a bad idea :) My apologies. -- Ned Scott 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

re: Akimichi clan

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

Come on ned...

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

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

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

Apology accepted

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

Re:User:JohnLeoWalsh

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