Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:54, 13 October 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)

A very good point. I'm fine with the original wording, since I don't really feel strongly about it. -- Ned Scott 02:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: DRV close of PIR

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

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

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

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

re: Akimichi clan

I believe that to be an accurate statement of the debate results. There was objection to soft redirecting to Wikia as it is not a 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)

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

Apology accepted

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

My reply. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:User:JohnLeoWalsh

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

My reply. -- Ned Scott 02:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Newfound(land) popularity

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

Oh gawd Stacy's tits are so fucking huge, too. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka RfC certification

Thanks for certifying the Elonka RfC. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of correcting the mention of "blocked" in your statement to "banned" (Elonka never actually blocked me). -- ChrisO (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ned, you need to provide diffs to show where you've tried, and failed to solve the dispute previously. Although you've signed to certify it, this means nothing without any diffs. I'm sure they're about, but I'd appreciate it if you could find them. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Check these diffs. There does appear to have been an attempt at dialog. Jehochman 00:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman for finding them - they just needed to be documented on the page and now the RfC is certified by two users. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick tip: If you look at a user's contribution history and select, for instance, last 500 diffs, you can edit the URL to change the number 500 to 2500 and get the last 2500 diffs (or however many you need). At that point it is trivial to search the output for keywords such as "Elonka" and "ChrisO" to find the relevant conversations. Jehochman 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but my four year old, dirt covered laptop turns itself off if I try and view any more than 500 pages, so it's hard for me to do that! :-D I think it might be a good time to go and buy a new one!! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ned. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the diffs Jehochman added on your behalf all seem to point to your having an absolute objection to 0RR in principle. That does not seem to form any part of ChrisO's objections to Elonka's behavior: indeed, he appears to feel that the problem lies not with 0RR, but with unequal enforcement of it, not at all the point you're making. Did you have other diffs related to other problems surrounding the al-Dura article? If not, I wonder if you'd reconsider certifying. Thanks for your consideration. IronDuke 04:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read ChrisO's summary on the RfC for a second time just to make sure, but it does seem Chris has a clear objection to the 0RR approach, and it is the direct cause of most of the other issues. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you say where he does that? As I read the thread on the tak page of the RfC, it seems Chris specifically disavows your interpretation where he says "My "disdain" is not for the 0RR editing restriction but the way that it is being applied....". IronDuke 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris seems to have a different way to word it, but the meaning is the same. The reason I believe a 0RR restriction is a bad idea is because it will prevent the removal of edits that have no redeeming value, and possibly violate policy. "0RR should never be interpreted in such a way that it penalises an effort to resolve (for instance) indisputable factual errors added by another editor - there has to be some latitude, not just a rigid application of it." -- Ned Scott 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You say the dispute is about "X". Chris says "the dispute is not about X". Yet you're somehow talking about the same thing? "A different way to word it" is putting it mildly. Jayjg 05:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You want to tell me what the hell I meant? Stop acting like an idiot. It's pretty damn clear that the entire reason I objected to a 0RR was because it prevented correcting things that violated other policies and guidelines. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wilhelmina Will

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

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

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

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

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

redirects outside of the MediaWiki family of projects

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

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

I've done a couple of centralized discussions and would be willing to help you draft the discussion page if you are interested. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I hope you appreciate the spirit

Of this edit. It was not meant as a dig at you in any way - as I've said before, you keep me honest. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. You're one of the nicest guys on here, even in the face of heated criticism. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PROD on User pages

According to Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion it is ok to PROD user pages. Am I mistaken? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, no, you're not mistaken. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROD

Are you mad about the comment I made in the edit summary, or did I just do something else to piss you off? -- Ned Scott 06:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither, though now you had me re-reading my edit summary in order to determine how you came to that conclusion...

I was responding to: "...do you have any clue about how this template is supposed to be used?"

When I said: "...I think I do, though I seem to have missed your name in a discussion on the talk pa"

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

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

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

Thank you both for the retraction there and here.

Been there once or twice myself. So I know the feeling of: Did I really type that?

Anyway, thanks again. - jc37 07:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Would you be able to help out?

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

Personal attack

Which not only involves a slur against the disabled community but is a completely inappropriate personal attack on another editor here. Please remove this and reconsider your words. ~Eliz81 08:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to roll my eyes and remove this comment, but I'm honestly confused at your comments "a slur against the disabled community". I've worked with disabled children in the past, and have disabled family members, both physically and mentally, and I'm unclear as to how I've commented about anyone disabled. -- Ned Scott 08:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see spastic, which includes a lengthy section on 'spaz'. Thank you for at striking the baby comment. ~Eliz81 08:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just saw that link in your MfD comment. -- Ned Scott 09:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word from my vocabulary a few years ago. As the spastic article makes clear, it's far more well known as a derogatory term in the UK than the US. I honestly had no idea of its origins when I used to use it. Perhaps I should have assumed a little more good faith, but given the broader context of the comment it was in, hopefully you can understand how I assumed it was intentional. ~Eliz81 09:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, and I'm sorry if I myself was being a.. err.. acting irrationally :)

I think I need to stop looking at that MfD and focus on something else. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's ok. And despite our opposing views, that's one conclusion I totally agree with! Unwatchlisted :) ~Eliz81 09:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Eliz kinda hit the nail on the head there. Where I'm from, spa and spaz are seriously nasty terms of abuse. Here in the US, they're almost throwaway, it seems. Cultural difference, I guess ... - Alison 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

MFD move?

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

I would like to ask you and the other MfD participants the same thing: what gives? Unless the page is problematic, we generally don't bother deleting it completely. We have historical and rejected tags, as well as userifcation, for a reason. I also doubt that most of the MfD participants would have had any objection to userifciation. This really is a no brainer. -- Ned Scott 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's confusing to new users to see some page that never was finished and is inactive, and at least 7 other people thought so and voted to deleted (as oppose to userfy). MBisanz 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we have the historical/rejected tags. I'm an MfD regular, and in my experience it's pretty common for people to support deletion, but not consider userfication. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanabekobaton

This user has continued to make hundreds of edits a day without bothering to explain themselves when challenged, including page moves and redirects. All inexplicably deemed minor. A discussion has been opened here. DarkAudit (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried using babelfish to get his attention. The response was to undo my post. When I reverted that, he undid it again. That shows a clear unwillingness to discuss the matter. DarkAudit (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I should be the angry one here. In the very first sentence of my AN posting I asked for someone fluent in Japanese to step in and try to get the guy's attention. By very late in the evening, no one had bothered, so I tried Babelfish to do it myself. I got told I was doing it wrong by someone who apparently does understand Japanese, but would rather point out *my* failings in it's usage than actually help. He did it again after I used the message *he himself* suggested. No one else could be bothered, but the one making a good faith attempt shouldn't have tried? What good is that? DarkAudit (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Halo/Users Advice Bureau

Are you planning to resurrect the Users Advice Bureau project? If so I'd be happy to restore it your userspace. If you'd just like to keep a copy of it I'd be happy to send the latest version to your email. --Stormie (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, given that Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Users Advice Bureau was unanimous apart from yourself, if you don't have any plans to do anything with the page and just want it undeleted because you disagree with the decision, I'm going to have to ask you to take it to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. --Stormie (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"More than one warning"

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

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

Right to vanish

See Misplaced Pages:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F. There's nothing wrong with deleting everything they have unless there's an administrative reason to keep it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Username FyzixFighter

Have a look at the contributions history of username FyzixFighter. See how every so often he leaves his normal subjects to go to the centrifugal force page for the sole purpose of reverting David Tombe's edits. Read the discussion page at 'reactive centrifugal force'. Is FyzixFighter a wikistalker or what? And why was David Tombe blocked? 86.148.36.134 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is all about exactly, but I'm fine with giving an outside opinion. From what I've read so far, Fyzix isn't doing anything wrong, and David got blocked for edit warring over some unsourced information. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I think that if you check the details, you will see that the opposite is the case. The conflict with FyzixFighter on the centrifugal force page at the end of July involved FyzixFighter erasing fully sourced material. Also on the Mozart page David was using fully sourced material.

Please have a look at the actual edit which was the cause of David Tombe getting blocked for three months. It was a section that he inserted into the Mozart article regarding the nationality of Mozart. You will also see that Blehfu suggested that he should do this but then double crosed David Tombe after Acroterion blocked him.

It is amazing that so many of these editors on the Mozart page were so keen to have David Tombe permanently blocked for having raised these details about Mozart's nationality all of which are absolutely true and well documented.

As for FyzixFighter, note how under his own admission he even reverted one of David Tombe's edits without having even looked at it. This was a fully sourced edit making the point that the newcomer Fugal is now trying to make. Ie. that centrifugal force has a wider extent than merely just in connection with rotating frames of reference.

Then look at the discussion on the 'reactive centrifugal force page'. FyzixFighter admits that he disapproves of Wolfkeeper's decision to split the article but that he normally likes time to consider things before making a reversion. His attitude to Wolfkeeper is totally the oposite to his attitude to David Tombe and he only ever seems to appear when David Tombe has made an edit.

I think that David Tombe should be unblocked and allowed to return to the edit war on centrifugal force in order to back up Fugal. 86.148.36.134 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really seeing how there's much more to this situation. If you want me to look further into it, I'll consider it, but I'm a little unsure why you came to me for help. Don't get me wrong, I never mind the request for an outside opinion, but I'm just a bit puzzled. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please look into the edit that caused David Tombe to be blocked to see if the block was justified. You are one of two administrators who stood up against calls to have David Tombe blocked permanently. You might therefore be capable of seeing the hysteria that got him blocked unfairly to begin with. If you unblock him, I'm sure that the matter can be discussed in a reasonable fashion. 86.141.250.177 (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think you are referring to an ANI discussion I was involved in. After I get back from vacation I will look into this if I have time. But again, I'm not sure there's much more to this situation. -- Ned Scott 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Hey Ned, I noticed a couple of closures you had done at MfD didn't disclose your non-admin status. I'm a strong supporter of your right to close even contentious discussions (as long as they aren't deletes), but I consider the disclosure to be part of the tenuous deal we have at WT:DELPRO/WP:NAC (essentially that this issue is so contentious that no changes will be considered), so please make sure you use it even for procedural closes. Thanks, and keep up the good work. I don't always agree with you but I respect your standing on your principles regarding keeping userspace stuff.--Doug. 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I normally do, in both the mfd discussion and in edit summaries related to the close. I tried to look for some where I forgot to mention "non admin close", but it must have been a while ago.. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're right, I goofed. You placed the non-admin closing part really near the beginning on a couple of closes and then had a lot of text after it. I'm used to seeing it immediately before the signature. Sorry. Keep up the good work and keep me informed if you see any significant NAC issues as I'm not around as much lately as I wish and I might miss something.--Doug. 02:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

manga request

do you have a manga for digimon tamers?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boytamiya (talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your request. I don't believe a manga version of Digimon Tamers exists. There is a manga called Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01, but it is unrelated to the plot in Digimon Tamers. -- Ned Scott 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:External links and blanket reverting

In my edit summaries, I clearly explained the removal of each of those links. Your mass rollback of those edits, without comment, is very impolite and violates Misplaced Pages:External links. Please read that page to understand why those links are inappropriate: An external link added to an article should provide information specifically about that article's subject. Per Misplaced Pages:External links, one should avoid links to

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject.

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

Inclusion of such links into a template might be very desirable for the site's owner to maximise the SEO/page rank benefit, but please note that Misplaced Pages:External links explicitly discourages

Links mainly intended to promote a website

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

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

Mfd note

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tygew

Left a question there. Trying to understand your thinking. - jc37 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your appology :). In removing your comment, you caused my response to hit an edit-conflict, so here's the bulk of it for your perusal, in case you're interested:

"With regards to the edits in question, I don't think I was particularly clear, and that's my fault. Regardless of whether the original sanctions included or didn't include something, nothing should be changed whilst these discussions are ongoing - it's common sense. You may be right about there being no consensus to leave that in, but equally and just as importantly, there's absolutely no consensus to remove it, so just leave it intact until some form of consensus is obtained, m'kay?"

_TalkIslander 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right

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

Thank you

For this. It was never my intention to restrict anyone of current discussion. Synergy 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I'm the world's most dense idiot today. It's a good thing I'm going on vacation in a few hours. -- Ned Scott 10:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not. And have fun on vacation. Get some relaxation. Synergy 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__

Hi Ned,

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

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

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

I believe that is what I heard as well. Certain namespaces and areas (such as the main namespace and AFDs) are "hard wired" and can't be overridden. -- Ned Scott 07:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, anything defined as a ContentNamespace is excluded by the software. (On en.wiki, this is only the (Main) namespace. Other wikis may differ slightly.) In addition, certain sets of pages are excluded from search engines using a robots.txt file, specifically this one. Those (I think) are not override-able with __NOINDEX__ or __INDEX__, but that may be wrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

De-catting

Ned, why did you de-cat this indef blocked users talk page? The category is there so over time we can clear out pages of editors who will never edit again. MBisanz 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason, that user contacted me by e-mail because they felt their block wasn't right. It's pretty common for admins to clear out those pages without waiting even a month, so I'd rather be on the safe side while looking into their request (although, as I told the user, I doubt they will be unblocked). -- Ned Scott 07:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey. MBisanz 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gustav

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

Freecontentmeta

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

BC

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

LGRC's talk page

If you request a deletion review, I will support, just link me.— Dædαlus /_Improve 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, per the thread on GG's talk page.— Dædαlus /_Improve 05:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Difference?

Not sure what you mean by this edit summary. WP:SOCK#Circumventing policy is quite clear about block evasion as a form of abusive sockpuppetry. Anyway, I won't fight your edit since his block is no longer indefinite anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, it's one of those things covered in the sockpuppet page, but it's not the same as a sockpuppet, which people tend to associate with some form of deception. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what dictionary you're using but talking to your own sock is either deceptive or a sign of mental illness - I'm guessing the former in this case. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that diff. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's talk page

Don't know if you've noticed, but for some reason, Ian13 has split the past three days of page history off to an archive subpage. This means that e.g. our comments at the talk page are now effectively hidden as the talk page has been courtesy blanked and the edits are not in the main user talk history any longer. I asked for the reason at Ian13's talk page. Just a FYI. user:Everyme 08:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, appears to have happened on Sceptre's request. user:Everyme 13:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

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

Stop it, both of you

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

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

TfD nomination of Template:Old template

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

Usurp request regarding dewikinews

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

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

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

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

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

thanks!

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

Help in transwiki

My wiki already has all the needed templates moved in, and now what is to be done is the guidelines. I have read your transwiki article, but I still wonder: How many transwiki guidelines should I export to my wiki? I have currently moved the essential pages of WP:C, Misplaced Pages:Non-free media and WP:GFDL, but I wonder if there is a need to move more, or just have you mentioned, have a blanket statement of "Use Misplaced Pages guidelines unless specifically mentioned"... (Certainly I would overrule WP on Notability, some issues on Verifiability and have some additions on the MOS.)--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. We're doing much of this right now on Digimon Wiki, drafting guidelines as we need them and such. To start off it would be good to include stuff like basic editing help and how to revert vandalism, etc. One of the things I want to eventually do is compile a list of guidelines that would be good for most wikis. If I think of anything specific I'll let you know. -- Ned Scott 01:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wonder what help page is worth exporting.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, did I supercede too much with this?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

.hack characters

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

Thanks for your support

Ned, I'm just writing to thank you for supporting me on both occasions. The unblock request was declined. I think I've pretty well got the measure of the kind of people that are administrators in this outfit. David Tombe 81.152.111.182 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ned, once again, thanks alot for your help. User PeR gave a very good reply to the sockpuppetry allegation. It's such a pity that these admins won't focus on the root of the issue. The block evasion was done solely to communicate with a new editor who shared my interest in centrifugal force. I don't know who Fugal is, and so I had no other way of communicating with him. I used an old experimental username which had long been abandoned and which had never been involved in sockpuppet abuse. It was very frustrating to see somebody arguing alone and arguing the same points that I had been making, but that I had been blocked and that alot of the reason for me being blocked was because it was believed that those very views that were now being expressed by Fugal were fringe views. David Tombe 81.156.1.34 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tardis template

Hey, thanks for the null-edit to correct your edit summary. I appreciate it. As for the template, the rework is to bring it in line with similar links (such as the IMDB template). Basically, the "reverse-C" icon sticks out unnecessarily, and the duplicate link to the wiki isn't needed. (The IMDB template, again for example, has a link on IMDB, but it is to the Misplaced Pages article. I couldn't find a similar article about the TIF to link to, and we generally don't do "double-links" in the EL section.) Please let me know if you have any other questions about this. Thanks again. --Ckatz_spy 04:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was going to add a link to this discussion, but now I'm puzzled. Why, exactly, are you just reverting with a blunt "no"? --Ckatz_spy 05:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:TardisIndexFile, Template talk:FreeContentMeta, Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 30#Template:FreeContentMeta, and Misplaced Pages talk:Linking to other wikis. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Response?

Waiting for a response to my discussion page. I wish the site would get its staff emailing system together. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (Ragemanchoo)

I left you a message at User talk:Ragemanchoo. I see your ability to use Misplaced Pages's e-mail form has been blocked, so if you wish you can also contact me via ned (at) nedscott.com -- Ned Scott 05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use IPs to evade your block. I've blocked that IP now and would request you use your user talk page or the unblock mailing list to handle further unblock matters. MBisanz 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new templates on WT:CATSCAN#CatScan template for X-class, Y-importance topic articles

Hey Ned, I just started a thread over on WT:CATSCAN concerning the creation of two (or possibly three) templates for wikiprojects to use to simulate the functionality of the occasionally-proposed X-class, Y-importance topic articles categories, and I'd appreciate you giving a quick glance over my proposal, offering your own thoughts, and, perhaps, posting notices to other relevant locations pointing to the discussion. Thanks in advance! —Dinoguy1000 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What's a "date diff link"?

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

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

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

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

List of Digimon in Digimon World DS

I was wondering if there were any revisions to List of Digimon in Digimon World DS since December 2007 (other than AfD and really minor stuff). If so I was wondering if it could be temp undeleted so that I could export it, for use on Digimon Wiki. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, all the edits were minor/formatting changes. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion about TV episode redirects

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

Unblocked

Ned, I got unblocked thanks to Antandrus. I just want to thank you for your intervention. It was much appreciated. David Tombe (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad it worked out. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my talk page

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

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

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

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