Revision as of 09:03, 28 October 2006 editElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,958 edits Civility concerns← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:35, 28 October 2006 edit undoNed Scott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,898 edits →CivilityNext edit → | ||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
==Civility== | ==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 ]? --] 09:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | 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 ]? --] 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.. ) -- ] 19:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:35, 28 October 2006
Archives |
---|
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/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/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_over_too_many_fair_use_images_on_one_page
I'm sorry
http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
Lost: Featured article
The Lost WikiProject Award | ||
Congratulations on Lost (TV series) making it to main page featured article. Your hard work on the Lost WikiProject is appreciated! --Elonka 00:13, 3 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Television episodes as well as WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Television episodes so i am unsure still wy to delete them? Trying to learn about Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:09, 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)
- And it's not a vote.. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 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. Naufana : 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: Misplaced Pages:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals#Also. 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 Misplaced Pages. -- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. >Radiant< 10:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:DDV
Feel free to comment on the page at Misplaced Pages 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. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
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 GriswoldSamurai 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#Request_for_proposals_on_Threshold_of_High_Resolution--Fahrenheit451 03:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
SPA
You may want to read Misplaced Pages: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. --Coredesat 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. --Coredesat 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)
- 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. --Coredesat 05:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Lost episode guidelines
Regarding your recent attempted change to Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's deletion policy. Please place a vote at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)