User talk:Ned Scott/archive8

; 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

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ned Scott. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

Re: List of Air episodes

All of the screenshots from all of the episode lists on the entirety of Wikipedia just became useless. Do you not think that we can keep at least one image of the logo per episode list? I mean, it's standard to place an image in the top right of an article anyway.--十八 00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to show the logo on the list page when it's on the main article, but I won't revert you if you want to add it back in. -- Ned Scott 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I guess you're right.--十八 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still pretty bummed about it, even if I do support the image removal. Oh well. -- Ned Scott 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, after all that work that I've been doing on episode lists for the past year since the template's been in use; can't be helped though, which is why I'm helping in the removal of the image fields in the episode lists.--十八 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Table of Contents

Didn't know where else to go to, and you seemed like someone that would be able to help. I've noticed that at pages that have long TOC's, the subsections of some of the later sections aren't tabbed in the TOC so they appear all the way to the left. I've seen this at Strawberry Panic! and WP:Anime. Could you help me figure out why it is doing this all of a sudden?--十八 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Shows that way on my computer too.. I'm looking now to see if maybe it's been reported as a bug already. -- Ned Scott 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kamisama_Kazoku_ep01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kamisama_Kazoku_ep01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kamisama_Kazoku_ep02.jpg

I have tagged Image:Kamisama_Kazoku_ep02.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigDT 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kamisama_Kazoku_ep03.jpg

I have tagged Image:Kamisama_Kazoku_ep03.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigDT 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Chris Griswold

Regarding your reversion of my comments on Chris Griswold's page, it's interesting how you have no problem reverting it on his page, yet on the page of the admin where I posted the initial reply, you did nothing.

In light of Chris Griswold's recent exposure as an abusive admin who used sock puppets to bully practically any comedy related article on Wikipedia, and your involvement with the minor battle I had with him a few months back what exactly is your connection with him? And for that matter, are you him?

Sorry to sound 'paranoid' but given how you were able to magically appear just at the moments Chris Griswold needed you for backup and in light of this recent revelation about him, it's not an unreasonable assumption. —SpyMagician 05:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"yet on the page of the admin where I posted the initial reply, you did nothing." I do not have that page on my watch list.

I only know him via Wikipedia, and I am not him.

Yes, it's the "magic" of a watch list, which is why I appeared right as you made a change to that page.

If I were him wouldn't you think that would have showed up in the checkuser case? Have you seen my edit contribs and editing patterns? Forgive me, but I like the guy, and I felt like sticking up for him. He's not perfect, but over-all I still respect him. I'm not saying what he did was right, but I am saying you don't get to rant and rave at him just because he made a mistake. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but saying what he did was a 'mistake' is a vast understatement. He has abused DOZENS—if not hundreds—of comedians and comedy group pages by making edits as Truth in Comedy and then using his admin account Chris Griswold to back up his deceptive behavior. I don't understand the concept of Wiki Civility if I am calling him out for what he is and what he has done; be a liar and abuser of others. Which is the worse personal attack, calling him out for what he is... Or the behavior he conciously engaged in and cowardly avoids taking blame for now. As I said on another editor's page, I am not for kicking someone when they are down, but what he did—and how he went about doing it—is beyond any normal level of 'mistake'. He knows exactly what he did. And in my case, he engaged in an edit battle with his sock puppet. And you know why I accused you of the same thing? You were the ONLY other editor—outside of his sock puppets—to blindly defend him and not even show one ounce of regards towards the other side. —SpyMagician 05:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He supported one account with another, which was wrong, but that alone doesn't mean he was wrong with the initial actions. I believe he created the multiple accounts originally with good intentions, and to be well within our policy about it, but gave into temptation on a few situations. So it is wrong to say that everything he did, regardless of which account, was wrong or cowardly. He knows he made the error, and he vows to correct it. No good would come from me getting mad at him too. I have my reasons to still respect him after this, and reasons to believe him when he says he will correct the situation. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your assuming good faith in what he did is admirable. But in light of the violations of good faith he engaged in, it's a perversion of that concept. I don't see how his constant edits claiming 'clarity' show any remorse or acts of good will. The reality is he abused the power he had and deceived others. While you defend him, dozens of others who have contributed to the comedy/improv articles have been abused by him. And I will stand by them without fault. —SpyMagician 06:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He abused his situation to push for something that likely should have happened anyways. It's still wrong, yes, but considering you disagree with him on the content issues as well, of course you feel this way. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So the end justifies the means? So ultimately if those edits/deletions were valid, then they could have been made as part of a more cooperative method. Such as starting talk/discussion. Regardless, if you believe that I am basing this solely on my opinion of his edits, then you're wrong. Ultimately if that were just the case I would have returned to Wikipedia begrudgingly admitting that the "Wiki consensus" deemed that the articles he touched with both accounts had to meet their fate beause... More than one person agreed that way... But the reality is there was never more than one person. There was only one person. Which tells me that Chris Griswold was actually quite insecure in his opinion of those edits and would rather create a false sense of consensus among users than allow *GASP* real people to debate and discuss. That's my issue. And if you look at his editing history you see TONS of users making efforts to clean/wikify articles, but that didn't stop Chris Griswold/Truth in Comedy from pushing forward to edit/destroy articles based on his—and now it has been proven—only his opinion. If you agreed with his edits, you could have shown up to support him. Right now the evidence against him—and his style/behavior—is overwhelming. And personally, every time I have ever heard anyone defend someone by saying "He's not a bad person...", that person in question has been a jerk. No different before. Definitely no different now. —SpyMagician 06:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:V, "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." He is backed by policy to remove unsourced content. By no means does this make what he did with sockpuppets OK, and he should have gone about that differently. You are confusing the two issues. He was wrong to back himself up with sockpuppets, but he was right to remove unsourced content. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material need sourcing, not erasing. However, if the material was *unverifiable*, which is a completely different situation (but might be the case here), the info should be erased... Btw, I know that he is your friend, but there is no justification for an exception with sockpuppet tags... Imagine if friends of our proven corrupt authorities did the same for them! That'd be more corruption! Every sockpuppeteer deserves the exact same treatment. Just as soft, just as hard, no matter their popularity or friends--T-man, the wise 07:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

T-man, he is not my "friend", I do not know him outside of Wikipedia, and my defense of him is based on my own personal judgement of him. In no way is some kind of "alliance" or blind faith being used. The sock puppet tags are not a form of punishment, and you are currently using them in a needless way. You've recently come off a 6 month ban and I suggest you stop pushing such issues if you wish to say unbanned. Chris is an active user who can put whatever he wants on his userpage, regardless of what "sins" he has committed. It is not your place to put some scarlet letter on him. -- Ned Scott 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confusing any issue in any way. The end simply doesn't justify the means. And his 'means' of going about this was to set up sock puppets to create the illusion of a concensous. Plain an simple. Running to find the perfect 'Wiki-policy' to defend this behavior is a moot point. He hid his intentions, deceived other users and abused power to push forward policies that back him up. The line your quoting might be a 'guideline', but it is not law or gospel. Perhaps it isn't the obligation for an editor to provide sources, but in many cases AFTER users/editors provided sources, Chris Griswold and his sock puppet Truth in Comedy would find reasons to dismiss the claims. So someone tags an article, and editor provides backup in response and then a rogue/deceptive admin simply shoots down any attempt to source the piece? C'mon, get real. Lots of editors tag articles for sources and then respond positively when an editor fills in the gaps. The general way Chris Griswold and his sock puppet Truth in Comedy behaved was to tag an article and then violently fight off any attempts to improve the article with sources and engage in destructive battles with other editors. Basically making it hard for ANYONE else to contribute positively to any of the articles he tagged. Now what Wiki policy backs up that level of destructive non-cooperation? —SpyMagician 07:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SpyMagician, stop being dense. The ends do not justify the means, and in no way am I excusing what he did with sockpuppets. However, the picture you are painting is simply inaccurate, and to put it in finer words, full of bullshit. I am not interested in your pointless rants. I have already told you that I have simply chosen not to be vocal about the situation because Chris has vowed to better himself and correct the situation. You seem to think that if I'm not yelling at him and making him feel like shit, then I must be supporting the sockpuppet actions. This is simply not so. -- Ned Scott 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV, Ned Scott. or does that not Wiki-apply to you? What you deem as 'bullshit' is actually a valid concern I—and others—had. But at least you've admitted that Wiki-nepotism is the root of your defense; no less no more. I'm over it and consider this my last post on the topic to you. Wiki-stalk me if you wish to sate your need to destroy anyone who dares question you and your Wiki-friends. Good people do good things. Chris Griswold has not Wiki-done that. —SpyMagician 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it, no matter how painfully blunt I am with you about it. "But at least you've admitted that Wiki-nepotism is the root of your defense" What the fuck? I never said such a thing, and that is not the case. You're just pissed off that I'm pissed off at Chris, so you make the assumption that I am defending everything he did. You are being disruptive at this point, because you want to see him punished. We don't do that on Wikipedia, even if it were you. Did you even read that last message I wrote? No, seriously, what the fuck is your problem? In plain English I have explained myself, and yet you still come to completely false conclusions. -- Ned Scott 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I do get it. And as said before, I'm over it and consider this my last post on the topic to you. Get over it and grow up yourself. —SpyMagician 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought your other message was the last one... -- Ned Scott 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware Spymagician started a thread on WP:ANI on this topic. >Radiant< 11:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Southern US Wikiproject

Why have you removed all the templates and blanked the template, without the slightest discussion? How did the proposal suddenly, magically become an "inactive project", without consulting any of the interested parties? Chris 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at how we have WikiProjects not only for each state, but a US WikiProject, a US State WikiProject, and a regional US WikiProject, as well as a Southern notice board, there is no point to such a WikiProject. It was already noted on the WP proposal page that the project was a bad idea because it would overlap with many other projects. This is a categorization instead of work distribution. This caused several talk pages to be even more bloated with a banner of yet another ineffective project. It is not ok to just start WikiProjects and tag tons of articles when it's already pointed out that this can and should be done with existing projects. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now nominated the project for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern United States. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Noting" something, by a single person (you), does not make it gospel that it should or should not be done, more people weighed in with interest than your dissenting (and not overriding) voice. For you to blank the templates the same day you make the proposal is extreme bad faith on your part, and unwikilike. Without time to let your nomination for deletion to be discussed, _that_ is what is not okay. You overstepped on this one. Wikipedia is not an editor of one. Chris 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on the MfD page, I had removed the banner before considering the MfD. I'm sorry this came off as so harsh, that was not my intention. The number of poorly planned WikiProjects is increasing at an alarming rate, which is the only reason I acted so boldly. Please consider this projects organization under one of the many existing US WikiProjects, as your work, as well as the work of others, would be far more efficient and effective that way. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode list

As far as I'm aware I haven't changed the appearance. Please can you be more specific and provide some links? Thanks, ed g2s • talk 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. ed g2s • talk 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Suite Life episodes

Please tell me, why you are redirecting the episodes to the list? This is the same thing Mel Etis did. He then took it to afd where he could not achieve consensus to do so. Please tell me why you are doing so with out consensus and after the AfD already failed? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Because a single AfD does not override things like WP:EPISODE. Even if it did, no consensus means also means there isn't a consensus to keep said articles as full articles. The only consensus left is the one with our policies and guidelines, which say to redirect. If you have a problem with it then try to change the guidelines and policy. -- Ned Scott 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going there again. I don't have the patience to sit through another one of those debates. The last one made me wanna hit myself for getting involved in in the first place. The only 2 that I'll argue notability for is The Suite Life Goes Hollywood and That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana. Other than those 2 it is not worth starting another war. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you may want to semi-protect List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes since people keep re-adding all the links. It's rather annoying to keep reverting all the time. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS images

Please read Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Digg_screenshot_note and other discussion on the talk page. Also another admin also tagged the image for speedy deletion as well and there is currently a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#AACS_encryption_key_controversy that has been filed. I'm not sure if you have kept up on discussion but there has been a lot of input by other members. MrMacMan^Talk 06:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Seems a bit stupid that anyone would think the image is allowed considering the text is being excluded. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there is also ongoing talk about that as well. If you really want to digg deep there are a lot of comments on the issue spread many places, User_talk:Thebainer&diff=129311067&oldid=129269357, etc. MrMacMan^Talk 06:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the AACS_encryption_key_controversy page. Current consensus supports keeping the image, and indeed the consensus is to add the text within the next few days as well. It might be a good idea to review the ongoing request for arbitration and the AACS talk page, and discuss it there if you believe the image or text should be removed. Konekoniku 07:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you might want to actually learn what vandalism is before you accuse someone of doing it. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will say this: I believe you are doing what you think is in the best interests of wikipedia. I respect that opinion. However, your opinion does not outweigh the opinion of the prevailing consensus on this issue – a consensus which includes the opinions of several administrators on Wikipedia in addition to other long-time contributors. Please assume good faith that we are also doing what we believe is in Wikipedia's best interests, and we have discussed this matter at extensive length. Please feel free to join the discussion on the AACS_encryption_key_controversy talk page as well. The one thing I will ask is that you refrain from further unilateral reverts, at least until ArbCom has reviewed the ongoing case. Konekoniku 07:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As has already been said, please do not make any more removals to the article without engaging in a discussion and reaching consensus on the talk page first. Thanks. --Rodzilla (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

TV series episode

Personaly I don't see much point in having a huge collection of articles on each individual episode of a TV series. However I was hoping you might spare a little time to explain your position, as it could be interesting. I understand why you believe that there is no use for articles on each detail, as I feel the same. However I was wondering, what harm these articles do in your eyes. Also you must understand why some users will be upset when such a large contribution of theirs is deleted in less than 20 seconds. Wouldn't it be better to let these articles be, as many new and unregistered users contribute to these articles. In my opinion, the main contributions from unregistered users apart from small corrections, and vandalism removal, seem to be articles on TV series, and characters from these series. Would it not be better to leave their contributions, in the hope that they will contribute further? Again I aggree that many of these articles serve no purpose and are not encyclopedic but you are causing a huge amount of good faith contributions to be lost, especialy in the eyes of occasional editors who have not contributed a large mass of text. I feel that new users should be encouraged to contribute more. The scope of wikipedia is allready very different from that of a paper encyclopedia, so maybe these articles are a necessary evolution, as it is becoming increasingly hard for people without specialist knowledge to add to wikipedia. Personaly I have had a University education, but there really is not much I can add here now, and maybe that explains why there are more and more articles about minute details in TV series, video games, films and music. Also I know you have seen that many people are actualy in favour of keeping these articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man), would it not be better to leave these pages in place if there is no concensus? It just seems ashame to destroy so much genuin hard work, and you must understand why some of them got annoyed (allthough that was no reason for them to be uncivil as some were). Personaly I think pages shouldn't be deleted if the result was no consensus on the AFD page. --Jackaranga 08:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone worked hard at something doesn't mean we should keep it. It's all explained on WP:EPISODE. An AFD that closes as no consensus means there also is no consensus to keep as much as delete. Redirecting, and defaulting to the consensus of our guidelines and policy, is what should be done. -- Ned Scott 08:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that No consensus in AfD defaults to keep. See e.g. here or here. AvB ÷ talk 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Only in a technical sense does it default to keep. The document doesn't get deleted, but that doesn't stop redirects/merges. If it was keep then there would be a consensus to keep the articles as they were and not redirect. So there is a difference. -- Ned Scott 21:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the links and the policies. This also applies to redirects and merges. It is not just a technical thing; it is how AfDs go. They can end in e.g. keep, redirect, merge, delete. This group AfD ended in keep and individual editors cannot singlehandedly change that result to merge or redirect. For that you need to reach a new consensus. AvB ÷ talk 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The AFD ended "no consensus" not "keep". --Minderbinder 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the AfD outcome leaves no room for Ned's wholesale redirect (de facto deleting the articles). Obviously the closing admin kept the articles as is the default after "no consensus". The closing note also confirms my point: "possibility of submitting individual articles to future AfDs in order to establish its/their notability and/or verifiability on a case-by-case basis remains open". "No consensus" is also a consensus: to do nothing, based on the policy and common sense arguments brought forward, including WP:EPISODE. AvB ÷ talk 09:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PS Just highlighting the principle that "no consensus" defaults to "keep" - otherwise the entire discussion at WT:BLP and on the mailing list would be unnecessary and anyone can apply his/her personal interpretation of any rule and delete/redirect/merge/move BLPs after an AfD that has ended in "no consensus". AvB ÷ talk 10:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The AfD outcome doesn't support my redirects at all, nor does it oppose it. It's null. Your interpretation of no consensus is incorrect. -- Ned Scott 10:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you see it that way. My main reason for joining this discussion was to inform Jackaranga and any bystanders of an almost universally supported (including by Minderbinder) alternative interpretation as evidenced in the links I gave above. AvB ÷ talk 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

300 Discussion Un-Archiving

Yeah, you might want to read the substance of those "recent" discussions before un-archivin g them. they were concluded. As well, youmight wish to to actually peruse the resultant page, wherein links to previously archived information is summarized and linked so that if a particular conversation - even one weeks old - is revisted, the editor can find it easily. Thanks. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you might want to read our guidelines on archiving talk pages. You're not supposed to compulsively archive talk pages, regardless if you think they're concluded or not. Many times it simply gives other editors a chance to see what has been recently been discussed. You might be pissed at me for the sound track image, but please don't keep that chip on your shoulder and start reverting me on such simple and non-controversial issues. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

first of all, the archiving is not a compulsive thing. It archives old or completed conversations. I don't give a rat's ass about the soundtrack image - that's Erik you have the debate with, and frankly - you are only going to get schooled by him. I am eminently more reasonable. Please don't mess with archives that have already been made. You might note the section called "What was archived", which clearly explains what was explained so that even month old sections can be revisited. That gives editors an even better chance to to see what was discussed. The sections that you selectively un-archive are conversations that have been rather concluded. Perhaps youmight find something else to amuse you. Please stop messing with the archive, okey-doke? You ight not be aware that 3RR also deals with the Discussion page, which means you have violated 3RR. Perhaps you might want to take a break and contemplate how your editing is coming across. I strongly urge you to give that a whirl. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see why this is such a big deal to you. Generally speaking the community avoids archiving discussion that is only a few days old, and for many reasons. Even if the discussion is "complete" it shows the recent activity on the talk page, and we don't always know when something really is complete. Not everyone checks Wikipedia every day. You do not own the talk page, and you alone do not get to decide what does or does not get archived.

I'm not sure why you think I violated the 3RR rule. At the time of your message to me I had only unachieved twice.

Saying things like "okey-doke", "you are only going to get schooled by him" and "Perhaps youmight find something else to amuse you" shows your maturity level pretty clearly. You're basically throwing a fit over this, and I don't understand why. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, why would I be upset by all this...well, it might have a little something to do with you disrupting the archive of conversations that were concluded. Or maybe it concerned how your first first trip to the article was to undo a housekeeping measure? When you undid my archive, you only cluttered up the page - repeatedly - with stale conversations that had concluded days earlier. Perhaps if you had read them, you might have noticed that. Or, you might have noticed how everything that was archived was summarized and wikilinked for easy access - even to a new visitor to the page, as it was the first section on the page. You might have noticed how the previous three or four archives were all set up precisely the same way. According to WP:ARCHIVE, I was archiving all inactive conversations. The latest conversation was the one in which an admin thought it clever to remove an image fromt he article, which he did - allowing for no further conversation on the topic.

Perhaps that clarifies why I was a bit upset over your random behavior. You undid an archiving over your personal preference as to what and when an archive should take place. Call me crazy, but I tend to get a bit concerned when a new editor comes to the page and starts undoing the actions of others without discussing it with the people editing more than a bit there. Perhaps that bit of politeness was something you missed on the top of the page, or whatever. I think this last is what really bothered me; you just came in, made an arbitrary decision and undid the good faith edit of anothe, and didn't bother explaining why.

I certainly hope that explains matters more clearly to you. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Saw in the discussion of the Digg screenshot that you failed to assume good faith. Please do not forget this is a principle of wikipedia. Also, this is not a soapbox if you are pro-DRM, do not soapbox about it, particulary being uncivil. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, what the fuck? I'm not pro-DRM in any way. Talk about not assuming good faith, speak for yourself. -- Ned Scott 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That was uncalled for.--Cerejota 01:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You just accused me of soapboxing in favor of DRM.. how the hell did you expect me to react? I might have over-reacted with the Digg screen shot situation, but it was all in good faith, and it's more than reasonable to assume that some people want to keep it for the wrong reasons. One of the big problems in these kinds of situations is people over-react to over-reactions. If you want to make a situation better then you generally don't say things like "you failed to assume good faith". That in itself is a very rude way to go about things, and just makes people want to slap you.

We just got over a big chunk of vandalism because of that number, and it's not unreasonable for someone such as myself to have made such assumptions. I'm sorry if I offended you, I really am, but your comments really were irritating to me. I'll assume you didn't mean it to happen that way, and I know that in either case it does not excuse my behavior, but don't fuss about something that isn't a big deal. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I stress my "if" in the above sentence. Am cool, but "what the fuck" is not cool...--Cerejota 04:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Episode articles

I had to write those episode articles as you see them. Some jackass started putting deletion notices on all the images that applied to those episodes. Hopefully, I'll be able to expand some of them, or at least rely on other users to do so. But in the meantime, don't touch anything I've written, unless you intend to expand them yourself. ---- DanTD 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. We don't make episode articles just to save images, and if you are doing just that then I will be doing some redirecting or AfDing. -- Ned Scott 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Community

Please try and assume a bit more good faith about accusing other editors of being "meatpuppets". It's not helping the conversation there in any way.--Isotope23 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

AGF is about when you don't have good reason to think otherwise. Then it would just be "be ignorant to be nice". -- Ned Scott 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Assume good faith is anytime, anywhere, even when you're certain someone's edit is vandalism — which may actually turn out to be a good-faithed test. Accusations of meatpuppetry (using an account for the sole purpose of pushing a point of view, that it) should not be made unless you have serious evidence available at hand. The absence of which, in addition to misplacing the comment in a content dispute rather than a user conduct discussion, makes it unbearable and interrupts discussion. This clearly isn't your first warning, but I strongly advice you to begin adhering those guidelines. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ned, you gots to chill man. 99.9999% of the people in wikipedia are not out to get you. You might disagree, but you gots to chill. And if someone doesn't, that still doesn't give you license! Please look at the essays and policies and guidelines. SOme of them are funny but help clarify why it is a good idea to be nice...--Cerejota 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a very logical person, and I'm not paranoid, but I do know a meatpuppet when I see one. We consider it unacceptable behavior, so I don't have a problem with pointing that out to other users. Also, since it seems I am in a few disputes at the moment, I should make it clear that I've only called someone a meatpuppet on the Wikipedia community discussions, in a very specific situation where it was very clear what was going on. I am not liberal with the term and it is rare that I accuse someone as such. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Edits such as this aren't helping discussion, and continuing to do so will get you blocked from editing. Michaelas¹⁰ 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that message at all, and no admin is going to block me for that. Especially given that I've already said that I don't care anymore and took the article off my watchlist. You giving me this warning is completely inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Air episodes

I realize that there is a lot of tension when it comes to the Air articles, but if the Air episode articles are going to go back to blank pages, should the same thing happen to the Kanon episode articles? I'm slightly confused on your stance since you haven't does anything about the Kanon episode articles but you have already reverted all of the Air episode article back to redirects.--十八 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have the Kanon articles on my watch list, as I haven't seen the show yet. -- Ned Scott 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But if you had, or once you do, what will happen to them? In late June I'm going to finish off the episode summaries from the first anime, or at least that was my intention as I have already finished the summaries for the 2006 anime. And then what about the Kanon character articles I've worked on?--十八 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We waited a long time for the Air character articles to expand and meet WP:FICT (several months if I remember correctly). I don't see anything happening to the Kanon articles anytime soon. And realistically speaking... I don't have the energy to go after another set of articles. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Air episodes

We're not going over this again. We're using {{Japanese episode list}} and we're not having episode articles. -- Ned Scott 21:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And we've merged the character articles. Current consensus has been to do as such, and so far you're the only one who is pushing for individual articles. Feel free to bring it to the talk page. -- Ned Scott 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your word isn't absolute. I see no evidence of a consensus to remove article content. -- Cat ^chi? 22:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you'd love for me to not be involved in all this, CC, but I still very much am. Regardless of this discussion here, it's still a no go for episode articles or character articles. WP:PLOT, WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT, you know, the usual. Wikipedia-wide consensus trumps your preference. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please mass blank every such article on wikipedia starting from Jean-Luc Picard to every article on every Star Trek episode. No evidence of this "Wikipedia-wide consensus" exists or else why the heck are there articles about star trek episodes? Please do not fool yourself. -- Cat ^chi? 05:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Individual Star Trek characters are notable per WP:FICT. I'm not sure if it's true for every episode (definitely some are notable, per WP:EPISODE), and I've love to redirect many of them as you suggested, but I simply don't have the energy or the time to correct every single problem at once. I do not have to prove myself to you when you are ignoring that which is right in front of you (WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT). You are being unreasonable, blatantly ignoring the painfully obvious, simply because it does not agree with your ideas. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose at least a postponing of their creation. Two months is all I ask.--十八 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's called WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you that the way in which Air was dealt with by Cool Cat was wrong and he abandoned the project for a long time (11 months to be exact) but I still believe something can be salvaged from the operation. If you do not disagree with how I handled the Kanon 2006-2007 anime episode articles or the Kanon character articles, tell me, or else I believe I am going to do the same thing to Air this summer.--十八 04:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're expanding with only plot summary, then something is wrong. It's not the direction the articles should go in. If we have some real-world information, plus something that would indicate that individual characters or episodes are notable, then it would be different. I don't know about Kanon, but for Air this is simply not possible. We don't have the sources nor the notability. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, which is why I am split on the issue. I want to go with your decision since you are more inline with Wikiepedia policies, but I also want to go in Cool Cat's direction for the sake of bettering the Key works on Wikipedia, which if you haven't noticed, is one of my main reasons of being on Wikipedia right now. But we can't go against Wikipolicy, so I do agree with your decision.--十八 05:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of ways we can improve these articles, and there's a lot of paths we haven't explored. Sometimes we get an idea in our heads that there's only one way for an article to grow, but that might not always be true. These articles have great potential. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Great potential, but the amount of work that would have to be done seems stagering, and we already have seen CC abandon this project once; I don't want to see that happen again though.--十八 06:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's up to him. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRFA

Hi! I wanted to remind you about your active BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NedBot, that will probably end up expired in a week or so if you don't give us an update. If you no longer need the bot, you can put {{BotWithdrawn}} there and we will close it for you. Thanks! ST47Talk 00:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, I'm the one waiting for a response.. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Template_talk:Japanese_episode_list

Hi, you put up an editprotected request there. Did I understand it correctly that you want the template code replaced with that in your sandbox at the difflink you provided? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, please check if it works correctly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's broken, I must have messed up somewhere... -- Ned Scott 07:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to temporarily unprotect the template so you can tinker with it? Tell me when you're done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. I think it's just a colspan that didn't add up right. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's yours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I found it pretty quick. Thanks. I'm all done. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AN/3RR

Morning Ned, just a heads up somebody has listed you for a 3RR violation at WP:AN/3RR. Matthew 07:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I already commented on it. Thanks for the heads up, I think. -- Ned Scott 07:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Non-free content. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Michaelas¹⁰ 12:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Protecting our policy pages is absolutely fine. Perhaps request protection before it gets to that many edits. ed g2s • talk 13:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if that counts as an exception to the rule, especially if the other user(s) in question was/were adding the section in good faith. I see several established editors introducing that section claiming lengthy discussion, which makes it seem like it's not exactly defacing a policy page. Thus, from my neutral porch, reversing the 3RR ruling because of a belief that Ned was in correct in this edit war might not be acceptable under the exceptions to the three revert rule. — Deckill er 13:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I probably could have just waited for other editors to wake up later on in the morning and revert the change. While it wasn't vandalism, and the other editors were acting in good faith, playing with the policies like that is completely inappropriate. There is a lacking of consensus locally, as well as a conflict with our core goals and Foundation policy. It's not right to just let editors, good faith or not, lay waste to our policies like that. But like I said, I should have waited for someone else to revert, if only to save my own ass from such a ban. -- Ned Scott 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thank you for saying that. --thedemonhog talk contributions 05:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ISA

Hey, thanks for pointing out that the symbol has a unicode character assigned. I went ahead and applied your solution, I think it's a good move. --Gmaxwell 05:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The funny part is it was User:Remember the dot that found it. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Digimon images

Could you take a look at [1] and [2] to tell me if I am doing the right thing before I continue tagging? x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing for now. I try to use a screen shot or other type when I can, but for most of them it will probably be {{Non-free character}}. -- Ned Scott 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Spoiler MFD

Regardless, it's bad form to try to close a debate while people are still actively talking about it. A user expressed concern over a guideline and invoked WP:IAR to try to address it. I feel like User:Kim Bruning was going over the line by unilaterally closing a debate like that. I've put the debate into Wikitalk space since it has to go somewhere. Axem Titanium 03:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A deletion discussion format is not appropriate, even if it's a subpage of WP:SPOILER. Believe me, I went through this last year. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Insisting that it stay closed sounds a lot like silencing your enemies, eh, Mr. WP:COI? Axem Titanium 03:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd. It's painfully clear that we will be having a big ass discussion about this, it just won't be in an MFD format. Please don't be an ass, and remember to not assume I'm an ass. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

'Tis but a jest, though I'm pretty sure my statement that you have a conflict of interest in this matter is true. Besides, are Wikipedia guidelines immune to MFD? Why not just call it Miscellany for Historification (MFH) instead? Wouldn't that solve the problem? Axem Titanium 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've said to you before, regardless of the use of spoiler warnings, a spoiler guideline would still be needed. An MFD is inappropriate for many reasons, such as the time limit and the "one of the other" viewpoint people get in MFDs. And yeah, sorry if I'm interested in not trashing something I've worked on. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I put up a compromise proposal (well, it was the original compromise I started with... I seriously don't just make those things up :-P ) on the talk page. If all can agree, we can get back to our MFH ;-) --Kim Bruning 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heya! Did you miss the compromise proposal? [3] --Kim Bruning 03:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about what I want. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor about what I want. It is very hard to get a discussion moved out of MFD, so I tried de-fanging this time. :-) --Kim Bruning 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still pretty pissed that everyone just assumed the motives for wanting to move the discussion rather than actually considering the idea on it's own. The whole mess is an insult to everyone who was previously involved in the spoiler discussions, as the MFD pretty much suppresses everything we had to say (and that's both pro and anti). -- Ned Scott 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the kind of sentiment that an MFD engenders. That's what makes it so hard to move them. :) --Kim Bruning 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, RFC attracts a certain kind of people, namely people who actually understand what RFC is. The problem with that is that compared to the number people who understand what a deletion debate is, very few know about RFC machinery and thus would be inclined to participate. If only that small fraction participates, the RFC turns into nothing but a glorified straw poll that can't create consensus because only those who bother to show up can give opinions. MFD opens the discussion up to a much larger demographic. Also, WP:CCC. Aside from that, there are always things like WP:DRV that allow a debate to reopen. Anyway, that's my spiel about why I think MFD is more appropriate in this case.

On a completely different note, I want to apologize for some of the stuff I said. I didn't assume good faith and I misattributed some of my frustration with Wikipedia's massive bureaucracy onto you. Axem Titanium 04:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

well.. I did make myself look a bit like a mad man... Damn, I get way to worked up on Wikipedia.. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Let's both try to stay WP:COOL. Axem Titanium 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My bold edit to Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

It's okay to revert my edit, but don't get upset about my having made it. I only did it so that we would have something concrete to discuss and work on. This is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. --Tony Sidaway 03:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ned, remember WP:3RR.. --Iamunknown 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert the same edit. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If it's reverts to the same page and is not pure vandalism or a BLP violation, 3RR applies. *** Crotalus *** 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to tell an admin to read WP:3RR. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility aside, Ned, you were edit warring and, whether or not you technically violated 3RR (I haven't checked), you were edit warring and that's simply not helpful nor accepted. --Iamunknown 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't find people strong-arming changes to be appropriate. It's misleading to others who will be joining the discussion, and rude to those who've been in the discussion in the past. You're damn right I'm not civil right now, I'm pissed off that my fellow Wikipedians just ignore all things previously discussed (and documented on the talk page) about the issue. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is always Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Of course, Tony was bold, you reverted, and then there should have been discussion..but suddenly edit warring got thrown into the pot and it didn't end up that way. oh well, the MfD is back up ^^; --Iamunknown 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No one's strong arming any changes. By insisting the the MFD stay closed, you agree to the consensus that was reached within it. On the other hand, stifling debate is a very bad thing. Yes, months of old debate matter, but that doesn't mean new debate is illegal either. Axem Titanium 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"'By insisting the the MFD stay closed, you agree to the consensus" Not at all, and I'm not sure how on earth you could come to such a conclusion. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you there. The MFD was what it was, just an indicator of a strong feeling against spoiler tags on Wikipedia. It didn't bind anybody, and I'm sorry that my bold edit was misinterpreted by you as a way of saying that things must be as I wrote them. Iamunknown correctly describes the intent: that I was bold and expected anyone who disagreed to revert and discuss. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, then. In no way did I want to exclude the MFD discussion, and I never even thought it was possible to exclude or suppress such discussion (given how strong the feelings were). I was only interested in the format the discussion took. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Taylor Allderdice

Hi, you made an edit to this article which was reverted recently. I'm currently involved in mediation on this article, and I would like to reinstate your edit, and I was wondering if you would care to comment at the mediation. Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23 Taylor Allderdice High School#Another point. Thanks Steve block Talk 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

87 Exit

Hi, I'm the 87-IP from the spoiler discussion. I was blocked again, this time for initiating a vandalism report against an admin who suppressed my comments on WP:ANI: [4], [5], [6] (Oh, and he changed the discussion too: [7])

This whole thing is either:

completely ok; good for me, I got finally rid of my Wikipedia addiction! Keep it up!
completely not ok; well, someone should do something. I certainly don't feel like heading back into the fight right now. --87.189.126.249

Now is the time for compromise, not fighting. I only wish I realized this last night. -- Ned Scott 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one --87.189.126.249

I don't really like that you're pretty much spamming so many talk pages like this, but to respond anyways: Tensions are high, blocks can be used to prevent edit wars, things happen. I don't know if a 24 hour block was needed, but Phil was doing his job as an admin. I've been blocked before when I've lost my head, and rightfully so. At first you're really pissed about it, but it's to stop things from getting out of hand. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait...

Just so I know I'm not getting the wrong impression, are you for or against fair use? I see the non-free Digimon images on your user page that seem like they would be fair use. Or at least not your property.

I hope you don't take my tone from the discussion on non-free content as confrontational, I'm just attempting to discuss my position on the subject. I like free, but I also like limited fair use when it is correctly applied and think it's awesome when an image's owner offers Wikipedia permission to use their material. Happy editing. Hewinsj 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think fair use has a place on Wikipedia, but I also think most of our restrictions are reasonable given the free-content goals of Wikipedia. That being said, I would like to see less restrictions in some areas, like some living people, such as those who are in hiding, prison, or who have physically changed and their original appearance is subject to an article, stuff like that. We should always encourage free-content over fair use content. Sometimes free-content realistically can't be found, but that's different the task being large, so most living people should likely wait for a free picture.

And I am looking to cut down on needless Digimon images. Hopefully only having one image per character (unless the additional image is showing a significant difference in appearance that is being discussed, or if the other image is showing another media [anime vs manga vs whatever], etc). Stuff like that. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and I think I agree with you on all points. I like the concept of free content, but I start having problems with the same restrictions you mention, that a current picture would be virtually impossible to get in some cases, or not reflect the person at the point in their career that is being discussed. That said I'll see if I can find a quality free picture of some people and if not I just won't post anything. My one question here based on what you said is, does it have to be free if it isn't fair use, or can it just be licensed for use on the Wikipedia (by a press agent or something)?

I've posted a few fair use images in my time (in my case Samurai Jack, but I can respect Digimon) and I try to keep it at a minimum of one per character (2 for Aku because there was commentary on his shape changing) and maybe 1-2 in the rest of the document to go along with commentary. I'd like to avoid fair use if possible and get permission to use the pictures, but I know in articles like this fair use is usually the best bet. One day I might email cartoon network, but I haven't worked up the nerve yet.

As an aside, I wanted to complement you on that spoiler rationale you posted. I've been lurking over there for a few days and I thought it was fair and reasonable for new material. There are reasonable ways of writing plot, and it should be possible to mark the paragraph with a major event or ending details, provided it doesn't get out of hand. Anyway, thanks for for being so upfront, and I'll probably see you around. Hewinsj 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler proposal

Nice one! I've hacked it a bit, feel free to hack back if it isn't what you were thinking of - David Gerard 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Poke for Paulo (Lost)

Hi, do you support the nomination yet at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulo (Lost)? Thanks, thedemonhog talk • edits • count 17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletes

That's good enough for now. We could leave them as redirects I suppose. -- Silva Storm

Spoiler

I did. But I still object to adding the function to the primary template, I think ti only encourages people to go OTT. Wikipedia is fire and foremost an encyclopaedia, not a fan site -- so contains spoilers. Adding functionality like this only causes people to use the template all over articles. Matthew 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I misread your comments then, as I thought you objected to the loss of functionality to {{spoiler-about}}. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories for redirects

Oops, sorry about that. I didn't keep in mind the Digimon WikiProject. Then, from this new understanding, all Digimon redirects are allowed to have their own categories? Can you confirm this with me, since you are a member? ~I'm anonymous

I'm not sure I understand the question. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service. Awarded by Addhoc 12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little slow to respond.. but thank you. -- Ned Scott 02:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Access Icon template

Hi - did you read my comments here before reverting? Please discuss on that page before making further reverts. Thank-you. – Tivedshambo (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Split Tag Response

I would, but having all the Digimon's info on one crowded page (not to mention a mega redirect for all of them) is ridiculous. I liked it when all the Digimon articles were separate. The only acceptions are any monsters used in any Tokusatsu-adaptations Rtkat3 (talk) 8:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X and the wheelchair symbol

Hey, I noticed that you added instructions for Mac OS X to Help:Displaying the international wheelchair symbol. Does that mean that Mac OS X definitely does not come with support for the character? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:LOGODIGIMON.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LOGODIGIMON.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -Panser Born- (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

restoring Image:Digimon Adventure large.jpg

I think that image was deleted a bit too fast, and that it was certainly appropriate to keep under fair use. The digimon logo alone hardly does a good job to represent this particular season. Will you help in preventing a speedy if I restore and provide it with a FUR? Circeus 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. I have no strong feelings one way or another. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jara Cimrman article

Hello, what exactly are your objections to Jára Cimrman? Me and other editors feel that distinction between fact and fiction is clear, so can you point in the article where it isn't? The fiction tag serves no purpose if people don't know is expected of them to improve. Samohyl Jan 05:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's explained in WP:WAF. That entire article is a mess, and I'd be shocked if you really didn't see what was wrong with it. -- Ned Scott 08:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Finally I am able to keep my userpage from being edited AND keep it a red link, too. Thank you, cascading protection!.

Delete per User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Finally I am able to keep my userpage from being edited AND keep it a red link, too. Thank you, cascading protection!. Why do you single out Cool Cat, then? Wikiewok 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about people without userpages.. you seem to have completely misunderstood the situation. -- Ned Scott 07:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And User:Doc glasgow

And User:Doc glasgow. Will you pursue him as well? Wikiewok 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A few things. One, Doc's link is blue. Two, Doc isn't using a new account. Three, why the hell are you posting this on my talk page? I'm not sure if you even understand the situation at all. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat

The continuing discussion of whether a redirect should exist at this page has become tiresome and disruptive. No useful purpose is served by spending more time on this issue and I would sincerely urge you to drop the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are wrong to delete the page. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still Cool Cat's mentor and I have some responsibilities for him. Could you explain the problem to me? --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the sig discussion on AN/I? -- Ned Scott 07:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're both being a little silly. I've asked Cool Cat to explain the background of this dispute, and you might like to add to the comments he has made on my talk page. I'm not interested in doing anything yet, but I am watching and may advise the arbitration committee if it gets out of hand. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, based on my interactions and viewings of this whole situation, I believe stated it exactly correct, you guys are benig quite silly. Please don't recreate a page after it was deleted many times, believe it or not, but that is a form of edit warring. However, ~~Cool~~ White Cat needs to see that what he is suggesting by the changing of his sig on a lot of pages, is not a very good idea. I suggest you back away and leave this for someone else to deal with, besides Cool Cat is getting very annoying about this. :) :-P Cbrown1023 talk 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you review...

I've just created a a reform proposal that I'd like you to take a look at, when you get a chance? I value your input. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc. spoiler templates

I've restored all of the spoiler templates that you turned into redirects and sent most of them to WP:TfD. For one, we need to reduce the various permutations, including redirects, for the spoiler template. I also think some discussion should take place before the templates are removed from Wikipedia and ensure we have a consensus. WP:TfD should be able to accomplish both of these goals at the same time. --Farix (Talk) 18:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes

Hello again; since you were the one that designed the template for the episode lists that is now in use on that page, I was wondering if there was a way to fix the formatting so that the air dates on the right would not get repositioned depending on how long the episode title is.--十八 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an IE thing. I'll see what I can do. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, Ned, what in my talking about reforming Wikipedia constitutes trolling?

I have not, to date, gotten a good answer. I have gotten a "yes, you are", without being given a straight answer. I feel GFDL has problems, and want to find some way of fixing those problems so that Wikipedia is easier to edit and comment upon. Unfortunately, those items happen to concern BJAODN, because the deletions of the BJAODN pages is what alerted me to the problem to begin with. PLEASE READ what I wrote THOROUGHLY rather than just considering it "trolling" after a 2 minute look. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We're going to get them back by using off-site copies and using them to make the necessary attributions. Don't worry. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)