![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
![]() Archives • ℹ | |
---|---|
1.
02/06 - 05/06 |
9.
05/07 - early 08/07 |
Notifying you directly because you took part in the preceding discussion. Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal to change CSD G7. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you offer some examples of how larger images or alternative placement has been done? I've noticed that in another article I am working on, Sun Prairie, had a bunch of images down the right sight of the page, which tended to screw up how the page displayed (edit links, etc). Now that might be a browser issue (I use Safari), but I am interested in building FA articles, which would be read with all types of browsers and connection types (the latter referring to lad times). Input? - Hexhand ( talk) 22:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahoy, Ned! - The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 09:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahahaha. Thanks for sticking up for CakeBot. The bot approval dudes seriously need to find their sense of humor. o.o - The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. It's been deleted. Best, -- PeaceNT ( talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No probs mate, even the admin who closed the AfD missed him bundled in there! Thanks for the heads-up anyways -- Jimbo [online] 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
First, yes, Betacommand and I did argue about an image I placed on my userspace. Yes,I got totally incivil about it, and yes, I got blocked for it. I admitt that freely. I also admitt that I deserved to be blocked. I also draw your attetion to the fact that this is the first post I've posted since the whole drama with Betacommand began.
Your "explanation", on my page, was pretty good, but not entirely accurate. Betacommand has three known accounts, Betacommand, Betacommandbot and Betacommand2. The account he was blocked for (for socking)
right here was none of the above, it was a totally different name. In particular, he went to the BOTS group and reverted Locker Cole, who he'd previously reverted under his name
as shown here. He got blocked for it and as an explanation stated that he was attempting to start over as a new user.
Starting over is fine, it's allowable, however, when one starts over, don't they normally also allow their old acoounts to vanish ala, right to vanish ? He didn't, he kept he previous three accounts opened. Wouldnt' that strike you as a bit odd, considering he wanted to start over ? Why not just invoke "right to vanish" and start over ?
In addition to this, he's edit-warred on the Bots group see here, has edit warred and used incivil edit summaries, even though he's been warned not to do so seen here....and the list goes on. YES I know what he does is difficult and he takes a load of shit from people for doing it. However, that doesn't exempt him from following known policy, like Ignore and deny or civil.
Bottom line here is, his hands are far from clean, and his latest attempt to keep his RFCU out of sight, in my opinion, is nothing more than gaming the system.
Thank you.
KoshVorlon
-rm F.U.R -r
16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a passing familiarity with Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you will appreciate the issues in an instant; but I wonder if determining the distinctions beween "correct" and "not-quite-correct" might become secondary to the ways in which ordinary Wikipedia policies are illuminated by the exchange of views here?
In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"-- Tenmei ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Since when is 100-200 words too small for a plot summary inside a list of episodes? We allow 400 words for an individual article, which has more detail because it has enough OOU information to support it. Smallville (season 1) uses the 100-200 word limit and is just fine. Most television shows, next to maybe Lost which has far too many storylines lines taking place in any one episode, do not need more than 200 words to summarize the basic element of the episode. We have to remember that they are in an LOE for a reason, because they could not support themselves in an individual article; they don't need the plot coverage of an individual article if they cannot provide the OOU coverage of an individual article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Then I shall go ahead and make the draft. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that to be an accurate statement of the debate results. There was objection to soft redirecting to Wikia as it is not a Wikipedia sister project. I'd note that Template:Softredirect specifically calls it out as for use with "different Wikimedia projects". Aervanath's summed it nicely with his statement of "if the content wasn't notable or verifiable to stay in Wikipedia, or any of its sister projects, then it's not notable or verifiable enough for us to redirect to". By the way, my statement was specific to this closure and was not meant globally (as not all cases are the same). Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre ( talk) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you REALLY have to resort to an F-bomb in your ANI comment? Really defeats your whole purpose. Refactor, please? SirFozzie ( talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Speaking about those. I saw one in edit summary. Don't get too discouraged. Someone needs to stick up for those who are unable to stick up for themselves. Ottava Rima ( talk) 06:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Was this apology directed at me? If so, I accept. I must confess I was rather taken aback by the harsh tone of your comment, and I'm glad to see it was a misunderstanding. -- SCZenz ( talk) 11:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the fuss was about. The page was clear patent nonsense. It's been some years that I have closed an AFD, so I guess I'm not 100% tuned to the goings on these days. Has the policy changed in anyways? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The popularity of my talk page seems to have increased in recent weeks. Odd as I was never the popular kid and even skipped out on the prom to go to a muffs concert. I don't suppose I'm on somekind of 'hey whats this crazy mofo doing? list' Its ok you can tell me, Haven't you heard? I'm one of the popular kids now. If you do I might even mention you to Stacy Sewell; I hear she thinks your cute. -- AdultSwim ( talk) 04:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for certifying the Elonka RfC. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of correcting the mention of "blocked" in your statement to "banned" (Elonka never actually blocked me). -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Something very strange is going on with the flap around this user. I saw that User:Ottava Rima might have been unfairly treated, and so I posted a consoling note on his Talk page, that didn't assume he had acted correctly but that expressed my suspicion that he'd run into a particular hazard that those of us with ADHD often run afoul of. [1] There was nothing in my post that attacked anyone, or that encouraged attacks. What, by the way, had User:Ottava Rima done? I don't know the extent of it, but it began when he asked User:Blechnic to revert or strike an uncivil comment made out User:Wilhelmina Will. And Blechnic denied that it was an attack, blah blah, it's a very old story, isn't it? And it ended up with OR blocked, WW under a DYK topic ban, none of it clearly based, as far as I've seen so far. As usual, the blocked or banned editors made some mistakes.
So User:S. Dean Jameson attacks OR on my Talk! [2]. The language wasn't that of extreme attack, though there was some suspicious hyperbole in it. Anyway, he "suggested" that I look "a bit deeper" into the matter. Sure, why not? So I did. Here is the thread to date. This investigation, as shallow as it has been so far -- and "shallow" investigations take hours -- showed me the likelihood that Wilhelmina Will had been mistreated. So, I posted a consoling note on her Talk page. She thanked me on my Talk, and we discussed a little -- at my instigation -- how she might be able to work toward her goals without disregarding the AN/I topic ban and the attendant risk of being blocked. From AN/I, you should know some of the details. I mentioned that others might nominate for her, and at the same time cautioned her about avoiding true proxying, though I didn't use that word. And, lo and behold, Blechnic appears on my Talk to threaten her with being blocked. "If User:Wilhelmina Will asks other users to promote her articles to DYK I will asked that she be blocked for a time. There is a policy on this, it's already been made up, if you're going to advise her please advise her as to this existing policy."
Blechnic is apparently a fairly new user, first edit, 21 March, 2008, with a serious misunderstanding of how the project works. His pursuit of Wilhelmina Will, on such thin grounds, I find highly offensive. I was worried about it before I found out that she was a sixteen-year-old girl, but that kind of frosted the cake, and me. Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but there is something about seeing someone that young being bullied, pretty much simply because of some harmless immaturity. (Such as lying -- making excuses for herself -- about the code she had written in an edit summary, to cover up what was low-level incivility. I'd call her "guileless" or "naive." Which can actually be good qualities, in a way.)
Blechnic had his user page deleted. Three times. Odd. Holy sh...!!! I just looked at Blechnic's block log. Can of worms. People who live in glass houses, etc.... This user was found to have been harassing others, but, from the log, was given a pass as a newbie. In May of this year.
We've worked together a little before, Ned. I tend to get involved when I see bullying going on, particularly relatively experienced editors wikilawyering newbies to death, instead of welcoming them and helping them. -- Abd ( talk) 01:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In several recent RfD discussions, you have advocated for the keeping of redirects (at least temporarily) which point outside of the MediaWiki family of projects. I replied in one of those discussions but, on reflection, thought I should drop you a message directly.
I think that the decision to endorse redirects (whether hard or soft) outside the family is a decision that really ought to be made in a more comprehensive forum than an individual RfD nomination. I would suggest either a Centralized discussion or Village pump proposal. Once we have a centralized decision, we can then bring that consensus back to the individual RfD discussions for specific decisions about whether and how to apply the central consensus.
I've done a couple of centralized discussions and would be willing to help you draft the discussion page if you are interested. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Of this edit. It was not meant as a dig at you in any way - as I've said before, you keep me honest. Cheers. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion it is ok to PROD user pages. Am I mistaken? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you mad about the comment I made in the edit summary, or did I just do something else to piss you off? -- Ned Scott 06:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Now at WT:PROD#Prodding user pages -- Ned Scott 06:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ned. User:Pah777 left a note on my talk page requesting assistance related to images and copyright. I looked into the situation only slightly (enough to see his/her discouraging talk page :\), but I'm busy lately (and will be out of town soon) ... anyways, do you think that, if Pah777 would still like assistance, you could help him/her out? I'd appreciate it. -- Iamunknown 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Which not only involves a slur against the disabled community but is a completely inappropriate personal attack on another editor here. Please remove this and reconsider your words. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 08:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ned, the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Users Advice Bureau was pretty clear. What gives? MBisanz talk 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This user has continued to make hundreds of edits a day without bothering to explain themselves when challenged, including page moves and redirects. All inexplicably deemed minor. A discussion has been opened here. DarkAudit ( talk) 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you planning to resurrect the Users Advice Bureau project? If so I'd be happy to restore it your userspace. If you'd just like to keep a copy of it I'd be happy to send the latest version to your email. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The warning to User talk:212.66.132.170 was non-specific as to which of the edits you were warning him on and he did more than one edit of that type of vandalism. For that reason, i left a warning covering the last edit he did of that type. Quaeler ( talk) 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F. There's nothing wrong with deleting everything they have unless there's an administrative reason to keep it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page
Hey Ned, I noticed a couple of closures you had done at MfD didn't disclose your non-admin status. I'm a strong supporter of your right to close even contentious discussions (as long as they aren't deletes), but I consider the disclosure to be part of the tenuous deal we have at WT:DELPRO/ WP:NAC (essentially that this issue is so contentious that no changes will be considered), so please make sure you use it even for procedural closes. Thanks, and keep up the good work. I don't always agree with you but I respect your standing on your principles regarding keeping userspace stuff.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
do you have a manga for digimon tamers?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boytamiya ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In my edit summaries, I clearly explained the removal of each of those links. Your mass rollback of those edits, without comment, is very impolite and violates Wikipedia:External links. Please read that page to understand why those links are inappropriate: An external link added to an article should provide information specifically about that article's subject. Per Wikipedia:External links, one should avoid links to
This is why, for example, we do not link to http://www.imdb.com/ in every movie article, only the subpage of imdb.com about that movie. Cf. Template:Imdb name.
Inclusion of such links into a template might be very desirable for the site's owner to maximise the SEO/page rank benefit, but please note that Wikipedia:External links explicitly discourages
Please do not insert such links again, and do not make blanket reverts without addressing the arguments that other editors gave for their edits.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Left a question there. Trying to understand your thinking. - jc37 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your appology :). In removing your comment, you caused my response to hit an edit-conflict, so here's the bulk of it for your perusal, in case you're interested:
Talk Islander 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
About ArbCom's power (your AN comments). Not that being right is worth much. — Giggy 08:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For this. It was never my intention to restrict anyone of current discussion. Syn ergy 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned,
I'm interested in your comment about using __NOINDEX__, presumably to stop webcrawlers and search engines from indexing pages. Where can I read more about this? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ned, why did you de-cat [3] this indef blocked users talk page? The category is there so over time we can clear out pages of editors who will never edit again. MBisanz talk 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, there's been enough discussion/revert wars about the red box today... apparently people are happy about that box being red, so I'd wait to see how that discussion ends up. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I know. The template is clearly doomed on this one, so I'm not bothering. It's clear the project has no qualms about simply telling a large chunk of its readership to go fuck itself. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 04:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned. If the page about Beta's restrictions is not on your watchlist, I've left a comment for you there [4] which I believe is important if we hope to ever stop all this nonsense. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If you request a deletion review, I will support, just link me.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by this edit summary. WP:SOCK#Circumventing policy is quite clear about block evasion as a form of abusive sockpuppetry. Anyway, I won't fight your edit since his block is no longer indefinite anyway. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you've noticed, but for some reason, Ian13 has split the past three days of page history off to an archive subpage. This means that e.g. our comments at the talk page are now effectively hidden as the talk page has been courtesy blanked and the edits are not in the main user talk history any longer. I asked for the reason at Ian13's talk page. Just a FYI. user: Everyme 08:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ned Scott...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Suggest you talk to Aunt E before you do anything else. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Template:Old template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rumping ( talk) 05:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned, i've seen your usurp request for "Ned Scott"@dewikinews on the talk page of Mathias Schindler in german wikipedia. I'm now also a bureaucrat at dewikinews so i want to followup with this request. Are you sure that the account in question was not created by you? The SUL Util says that the account was created on May 19th and i noticed you created some accounts (which you have merged) the day before. Or are you suspecting a user acting in bad faith trying to block your account unification? -- Kju ( talk) 09:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Renamed „Ned Scott“ into „Ned Scott (usurped)“. --
Kju 12:15, 16. Sep. 2008 (CEST)
..for the barnstar, Ned :-) I think we're on the way to sorting the whole thing out now - but your thought was greatly appreciated! :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 07:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
My wiki already has all the needed templates moved in, and now what is to be done is the guidelines. I have read your transwiki article, but I still wonder: How many transwiki guidelines should I export to my wiki? I have currently moved the essential pages of WP:C, Wikipedia:Non-free media and WP:GFDL, but I wonder if there is a need to move more, or just have you mentioned, have a blanket statement of "Use Wikipedia guidelines unless specifically mentioned"... (Certainly I would overrule WP on Notability, some issues on Verifiability and have some additions on the MOS.)-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If you care at all, I'm merging and slowly trimming the .hack characters. I'll be leaving the list alone after that's done, so you may want to reorganize and clean it up if you're interested. TTN ( talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page
Hey, thanks for the null-edit to correct your edit summary. I appreciate it. As for the template, the rework is to bring it in line with similar links (such as the IMDB template). Basically, the "reverse-C" icon sticks out unnecessarily, and the duplicate link to the wiki isn't needed. (The IMDB template, again for example, has a link on IMDB, but it is to the Wikipedia article. I couldn't find a similar article about the TIF to link to, and we generally don't do "double-links" in the EL section.) Please let me know if you have any other questions about this. Thanks again. -- Ckatz chat spy 04:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Waiting for a response to my discussion page. I wish the site would get its staff emailing system together. -- 98.232.182.66 ( talk) 06:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (Ragemanchoo)
ned (at) nedscott.com
--
Ned Scott
05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Hey Ned, I just started a thread over on WT:CATSCAN concerning the creation of two (or possibly three) templates for wikiprojects to use to simulate the functionality of the occasionally-proposed X-class, Y-importance topic articles categories, and I'd appreciate you giving a quick glance over my proposal, offering your own thoughts, and, perhaps, posting notices to other relevant locations pointing to the discussion. Thanks in advance! — Dino guy 1000 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You made a suggestion about using a "date diff link" instead of a copy and paste move. I haven't the faintest clue what a date diff link is or what difference it would make, nor was I able to figure anything else out rereading the article on archiving talk pages. Can you point me to a resource so I can understand your suggestion? This was the first or second archive I've done, and that was only to rescue the talk after someone blanked the entire page.
Also, am I missing something here? I thought talk pages were always supposed to be archived instead of blanked or deleted. Is there some policy or guideline I haven't run across that says to delete it if people call each other names? WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if there were any revisions to List of Digimon in Digimon World DS since December 2007 (other than AfD and really minor stuff). If so I was wondering if it could be temp undeleted so that I could export it, for use on Digimon Wiki. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ned. It's been a while since the dispute about TV episode article naming, and I'm glad to see that you've been thriving on Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that there's a new (much smaller, I hope!) discussion about whether to keep the redirects that have "unnecessary" disambiguation or not — one of the byproducts of an early compromise move in that debate. The new discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Redirects, with related discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. Hope to see you there. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page
I've reviewed the on site discussions and the email correspondence, and I continue to think that the situation was handled in manner that best serves the interest of the SteveCrossin, the other involved parties, and the Community as a whole.
The Committee was aware of the situation because we were contacted privately by Community members about concerns. After discussion with SteveCrossin and the other involved parties, the Committee brought the situation to the attention of the Community by way of an announcement. At that time, the Committee made it clear that we were still looking into the situation. After further review we made a ruling about the situation and announced it.
Based on the information that I've seen, I sincerely believe that a break from editing Wikipedia is best for both SteveCrossin and the Community. Steve Crossin was not making good choices, and his decision making was getting worse by the minute. (eg. disclosing private discussion with at least in one instance sharing sensitive information.) That was the reason that I supported prompt action by the Committee to intervene using the quickest method to reach a good and fair decision.
There was an internal Committee vote that had good support for a 6 month ban to enforce SteveCrossin's break. Rather than imposing the break/ban with a block, there was internal Committee agreement to allow for voluntary cessation from editing along with the understanding between Steve and the Committee that a block could be used to enforce the ban/break. The ban/break was announced on site and also addressed at RFArb when inquires were make. As is often the case, there was not complete agreement in the Community with an Arbitration Committee decision, or how the situation was handled. But in this instance, based on the comments that I've reviewed, there is support for the ruling by a large segment of of Community. Unfortunately, you do not agree, and I have noted your dissent. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all fixed. Rich Farmbrough 11:33 21 October 2008 (UTC).
Ned, I've reverted you across the board. Look, the guideline is pretty clear on this stuff. Indiscriminate addition of per character images just isn't supported anymore, and hasn't been for a long time. Further, there ARE cast photos available. For example, for List of Monk characters there's all of these. Also, have a look at List of Stargate SG-1 characters. There, they use one cast photo then use free content licensed images of the actual actors to depict the individual cast members. That's the way to do it. Please don't blindly re-add fair use content. Thank you. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For helping me all the ways you have with the RFC bot. -- harej 00:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, you are currently being supportive of Guido, so pehaps I could make a few (sort-of positive for once) comments that you might like to pass on (my posting directly to his talk page currently might just inflame further). Guido mentioned email block aspect in his last posting, this is something already mentioned on my talk page by admin GDonato [5], and I've indicated I'm happy if they (or indeed any other admin) wish to review that aspect. I note GDonato has been editing quietly over the last day, so perhaps they are still to comment on this over this weekend. If GDonato chooses to not comment further, then you might consider after perhaps a further 24hrs setting up a separate talk page thread to consider just this aspect, although Guido's stated intent of "get into contact with any of the users on my side of the dispute" risks falling under Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing and thus a counterpoint (the block was for process of edit warring & 3RR, rather than per se his having a particular side or content viewpoint)
Secondly I note Guido just rejected someone else's proposal for self-imposed topic ban, which is fair enough (given his extensive knowledge of the topic that was a rather massive suggestion to have put to him). I wonder therefore if you might like to advocate with him over perhaps the merits of WP:1RR, as that is generally seen favourably and might be a basis for further comment & consideration on the block's duration ? David Ruben Talk 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned,
I'd put a comment in response to your reply to me on Guido's page, but he has removed it. Here is my original diff if you're interested. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out that, contrary to what you said on Guido's talk page, he has not been edit-warring "two or three a year". It is closer to once every 2 weeks - he just hasn't been blocked each time. Have a look at the 3RR page and the admin incidents page and you'll see the details (and also look through his edit log). I made this comment on Guido's talk page, but he deleted it for being a "rant". So even now, after being blocked, it appears he is engaging in uncivil behaviour and edit-warring. When someone has been blocked multiple times and is still causing trouble almost every week, it is naive to believe the person will change. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I shouldn't be editing right now, but I got side tracked and read up about this. They sure gave you a hard time for having a perfectly valid concern :/ Don't let the man get you down, or something like that. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've had something in the back of my brain that I've been thinking should be on your radar, but it's such a "beansy" thing, that I've hesitated.
Let me put it this way. I think you may wish to start watching WP:RfD, and checking for edit histories of those up for discussion. - jc37 06:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, please feel free to drop me a note if there's an XfD which you think I might be interested in. Fiction-related topics in particular. (And yes, since this is a request from me, it shouldn't be considered canvassing : ) - jc37 07:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
While considering to change the rd at WP:SW from Wikipedia:Spoilers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars, I noticed that you have reverted two prior attempts to do so. Since the page was moved from Wikipedia:Spoiler warning to Wikipedia:Spoilers over a year ago and since the term "spoiler warning" is, to the best of my knowledge, rarely used and SW is particularly rarely (if ever) used as an abbrev for "spoiler warnings" in comparison to Star Wars, would you reconsider your position? Everyme 12:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface_and_WP:NOT. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
[Discussion about Wikipedia (with a derogatory reference to one of your edits back in 2007 in an image) http://plus4chan.org/boards/n/res/58869.html] 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 14:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it since it appeared to be an orphaned subpage of a bot no longer in use. If it's still used i can restore it, it just didn't seem necessary to have it when i stumbled on it. Wizardman 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I wrote: Anti-Jew POV pushing diff and here is where he referred to Muslims as "Islams". His ignorance irritates me; especially when he refuses to work with other members of the community. Scarian Call me Pat! 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There are very long articles like List of Case Closed chapters that would have problem if I export the entire article's history; that file would be at 10+MB and would unlikely to be uploaded. What should I do? -- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
gdaly7 (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
![]() Archives • ℹ | |
---|---|
1.
02/06 - 05/06 |
9.
05/07 - early 08/07 |
Notifying you directly because you took part in the preceding discussion. Please see Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal to change CSD G7. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you offer some examples of how larger images or alternative placement has been done? I've noticed that in another article I am working on, Sun Prairie, had a bunch of images down the right sight of the page, which tended to screw up how the page displayed (edit links, etc). Now that might be a browser issue (I use Safari), but I am interested in building FA articles, which would be read with all types of browsers and connection types (the latter referring to lad times). Input? - Hexhand ( talk) 22:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahoy, Ned! - The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 09:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahahaha. Thanks for sticking up for CakeBot. The bot approval dudes seriously need to find their sense of humor. o.o - The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. It's been deleted. Best, -- PeaceNT ( talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No probs mate, even the admin who closed the AfD missed him bundled in there! Thanks for the heads-up anyways -- Jimbo [online] 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
First, yes, Betacommand and I did argue about an image I placed on my userspace. Yes,I got totally incivil about it, and yes, I got blocked for it. I admitt that freely. I also admitt that I deserved to be blocked. I also draw your attetion to the fact that this is the first post I've posted since the whole drama with Betacommand began.
Your "explanation", on my page, was pretty good, but not entirely accurate. Betacommand has three known accounts, Betacommand, Betacommandbot and Betacommand2. The account he was blocked for (for socking)
right here was none of the above, it was a totally different name. In particular, he went to the BOTS group and reverted Locker Cole, who he'd previously reverted under his name
as shown here. He got blocked for it and as an explanation stated that he was attempting to start over as a new user.
Starting over is fine, it's allowable, however, when one starts over, don't they normally also allow their old acoounts to vanish ala, right to vanish ? He didn't, he kept he previous three accounts opened. Wouldnt' that strike you as a bit odd, considering he wanted to start over ? Why not just invoke "right to vanish" and start over ?
In addition to this, he's edit-warred on the Bots group see here, has edit warred and used incivil edit summaries, even though he's been warned not to do so seen here....and the list goes on. YES I know what he does is difficult and he takes a load of shit from people for doing it. However, that doesn't exempt him from following known policy, like Ignore and deny or civil.
Bottom line here is, his hands are far from clean, and his latest attempt to keep his RFCU out of sight, in my opinion, is nothing more than gaming the system.
Thank you.
KoshVorlon
-rm F.U.R -r
16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a passing familiarity with Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s. Maybe you will appreciate the issues in an instant; but I wonder if determining the distinctions beween "correct" and "not-quite-correct" might become secondary to the ways in which ordinary Wikipedia policies are illuminated by the exchange of views here?
In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"-- Tenmei ( talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Since when is 100-200 words too small for a plot summary inside a list of episodes? We allow 400 words for an individual article, which has more detail because it has enough OOU information to support it. Smallville (season 1) uses the 100-200 word limit and is just fine. Most television shows, next to maybe Lost which has far too many storylines lines taking place in any one episode, do not need more than 200 words to summarize the basic element of the episode. We have to remember that they are in an LOE for a reason, because they could not support themselves in an individual article; they don't need the plot coverage of an individual article if they cannot provide the OOU coverage of an individual article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Then I shall go ahead and make the draft. -- Ned Scott 20:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that to be an accurate statement of the debate results. There was objection to soft redirecting to Wikia as it is not a Wikipedia sister project. I'd note that Template:Softredirect specifically calls it out as for use with "different Wikimedia projects". Aervanath's summed it nicely with his statement of "if the content wasn't notable or verifiable to stay in Wikipedia, or any of its sister projects, then it's not notable or verifiable enough for us to redirect to". By the way, my statement was specific to this closure and was not meant globally (as not all cases are the same). Let me know if you have more questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre ( talk) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you REALLY have to resort to an F-bomb in your ANI comment? Really defeats your whole purpose. Refactor, please? SirFozzie ( talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Speaking about those. I saw one in edit summary. Don't get too discouraged. Someone needs to stick up for those who are unable to stick up for themselves. Ottava Rima ( talk) 06:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Was this apology directed at me? If so, I accept. I must confess I was rather taken aback by the harsh tone of your comment, and I'm glad to see it was a misunderstanding. -- SCZenz ( talk) 11:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the fuss was about. The page was clear patent nonsense. It's been some years that I have closed an AFD, so I guess I'm not 100% tuned to the goings on these days. Has the policy changed in anyways? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The popularity of my talk page seems to have increased in recent weeks. Odd as I was never the popular kid and even skipped out on the prom to go to a muffs concert. I don't suppose I'm on somekind of 'hey whats this crazy mofo doing? list' Its ok you can tell me, Haven't you heard? I'm one of the popular kids now. If you do I might even mention you to Stacy Sewell; I hear she thinks your cute. -- AdultSwim ( talk) 04:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for certifying the Elonka RfC. I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of correcting the mention of "blocked" in your statement to "banned" (Elonka never actually blocked me). -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Something very strange is going on with the flap around this user. I saw that User:Ottava Rima might have been unfairly treated, and so I posted a consoling note on his Talk page, that didn't assume he had acted correctly but that expressed my suspicion that he'd run into a particular hazard that those of us with ADHD often run afoul of. [1] There was nothing in my post that attacked anyone, or that encouraged attacks. What, by the way, had User:Ottava Rima done? I don't know the extent of it, but it began when he asked User:Blechnic to revert or strike an uncivil comment made out User:Wilhelmina Will. And Blechnic denied that it was an attack, blah blah, it's a very old story, isn't it? And it ended up with OR blocked, WW under a DYK topic ban, none of it clearly based, as far as I've seen so far. As usual, the blocked or banned editors made some mistakes.
So User:S. Dean Jameson attacks OR on my Talk! [2]. The language wasn't that of extreme attack, though there was some suspicious hyperbole in it. Anyway, he "suggested" that I look "a bit deeper" into the matter. Sure, why not? So I did. Here is the thread to date. This investigation, as shallow as it has been so far -- and "shallow" investigations take hours -- showed me the likelihood that Wilhelmina Will had been mistreated. So, I posted a consoling note on her Talk page. She thanked me on my Talk, and we discussed a little -- at my instigation -- how she might be able to work toward her goals without disregarding the AN/I topic ban and the attendant risk of being blocked. From AN/I, you should know some of the details. I mentioned that others might nominate for her, and at the same time cautioned her about avoiding true proxying, though I didn't use that word. And, lo and behold, Blechnic appears on my Talk to threaten her with being blocked. "If User:Wilhelmina Will asks other users to promote her articles to DYK I will asked that she be blocked for a time. There is a policy on this, it's already been made up, if you're going to advise her please advise her as to this existing policy."
Blechnic is apparently a fairly new user, first edit, 21 March, 2008, with a serious misunderstanding of how the project works. His pursuit of Wilhelmina Will, on such thin grounds, I find highly offensive. I was worried about it before I found out that she was a sixteen-year-old girl, but that kind of frosted the cake, and me. Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but there is something about seeing someone that young being bullied, pretty much simply because of some harmless immaturity. (Such as lying -- making excuses for herself -- about the code she had written in an edit summary, to cover up what was low-level incivility. I'd call her "guileless" or "naive." Which can actually be good qualities, in a way.)
Blechnic had his user page deleted. Three times. Odd. Holy sh...!!! I just looked at Blechnic's block log. Can of worms. People who live in glass houses, etc.... This user was found to have been harassing others, but, from the log, was given a pass as a newbie. In May of this year.
We've worked together a little before, Ned. I tend to get involved when I see bullying going on, particularly relatively experienced editors wikilawyering newbies to death, instead of welcoming them and helping them. -- Abd ( talk) 01:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
In several recent RfD discussions, you have advocated for the keeping of redirects (at least temporarily) which point outside of the MediaWiki family of projects. I replied in one of those discussions but, on reflection, thought I should drop you a message directly.
I think that the decision to endorse redirects (whether hard or soft) outside the family is a decision that really ought to be made in a more comprehensive forum than an individual RfD nomination. I would suggest either a Centralized discussion or Village pump proposal. Once we have a centralized decision, we can then bring that consensus back to the individual RfD discussions for specific decisions about whether and how to apply the central consensus.
I've done a couple of centralized discussions and would be willing to help you draft the discussion page if you are interested. Rossami (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Of this edit. It was not meant as a dig at you in any way - as I've said before, you keep me honest. Cheers. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion it is ok to PROD user pages. Am I mistaken? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you mad about the comment I made in the edit summary, or did I just do something else to piss you off? -- Ned Scott 06:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Now at WT:PROD#Prodding user pages -- Ned Scott 06:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Ned. User:Pah777 left a note on my talk page requesting assistance related to images and copyright. I looked into the situation only slightly (enough to see his/her discouraging talk page :\), but I'm busy lately (and will be out of town soon) ... anyways, do you think that, if Pah777 would still like assistance, you could help him/her out? I'd appreciate it. -- Iamunknown 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Which not only involves a slur against the disabled community but is a completely inappropriate personal attack on another editor here. Please remove this and reconsider your words. ~ Eliz 81 (C) 08:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ned, the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Users Advice Bureau was pretty clear. What gives? MBisanz talk 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This user has continued to make hundreds of edits a day without bothering to explain themselves when challenged, including page moves and redirects. All inexplicably deemed minor. A discussion has been opened here. DarkAudit ( talk) 23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you planning to resurrect the Users Advice Bureau project? If so I'd be happy to restore it your userspace. If you'd just like to keep a copy of it I'd be happy to send the latest version to your email. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The warning to User talk:212.66.132.170 was non-specific as to which of the edits you were warning him on and he did more than one edit of that type of vandalism. For that reason, i left a warning covering the last edit he did of that type. Quaeler ( talk) 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F. There's nothing wrong with deleting everything they have unless there's an administrative reason to keep it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page
Hey Ned, I noticed a couple of closures you had done at MfD didn't disclose your non-admin status. I'm a strong supporter of your right to close even contentious discussions (as long as they aren't deletes), but I consider the disclosure to be part of the tenuous deal we have at WT:DELPRO/ WP:NAC (essentially that this issue is so contentious that no changes will be considered), so please make sure you use it even for procedural closes. Thanks, and keep up the good work. I don't always agree with you but I respect your standing on your principles regarding keeping userspace stuff.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
do you have a manga for digimon tamers?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boytamiya ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In my edit summaries, I clearly explained the removal of each of those links. Your mass rollback of those edits, without comment, is very impolite and violates Wikipedia:External links. Please read that page to understand why those links are inappropriate: An external link added to an article should provide information specifically about that article's subject. Per Wikipedia:External links, one should avoid links to
This is why, for example, we do not link to http://www.imdb.com/ in every movie article, only the subpage of imdb.com about that movie. Cf. Template:Imdb name.
Inclusion of such links into a template might be very desirable for the site's owner to maximise the SEO/page rank benefit, but please note that Wikipedia:External links explicitly discourages
Please do not insert such links again, and do not make blanket reverts without addressing the arguments that other editors gave for their edits.
Regards, HaeB ( talk) 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Left a question there. Trying to understand your thinking. - jc37 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your appology :). In removing your comment, you caused my response to hit an edit-conflict, so here's the bulk of it for your perusal, in case you're interested:
Talk Islander 21:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
About ArbCom's power (your AN comments). Not that being right is worth much. — Giggy 08:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For this. It was never my intention to restrict anyone of current discussion. Syn ergy 10:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned,
I'm interested in your comment about using __NOINDEX__, presumably to stop webcrawlers and search engines from indexing pages. Where can I read more about this? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ned, why did you de-cat [3] this indef blocked users talk page? The category is there so over time we can clear out pages of editors who will never edit again. MBisanz talk 07:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, there's been enough discussion/revert wars about the red box today... apparently people are happy about that box being red, so I'd wait to see how that discussion ends up. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I know. The template is clearly doomed on this one, so I'm not bothering. It's clear the project has no qualms about simply telling a large chunk of its readership to go fuck itself. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 04:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned. If the page about Beta's restrictions is not on your watchlist, I've left a comment for you there [4] which I believe is important if we hope to ever stop all this nonsense. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 20:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
If you request a deletion review, I will support, just link me.— Dæ dαlus Contribs / Improve 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by this edit summary. WP:SOCK#Circumventing policy is quite clear about block evasion as a form of abusive sockpuppetry. Anyway, I won't fight your edit since his block is no longer indefinite anyway. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you've noticed, but for some reason, Ian13 has split the past three days of page history off to an archive subpage. This means that e.g. our comments at the talk page are now effectively hidden as the talk page has been courtesy blanked and the edits are not in the main user talk history any longer. I asked for the reason at Ian13's talk page. Just a FYI. user: Everyme 08:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ned Scott...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{ Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Suggest you talk to Aunt E before you do anything else. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Template:Old template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rumping ( talk) 05:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned, i've seen your usurp request for "Ned Scott"@dewikinews on the talk page of Mathias Schindler in german wikipedia. I'm now also a bureaucrat at dewikinews so i want to followup with this request. Are you sure that the account in question was not created by you? The SUL Util says that the account was created on May 19th and i noticed you created some accounts (which you have merged) the day before. Or are you suspecting a user acting in bad faith trying to block your account unification? -- Kju ( talk) 09:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Renamed „Ned Scott“ into „Ned Scott (usurped)“. --
Kju 12:15, 16. Sep. 2008 (CEST)
..for the barnstar, Ned :-) I think we're on the way to sorting the whole thing out now - but your thought was greatly appreciated! :-) Privatemusings ( talk) 07:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
My wiki already has all the needed templates moved in, and now what is to be done is the guidelines. I have read your transwiki article, but I still wonder: How many transwiki guidelines should I export to my wiki? I have currently moved the essential pages of WP:C, Wikipedia:Non-free media and WP:GFDL, but I wonder if there is a need to move more, or just have you mentioned, have a blanket statement of "Use Wikipedia guidelines unless specifically mentioned"... (Certainly I would overrule WP on Notability, some issues on Verifiability and have some additions on the MOS.)-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If you care at all, I'm merging and slowly trimming the .hack characters. I'll be leaving the list alone after that's done, so you may want to reorganize and clean it up if you're interested. TTN ( talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page
Hey, thanks for the null-edit to correct your edit summary. I appreciate it. As for the template, the rework is to bring it in line with similar links (such as the IMDB template). Basically, the "reverse-C" icon sticks out unnecessarily, and the duplicate link to the wiki isn't needed. (The IMDB template, again for example, has a link on IMDB, but it is to the Wikipedia article. I couldn't find a similar article about the TIF to link to, and we generally don't do "double-links" in the EL section.) Please let me know if you have any other questions about this. Thanks again. -- Ckatz chat spy 04:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Waiting for a response to my discussion page. I wish the site would get its staff emailing system together. -- 98.232.182.66 ( talk) 06:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (Ragemanchoo)
ned (at) nedscott.com
--
Ned Scott
05:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Hey Ned, I just started a thread over on WT:CATSCAN concerning the creation of two (or possibly three) templates for wikiprojects to use to simulate the functionality of the occasionally-proposed X-class, Y-importance topic articles categories, and I'd appreciate you giving a quick glance over my proposal, offering your own thoughts, and, perhaps, posting notices to other relevant locations pointing to the discussion. Thanks in advance! — Dino guy 1000 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You made a suggestion about using a "date diff link" instead of a copy and paste move. I haven't the faintest clue what a date diff link is or what difference it would make, nor was I able to figure anything else out rereading the article on archiving talk pages. Can you point me to a resource so I can understand your suggestion? This was the first or second archive I've done, and that was only to rescue the talk after someone blanked the entire page.
Also, am I missing something here? I thought talk pages were always supposed to be archived instead of blanked or deleted. Is there some policy or guideline I haven't run across that says to delete it if people call each other names? WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if there were any revisions to List of Digimon in Digimon World DS since December 2007 (other than AfD and really minor stuff). If so I was wondering if it could be temp undeleted so that I could export it, for use on Digimon Wiki. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Ned. It's been a while since the dispute about TV episode article naming, and I'm glad to see that you've been thriving on Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that there's a new (much smaller, I hope!) discussion about whether to keep the redirects that have "unnecessary" disambiguation or not — one of the byproducts of an early compromise move in that debate. The new discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Redirects, with related discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 8. Hope to see you there. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Blanked by Ned Scott per request of another user. Click here to see full page
I've reviewed the on site discussions and the email correspondence, and I continue to think that the situation was handled in manner that best serves the interest of the SteveCrossin, the other involved parties, and the Community as a whole.
The Committee was aware of the situation because we were contacted privately by Community members about concerns. After discussion with SteveCrossin and the other involved parties, the Committee brought the situation to the attention of the Community by way of an announcement. At that time, the Committee made it clear that we were still looking into the situation. After further review we made a ruling about the situation and announced it.
Based on the information that I've seen, I sincerely believe that a break from editing Wikipedia is best for both SteveCrossin and the Community. Steve Crossin was not making good choices, and his decision making was getting worse by the minute. (eg. disclosing private discussion with at least in one instance sharing sensitive information.) That was the reason that I supported prompt action by the Committee to intervene using the quickest method to reach a good and fair decision.
There was an internal Committee vote that had good support for a 6 month ban to enforce SteveCrossin's break. Rather than imposing the break/ban with a block, there was internal Committee agreement to allow for voluntary cessation from editing along with the understanding between Steve and the Committee that a block could be used to enforce the ban/break. The ban/break was announced on site and also addressed at RFArb when inquires were make. As is often the case, there was not complete agreement in the Community with an Arbitration Committee decision, or how the situation was handled. But in this instance, based on the comments that I've reviewed, there is support for the ruling by a large segment of of Community. Unfortunately, you do not agree, and I have noted your dissent. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all fixed. Rich Farmbrough 11:33 21 October 2008 (UTC).
Ned, I've reverted you across the board. Look, the guideline is pretty clear on this stuff. Indiscriminate addition of per character images just isn't supported anymore, and hasn't been for a long time. Further, there ARE cast photos available. For example, for List of Monk characters there's all of these. Also, have a look at List of Stargate SG-1 characters. There, they use one cast photo then use free content licensed images of the actual actors to depict the individual cast members. That's the way to do it. Please don't blindly re-add fair use content. Thank you. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For helping me all the ways you have with the RFC bot. -- harej 00:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, you are currently being supportive of Guido, so pehaps I could make a few (sort-of positive for once) comments that you might like to pass on (my posting directly to his talk page currently might just inflame further). Guido mentioned email block aspect in his last posting, this is something already mentioned on my talk page by admin GDonato [5], and I've indicated I'm happy if they (or indeed any other admin) wish to review that aspect. I note GDonato has been editing quietly over the last day, so perhaps they are still to comment on this over this weekend. If GDonato chooses to not comment further, then you might consider after perhaps a further 24hrs setting up a separate talk page thread to consider just this aspect, although Guido's stated intent of "get into contact with any of the users on my side of the dispute" risks falling under Wikipedia:Canvassing#Stealth_canvassing and thus a counterpoint (the block was for process of edit warring & 3RR, rather than per se his having a particular side or content viewpoint)
Secondly I note Guido just rejected someone else's proposal for self-imposed topic ban, which is fair enough (given his extensive knowledge of the topic that was a rather massive suggestion to have put to him). I wonder therefore if you might like to advocate with him over perhaps the merits of WP:1RR, as that is generally seen favourably and might be a basis for further comment & consideration on the block's duration ? David Ruben Talk 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ned,
I'd put a comment in response to your reply to me on Guido's page, but he has removed it. Here is my original diff if you're interested. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out that, contrary to what you said on Guido's talk page, he has not been edit-warring "two or three a year". It is closer to once every 2 weeks - he just hasn't been blocked each time. Have a look at the 3RR page and the admin incidents page and you'll see the details (and also look through his edit log). I made this comment on Guido's talk page, but he deleted it for being a "rant". So even now, after being blocked, it appears he is engaging in uncivil behaviour and edit-warring. When someone has been blocked multiple times and is still causing trouble almost every week, it is naive to believe the person will change. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I shouldn't be editing right now, but I got side tracked and read up about this. They sure gave you a hard time for having a perfectly valid concern :/ Don't let the man get you down, or something like that. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've had something in the back of my brain that I've been thinking should be on your radar, but it's such a "beansy" thing, that I've hesitated.
Let me put it this way. I think you may wish to start watching WP:RfD, and checking for edit histories of those up for discussion. - jc37 06:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, please feel free to drop me a note if there's an XfD which you think I might be interested in. Fiction-related topics in particular. (And yes, since this is a request from me, it shouldn't be considered canvassing : ) - jc37 07:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
While considering to change the rd at WP:SW from Wikipedia:Spoilers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars, I noticed that you have reverted two prior attempts to do so. Since the page was moved from Wikipedia:Spoiler warning to Wikipedia:Spoilers over a year ago and since the term "spoiler warning" is, to the best of my knowledge, rarely used and SW is particularly rarely (if ever) used as an abbrev for "spoiler warnings" in comparison to Star Wars, would you reconsider your position? Everyme 12:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface_and_WP:NOT. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
[Discussion about Wikipedia (with a derogatory reference to one of your edits back in 2007 in an image) http://plus4chan.org/boards/n/res/58869.html] 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 14:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it since it appeared to be an orphaned subpage of a bot no longer in use. If it's still used i can restore it, it just didn't seem necessary to have it when i stumbled on it. Wizardman 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I wrote: Anti-Jew POV pushing diff and here is where he referred to Muslims as "Islams". His ignorance irritates me; especially when he refuses to work with other members of the community. Scarian Call me Pat! 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There are very long articles like List of Case Closed chapters that would have problem if I export the entire article's history; that file would be at 10+MB and would unlikely to be uploaded. What should I do? -- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 02:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
gdaly7 (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!