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 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

Originally posted at User talk:Kirill Lokshin [1]

TTN got recently blocked because he honestly did not think his restrictions meant that he wasn't able to start a thread on a project notice board, myself and several other Wikipedians in good standing were under the same assumption. That's not gaming the system or pushing the limit, that's nothing more than miscommunication. TTN even pleaded with you guys to get some guidance, and you ignored the request for clarification for weeks. Now you come out of no where with a complete and total ban? That's a horrible idea. TTN has been behaving very well, and hasn't been doing anything wrong. The flames you see that you want to get rid of are nothing more than the left over feelings from the past, not because of things that are happening now.

And you come completely out of left field with a proposal to ban Kww, who hasn't even had any kind of RfC or mediation, or focus of any kind in the last two cases. It's like you're swinging around blindly, smashing furniture and breaking walls, just to put out a candle. I beg of you to reconsider your proposals. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we obviously have differing views on what the real problem is here. If you're working from the assumption that TTN (and everyone helping him) is fundamentally in the right in this dispute, then I quite expect my proposals look like the confused ramblings of someone who just doesn't understand the real issue. But that's not the only way of looking at it, I would think. Kirill ^{( prof)} 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't blindly stand up for TTN, and I've agreed plenty of times about where he went wrong. Please Kirill, I know I can be heated and such on these discussions, but please please don't just assume stuff like this about me or about the other people who are involved. You have every right to throw out everything I've said, since I've been rude to you in the past about this, but if there's any tiny little bit of respect that you might have for my opinion, please consider what I'm saying. TTN has been neutered, he can't do squat anymore, and I honestly didn't think we'd see him again. The fact that he's come back and is willing to participate in discussions made me very happy. I agreed with some of conclusions he made, but really disagreed about some of his methods. His edits with the video game articles were clearly walking the line, and he should have been smarter than that, but he's not even doing that anymore. Otherwise he's been doing pretty well with just dealing with discussions, and it's really not necessary to ban him from those as well. TTN works great with boundaries clearly set, and we've been asking for clarification to help avoid an incident for weeks.

TTN even got unblocked from this last block because he said he would refrain from posting on project talk pages until there was clarification about his restrictions. Honestly, several users all thought that his restrictions to project space was meant for XfDs and other formal requests, but not notice boards. He wouldn't have started any discussion if he had thought it was against his restriction.

Even if you don't believe me there, at least reconsider the proposal for Kww. Kww was vocal about standing up for TTN, but hasn't been disruptive outside of that (if one were to consider him standing up for TTN to be disruptive). If you really believe there to be a behavioral issue with Kww, please let us try other levels of DR first.

If I could get down on my knees over Wikipedia and beg this of you I would. I'd do anything you'd ask me to do. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Any limited restriction on TTN is going to be rules-lawyered to death. It happened with the video game articles (which aren't technically covered); it happened with the noticeboards (which may or may not be technically covered, depending on how you define "request"); and I have every reason to believe that even if we clarify the present matter, TTN will continue to try to act as a driving force behind the removal of content on fictional topics through some other method. He is not, at this point, legitimately helping things—his reputation is such that anything he does will likely be reverted regardless of its merits—so all he's doing is needlessly antagonizing the editors supporting this material. If he can't see that and step away from the front line, then we're forced to do it for him.

As far as Kww goes, you may feel that equating the editors that worked on Bulbasaur with penis spammers is acceptable, but I do not. Were it up to me, he'd be off the project for that little burst of odiousness alone. The least I can do is keep him away from the areas where he's likely to actually put such an ideology into practice. Kirill ^{( prof)} 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"TTN will continue to try to act as a driving force behind the removal of content on fictional topics through some other method." That was never the issue, the issue was his methods. TTN has every right to act as a driving force to clean up Wikipedia, as long as he's not forcing the issue on other editors.

How do you know that clarification will be rules-lawyered to death? In the first case arbcom gave us useless advice, and the second case was the first to give any clear instructions on what to actually do. Fluffy proposals like "be happy and work together" don't do squat. We warned you during the second case about the clarity issue with video games, and you ignored it. TTN edits those articles, gets blocked, and we have clarity the hard way. So then TTN only edits on talk pages, and is under the honest impression that he is allowed to have full participation on talk pages. He gets blocked again, and we plead with you guys again to give is clarification (even though you've still ignored the first request, which sits and collects dust).

The idea that you would ban an editor like Kww for some minor incivility in a heated debate disturbs me. It's an abuse of your position as an arb, and it's highly inappropriate.

You're not helping us to resolve a dispute, you're being a bully, and trying to scare people away from any form of participation as a solution. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"his reputation is such that anything he does will likely be reverted regardless of its merits—so all he's doing is needlessly antagonizing the editors supporting this material. If he can't see that and step away from the front line, then we're forced to do it for him." Unless I'm reading this wrong, you're saying that because other editors have a bad opinion of him, that even if he makes good suggestions, other people will assume bad faith and they will cause disruption. And so it's his fault that he doesn't go away because other people don't like him? Is that what you are saying? -- Ned Scott 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kirill, rather then discipline people for breaking the rules and reverting regardless of merit, you'd say "Well, even if he's following the rules, other people will break the rules to get at him, so it'd be best if he went away?" Are you seriously saying that? Do you understand how incredibly dubious that sounds? SirFozzie ( talk) 07:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the block on Aimulti to 48 hours. I suspect he'll trip up pretty quickly as he's already put justifications for his personal attacks on his talk page. I'm going to ask you to please keep an eye on this guy when the block expires. Toddst1 ( talk) 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll be sure to keep an eye on him. I really appreciate that you considered the request, and kept an open mind about it. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Your commitment to Wikijustice is honorable and I truly commend you for it. Toddst1 ( talk) 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in this and this. I have ceased my activity in an administrative capacity related to this issue. Toddst1 ( talk) 06:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on this. Damn, I'm pissed. Kww ( talk) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in all of this they still have managed to not clarify anything. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the discussion you have been participating in at AFI 100 as an example, I would be grateful if you would make your views known regarding the inclusion of awards in Elements of fiction.-- Gavin Collins ( talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving Wikinfo into the mainspace would probably require a substantial rewrite and some refocusing. A Wikipedia:Alternatives that lists and describes all the fork/alternative projects (Scholarpedia, Conservapedia, Wikinfo, whatever) might be better - we'd need to avoid the appearence that there's any official affliation or endorsement. Wily D 23:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to to update. -- Ned Scott 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it here. Wily D 13:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ned Scott 05:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On 24 May 2008, 17:00 (UTC), Not the Wikipedia Weekly will host a special episode on start-up Wikipedias in African languages, and other information on Wikipedia around the world, with special guest: Gerard Meijssen of OmegaWiki, and the World Language Documentation Centre Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Following the original "keep" closure, a speedy deletion and reversion wheel 1, and a DRV; Talk:The weather in London is back at MFD again. If you are still interested in this page, please join in the discussion at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:The weather in London 2. (Note: notice sent to all editors of the first MFD that have not already been come in the new MFD.) Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please would you make clear your comment "...Take that for what you will'" on the notice board? If that is addressed to me, you had better carefully have checked the situation before leaving the comment. -- Gulmammad ( talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a phrase that basically means "interpret that comment however you want", and it was addressed to everyone, but mostly to those listing a complaint about you. If anything, it was a comment in your defense. -- Ned Scott 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

for your comment. If this is an exception (that teachers use wiki as a host for class projects) would it be good to say that somewhere? As a member of the community and not knowing of exceptions, went ahead in good faith of the WP:NOT and don't know what happens now, Julia Rossi ( talk) 07:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply. -- Ned Scott 07:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ned, let it end naturally? or remove it. Julia Rossi ( talk) 07:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can restore it. Where would you like it? I won't create an intentionally orphaned talk page, but I'd be happy to restore it to a subpage or somewhere else. Let me know. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It would still show up in the page's move log, right? So people could find it? A subpage of WT:UP would be fine, probably. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Restored, moved, and re-deleted with a note in the deletion log for passersby. I also added a link to the top of WT:UP. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ned Scott 00:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. When one of the people voting against it says that he would rather see it be for six months, and tells me that there is no doubt that you and TTN are more responsible than others in this mess, I don't feel that way. I really don't know what reality these people are in ... even if you accepted that exclusionism was evil, ranking me as #2 just seems bizarre. Kww ( talk) 11:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: this. Are you referring to the general warning, or are you under the impression that I have been specifically named at some point? The only Arbcom case I have ever been a party to was as a complainant in the Sadi Carnot case. Kww ( talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kww. Yes I have no doubt that you have been instructed and warned a couple of months ago. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understood the general warning to apply to all. Your phrasing in your vote made it sound as if you were thinking of something aimed specifically at me.

Certainly wish I could understand why discussing the appropriate way to treat the creation of articles that violate policy is being considered an "attempt to inflame the situation." I suppose it has something to do with our views being diametrically opposed ... I consider actions like undoing the redirects that were in place before the arbcom freeze, creating ANI and Arbcom reports on people that have not violated the terms of their Arbcom sanctions, and threatening to perform mass unredirection of articles that still don't pass to be attempts to inflame the situation. I hold a similar opinion towards admins that have stretched the interpretations of sanctions beyond the breaking point, and towards admins that believe that "short blocks up to a week" can be interpreted as "two week blocks".

I've been in favor of maintaining status quo on the existing articles, neither creating new redirects or undoing redirects unless the article was repaired prior to undoing the redirect. I do feel, and thought that I was free to state as much in policy discussions, that editors that repeatedly create articles on fictional topics that have no third-party sourcing should be treated to a succession of stiffer and stiffer warnings followed up by blocks, i.e., treated as we treat any other disruptive editors or vandals. It would certainly solve the underlying problem more effectively than anything that has been tried to date. Kww ( talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles in question suffer a lot because of the opposing views. It is for the best of anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations. It is for the best of the general atmosphere. There are really plenty of areas where your actions may be useful, but not here - at least for the moment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Topics bans are for the best of anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations.", I'm sorry, but arbcom is not the one dealing with these situations, and you guys shouldn't be making these kinds of assumptions. Arbcom is making very uninformed decisions in relation to our case.

We were making progress in how TTN handles things, and we asked for clarification, because Lord knows the guy isn't going to be perfect over night. The only reason TTN got blocked or had an ANI thread in these last few weeks was because arbcom ignored our request. It was sitting there for so long that we went and made a second one. TTN told you guys on May 4th that he would do exactly what you told him to do, and he told you that he wasn't clear on several issues and wanted help.

He gets two blocks in gray areas, pleads for clarification both times, and you guys jump out of your chairs to do a total topical ban. Kirill fired off those proposals with bad assumptions on everyone (including myself, who he was dead wrong about), and with a hot head. The proposed topical ban for Kww should be a huge red flag to Kirill's laps in judgement there.

This last block, especially, needs to be clarified, regardless if TTN gets a topical ban or not. The only reason TTN got blocked was because he started a thread, rather than replied to an existing one, that was to a notice board in the project namespace (so basically he wouldn't have gotten blocked for starting a thread in the user name space). Several of us, including those on opposing extremes of the debate, were under the impression that he was simply restricted to direct action, and that he was not only allowed to discuss, but was encouraged to do so. Even if TTN's ideas in discussion were flawed, his participation in those discussions would help him understand why. He wasn't being disruptive at all in those discussions, and no one was even getting worked up. It was not until days later, after (and because of) the block did things turn heated. So why is it that this action has lead to a topical ban?

Can you not understand our honest confusion here? -- Ned Scott 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I may understand the confusion Ned. However, at least, when I get confused, I hit the 'preview' button and most of the time I end up asking before acting or else I do nothing. And I really don't remember TTN approaching me personally asking for clarifying his past resolution. Now, when he got into troubles, he is. Do you still see any assumption on my part when I say people not being able to be patient?

My real assumption is that someday TTN would understand that and that would be the right time to let him back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

After his first block, before the second block, he asked this:

"Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

My own emphases added.

What happened between that time and now? He got blocked because he started a thread on Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, which a lot of us, including myself, were totally under the impression he was allowed to do that. That's all. Nothing about the discussion was disruptive, he wasn't being rude, nada. -- Ned Scott 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you personally, since no one wants to answer the question. Was TTN breaking his restriction by starting a thread on a discussion page that happened to be on the project namespace? -- Ned Scott 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are showing me TTN May 4th message where he seems to be confused and asking about if he's permitted to edit more than:

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Passed 9 to 1 at 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Does that mean that he missed the ArbCom message of March 10th? As you see, there was no mention to 'templates'. Your emphasis is only one of the multiple questions that have already got an answer.

Whatever is the case. I am discussing this with him as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We assumed edits to the project namespace meant XfDs or some kind of formal merge type discussions. The edit to the fict notice board wasn't formal at all, and was no different than any other talk page notice. TTN is not the only one asking you this, I am asking you this. I'm not playing games with you, I'm not trying to push things to the limit here, I'm asking a simple question, because I, as an editor in good standing, who's reasonably intelligent, was not under the impression that the case restrictions meant he couldn't start a thread on the FICT notice board. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is just right there...He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

The above ruling was set to give TTN a minimal right to remain active. And you remember well Ned that I gave more time to decide upon Case 2. I also wanted to explicitly refer and point out to Case 1 because nobody was happy with having a second case. That is because it is not normal to have plenty of cases for one area. It should stop somewhere and you already know that we can't fix it for you unless you want ArbCom to decide on content (including merge, deletion process, etc...). But at least the ArbCom can reduce tensions and problematic scenarios prompted by users.

P.S. I have never declined to respond to anyone in Wikipedia and TTN or yourselves could have simply come to this space since you are telling me others couldn't reply. By the way, TTN still owes me a reply for my question above.

I am ready to shorten the duration of the topic ban for both TTN and Kww but you do not have to prove to me that people were confused since everyone is not a newbie and therefore I have valid and strong reasons to apply the ignorantia legis neminem excusat principle on everyone involved in this case. We are heading for case 3 I suppose. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. While I don't agree that it's a rationale restriction (since, again, TTN was not problematic in discussion), I at least have a better understanding of the restriction. I honestly appreciate that you are giving us a chance to explain. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tailoring restrictions on individual levels is tiresome and we all know that we are here to apply protective measures and not punitive. There were incidents on talk pages prior to case 2. Probably that is were we disagree.

Now, I need guarantees. I don't want to get back to this particular issue. "Because an appeal makes logical sense is no guarantee that it will work." -- William Bernbach. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Inquiry

I'm interested to get a view on why exactly there is such a large jump from the restriction to a topic ban, when there was never any clarification on the restriction in the first place. Do you have the same opinion as Kirill Lokshin (that I should be restricted because other people cause drama when I'm around) or do you believe that I have truly have tried to push the wording of the restriction to its limits?

I really haven't done anything to try to get around it. The first thing I did "wrong" was list some articles for a single user to look over with a suggestion of redirecting them. I guess it wasn't the smartest thing to try, but there were no actions taken on it. I assumed that if single talk pages were fine outlets, that would be fine as well. Later, I was blocked for one week for removing content from articles, which was somehow interpreted to be deletion. I believe that lead to the first request for clarification. The original reason for the block seemed to have been thrown out, and it was later sustained because I had reverted two times on one of those articles (which seems rather steep to me). This is the start of the overall confusion.

I was later blocked for two weeks because I had started a few discussions on a project talk page and a noticeboard related to getting some articles merged. The reason for the block was the confusing wording of the restriction. At this point, I am still under the impression that I am able to do that based upon the restriction's wording. It seems that working with editors was supposed to be the goal. The second request for clarification was started at around the same time. It just seems rather strange that instead of just trying to help clarify for someone who is just mainly confused, all of you have just taken the route of "silencing" the side that has some small complaints about it (including the rather random proposal involving KWW). Also, is the current wording just for an indefinite topic ban or for the remainder of the initial restriction? TTN ( talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi TTN. In fact you are saying it above. You have not been patient enough. Also, do you think that a clarification, after 2 long cases and a couple of blocks and different set of measures being tried, could really help? And yes it is considered an indefinite topic ban. There are ban appeals but you have to show good signs of change in the future. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does he become automatically "guilty" because he was involved in two arbcom cases? We only had the second case because the first one didn't help us, at all. It's hard to figure out how to handle some situations, but that should never be used against the editor himself.

Do you honestly believe that his block, based on what namespace he was posting in, and for an action that no one was clear about if he was allowed to do or not, is evidence of TTN doing something wrong? Did you not notice that he was unblocked because he said he would refrain from action before getting clarification? Let me repeat that again, Did you not notice that he was unblocked because he said he would refrain from action before getting clarification? . What problem are you trying to fix with this topical ban?

Why is it so hard for you to believe that TTN was acting in good faith? Never once was it shown he was acting in bad faith, and never once before the second case was he even blocked as an editor for his actions. He followed the rules and did what he thought was right. You guys gave him a restriction, and even before the case was closed we pointed out time and time again that it wasn't clear about several things. On May 4th TTN commented on the request for clarification, asking up front what his restrictions meant, and you guys ignored it. How on earth can you fault him for something like starting a thread on a notice board in the project namespace when you refuse to tell him if he's allowed to do it or not. He asked you, point blank, if he could do it, and got no response for weeks. Other editors who were working with TTN to help him improve told him he was allowed to do it. When he did it didn't become an issue, and the discussion never got out of hand.

How is TTN supposed to appeal his ban in the future when he was already showing improvement when he got banned? How is it that he's getting punished for things that he was never reprimanded of before? Since when has his participation in discussion ever been an issue? It never was. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already addressed the other points. As fot the appeal, anyone can appeal his ban in the future and you may probably be his mentor if you want. He is still allowed to edit freely the other thousands areas and that would be an apportunity for you to guide him. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I say this with all seriousness: I don't know what question you're talking about. I just restored the /draft redirect. Perhaps I'm missing something? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In general, I try not to hold grudges in real life or on-wiki. I feel no resentment toward you whatsoever. I wish the same could be said for others...

I restored all of the talk pages where the subject-space page wasn't a red link or a redirect. Sorry about the inconvenience. I suppose if you really insist on upon having the other talk pages restored, it shouldn't be too hard to find an admin willing to wheel war with me – they seem to be everywhere lately... On a side note, I have a standing policy not to post to AN/I. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. When I deleted the most recent batch, the criteria was that they were only one revision, a redirect, not edited in over two weeks, and had absolutely zero incoming links. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a note on Masem's talk page regarding the new footnote which I removed. I don't think it is a good idea to qualify guidance in this this way: better to take the guidance out than water it down. Please reconsider restoring my edits; I think they make good sense. -- Gavin Collins ( talk) 07:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this was all for the section regarding the work of fiction itself (as in, the parent article). While we strive to include lots of real world information in the parent article, it's never been required if the work itself passes WP:N, or some other similar guideline. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, I could see your point if it was general advice for the group of articles on a given work, but that specific section was supposed to define notability for the main parent article. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So we're OK now, right? I know it's him, but you're right, I didn't leave much in the way of useful info for an unblock review, and Daniel's new enough I really should have suggested it to him. In addition to the pages he gave you at his talk page, see User:Barneca/watch/societyfinalclubs. There's still an unblock up, so I'll leave a pointer to that page there. -- barneca ( talk) 10:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You said "Redirects for talk page archives should never be deleted" (MZMcBride's talk page). I'm not clear on this myself. Could you explain this some more? I think it depends on whether we are talking about redirects that have history or not, which doesn't include those that are created by moves to rename an archive page. Which are you talking about? See here for a request to redelete some talk page archive redirects. Are people misunderstanding each other here? Also, Orderinchaos redeleted some talk page archive redirects as "G8", which doesn't seem an accurate description to me. See here. Example is Template talk:Infobox Company/Archive004. What do you think? I think people apply different standards and that this causes half the confusion. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly about page move ones. We have no real way of tracking off-site links and redirects are cheap. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've agreed over there, but we might want to start a new discussion in a more general and appropriate location. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your the only one who helped me understand what I was doing Wrong.And was suttle about it,I will be IM-ing you soon to ask a few questions to help me better understand,I been using Wikipedia since forever and just now started editing.

Thanks so much-- JackieTeal ( talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

HEY NED, Why don't you actually do some fucking work on this encyclopedia! All you care about now is who is blocked/unblocked 69.143.227.107 ( talk) 05:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it's my time, and I waste it how I wish. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The process is a cesspool. Do not make false claims about my "incivility". Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 07:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We're trying to be mature and polite on that talk page. If this is how you're going to act then you are not going to be welcome in the discussion. It's already heated as is. Please, I beg of you, don't make it worse. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, Ned Scott says who can and can't edit wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 07:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And if that process is mature and polite... I don't know what you'd consider tendentious. Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 07:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the discussion was completely mature and polite. What I said was that it was heated, and we are trying to keep things as calm as possible, given that people are so passionate about this, and that there has been a lot of frustration.

Why do you have to be so rude about this? We're honestly and desperately trying to keep things productive, and you come along with comments like that. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy with the outcome of this MfD, but I would like to discuss a little further a side topic which you raised: You say that most of the content of user and project space is full of OR, and I would agree that they contain OR in the sense of personal knowledge, but I am aware of little if anything like the subject user page. What that user page says is that the theory of relativity as understood by scientists is wrong. Can you point me to stuff remotely like that elsewhere? Would it have helped if I had called the user page soapboxing rather than OR? — teb728 t c 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair point about it being soapboxing. I guess I got a little hung up on the OR part. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The redirects from these pages weren't to user pages similar to what's currently at {{ smile}}; they were to templates that basically boiled down to images of various emoticons, depending on the parameters. Thought you might like to know. — Cryptic 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I based it on the move log. -- Ned Scott 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ned, in relation to your comments on my talk page a couple of days ago, I've set out a detailed explanation of events at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for appeal: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. While I haven't really looked into that situation in depth, it's certainly perked my curiosity. -- Ned Scott 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Kevin_Murray&oldid=220242364

I don't know why you're so obsessed with tagging this as rejected, but you need to stop. Past proposals have had very significant differences (as can be seen in User:Ned Scott/FICT), so they're certainly not the same arguments being made over and over. Since it's not currently a guideline, tagging it as rejected achieves nothing. The same editors will still be working on it, and they'll still make new proposals as necessary. -- Ned Scott 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No Ned, the whole concept of notability sub guidelines is flawed and we have too many proposals out there to deal with. It's time for closure. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not for you to decide on your own. As long as people are going to work on them, you can't do jack about it. Trying to force a tag on the page while we're working on it is simply rude, and trying to backdoor the normal process of developing consensus. -- Ned Scott 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right Ned, that is why WP:Policy is very clear and I'm only trying to implement policy and convince others to do the same. Getting pissy won't promote your cause. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And several editors have disagreed with your interpretation of WP:POLICY, as well as your crusade against all sub-guidelines. Acting like a child won't promote your cause. -- Ned Scott 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone mentioned something about that. I chose to simply ignore that detail. Mr. Bouncy has been notified about his templates (by me and others) dozens of times. If someone is going to flood the Template: namespace with cruft, they should expect that it will be deleted. It should've been done ages ago, but I've been busy. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 08:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I realize that process can be important, but I honestly don't know they were being brought to TfD to begin with. I went and cleaned up the mess I left there. And if Mr. Bouncy ever returns, I'd be happy to restore and move the templates, though I think the likelihood of that ever happening is slim to none. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for jolting my memory - I remember editing the John Candy article to remove the redlink to Candy's widow, but I had completely forgotten that I had redirected the above article after editing the target (and I separated the nomination of the redirect from the set of Hashmi redirects because I was the one who did the edit on the target). I wrote a bit of the history after your post, not directing it to you but to the readers. If there is enough to establish Christopher Candy under WP:BIO, I would rather a standalone article on him exist. As to the redirect, I am neutral - wherever this goes, RfD or AfD, I'd rather that the community have a discussion on it regardless. B.Wind ( talk) 22:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 01:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey... sorry I never got around to those fixes I'd planned AGES ago, my tablet went on the fritz, and then Adobe Illustrator and editing the lineart in inkscape was a pain in the rear. I've uploaded a temp edit of what changes I managed to sort of achieve, though; some input would be nice as to whether it or the current version is best. I just changed her right leg and foot a bit, though I'm still not at all happy with the results; still I suppose it's better than nothing!

Thanks for the note and my sincere apologies again for not getting things done in a reasonably timely manner. -- Editor at Large • talk 21:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologies at all. If anything, I wanted to nominate her so you didn't feel as rushed (if that makes any sense). -- Ned Scott 21:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel it was a major over-reaction, Ned. The guy only wants to create an article about himself, and shows no understanding of the rules against self-aggrandizement (or the concept of capitalization). -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wanting to make an article for yourself isn't "evil", and if he's brand new he's obviously not going to understand our rules and standards. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You removed information from a page with this edit and the edit summary "yes, it really is that easy". But this fails to address the GFDL issue created by the material being copy/pasted and leaves the GFDL in history. Although we don't normally delete pages because of copyright issues in history unless requested by a copyright holder, we also don't want to unnecessarily create such situations. It is much better to ascertain whether there is a violation and then delete the page, restoring any non-offending text if possible. Thanks.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about it then just delete his talk page. I wouldn't object to it, but I would think it's a bit silly. The only copyvio is that he copy/pasted part of another Wikipedia article without attribution. Most of my own sandboxes are like that, and no one seems to mind them. It just didn't seem like an issue to me. *shrug* -- Ned Scott 02:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I closed it as moot. I don't feel strongly enough to delete a blank page just to get rid of a GFDL vio in the page history. But I do feel strongly about copyvios in general and that includes GFDL. I suspect your sandboxes mostly say where you got stuff in the edit summaries (or the page was simply moved to your userspace). Most experienced editors would do that just as a matter of leaving a reference trail. Within enwiki that's fine since it's treated as a unified work, i.e. internal references don't require the entire history and attributions to be GFDL compliant, they just need to say in essence "see page 457" or in our case "copied from article [[foo]]" and a date and time. When we copy/paste things without the edit summary reference though we lose the proper attribution and that's a very bad thing.-- Doug.^{( talk • contribs)} 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. However, I thought that even that won't allow you to export more than 100 revisions at a time. I actually ended up writing a script to repeatedly call the interface with all the required parameters to do the export 100 revisions at a time. -- Prod ( Talk) 03:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It does, I've used it quite a lot. The only downside is that files over 2 MB normally have to be split up if you are using Special:Import. Exporting 100 at a time might actually be better in cases where the exported article generates a large file size. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 00:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned, please do not remove or otherwise modify Giovanni's entry on the list. It is quite clearly an informative list. You do nothing by removing his name from there - he is currently indefinitely blocked. That may change, but until it does the list needs to be kept accurate for admin purposes.

There is a place to highlight your views (ANI) - engaging in vandalism and disruption will make your case harder to put across, not easier. John Smith's ( talk) 08:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 was caught socking by Thatcher. He was blocked for a month, and then community banned. In parallel, ArbCom is a couple votes short of banning him. I was about to do the same thing as Rlevse because the discussion was turning into an ugly pile on "votes for banning". Giovanni33 may deserve to be banned, but he should still be treated respectfully. The was no purpose in extending a process that was turning into public humiliation. What concerns me most is that you called Rlevse a liar in your edit summary. [2] He doesn't deserve that sort of abuse. If you are feeling stress, by all means go start a discussion at ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Facepalm on you Ned Scott for reopening the ban thread and not even telling me. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He was not community banned, and it's entirely inappropriate to back door arbcom when they're in the process of making the same decision. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned, I see you restarted the G33 ban edit war, only a minute or so after I unprotected the page. Do you really want to be blocked over this? Please, go revert yourself before it's too late. Jehochman ^Talk 04:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the timing, and only edited it because I just got home and finished reading this thread on my user talk page. People wanted him on the ban list, and he is. I feel very strongly about people using the "community" to back a decision when the community did no such thing. It might be the right thing to do, it might not be, but it's dishonest to claim it as a community consensus. If you want to go and be dishonest, then go revert me and I'll ask arbcom to review your actions and the actions of the others involved. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, there's no reason for us to be at odds about this. As long as it can be discussed on ANI without it being archived right away, I'll leave the log alone for the time being. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in any rush. Discuss things as long as you like. I supported for closing the earlier discussion because it was becoming an ugly, pile on, "votes for banning" that was disrespectful towards the accused. As a practical matter, any administrator at any time can lift the community ban by removing him from the list, though they should not unblock him without first achieving a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 05:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Context is good. Link to the discussion and people can see when it happened and for how long. Maybe this will satisfy Kendick7. Jehochman ^Talk 04:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you liked my essay Wikipedia:Discussing cruft. Technically it is on wikipedia so it becomes everyone's essay. Could I trouble you for a copy edit? Thanks for keeping an eye on it! Problemchildlsd ( talk) 20:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I cannot export images per se, but is there away for me to export images pages (ie mainly the licenses) so that I may save some time from those image uploads? This is especially so since I'm not using Wikia and hence cannot use Wikimedia Commons.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Exporting the image pages does seem to work, but I'm not sure if importing would work as well (I'll try it in a bit here). I should point out that it is possible to use a bot to copy images from Wikipedia to another MediaWiki wiki, which is what I did for a large number of images on Digimon Wiki. I think I have to update my bot to get it to work again (I know only the very basics on piwikipedia), but if I get it figured out I'd be glad to help out. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked since it seemed to produce a blank page.-- Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 04:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It would only work if the image has a page on en.wikipedia.org. If it is a commons copy then there won't be a local page history to export. You can either use commons:Special:Export or this url http://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=Special:Export&pages=Image:IMAGE_NAME.jpg&history=1&action=submit. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

An important discussion on Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note as you are a member of WikiProject Council -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have created the Broadcast Engineering and Technology Taskforce under WikiProject: Television. You seemed interested in this project and I would like to invite you to join and begin discussion on what we can do to improve the quality of related articles. -- tonsofpcs _{( Talk)} 18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thought all changes were supposed to also change the div id #, if not feel free to fix! « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm ok, is there something you would like me to do? I'll gladly do it, I just don't know what you would like me to do. « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)