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

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

May I be a party to this, as I can give a review of the proceedings, reviewing your side and others, along with giving tons of Arbcom precident? Wiki eZach| talk 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have to ask for my permission. You are certainly welcome to be involved if you wish. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:) Wiki eZach| talk 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't seen what she posted about you at WT:TV-NC when I rebuked you on the RFM page, and I might have shaded my comment slightly differently if I had. However, the fact that Elonka makes her comments "with a smile" actually does make a difference: in part, because it makes her position appear more reasonable. When you resort to name-calling, you weaken your position and strengthen your opponent's.

I didn't object to "We're not playing this game"; I objected to "We're not going to take this crap any more." I know that "crap" is a pretty mild expletive, but calling Elonka's tactics "crap" shows a lack of respect for your fellow editors. It would have been better to say something like "Elonka, this is unacceptable." or "Elonka, this is the same tired tactic you've used before." It may sound namby-pamby, but Wikipedia's civility policy is most important when you're in conflict with someone. So keep your cool and remember that the issue isn't really that important: there are no angry mastodons here.

And, for what it's worth, I got your note just after I saved a comment on WT:TV-NC telling Elonka that it wasn't fair to blame you for the guideline page being locked. I agree with you about the naming issue, and I'm tired of the argument too, but we need to work within Wikipedia's rules — and that means remaining civil, even if you feel you've been provoked. OK? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'm very sorry. I just need to walk away from this for a while now.. I shouldn't let this get to me, and I shouldn't have snapped at you. -- Ned Scott 09:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly understandable — the situation is frustrating. Taking a break from this is a good idea. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this situation; I basically agree that we have to respect WP:CIV. No matter which side is right, the one that users profanities, or is otherwise not civil to their opponents is both worsening their case in the eyes of neutral editors, and creates a ground to accuse that party of civility violations (on WP:PAIN for example). Thus, my advice mirrors Josiah: be civil, be cool.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

... it's very annoying when people just chime in like this. Please don't make my situation look worse than it is. I understand your good intentions, but the more messages like this that are left the more fuel it gives to those who want to make absurd accusations. Considering I was tired, it was late, the discussion over all was frustrating, and "crap" being the worst thing I said, I don't think anymore time is needed to spend on this situation. You saw the above conversation, you had to have seen some of the discussion it was related to, why comment at this point? It's been resolved, it's over, I'll try to make myself a better human being with what I've learned. I got the freakin' TPS report. -- Ned Scott 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Folks, please read the "User space harassment" part of WP:HA. Piotrus, your message is of no assistance at all. The fact that it's two lines away from where this user has sincerely apologized makes you look very bad. — Wknight94 ( talk) 21:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ned,

In this edit, you have removed a line from Wikipedia's article on the Electronicam, a DuMont camera which made it possible to record the performance both on film and television. In your edit summary, you wrote "speculation", but in fact, all but a few of DuMont's kinescope archive was destroyed, leaving only the 39 Honeymooners Electronicam films and handful of other episodes. Most people would be hard pressed to name even one DuMont-produced program. Thus, is is not speculation to say that the Honeymooners would be unknown today without the Electronicam system. I've reverted your change for now; feel free to contact me if you feel this is unfair. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't realize that the statement was being made literally. Sorry about the confusion. -- Ned Scott 22:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's much better wording, actually. Thank you. Feel free to make more adjustments. I've added a cite. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I have been warned by another administrator ( User:Khoikhoi) for posting this comment. User:Irpen has also posted a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_harrassment.2C_baiting_and_pestering_by_user:Oden. As you are one of the users mentioned in my comment I would value your input into this matter.

Your input in the matter would be noted with interest.

Sincerely, -- Oden 12:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ned. I was wondering about the list of episodes in the Lain article. My view was that since the table was too big, I'd do it according to the summary style guideline, and include an abridged (sp?) version in the main article. Please let me know what you think about it. Btw, since you're familiar with the article, could you take two minutes to voice an opinion at the FAC? Thanks-- SidiLemine 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me, really. It just seems sort of redundant to include the list twice. I'll take a look to see if I have anything to add to the Lain FAC. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's off the main article by now. Looks much more encyclopedic, with only non-fan stuff..... I had complaints through the FAC about the prose of the article; could you please have a look at the article to see if you find some copyediting to do, or maybe point out someone who would enjoy that if you wouldn't? Thanks.-- SidiLemine 13:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an IP troll that is currently reverting the redirect to ShineGreymon. The apparent consensus was to keep the article redirected because of lack of info. The troll, however, continues to ignore the consensus. His actions have led me to believe that the IP troll is a User:Pokemega32 sockpuppet. Help in this issue would be greatly appreciated. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When replying to one of the comments about Lost on your talk page, I noticed Digimon stuff. This took me back a couple of years to when I was a huge fan. So I have dug out all my old videos and am watching them again, and am keen to get involved in the Wikiproject Digimon. So far I've done some small things like adding a summary box to Volcamon's page. If there is anything else I can do to help, please point me in the right direction. codu ( ^t/ ^c) 11:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me your merge of the SAC article with the GITS philosophy article?

Perhaps you can inform be better how a AfD resulting in 'no consensus' matches up with your merger... I am a pretty new user so I probably never got the right idea. I also commented on the talk page, but now that the pages overlap (am i incorrect) it might be hard to find. MrMacMan 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to you on Talk:Ghost in the Shell (philosophy). If you wish to go directly to the talk page of Stand Alone Complex you can use this link -> Talk:Stand Alone Complex. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'd like to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6#CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series and related articles. — Doug Bell  ^talk 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One step ahead of ya :) -- Ned Scott 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned, I hope that you can read my comments in the genuine positive spirit that they are intended: Overall, I think that you are a good editor. I see how hard you work, and how much you care about Wikipedia. It is my hope that you too have seen my own contrib history, and have noted how much I enjoy editing Wikipedia. If nothing else, I believe that we have that much in common, which is that we are both passionate about improving this amazing encyclopedia, even if sometimes we may disagree about the exact methods to use towards that goal.  :)

We are also both very much interested in the Lost articles, so right there, we have not one but two things that we agree on.  :)

Can we, perhaps, try to build on this? Instead of focusing on areas where we don't agree, can we focus on the fact that we have some very strong areas that we do agree? I'm confident that if we met in person, we'd probably have a very enjoyable conversation, as we shared our various experiences in wiki-editing. Please, I mean this very sincerely: Can we try to build on the things that we do agree on, acknowledge that we simply have very different editing and communication styles, and both try to work harder to figure out how to get along?

If you'll allow me to be philosophical for a moment: I believe that as human beings, there's a sometimes painful "team-building" process that occurs as a "group" of people, figures out whether or not they have what it takes to become a "team". One of the core elements of that process, is conflict -- specifically, whether or not these people can figure out ways to work through conflict. All humans disagree at times -- With a "group" of people, disagreement causes the group to fall apart. With a "team" of people, they figure out ways to work through the conflict, and it's my firm belief that once they can figure that out, the team can become very strong indeed.

With the things that you and I already have in common, I believe quite deeply that if we could figure out how to work through conflict, we could be a very very strong team. Please, I would much rather work with you, than against you. Will you please reconsider Josiah's mediation request? If nothing else, it's something new to try, to help us both try to figure out better ways of communicating, and I think that the entire project could benefit as a result. Sincerely, -- Elonka 22:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the people I work with a lot on Wikipeida were editors I was originally in disputes with. If this can happen to us, great. If we were involved in a second discussion about something else on Wikipedia then I would consider that situation independently from this one. You can rest assure on that fact. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Please stop vandalising WP:CE. Yzak Jule 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

..what? -- Ned Scott 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to apologize for this. I assumed you to be yet another anti-Gundam troll here on Wikipedia, but it turns out you're a decent fellow. Yzak Jule 10:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit to the talk page of that article and I was wondering if you were considering once again joining in and finally finishing what was started with Air and releated articles? I would be more than willing to help and contribute where I can.--( 十八| talk) 07:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking about diving back into it, and I recall finding some more info about the game a while back. -- Ned Scott 07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the vote of confidence on my POV. BTW, never meant to insult you, was just trying to illustrate a point about notibility. Apologies. A mere glance at your edit history is proof your opinions are well thought out. LADude 08:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I didn't really do it to support you. It just happens that you were right on the money on that situation. Not to say anything, negative or positive, about anything else involving anything. I do thank you for apologizing, though. -- Ned Scott 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and I know. I hope the arguments there for Pierce stand for themselves, and I agree that while Pierce didn't ask for his readers to visit Wikipedia, they may have done so anyway. However, the GNAA, including Timecop and Cacophony, rally their "troops" in their chatroom and ask them to come and vote for deletion. The difference being, people who came to the vote because of Digg or Tony's mentions are going to be less biased since not everyone likes him, even among his readers. My hope is that whatever the outcome, that a fair gauge of how to measure notability is written. -- LADude 09:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Naming_Conventions_for_TV-episodes_articles. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, -- `/aksha 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments about the proposed WikiProject. It probably wasn't a good idea, so I have delisted it. However, there is still a rather daunting task ahead of me/other users wishing to help. After the entire season 1 episode list got speedy deleted for copyright violations, the list has fallen into disarray (before I rewrote them all, 75%-80% of the episode summaries were copyvios) and some of the episodes have been speedied several times for copyright violations. Is there any place where I can ask for help, short of organizing anything special? Thanks, PullToOpen 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the incorrect edit on Chrono Crusade by 207.134.243.138. This user keeps changing the reference to WWII and I keep changing it back to WWI where it belongs. I left him a note on his talk page. • DanMS 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ^{( Need help?)} 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ned, should you have time and ability, please contact me in a more acceptable channel (AIM or email is preferred). Blaxthos on AIM, blaxthos@bash.org otherwise (though email will probably get overlooked due to massive spam). / Blaxthos 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add an article I wrote to the Hentai page and I noticed you removed it. Was my link against policy? I have been in the business for six years, I think I am qualified to write about hentai.

If my addition was against policy then that's fine, but otherwise I would like my writing included. Please get back to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.159.173 ( talk • contribs).

I assume you speak of this. The linked web page wasn't necessarily bad, but in general we try to limit the amount of external links on an article. ( WP:NOT#REPOSITORY) People are also discouraged from adding links to their own web sites due to possible issues like conflict of interest, spam, etc. ( Wikipedia:External links) I would suggest that you post your link on Talk:Hentai and see what the editors generally feel about it, rather than adding it yourself. Nothing personal, but with some high traffic articles such as Hentai the external links section can easily get out of hand pretty quickly. -- Ned Scott 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I posted about it on the Hentai:Talk page. No response yet. What's the usual response time from the editors? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.159.173 ( talk • contribs).

I saw your edit summary on talk of the "protecting children's privacy" proposal, "zomg, censorship! somebody call a wahmbulance!" and literally laughed out loud. I think I'm going to make use of the term "Wahmbulance" quite frequently now ;) -- W o o ty  Woot?  contribs 08:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Episode list has a problem: Template_talk:Episode_list#Line_color. Can you help? - Peregrinefisher 08:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked a single-purpose account who made this nasty remark about you. You may want to ask for a checkuser or oversight on that. Yours, ( Radiant) 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, typical insult to an anime fan, no biggie. Thanks, though. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but I had to because the sig on it's own didn't work. -- Silva Storm

Huh? Didn't work in what way? -- Ned Scott 06:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, I don't mind the section, I just don't get the point of it -- reception from/of who/what exactly? Just brainstorming how we can make that work. Just H 04:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reception is just sort of a generic term for reactions, reviews, awards, ratings, impact on society, etc. Some articles make more than one section, if there's enough information, and some use a different title. WP:WAF#Example articles has some good examples of how to use such sections. It might be a good idea to have such a section, but give it a different title, as long as it encourages out-of-universe information. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Cool, thanks. Maybe "public reception" might work there better. I'm sure we'll be able to clean it up. Just H 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for make me realise that a disambiguation page for Tsukasa was needed. Kazu-kun 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[2] - brenneman 12:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, clean up you disambig work

[3] Kazu-kun 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no double redirects, and redirects on their own are not a bad thing. I'll update the template and major stuff when I get home from work. Technically speaking, there is nothing to clean up, since redirects are supposed to work this way. -- Ned Scott 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see you got the tune up as well. With regards to the page move I performed, you're essentially correct above and there is very little harm if you can't be bothered. But if you do clean it up, let me know when it's finished so I can delete the re-direct page. - brenneman 22:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I left the person a note. Links to redirects are fine ---- Redirects to redirects are very bad. — Wknight94 ( talk) 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, re: this request, it would probably be best to simply post a rebuttal in your evidence section, don't you think? — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that, especially since it's a good example of how she misrepresents people. It just struck me as so blatantly misleading and incorrect that I couldn't help but ask her about it. I'll probably put together a rebuttal section as well. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to revert my edit to the preamble of WP:FUC with the edit summary "something to discuss first", then please actually respond to my discussion of it on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Preamble. — An gr 07:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan on doing such, but you should know better, that kind of change requires discussion first. You don't go and change the meaning of the words to a hotly debated policy on a whim. Not all changes need to be discussed, but it's pretty obvious that this is not one of those times. Make your argument on the talk page and wait for responses. The alternative is other people reverting back and forth, and the debate getting needlessly heated. Why would you want that? -- Ned Scott 08:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - if you haven't already, I'll copy it over now. :) Crimsone 04:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Ned Scott, thanks for welcoming me. Listen, I really do like Digimon, but I'm afraid to say I won't be adding any information to the articles. On the contrary, I'll be copy-editting any article that truly needs it. But I've noticed that every Digimon page that I've copy-editted is not tagged with {{ copyedit}}. What I'm saying is that we should place a copyedit tag on articles that need it, so that the article will be placed in the Copyedit backlog. God, the backlog is large enough, but if making a Digimon article look nicer, then so be it. We at the League of Copyeditors are working very hard to clear that backlog. And if someone sees a Digimon article, chances are that they will copy-edit it, and put it on the Articles Ready For Final Proofread on the project page. Once it's there, someone could read over it and fix any mistakes that were forgotten or missed, and then remove the copy-edit tag. Of course, I'm not saying that only people from the League of Copyeditors will copy-edit them, other people will too, and we'll just read over it and fix mistakes as well. In a nutshell, will you help me place copyedit tags on Digimon articles that need them? Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!

P.S.Digimon articles are not very hard to copyedit, so in a matter of time, hopefully all Digimon articles will not need copyedit! -- Tohru Honda 13 ^{Sign here!} 20:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's extremely bad policy not to tell people ahead of time, so yes, I'm mad about that. I'm mad, too, about the breaching of the seven-day rule, which is written in black and white. Such a flagrant breach is going to lose respect for the policy. Either everyone obeys all of the rules, or they're worth nothing. I certainly don't respect them any more. And don't start calling people dicks, or we'll be going to mediation. Tony 13:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't go to mediation for citing m:Don't be a dick. I'm sorry you're so mad about those files being deleted, but getting mad isn't helping those articles. Now you're attacking me because I don't agree with your view, but had nothing to do with the files being deleted. Do you think you're the only one who's felt like things didn't go the "right way"? I've been in similar debates and have been in your shoes. A lot of us have. It's frustrating, I know, but right now you are only making things worse for yourself by acting this way. What's more important to you, "justice" or turning out quality articles? Policy is not black and white, even when we try to make it black and white. It's just the very nature of Wikipedia. I'm not saying that's how it should be, it's just how it is. If you are going to have these kinds of expectations you'll just get frustrated and burn out, not wanting to edit or contribute anymore.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been harsh with my words. Like I said, I know how frustrating those situations can be and should have kept that in mind. My point wasn't to insult you or anything like that. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but there are less stressful ways to strive for improvement. -- Ned Scott 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Deletion log, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Deletion log is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{ hangon}}, and also put a note on Talk:Deletion log saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. As an additional note aside from that {{ repost-warn}} stuff, I've explained my rationale on the talk page so please respond there. BigNate37 _(T) 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ned. Just letting you know that Serial Experiments Lain is up for FAC again. Tought you might want to comment. Happy holydays!-- SidiLemine 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The site may not need what the digimon's last words are but is it nessicary that you get rid of them? Have the text is not needed but it is included like how they die —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sceptile ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

It's not the worst thing in the world, but excessive plot summary and quotes are generally discouraged. It's something most of those articles have a problem with already and need to be fixed. I'm not going to go out of my way to remove all the quotes, as I don't feel strongly enough about it to dedicate time just for that. If you really want to include the "last words" then there's not much I can do about it, but I'd strongly recommend not doing so. There's a lot of more important things to do on these articles that will make them better. You might want to check out WP:WAF and WP:FICT as well. Happy editing. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit my archived messages. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't, I edited your main talk page. You should know that it's generally in bad taste to remove warning templates so quickly after they're added. Trying to hide the removal as an "archive" doesn't work here. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted to re-remove the warning I would of done so, you are welcome to cite where it says I should change my archiving habits since prior to August because Ned Scott doesn't like it, even so the warning could be taken as trollish behaviour. (edit summary: Heh, remember, no one owns it, see WP:ARCHIVE#Automated_archival - my talk is archived daily (read the warnign [sic] @ the top) - like it - or - lump it.) thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I apologies for accusing you of using the bot to remove the message. Talk pages are for everyone's benefit, and to archive daily like that renders the page basically useless. So, yeah, I probably do have a right to ask you to change your editing habits, but it doesn't matter. I shouldn't be talking to you, Matthew, because nothing good comes out of talking with you. You're rude in your approach to other editors, you seem to do things out of spite, and you miss the point on so many issues. It's not even worth trying to explain it to you anymore. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. -- Ned Scott 07:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted your changes to Template:Infobox TV ratings. I was watching South Park, pulled up the South Park article, and the ratings box was almost as wide as the entire page. I think it's because the Canada entry on that page is so long. Anyway, I reverted your template edits and that fixed the width so I left it reverted. Odd coincidence that it happened to come back to you! — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

omg, I've been stalked! Haha, but seriously, thanks for the heads up. I'll throw a copy in my sandbox or something and see what I come up with. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ned,

I see you reverted my recent edit in ADHD talk page. Yes: I know Baughman personally, though I have nothing to do with that organization. Anyway, in a rush to rebut Scuro I spoke more than I should in that page.

I guess I’m not breaking WP policy if I try to remove what I have said previously. Don’t you agree?

-- Cesar Tort 04:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it at first because we generally don't edit past comments and didn't really look much at the comments directly. Sorry about that. Yeah, I'm pretty sure stuff like this (which doesn't change the meaning of your message and is for the sake of personal privacy) is ok. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ned, I just wanted to ask you about your recent edit to List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes. I know that you were assuming good faith by using the other template for the episodes (thereby effectively removing the DVD cover images), but I'm not sure if that was the best thing to do. The version prior to your edit contained images of the DVD covers, which, graphically speaking, enhanced the article significantly (as they did in part of List of Oh My Goddess episodes).

I also noticed that you had commented on the FLC regarding the issue of the DVD covers. I think that it might be best to discuss this on the talk page and achieve some sort of consensus on whether the images should be removed or not. Perhaps they could be replaced with screencaps of the episodes, if that is still a feasible solution. Retaining the DVD covers is an alternative solution as well; your idea with User:Ned Scott/sandbox2 was a wonderful suggestion. But hey, thanks for being bold, taking the helm, and following through with what you were doing. Thanks! ;) — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would, but then it would throw off those merges on the List of Digimon. I usually prefer those said articles separate to avoid a mega redirect. Rtkat3 ( talk) 6:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to "no consensus", does that change your want of a deletion review? Cbrown1023 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

While that is at least more accurate to the discussion, it still ignores our policies and the deletion rationale which shouldn't be judged by numbers (or a lack of clear numbers). The full weight of the policy wasn't considered. No rational reason was given to exempt the articles from policy or logical statement that said it didn't accurately apply. I'm sorry, but we're being way to soft with fictional articles lately, and I see that as holding those articles from their true potential. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For pointing that out to me at the deletion page. User:Jacroe | Talk 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ned. Thanks for moving my first major edit to the right place. I had multiple tabs open and I must have got confused. Embarrassing, to say the least!

TimDub 13:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ned, I finally caught up with what was happening on the writing about fiction page - a lot has gone on in a short time! I sometimes wonder why what seems like a small number of people are so protective of a page that isn't that hot. I find it fairly poorly written and focussed on the negative, rather than being an instructional guide. Oh well.

Thanks for your contributions & input. We'll get there eventually! Dr Aaron 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being the voice of reason on the Gundam Wikiproject. Both sides need to learn to be civil and work this out more amicably. Dåvid ƒuchs ( talk •  contribs) 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is just impossible to assume good faith in the actions taken by the deletionist. What is currently happening is just like the dark ages, burn them, its something we have never heard of before, it must be heresy. With people making up rules, saying nothing counts as sources, and trying to blame people who have just a little more than a month to work on hundreds of articles, they are being personal attack removed themselves. Especially the one who nominated dozens of articles during another AfD process saying that one is nominated as a precedent to delete others. So, they want to improve wikipedia? How? creating gigantic merged articles of 137 kb long, without even deleting the templates? MythSearcher ^talk 03:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading the talk at WP:GUNDAM, it would now appear that they are saying they are perfectly fine with the articles going that I would have go, and the ones staying that I would have stay in the first place. MER-C nominated the wrong articles: he nommed one of the ones that should stay.

Perhaps you might like to reconsider some of your votes? Certainly the don't provide an actual reason for keeping other than a lot of nomination occurred at once. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for being the voice of reason in these discussions. Obviously, I disagree with Moreschi about reconsidering your votes, since I also voted against the proposed deletions due to the high volume. Coming as suddenly as they did, in the volume that they did, and with no previous attempt to contact anyone from WP:GUNDAM to discuss the issue has, in my opinion, created more problems than it solves, though I am sure this was not the intention of those who propsed the deltions. Considering that even the quintessental mech from the Gundam series, which even Moreschi voted to keep, was nominated, some of the suggested deletions appear to be made by people with a profound ignorance of the series. As such, I feel that deleting any of these articles at this time, regardless of how worthy they are, would only exacerbate the situation. Later, when tempers on both sides have cooled, the issues can be reexamined. In that case, I suspect I would vote for deletion of many of the articles. After all, I have successfully proposed deletion of Gundam articles previously. Edward321 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a reply. Johntex\ ^talk 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just completed a massive cleanup of Air (series) and subsequent articles and was wondering if you'd like to help me dive into Air again to make it even better.---- ( 十 八) 00:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If plot summaries are not an indiscriminate collection of facts, then why did you link to it in your DRV nomination? How else is it violating policy? - Mgm| ^(talk) 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. I believe the plot summaries are needless and don't serve a point (such as aiding another part of an article). -- Ned Scott 18:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've been involved in different dissuccions on the Podcast page. I've also noticed you're a member of the Wikiprojects Council, and thought you may be interested in my proposal for a Wikiproject on podcasting. If you are you can head over to the proposal page and note yourself under Podcasting. I think it'd be a great project that would really help out with all the different podcast/podcast related articles out there. Thanks, and have a good one. Gan fon 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moreschi

25 more today. Good faith is becoming harder to assume. Edward321 03:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with the site link you reverted on the Cardcaptors article?

Since i didn't know what your comment meant. - Dynamo_ace Talk

It looks like he might need a warning. His *entire* edit history is made of stuff like what you removed at Karui Kamiya. Circeus 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Saintmagician and myself are having a disagreement over header presentation in the new merged articles. Could you have a look into it? Circeus 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you fix the Template: Episode list problem? The one where the color bars don't show up in Internet Explorer? I would really appreciate it. Thanks, Peregrine Fisher 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just been really busy in real life lately, and busy on Wikipedia with other things. I'll see what I can come up with, though. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Take your time. - Peregrine Fisher 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it is the same problem, but some times the lines that separate the columns and rows don't show up (I'm using firefox). here's a picture. Kazu-kun 07:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

• It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

• Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

• Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

• Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 ^Talk 04:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ned. This is regarding your to Template:Talkheader. Please seem my response at Template talk:Talkheader#Revisit article policies box. I ask you to please comment there before removing the box again, so that we can all work towards concensus. Thanks. — DragonHawk ( talk) 18:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wasting anyone's time, I just don't want to see people's opinions ignored or trampled upon. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, so you are wasting everyone's time by acting in good faith. I'm sorry you do not see this. -- Ned Scott 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think there's consensus. That's why I'm asking for clarification. If you think clarification is a waste of time, I don't know what to say. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

LucifaelsBride ( talk · contribs), who has been vandalizing Kagome Higurashi, has two sockpuppets which are 74.103.19.52 ( talk · contribs) and XenocideLuvver ( talk · contribs). I suggest that you always revert them before you try to make any constructive changes. And also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Kagome under attack. JRSpriggs 08:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding that tag, however funny, is, sadly, vandalism. Please stop it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Holy shit, I totally didn't know that! Thank you sooooooo much for pointing that out to me. Boy is my face red. -- Ned Scott 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I mean, come on. This debate is not worthy of being serious, it's too stupid. -- Ned Scott 12:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement. However, adding that tag adds the article to the category "people in space." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ned. You are a fellow member of WP:LOE, so this is why I wanted to inform you of this. On the LOE for Degrassi, a serious reformatting is taking place that does not conform to the guidelines of WP:LOE. I would attend to this matter myself, but I presently don't have enough time to properly do so. Specifically, information on the plot formula of each episode is being put into the LOE itself, when something like this probably belongs on the episode's page. I just wanted to make sure you knew. Cliff smith 00:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy smokes, that page is messed up. Episode articles or not, I see links to uploaded videos, at least three different list styles in one, a few broken tables.. I'll see if I can help. -- Ned Scott 01:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a proposal you may be interested in discussing regarding character images. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So you can do the history merge now if you wish. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihon joe} 03:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ned Scott 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I originally started this discussion on Quadzilla99's talk page, but for some bizarre reason he insists on deleting any message I leave on his talk page. See this for the "other half" of this discussion.

I'm happy you have an opinion: good for you! I have a different one. The header is very helpful to new users, and even established ones. There's no official policy so talk to an admin if you don't like it. Quadzilla99 12:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus derived from the TfD and other such discussions is to not use it on every talk page. Even if you have a different opinion it is important to respect the common consensus. That's the very core of how Wikipedia works. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Provide me a link to these and I'll look them over. If that's the case then so be it. However I am highly sceptical that this is so. Quadzilla99 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. -- Ned Scott 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is their no mention of its restricted use on the template's page? Shouldn't there be a note saying use only on certain pages? Respond here and I'll answer here. Quadzilla99 21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just looked at it again you recentyl edited it to include that. Quadzilla99 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Those TfD links have always been at the top of Template talk:Talkheader. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• The following message from Quadzilla99 comes after I leave this message on his talk page:

Where is there history of adding new talkheader templates you're talking about? I stopped after the big hubbub on the talkheader talk page. Look at my last 500 edits. Seriously move on with your life and stop harassing me it's kind of sad. You're half a stalker at this point. Quadzilla99 04:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think a little too highly of yourself. It's painfully easy to view your specific talk page contributions and I wanted to see what kind of talk pages you were adding the template to. Some of them were so absurd I couldn't help but remove them on sight, but it definitely was not an act meant to harass you. I would hope that if I ever had such a motivation I would come up with something a bit more creative and effective than something so boring if I wanted to get under your skin. It took me a very short time to look at some talk page additions, remove some templates, and update a few unrelated templates to use WP:TPT#Small option. One thing you don't understand is excessive use is usually what leads {{ talkheader}} to CfD. If you make a mess then you have no right to complain if people come and clean it up. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at my last 500 edits. Point to me where the continual adding of talkheader templates is. Is this too complicated? Quadzilla99 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Granted you are at least not adding them in mass as you did before. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I later personally removed at least 2 of those such as for Silas Kopf and Morgan Motor Company Steve Blechman. Quadzilla99 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did about 5 or so out of 500 edits will you move on with your life now? I have, that whole issue is so in the past it's comical. Quadzilla99 06:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on watching your contribs if this is no longer an issue. I guess you don't understand how easy and how little time it takes to check such things, but if you want to feel special because of my actions then go ahead. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So it's done then? You're going to stop stalking me? Quadzilla99 06:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to fix the talkheaders you altered on that page. Right now it adds nothing, as you still have to scroll down to get to the discussion anyway. Quadzilla99 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here this page does it right use that as a guide. Quadzilla99 09:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have Internet Explorer 7.0.6000.16386 which was released in November and I just downloaded a week ago. Look at that example I gave you if you click to edit it it looks completely different than the edit you made. Quadzilla99 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring this correct method of doing it and incorrectly doing it please thanks. Quadzilla99 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please click edit on this page to see the correct way to do it. Quadzilla99 04:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• in reply to this message:

If it doesn't display properly in internet explorer your solution is to ignore the millions of people who have IE and use a format that doesn't work for them, because it saves you a little work? Quadzilla99 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what just to get this thing over with I'll go through the work of putting it in the other fornat don't edit it for about 30 minutes. Quadzilla99 05:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the talk page, the fix has to come from one of the templates (which I'm working on now). Take the time to actually READ what I wrote to you. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I read it you blamed it on my browser. If that is so then it can't go the way it is since millions of people have IE and the Pope talk page looks normal. Quadzilla99 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's done per the talk page on the Pope's article. That should end our collaberative efforts. Quadzilla99 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you've applied the same temp fix that won't help any of the other talk pages that are using this. Forcing this to work per page is a half-assed way to fix the problem. A proper fix will not require any changes to the talk page. Work smarter not harder, you'll get a lot more done that way. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from joining discussions that do not concern you. When I ask another user a question don't respond for them. Harvey100 08:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have the right to make such a request. Wikipedia talk pages are completely public, if you wish to have a private conversation with Dragon then use the e-mail function. Your comments are borderline trolling at this point, and if you don't stop you will be blocked from that talk page. -- Ned Scott 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice try you're not an admin and you're never going to be one. Yes the pages are public but when someone directly addresses someone else as I did, mentioning them by name, it's pretty rude to intervene. Harvey100 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said I would be the one to block you. I'm just going to drop this, just try not to jump to conclusions so quickly and you'll find your experience here more enjoyable. -- Ned Scott 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism by the anon. from my talk page (-: thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I've finally gotten around to starting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. The project page itself is still pretty bare, but at least we now have a central discussion point for this sort of work. Please join! - 52 Pickup 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"for someone who claims to know how Wikipedia works so well" Cite your sources, please. I am sure I could have babbled something like this, but this may depend on context. In particular, the shape of my talk page not in the slightest way influences wikipedia. E pluribus unum, so to say. Some wikipedians spend 95% of their keyboard time in talk and wikipolicy pages... `' mikka 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so just leave it to my speculation that you like making things difficult for people in order to make a point. At the risk of being blocked: grow up. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And I say "at the risk of being blocked" as tong-in-cheek, just to be clear. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, that was rather uncalled for of me. I have no reason to be at odds with you, and I'm not sure what got into me. If it means anything, I apologies. I was probably making unfair assumptions and such. -- Ned Scott 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's now on deletion. >Radiant< 10:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)