User talk:Ned Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents
Archive
Archives
  1. 3/2006 - 5/2006
  2. 6/2006
  3. 7/2006 - 8/2006
  4. 8/2006 - 9/2006
  5. 10/2006 - 11/2006


[edit] Mediation request

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? WikieZach| 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)
 :) WikieZach| talk 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: What the hell?

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)

[edit] Electronicam

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)

[edit] Block log

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)

[edit] Serial Experiments Lain

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)

[edit] ShineGreymon Burst Mode

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)


[edit] Digimon

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)

[edit] Stand Alone Complex merge

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)

[edit] Thank you

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)

[edit] Olive branch

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)

[edit] Request for Mediation

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.
This message delivered: 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] WP:CE

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

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

[edit] Re: Air (series)

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)


[edit] Thanks

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)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

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)

[edit] Concerning a Wikiproject

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)

[edit] Thanks

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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes

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)

[edit] Contact

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/d/User_talk%7ENed_Scott_8a2b.html"