User talk:Ned Scott/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This 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.

Contents

Kirsten Prout Tagging

Thanks for explaining to me, i didnt mean it how it probably looks i was just curios. Ive not fully got to grips with wikipedia yet, thanks for letting me know :-)(Neostinker 10:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

No problemo. -- Ned Scott 11:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of Air episodes

I know that you are currently pursuing an RfC for List of Air episodes, however, may I suggest that you request an informal mediator first. That is because I think we are very close to a consensus already, with Cool Cat being the only real obstacle, and we probably don't need to go through an RfC (WP:SNOWBALL). --TheFarix (Talk) 22:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to do the RfC on Cool Cat himself, but I'm in no rush. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Talk:List of Air episodes

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Cat out 21:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you. -- Ned Scott 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I also fail to see how what I've said is a personal attack. I've indeed commented on you personally, but because you've become a problematic editor, and I wish to resolve a dispute. As such, certain things of a personal nature must be addressed. A fine line, but not much different from the comments made in your RfAs or in a typical RfC. Considering this is all building up to a RfC on you, I don't see anything I've said as inappropriate. -- Ned Scott 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Pay close attention to the Comment on content, not on the contributor part. Thanks. --Cat out 13:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Cat out 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dobermon

Labramon does NOT digivolve to Dobermon. Gabumon and Bakumon do. You check your sources and don't edit pages with incorrect crap. It's called Shining Evolution's Digimon Encyclopedia. Use it. -- 68.43.128.186 18:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

my reply -- Ned Scott 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

Whilst I appreciate this appears to be a subject you are passionate about, note it's polite to remain neutral when pointing people to a debate. Steve block Talk 22:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Which message are you speaking of? -- Ned Scott 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, never-mind, I found it. Agreed, I should have been more neutral when posting that, sorry. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FireFox warning

Well I'll be a thing that does stuff, I thought he was talking about my comments on the lost dispute, [1]. I guess I learn something new everyday. -- Ned Scott 11:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You should be civil at all times avoiding personal remarks. I am glad the issue has been cleared. --Cat out 12:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

blanked comment

the reason it was taken off, was because I didn't want to deal with him anymore, he was getting ridiculously annoying. Not seeing his name made it easier... is this wrong? Somerset219 20:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, I thought maybe you had done it by mistake. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tsubasa edit

Just double-checking before I restore a line; did you mean to remove the redirect|Tsubasa tag from the Tsubasa article? I'd put it back since it seems necessary for the disambiguation page to be seen when Tsubasa redirects right to "Tsubasa: RESERVoir CHRoNiCLE". Maybe I'm looking too much into it. ^^; --Crisu 14:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

my reply -- Ned Scott 20:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Gustav Leonhardt is a highly acclaimed Dutch harpsichordist

(just to note, the initial comment was originally on Cool Cat's talk page, then copied to here)

It's not a personal attack just because you addressed me by name. Also, what you said isn't untrue, except I wouldn't call it complaining, since that's just rude. Rather, it's called discussion. Feel free to change it back to my name, I won't go screaming "NPA!", since that's just silly. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never met or heard of a Gustav Leonhardt, nor do I see a relevance.
I try to avid personal reverances unless it is absolutely necesary (such as in arbitration cases or ANB/I posts). This is something not covered in policy, just my personal preference. Personal referances often make people act over defensively as it is apperant in this very discussion.
Declaring someting "going too far" is complaining, more so 5 days after its creation.
I also am curious on why are you going through my individual diffs. You noticed and responded to that particular diff 10 minutes after the change. Just how frequently are you loading my diffs?
--Cat out 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no relevance to Gustav at all, but he's sure one hell of a harpsichordist.
Do you think I am stalking you? Do you think I am watching your edits, waiting for the chance to make your life miserable? You have nothing to fear, I'm not going to follow you around Wikipedia. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to avoid you on articles that I have a legitimate interest in editing and contributing to, such as the Air articles. I do not edit, suggest, list for AfD, or anything like that just to cause you grief. -- Ned Scott 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Then please lets stay on topic.
For the record, I haven't accused you of stalking and cannot understand the reason of your deffensive stance. If I felt that you were stalking me, we would not be talking. I however am still curious on how did you notice and prepare a response to a change just after ten minutes. I can't think of a way aside from loading individual diffs or reloading the afd page every 10 minues and reading it carefull enogh to notice such a change.
Since you are interested air articles, why not help out aside from participating in discussion. How about expanding the character articles?
P.S. feel free to post your response on my talk page if you want a more prompt response. Keeping the thread on both talk pages while not required is common practice.
--Cat out 11:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi there, Ned Scott. I noticed your dispute with Cool Cat over styling and formatting on lists of TV show episodes, and I think it is unfortunate that such a dispute should go on without resolution. Would you be interested in informal mediation with myself as the mediator? —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Signature

This seems to be a misunderstanding. I had no intention of my signature being a recreation of the deleted page in CAUBXD, just to be something I could use to sign. Now if you have an idea of how to put a signature template in your signature box without it automatically subst'ing, that would be appreciated. For now, excuse the long signature please. Fredil Yupigo 12:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. -- Ned Scott 12:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Essay thing

The point isn't to discourage editors from using it by turning it into an essay. It's completely about not turning Wikipedia into a hypocritical fansite. That's my objective here. Principles are very important to me. Randall's issue with this matter has been mainly the professional aspect, which is why he was fine with the compromise from the start (I thought you liked it too?), but my issue has been entirely about integrity. Ryu Kaze 13:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No one wants Wikipedia to be a fansite. But spoiler tags are not just for fansites, fansites do not own them. And I thought that compromise was a good idea at first, but I think it would lead to even more problems, even if I had your view. I see the off-by-default as acceptable if there was no other alternative. -- Ned Scott 13:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not that spoiler tags are just for fansites. What I've been saying is that by using them the way they're being used right now, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. Since it's not, it can only be a fansite. What problems would the compromise cause, by the way? It seemed to be the only thing that most of us could agree on, which is generally a good sign. Ryu Kaze 13:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ed, You're the Man.

I'm so glad you are patrticipating in Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. The pro image side[2] needs your arguments. - Peregrinefisher 08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacing prod tags

Hi, please stop replacing prod tags as the policy against it is quite clear. Thanks. Kappa 02:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, please stop wasting my time. -- Ned Scott 02:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Also I will remind you of WP:CIVIL [3]. Kappa 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed

There's a few problems with the idea to move back the article to Detective Conan - 1. The British Manga release is Case Closed. 2. The American Manga release is Case Closed. 3. Case Closed still airs on the FUNimation Channel in the USA

You see, if the U.S. release of the original manga had used "Detective Conan", the Wikipedia article would NEVER have been moved. But, not only did it use the dub title, the character names are also changed. And the same release is on U.K. shelves.

WhisperToMe 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusion is still an issue with the generic title. -- Ned Scott 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case... find out what other Case Closeds there are and maybe turn this into "Case Closed (manga and anime series)" or "Case Closed (manga)" - I did a Wikipedia search and could not find any other series with the title "Case Closed" - As for the phrase, you could put that at "Case closed" WhisperToMe 03:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Avatar Episodes

Hot damn you're quick. That change didn't even move into another minute. Thanks. H2P 04:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ned, I saw the link to the category you created for Father's Wish's suspected puppets; is this standard procedure? As I was just making a suspected sock puppet page at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Father's_Wish (and the evidence isn't really there yet, I just had to list the accounts, and threw some IPs in for good measure). –Prototime (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I WILL DEFEND THE PAGES. A warrior needs not sleep nor food. I shall triumph over these puppets. Their strings shall be cut even in the dead of night... No I'm kidding, I'm going to bed, you should sleep too, what could they possibly due in the next 4 hours anyway? H2P 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Avatar

I've decreaed the protection on this from protected to semiprotected, and will remove that in a few days. — xaosflux Talk 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Ned. I left a reply to your post here. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 02:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

E&T Pairing

I want to list E&T Pairing for deletion on the grounds that it's not notable. I do have a slight bias against the article's content, but it's still just an article based on a shipping fandom that is not necessarily widely accepted in the CCS community. Would you agree to AfDing this? Or should the terms be a little different? Thanks. --Crisu 05:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

my reply -- Ned Scott 05:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Article is tagged. Thanks for your input..! --Crisu 12:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers RfC

Ned, in the way it is worded it does not sound like an argument, more like a conclusion. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but they've pretty much lost the "battle" on the NPOV and censorship arguments, so eh, doesn't really matter. -- Ned Scott 13:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, i will leave it as it is. Could they ever win anyway? i have quantum torpedoes ;-) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What is exatly that you do (mostly) around? You seem to be very involved in TV lists--T-man, the wise 04:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Show me

Image:LOGO-BTAS.jpg Man, you need to show me how to modify the fair use thing with the image I showed of something. Please, I really want the list to be featured. Mentor me in the fair use ways!!--T-man, the wise 03:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

the DC animation template isn't external links. Why did you move it back?--T-man, the wise 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: image

I didnt upload a new one, the user prior to me did, i uploaded that soemtime before him. he however changed the image. i reinstated mine as it is of the keymoment the ascended woman. Showing the cast isnt key. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Ned, I don't think either of us have any illusions about becoming best friends, but I even acknowledged some prudish requests in the RfC that I not express myself in a normal capacity because certain people take as much offense at cursing as they do at untagged plot details. Despite this, you're the only one going out of your way now to toss out personal attacks or "assume bad faith" as you put it. Try taking a look at what I've said in the guidelines discussion, will you? I'd say I've been damn nice about the whole thing, despite my disdain for the subject matter.

Yet, what do we have? We have you on one occasion trying to tell me to get the hell out apparently without even bothering to read all I was saying (and just to be fair, we won't ignore how often you've told me that I don't control debates just because I have an opinion that disagrees with even what the majority might think is sensible),[4] on another we've got you somehow assuming that I'm insulting you (nevermind that I wasn't even responding to you there; assume bad faith much?),[5] later we've got you accusing me of things that I haven't said again,[6] oh, and then we have it again![7]

Drop it, okay? In previous discussion, there's been plenty of times that I felt I had little reason to assume good faith, and so I didn't, but if you'd try looking at the comments I've made to the people who haven't been insulting me at every turn, you'd see that I'm not trying to piss on your parade just for the sake of doing it. For all the times you've accused me of assuming bad faith, that is all you are doing to everything I say. You've snuck insults in at me constantly for the last month, despite your claims of being civil yourself, and now -- even after I've suppressed my individuality for the sake of your inability to handle curse words in your presence, and also agreed to take part in this discussion... something you suggested I do, might I add(!) -- that's all you're doing, with everything I say. Half the time you don't even address what I've actually said because you build a strawman to tear down. Give it a rest, okay? Can we please just focus on the subject at hand? This is like the third time you've derailed the discussion for the sake of coming after me specifically, and I'm rather tired of it.

So, please, I am following a suggestion of Wiki etiquette (yes, I know I've been uncivil at times, but you continuing to do that while I haven't is going to resolve something how?) by letting you know I'm not particularly fond of how you're conducting yourself where most anything I say is concerned, asking you to stop it, and asking you to focus on what we're supposed to be doing. Ryu Kaze 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not the same as being uncivil with you. And also, I am not using strawman arguments, even by your own examples you've yet to show me doing so. When I asked you to stop assuming that people who want tags are stupid, I knew you weren't trying to mount a personal attack, but it was still rather insulting, even if I wasn't one of those readers. I'll try to tone it down a bit, but for the most part there has been nothing wrong with what I've been saying to you. You've shown that you do not have faith in your fellow editors to understand guidelines, and simply display fears of a worst case scenario over new guidelines that have yet to be formed.
And what's with "even after I've suppressed my individuality for the sake of your inability to handle curse words in your presence"?? Asking you to be a little bit more professional is a bit different than being able to handle curse words. If someone did not like curse words, are you saying it is an unreasonable request to ask that you not use them? What does that really have to do with anything? And for your information, I use curse words all the time, but I do so when around friends, and not around people I don't know. THAT is an example of being civil. That really has nothing to do with anything, I'm not sure why you even felt it important, but I couldn't resist pointing out the irony in your position on it. -- Ned Scott 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your promise to attempt to tone it down, and I will continue attempting to be what you deem civil, but I see nothing unprofessional or uncivil about being myself so long as I remain within the principles expected of me here. Cursing around strangers isn't being uncivil. It's simply using my own form of expression. Someone else might call a meteor crater "a very large recess in the Earth's surface" while I might call it "a ****ing big hole in the ground". Presenting myself as something I'm not in the company of strangers is inappropriate in my opinion. Ryu Kaze 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan

Hey Ned, I thought I might talk to you about it rather than just revert you outright. I personally don't think Wikipe-tan is suitable for the anime page...because she's not in any anime, or even animated in any way. Although she does follow the "anime style" (might I add there is no such concept in Japan), that's not what the article is about. She might be better off in the moé page, I think. But for the purpose of her FP, I'm not gonna revert you...just yet :) Just to let you know. _dk 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

True, she hasn't been animated yet, but I still think she's a good example (and our only free one) of what anime looks like. Maybe having her farther down on the article, instead of as the first picture might be better? Maybe less "misleading" since she is indeed not an animated character. It wouldn't bother me if you wish to take out the image, I'm just looking for more articles that can benefit from her anime-ness and free-ness :) -- Ned Scott 00:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is about Wikipe-tan again...can you be more careful where you put her? Already some people are getting the wrong ideas about her in the FPC. Thank you. _dk 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, for the sake of the FPC I will try to avoid the controversial articles. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, imagine if she's on the lolicon page, there'll be a riot XD _dk 06:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"above this line"

Strange how similar "above this line" and "below this line" look... this is why I'm not a doctor! Well, it's one reason, anyway. Melchoir 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Fay D. Flourite

Ah, sorry about the copying and pasting, I suppose I skipped the part in the FAQ where it says not to do that. I was just concerned about the fact that, as a result of someone who has apparently never even read any of the manga in which this character appears incorrectly editing his Wiki, my life was getting more unpleasant. If it helps, I can add scans from the series character guide - which was published by the manga authors who invented the character originally - to any page where it's necessary to verify the spelling of his name. It's "Fay D. Flourite." In English. If you read the TRC series Wiki, Fay's name is confirmed as it stands. This is a bit like someone continually insisting, on a public information forum, that the main character in the famous novel Crime & Punishment is actually named Bert, and being powerless to correct them. This is a single misinformed user misinforming hundreds of people by extension. I realize that it's not of ultimate importance, but it's still misinformation appearing under the sanctioned umbrella of the Wikipedia. As I said, if scans of the source material could help, I can provide them.Oryssein 09:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the anime series i think you can get a screenshot of Fai/ fay's name in one of thier backgrounds. Go to youtube to get some of the episodes

your opinion sought at WP:LIST talk

I've made a proposal here, and am seeking feedback. Best,--Anthony Krupp 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus FAC

Thanks for your support. While your concerns have already been addressed, I'd like to point out that you misunderstood the argument involving space. It wasn't that it saves space for the sake of saving space (an article will be as long as it needs to be, after all), but rather, that it's less imposing and doesn't unnecessarily stretch the page. That was the issue involving space.

That said, as I mentioned a week or so ago on the article's talk page, I've always had misgivings about the list of tracks because it can be seen as somewhat trivia-ish outside an article specifically for the soundtrack itself, and — as you've said — if something is considered unimportant enough to be stuck in its own scroll box box like that in the first place, it might not be important enough to include anyway. The fact that Half-Life 2 utilized it, however, was enough to convince me to give it a chance, though I honestly can't say I'm surprised to see this concern over relevance brought up. Thanks again for your input and support. Ryu Kaze 12:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your defense of the images. I can't believe that after we cut the image use in half, someone would suggest that the article violates fair use criteria. Ryu Kaze 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Magazines

Hi. Do you own any magazines with information on sales numbers, viewer numbers, and popularity (polls and surveys) of anime and manga? Many articles desperately need some information on reception (aside from reviews, which can be found all over the place). I stared asking this on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Magazines_and_other_information_sources --GunnarRene 04:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Scroll boxes and other techniques

First, thank you for your comments in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shadow of the Colossus. It seems tat you're better than me at debatig and you convinced them quickly. But I see many other pages that use the scroll box. Would you consider creating a guideline that prevents the use of restrictive techniques (I don't know how to name them) like scroll boxes or hide/show feature? CG 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

prod and ep number id

Basically I figured one would use one or the other, but not both. I've seen lists where the ep number resets for each season, so I figured another alternative might be good for those lists. But yeah, there's probably a better way of doing that.. Any ideas? -- Ned Scott 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Including the season number may be a way to go about it, but that means adding an extra field to the templates. But perhaps the best way would be to use the episode title instead. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after switching List of Ōban Star-Racers episodes to the Episode list template, I realized that won't work either because episode articles are linked to the title. Hmmm, maybe having the episode link and the episode title as separate fields, like what is done with some of the cite templates, may work. That will free up the episode name to be used as an ID. --TheFarix (Talk) 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
While the titles are more likely to not over-lap, using the numbers makes for a smaller URL/wikilink. It might be easier to just suggest a standard numbering method for the EpisodeNumber parameter. I'm just pleased to see that the basic concept of it works, so it'd probably be a good idea to work out the finer details on WT:LOE. -- Ned Scott 02:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Digimon lines

I reverted a bunch of additions of lines and left warnings to two users: Pjpatron (talk • contribs) and Pokemega32 (talk • contribs). The latter seems to be a bit confrontational over at Stingmon. There are probably more, but I don'thave every single digimon article on my watchlist. At least attack aditions have reduced considerably these last months. Circeus 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes my head hurt.. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use images removed from your user page

Hello, Ned Scott. I've removed some images from User:Ned Scott/sandbox, as they are copyrighted images that are being used under claims of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. These images have not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I see you've reverted my changes, with the explanation that "exception is made for sandbox pages". Can you show me where this exception is stated? I didn't know such an exception existed. —Bkell (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to find where I've read that, so I've blanked the sandbox page for now incase I was mistaken. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I probably would have left the page alone if it looked like you were actively working on it, but you hadn't touched it since the middle of June. —Bkell (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy

Thanks very much for your more constructive reply. The comments you've made are helpful regardless of how this review goes. If you have any more to give, I'd be most appreciative.

  • I don't think the epilepsy page gives any clue as to how people with epilepsy fare in society, although in Talk:Epilepsy I've suggested a section/article on the social implications of epilepsy. Regardless, giving examples of successful people is more accessible that prose with statistics.
  • Featured lists do have a lower bar than featured articles. I've no idea how many lists you've reviewed. Some folk are anti-list by inclination and don't feel that any should be featured.
  • I can't spot the self reference myself. There was one deleted by User:Rune.welsh on the 8th August.
  • Each entry in the "No evidence" section is sourced. I can quote a reliable source as saying "there is no evidence at all" and also as saying "but people continue to claim he/she does have epilepsy". This isn't simply a section where I (as an editor) couldn't find any evidence - that would be original research. These entries are't "non facts" - they are there because someone has said the person has epilepsy and someone else has subsequently said they haven't and more to the point, there isn't any evidence for tbat statement. It is depressing how many of the people in this section appear time and again in other lists.

I hope you "sleep on it" and reconsider your oppose. However, I'm not asking you to change to a support if you aren't enthusiastic about it. Regards, Colin Harkness°Talk 10:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I've retracted the oppose. Sorry I jumped the gun, or something like that. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for taking the time to review and consider this article. I'm still making big changes to improve it. I do appreciate your time and if I can return the favour, please let me know. Cheers, Colin Harkness°Talk 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

LOE Template

Hey Ned, I'm having a problem with the LOE template and empty cells, can you help me? I describe it here. My problem page is here. - Peregrinefisher 04:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Snatchmon

You made a loop redirect. It pointed back to the article. So I reverted it. Please correct it to the correct destination again :) Chears! --syvanen 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

my reply -- Ned Scott 07:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback requested

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Criteria Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Talk page should be used first. You'd have to go back to an 8 August 2006 version of WP:LIST to get a consensus version, though. Still, I think it's getting better slowly. Thanks for your input. --Anthony Krupp 13:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Digimon images

What is the "Fair use rationale" you are looking for for Tsukiamon that exists on any of the other digimon article pictures. Your only trying to get three deleted Tsukaimon, Goldveedramon, and redveedramon, because you don't like the user( User:Chijimon) who uploaded them. I looked at over twenty digimon images, all they say is this is a card scan, or this is offical art. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qilinmon (talk • contribs) .

There's an entire category of hundreds of Digimon images that don't have proper source information or fair use rational statements. Some that are uploaded before a certain date are given more leeway, for whatever reason. Even without that, I would at least like to not add anymore images to the huge pile of "to be fixed". The image policy on Wikipedia is pretty clear on this, there's a half dozen notices and warnings when you click to upload a file, please read those pages. -- Ned Scott 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mei-Ling Trivia

Mei-Ling doesn't exist at all in the manga and was only created for the the anime, so the picture was from the booklet that came with the Cardcaptor Sakura Songbook you can buy it on Amazon. The fact that this is the only "manga-styled" image of her is common and basic knowledge to any Cardcaptor Sakura vetern. It is also common for people to mistake the fan-made Dojinshi pictures of her for the real thing made by Clamp, as there are many skilled artists in Japan and some of them can copy Clamp's style so well that it can be mistaken for the real thing, it was particulary common amongst her fans to call the dojinshi pictures "official". Again this was common knowledge 2-3 years to Cardcaptor Sakura veterans (eg: the people that saw every episode of the anime, read all tweleve volumes of the manga even the Omakes, owned all the artbooks, all the CDs, and had a lot dojinshis, had all the posters etc.). So when they said that the "manga-styled" picture of Mei-Ling came from the character Songbook and is the only one is existance, their word can be trusted. It should also be noted that Clamp doesn't usually draw "manga-style" pictures of their anime-only/ movie-only characters, as the group who does the anime is different from the group who does the manga their anime-only/ movie-only characters won't exist in the manga so therefore Clamp doesn't draw any pictures of them but the dojinshi pictures exist but can hardly be considered official see. Again mistaking the fan-made dojinshi pictures for the original is common as some of the popular Cardcaptor Sakura pictures espeically the SyaoranXSakura ones are actually dojinshi the proof is in the artbooks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazz189 (talk • contribs) .

Why are you telling me this? I did not delete those notes from Meiling Li. -- Ned Scott 14:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a couple of days ago some additions to the Meiling trivia. I just noted that her character design were very similar to other similar CLAMP originals. Kotoko of Chobits is the most closest when it comes to the hair style ( Bon Bons) and strong Chinese dress-code. her personality however nearly mimicks thats of Lady Aska of Fahren. It was just a note that I wanted to emphasized since Clamp is fond of co-relating a lot of thier other charaters to the new ones they made

user:layamin 8:31 AM Aug 16

It's not that it's "bad", but it's considered original research. -- Ned Scott 21:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Someone keeps deleting the notes to the Cardcaptor Sakura Characters, and adding false ones, so I was trying to find the culprit while correcting the mistakes that they keep messing up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazz189 (talk • contribs) .

Ah, I see, no problem then. I'll keep an eye out as well. -- Ned Scott 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Syaoran

Sakura never gave Syaoran a bear in the anime, but Syaoran gave Sakura a bear in episode 70. Watch the second movie again it ends with Sakura jumping off a cliff shouting "I Love You!!", not with her giving him a bear. Remember the anime ended before the manga(anime 1999, manga 2000) around the same time of the second movie, and yes I'm sure I re-watched the second movie, and the last 10 episodes of the anime before I corrected it. Bottom line only the Syaoran bear exists in the anime, the Sakura bear doesn't. As Sakura made the bear after she made the card, which in the manga had a name (The Love), and yes I'm sure its in Volume 12. Sakura was trying to tell Syaoran she loved him during the Second Movie and had no time to give him a bear, which in the manga was followed by Sakura telling Syaoran she loved him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jazz189 (talk • contribs) .

D'oh, yeah, you're right. We see the bear, but she never gives it to him. Sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 23:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep what up?

What do oyu mean by "keep this up and you'll get blocked from editing"?aido2002 09:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You're editing against consensus and established guidelines and policies for article creation. See Talk:Wikiality. -- Ned Scott 09:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"vandalism

I suggest you consider your word choice and do not throw around words like vandalism unless you know what you're talking about. I've not vandalised the sock puppet page and I do not appreciate the suggestion. The illustration does not improve the article and it was removed. You seem to have some issues and you added it back. This is a difference of opinion. The deciding factor here is apparently that you have too much time on your hands and you like to throw your weight around by using words like "vandalism" and threatening to block people. I don't know enough about how wikipedia is run to know whether you're just another self-appointed moderator or acting in some official capacity but resorting to the term "vandal" when you disagree with a change points to the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.182.153.229 (talk • contribs) .

There have been several troll vandals who've removed images such as this just to get a reaction out of people. If you are not one of them, then I apologies. However, saying things like I have too much time on my hands and I just like to throw my weight around are personal attacks and are not tolerated here on Wikipedia. I suggest you learn a little bit more about editing on our encyclopedia before making such comments. -- Ned Scott 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

GoldVeedramon

Would you please stop trying to delete pictures of GoldVeedramon? He is an OFFICIAL DIGIMON! There are many official Digimon who are recolorings of existing ones, but that doesn't make them fan drawings! Pokemega32 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several image use policies that are often ignored. This creates legal complications for Wikipedia and credibility issues for our articles. These images are owned by someone else, and we cannot just use them as we please. I doubt this is the worst example, but it doesn't make it "right". All these images are being used under a process known as fair use. Wikipedia has additional fair use criteria that we have to follow in order to use any image that is owned by someone else. This isn't about him being official or not, or about what all the other articles do or not. -- Ned Scott 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It has all the information it needs though! It tells that's its a card scan and that its owned by Bandai and you can use it as much as any other Bandai image! Pokemega32 23:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just returning the comment you left on my talk page. It's been no trouble at all, Wiki-editing is practically an obession of mine now. :DIndiawilliams 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Venus

User:Ned Scott, I'm GrievousAlpha95. I recently looked at the discussion page of the Megadeus article, and I recently added Big Venus to the Megadeus article. Please read it, and if there are any additions that you consider necessary, I'll see what I can do. Thanks. :GrievousAlpha95 5:24 PM, 25, August 2006.

Anime page mediation

Hi, this is just to let you know that a mediation case as requested by Selmo has been opened for the Anime entry. Please feel free to discuss on the Anime talk page and/or the mediation page [8]; thanks! Jsw663 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

..... -- Ned Scott 23:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/d/User_talk%7ENed_Scott_archive3_40eb.html"