From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| While I try to keep up to date with discussions I'm in, it's very possible for me to miss something. For this reason or any other, feel free to send me an extra poke via e-mail or AIM, for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi). |
|
|
|
| Help track images! User:Splarka/watchimages.js Cut and paste the script into Special:Mypage/monobook.js, and you'll get a link in the toolbox (on the side bar) that lets you add all images included in an article to your watchlist. Changes to the image description page, new uploaded versions, and deletions will be displayed on your watchlist. |
I am User:Ned Scott on all Wikimedia Projects with the exception of wikinews:es:User:Ned Scott. I'm in my mid-twenties and live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.
Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.
Useful links
|
List templates
Projects
Transwiki
- User:Ned Scott/transwiki - A rough rough draft and collection of thoughts for guidelines and advice about transwiking articles.
External contact project
Lets you find users who have external contact info. For use with WP:CATSCAN
|
Discussion tracking
 |
Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board |
v • d • e • w |
- June 5th A request for comments as to whether a consensus on how WP:N applies to fictional topics is opened and seeking additional input, and can be found here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Delsort
- Delsort categories
- RfC/General notice
- XfDs
- Other
|
- RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
- Talk:Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (Request for Comment ) — Is the television show about the intervention of Gordon Ramsay, about the restaurants, or both? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Rap rock (RFC: Merger ) — Should any of the articles: Rap rock, Rap metal, Rapcore be merged into a general article? --neon white talk 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:News Corporation (RfC: request-for-comments on disputed editing ) — disputed editing: "... News Corporation... also called Murdoch group in neolatin languages .... ". In my opinion the object is serious: "internationality rule of Wikipedia" here at risk. Caceo (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Kittie (RfC: What should be done?) — The major "sources" for this article are YouTube. I patched some major problems and added some minor fixes, but I can't get a sense of what, if anything, should be saved.Novangelis (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:List of characters on Scrubs (RfC: Should these characters be merged to a larger article) — Should the Scrubs characters be merged to a larger article, like a list of characters article, until they can establish notability? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:WBAL-TV (RfC: "Where Are They Now?" ) — Is the current career information in the "Former personalities" section (AKA "Where Are They Now?") off-topic for the article? Vicenarian (T · C) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Adam-12 (RfC: Online Viewing Information Relevant/In Policy?) — There is a disagreement over whether or not including information regarding the online availability of television shows through services such as Hulu and Netflix, in the portion of the article where broadcast airings and DVD releases are included, is relevant and appropriate to the article and consistent with Wikipedia policies. Is such information relevant, appropriate, and consistent with policy? Ithizar (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
- Talk:Tip (What should happen with this article? ) — This article contains an enormous list of descriptions of how tipping occurs in each country. Almost all of these are unsourced. Those that are sourced are to non–reliable sources such as DHL, a postal company that has no editorial process and no real expertise in the area of tipping customs. The article has been tagged with "needs sources" since August 2007. During that time someone split the page off to Tipping by region, a page with the same problems, but the section has remained intact. A lot of arguments have ensued, but this page hasn't seen any progress.My questions here are:* Should all the unsourced material be removed?* Should material sourced to unreliable sources like DHL (and other travel websites) be removed?* Should "tipping by region" even be included, since there appears to be a dearth of accurate, peer-reviewed information on this subject?Noisalt (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision (RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles ) — What sources are considered reliable and can be used in Eurovision articles? Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Joseph Priestley (RfC on lead image alignment ) — "Should MOS:IMAGE be interpreted to allow the lead image to be left-aligned to ensure the face and/or eyes are directed at the text?" Madcoverboy (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Template talk:Italic title (RFC: Should this be used? ) — None of the discussions linked above seem to show a strong consensus for using this template one way or the other, because they weren't really advertised enough. So, what is the community's view on this template? I'm going to put this on WP:CENT, and I'll spam the talk pages of WP:TOL, WP:VG, WP:BOOKS, and WP:FILMS, since this would most affect the articles in those projects. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 123 (RfC: Acceptable number format? ) — This request for comment is for several related questions. This RfC is about the appearance of the numbers, and whether they can be successfully cut-and-pasted into other applications. The templates used to format them is not the topic of this discussion; template coding can follow whatever conclusions the RfC comes to.# Is 4,046.8564224 an acceptable number format? (Notice the comma to the left of the decimal point and the gap to the right used to group digits into groups of three digits.)# Is 4046.8564224 an acceptable number format? (Notice that gaps are used on both sides of the decimal point to group digits.# If gaps are acceptable both to the right and left of the decimal point, and an article needs gaps to the right in some numbers in the article, should all the numbers in the article, including numbers with three or fewer digits right of the decimal, be formatted with gaps?The Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (MOSNUM) for quite a while advocated comma separators to the left of the decimal, and either no separators, or gap separators, to the right of the decimal. However, none of the examples in the MOSNUM or in the documentation for the {{Val}} illustrated that this could occur in the same number, thus creating a style clash within the same number. About a week ago this was changed to allow 4046.8564224 or 4,046.8564224 but not 4,046.856 422 4. Today the change was reverted and the reverting editor suggested wider input be sought.(In case you are curious where the number 4046.8564224 came from, it is the exact number of square meters in an international acre.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Campantar (Material without citations) — As the edit history shows, there have been a large number of edits from various IP addresses with substantially the same intent. The flags I added to the page have finally managed to draw the above comment. Suggestions for procedure welcome. Redheylin (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
- Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia (RFC: Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia ) — There are five co-proposers[1] of this RFC. Please indicate your support of or opposition to the proposal, along with your comments. If referring to specific parts of the proposal, please use the numbers (1a, 1b, 2, etc). The RFC will be open for two weeks, until Monday 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC). The RFC started 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Rorschach test (RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? ) — Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? –xenotalk 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Press-up (Consensus on moving) — This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: User talk:Ned Scott.
 |
It has been proposed in this section that User:Ned Scott be renamed and moved to Push-up.
When this template is placed on the talk page of the article, the proposed move will be listed automatically at Wikipedia:Requested moves within 30 minutes.
Discuss the proposed move on this talk page. If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.
When the discussion has ended, remove this tag and the request will be removed from the Wikipedia:Requested moves list.
Note: Place this template at the beginning of the requested move section on the talk page of the article. |
Press-up → Push-up — It's been 2 years since the last straw poll was taken regarding the move of this article, consensus can change. 168.7.247.217 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- User talk:ScienceApologist/Approved articles (Cautious territory section) — Should a "cautious territory" section be included along with a list of articles that User:ScienceApologist is either permitted to edit or refused permission to edit?I believe that the "cautious territory section" is extremely problematic. There is no indication from any of the rulings made against my account that there are gray-areas such as the ones the cautious territory section is implying. Also, I think the labeling of "List of cosmologists" as "Cautious territory" but not other articles is arbitrary and capricious. I would prefer that this section not exist and that arbitrators decide either that an article is appropriate for me to edit or is not appropriate for me to edit per the sanctions imposed upon this account, specifically: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#ScienceApologist_topic_banned. I would like to get wider community input on this before I make a formal request to arbcom on this matter.It is one thing to be subject to restrictions that arbcom has agreed to. It is quite another to be subject to restrictions that seem to be developing "on the fly" as it were. I have, in principle, no issue with any user requesting an amendment to the rulings against me for inclusion of a "Cautious territory" idealization of areas appropriate for me to edit, but I'm a little upset with the unilateral imposition of a new category of editing. Since there has been no specific wording as to what the consequences are for any supposed "breach" of this new sanction, I'm simply asking that either we formally impose this sanction upon my account or we decide a demarcation for List of cosmologists one way or another.Thanks.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing () — A request for comment on the indexing of userspace. Gigs (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:List of Video on Trial episodes (RfC: Is the List of Verdicts trivia? ) — Okay, someone keeps reverting my removal of a huge fancrufty part of this article as vandalism since he disputes its definition as trivia, and yet even also has a disclamier in an article (which I thought we were supposed to avoid). Anyway, if anything, what is part of the humorous part of the show, I think is just trivial and does not need to be included. I also have some other doubts about its inclusion. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (RFC: Replacement Wording for PLOT) — This RFC seeks to determine whether a modified version of WP:NOT#PLOT, rewritten to address concerns raised in a previous poll/RFC, has consensus to remain as policy or should be moved elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Grief porn (RfC: How do we decide the above? ) — ===conflicting facts===
1. When presented with two opposing citations (one claiming the coining of a term and a number of others being shown to exist before the coining), what is the proper method of resolving those differences?:Here is the edit with statement of "fact" (Claim that the term "Grief Porn" was coined on April 7, 2005) that is being questioned: [1] :Here is the supporting references as evidence showing prior use of term "Grief Porn" in literature and printed press: [2][3][4][5] exist from many years prior.99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Giano/The future () — The object of this page is to assess if there is sufficient feeling amongst editors, one way or another, to have a proper, honest and frank discussion as to Wikipedia's future management and administration. I don't suggest that debate is held here in my user space, but that we just see if there is sufficient support for such a debate. If you want to make a statement for others to comment upon, please do so below. Please try to limit statements to 500(ish) words. Hopefully, there will later be plenty of space elsewhere to fully express views and ideas.To keep this page at a reasonable length and easy to read, could people please limit their countering of other's points (in the agreeing or disagreeing columns). It's fine to do it, but please keep it to a sensible minimum and try to remember some people are more easily intimdated than others. If you really want to query a point, then please consider starting a section on the talk page and linking to it from the relevant spot here. Anything reasonable and worthwhile will hopefully be seriously debated elsewhere. This page is just to assess views not try and change them - that comes later. Thanks. Giano (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:External links (Why we link official websites - proposal ) — #What should be linked currently reads: Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. • "We get a lot of questions about official websites (usually about multiple websites and MySpace links). In the interest of better explaining the issues, I'd like to propose a new section that unifies all of the "official website" stuff." —Quotation from User:WhatamIdoing, 19:47, 22 June 2009; RfC posted by Milo 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)- Wikipedia talk:Full-date unlinking bot (RFC ) — Please indicate your support or opposition to this proposal, along with your comments. Please use numbers to refer to specific points in the proposal that you are referring to, particularly if you overall support the proposal but oppose particular points, or vice-versa. The RFC will be open for two weeks, until Monday 6 July, 23:59 (UTC). --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- User talk:Gekkoma (Machine Translation) — Why don't we harness tools such as Google's language translation in the form of wikipedia bots to carry out bulk machine translations of articles? The imperfect articles can then be quickly 'polished' off by a human. Firstly, this is much faster and cheaper than individually translating tens of thousands of articles. Secondly, it rapidly allows for knowledge to be converted and transferred into other languages. Any feedback?:Cheaper? Whats cheaper than free? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Joseph Priestley (RfC on lead image alignment ) — "Should MOS:IMAGE be interpreted to allow the lead image to be left-aligned to ensure the face and/or eyes are directed at the text?" Madcoverboy (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- User:Jarry1250/RFC () — This request for comment has been created in order to assess the community's position with regard to automated edits to heading hierarchies. (For some reason, RFC Bot needs this: - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:T-1000/Archive2 (1994 or 1995: a discussion of OR ) — A user added twice the year '1995' to the article, extrapolating the date when the Terminator arrived in T2. The excuse for this was provided in the second edit summary: "The police computer in T2 says John was born on 2-28-1985 and is now aged 10. You do the math." Aside from the somewhat unfriendly tone of that, I reverted the synthesis by noting that our personal observations and calculations aren't citable, and therefore not includable.
The editor has added it yet again, theorizing that a simple calculation isn't original research, but common sense. I've reverted it again, on the strength of the argument I initially made - its synthesis. We need a citation stating it explicitly. Without one, we are stuck with the date of 1994. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Consensus (RFC: Is Consensus a Compromise/Synthesis of Editors' Opinions or is it Discussion Followed by Majority Preference without Compromise? ) — Per Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What is consensus? in a situation in which 1/3 expressed preference for one way of using an image, and 2/3 expressed a different preference, with respect to consensus do we integrate the opinions or do we consider consensus to mean hearing everyone out but going with the majoritry preference without integrating the minority's opinion? Examples in which synthesis occurred include the pages on Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh where opinions of those seeking to suppress the images for religious reasons are balanced with opinions of those who want the images in, by placing images of those religious figures lower in the article rather than in the lead. I'm seeking opinions specifically on the nature of consensus...as a way of getting a few more opinions regarding this conversation: Wikipedia talk:Consensus#Is consensus compromise?.Faustian (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Robert Young (author) (RfC ) — Should general information about live blood analysis and alkaline diets that does not specifically mention Young or his specific claims go into Young's article or into the live blood analysis and alkaline diets articles? 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
User sub-pages
User talk sub-pages
