User talk:Ned Scott

Concerns regarding CC

Note that many of the people who voted against CC in turn voted for him on the third RFA. Which means he came a long way toward alleviating those concerns. Everyone who voted in the third rfa was fully aware of the second RFA. Your comment only attempted to bring a the debate backward, not forward. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering his behavior lately I don't believe he's come a long way at all. I'm also very concerned about anyone who raises an issue with this being deemed a troll. Wikipedia editors trust that Commons admins are held to the same standards as on Wikipedia. To say that we don't have a say in what goes on here seems to suggest that Commons is an island, as opposed to an intricate part of the Wikimedia family. -- Ned Scott 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you commented on the talk page of an election that had passed. Are you upset nobody told you he'd been nominated again? Maybe it's because you have no involvement with our community. I'm sorry you have it in for Cool Cat, but surprisingly enough, he's found a home here. Making comments such as the ones you made not only put his feet to the fire but insult us as well. We know Cool Cat better than you. We know he's opinionated, and is easily distracted by issues. We know he's a tenditious editor who doesn't like having his articles chopped up. Guess what, we don't have articles here. He has done a lot of work here, in spite of that. Maybe what works for us here sometimes doesn't work on en.wp. Why don't you read our comments again and see why we voted for him, unanymously? Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 23:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, see, that's bullshit. Saying that people from en.wiki have no place voicing their opinion is just insane. A lot of other editors, far more respectable than I am, have voiced very strong objections to Cool Cat becoming an admin anywhere. Commons is not alone. Commons is apart of a bigger project, and you do not get to isolate yourselves and ignore everyone else. Just because you don't have articles doesn't mean that there won't be issues. I don't know you, but your behavior in all this really upsets me. I now feel obligated to bring this whole issue to light, rather than being hidden in your little "club". Lets see what the community at large as to say about this. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons is seperate project. Don't even try thinking that you can come from somewhere and say us what we should do. Do not troll our admins, cause we shoot trolls here :) --WarX 14:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons is apart of a bigger project, <- you know, commons is NOT a part of en:wp. And en:wp is not the center of the wp world. Darkoneko 15:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, serious ownership issues here. Unlike the other, now banned, editor who was complaining, I have valid edits on Commons. I feel I am just as much a Commons user as I am a Wikipedia user, but the amount of work to be done here (that I can help with, etc) is not very large. Commons is apart of a larger project, and that is the Wikimedia family of projects. If I edited mostly on Wiktionary my concerns would be no different. I understand your frustrations when people come over from en.wikipedia and act like they own the place. That is not my intent at all. I am not a troll, and I take offense to that accusation. I am a user with a valid concern, no demands, insults, or anything like that. I'm sorry that people in the past have pissed you guys off enough to make you behave like this, but don't assume I am one of those users. I am here to improve and build, not to troll. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I will give Cool Cat the benefit of the doubt. I know his heart is in the right place. Do understand, considering "the past", it was very surprising and almost shocking to see that he had become an admin anywhere. I have no reason to "have it in" for Cool Cat. If, for whatever reason, him being an admin here works and is not harmful to our projects, then I will be content with that.

And to those who responded to my comments here, try not to be so paranoid / defensive about such concerns. I'd hate to think that no one questions anything here simply to not hurt anyone's feelings. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04)

Do NOT revert admins closing a deletion request. You are welcome to take it to Commons:Undeletion requests. -- Cat ^chi? 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon image

Considering this, it's obvious the matter hasn't been settled yet. Why did you close the discussion early? -- Ned Scott 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not close the discussion that was done by User:Drini. I merely semi-protected and later full-protected the page. Copyright wise the discussion seems conclusively complete. What User:Herostratus does on en.wiki is beyond the scope of commons deletion discussions. -- Cat ^chi? 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it was a little hard to tell with you still editing a closed discussion. -- Ned Scott 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since its closure I made no edits to that discussion aside from moving an edit which was added after the closure. You are welcome to check page history. -- Cat ^chi? 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vectoriziation of Wikipe-tan image

Yes, sure. I'll get to it within the next few days... is it needed urgently or is this just a general request? -- Editor at Large • talk 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing life or death :) -- Ned Scott 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Ned Scott dude...

...but "Sorry IP dude, but better let someone else close this. Sometimes beating a dead horse comes in handy later on" isn't a legit reason to un-close the deletion debate over free-speech-flag.png. There's clearly a consensus to keep. You've been reverted. 24.177.120.138 05:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is. I don't fault you for your close, but I wouldn't be surprised at someone saying "zomg, improper close" later on as a reason to throw out the deletion debate's obvious conclusion. I've seen it happen before. We want it clearly stated without any reasonable doubt that this image should be kept. It shouldn't be this way, and it's kind of a game, but that's just kind of how it is. I don't like it myself, but there it is. -- Ned Scott (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

free speech flag

thank you for letting me know about the undeletion request of Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg

The flag was restored. There is more discussion available at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg

Thanks again Decora (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request notification

Hi, you participated in a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04). The same files are now being considered for undeletion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:LoliWikipetan.jpg. If you're still around we'd appreciate your opinion and feedback. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)