User talk:Ned Wilbury

Welcome!

Hello, Ned Wilbury, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Francs 2000 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotball

Doesn't the fact that we're discussing this prove that it is notable or, at the very least, that it exists? This page has now had several different contributors and I'm sure that if the hit count was known for this site, you would find that it has had an abnormally large impact for a brand new article. I understand the neccesity for putting articles up for deletion, like spam, advertising, multiple articles on the same subject, or "non notable" topics, but does this article really fit under any of those? It is obviously not spam or advertising, and this is the only lotball article on Wikipedia. Though some may claim that it is supposedly "nn," what truly defines an article as notable? I have often surfed Wikipedia and found articles on mindless garbage I don't care about. The truth of the matter is that those articles might not matter to me, but they do matter to someone, they do matter to those who know what the article is about and those who wish to learn. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, those who wish to learn? I love Wikipedia and I love the ideals for which it stands. I would never want to make something that would be harmfull to its goals. I ask you to please uphold the ideals of Wikipedia and keep this article. -INVENTM

Care to point the finger?

You said on an afd discussion about Karamja this comment:"Delete, but it looks like there's a bunch of other equally-crufty Runescape-related articles." Could you care to say which ones you think should be deleted so I can hopefully do something about them?J.J.Sagnella 19:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I guess most of the links I was seeing were to RuneScape_locations, not individual articles on locations. Maybe there's not as much as I thought. Ned Wilbury 19:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there's still some,right? Which ones would you say are fancruft? J.J.Sagnella 20:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure. It seems excessive to me to have more than one article about a given game, but if the game is that popular and has many locations, maybe it makes sense. Ned Wilbury 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you see any RuneScape articles you think should be deleted, leve me a message on my talk page. J.J.Sagnella 20:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your comment

Your comment on the "Tard Blog" deletion page pretty much says it all. Kudos Paul 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ButtKicker

Hi Ned - thanks for your note on the above - if you need help doing stuff and don't know how - whistle for Brookie! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 13:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hayday

Please see notes on the deletion page for this article

Codell

Okay, your reasoning is valid. Thankyou for telling me.--Codell ^{[ Talk]} 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!

Another Ned! -- Ned Scott 08:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Scott! Ned Wilbury 14:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My posts on Pats page

OK Ned! I buy it. Tell me which particular sentence seemed aggressive to you?--Light current 01:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See "Also since you are not an administrator, why do you feel compelled to offer your opinion on whether editors should be blocked or not in each and every case?" This comes off sounding like "You're merely an editor, not an admin. Why do you presume to speak in such a place?" AN/I specifically allows any editor to post. You also said "feel compelled" - this comes off sounding like you're diagnosing a mental condition. You also said "each and every" -obviously a gross exaggeration. Any one of these would have been rude. All three of them are rude when put together. It stretches the imagination to think you would use all these words without meaning to sound rude. Ned Wilbury 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I should have said;

Why do you ~~feel it necessary to~~ offer your opinion on AN/I on whether editors should be blocked or not in many cases?

Is that better?--Light current 02:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a BIT better. But, why would you ask such a question? Everyone contributes however they see fit- and, if there's a problem, we should expect that people will try to solve it. If you disagree with what he's saying, explain yourself, at AN/I. Ned Wilbury 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase I wanted to know why he was making an effort to comment on circumstances he knows little about. THis only serves to confuse issues. I am not allowed to comment at AN/I ATM especially regarding comments about me for fear of imminent reblocking. Actually, I believe hes doing it just to get noticed by the admins and not to help the situation at all. His comments frequently conntain no supporting argument. For what reason, only time will tell--Light current 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a matter of interest Ned, I wonder whether you think the following is rude or inflammatory or anything according to your judgement:

To Light current: I'm sorry to see that I've made your list of grudges on this encyclopedia. However, as I can tell, it's getting pretty long at the moment; I'm not sure I could count on one hand or even two the amount of administrators and users whom you seem to have it out for. Instead of holding grudges every time you get blocked for incivility, maybe you could learn to live and let live.

--Light current 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC) --Light current 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. That remark is a bit frosty, isn't it? I think it's understandable, given what it is in response to. Did you notice the end where he was suggesting that you NOT correspond further along these lines? Ned Wilbury 02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. where is it? OK his last sentence is ambiguous. However he is assuming Im holding grudges against everyone. That is not true-- its only a few!--Light current 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Look, if you can't be bothered to read what people write to you, this might explain a lot of the trouble you're having here. People have bent over backward, it appears, to explain things to you, but yet you so frequently ask for more. But, just this last time, I will humor you. It's the bit that says "Otherwise, guys, I have to be blunt, I have every right to comment on the noticeboards, and it isn't any of your business to tell me I don't; so please don't. If you have any constructive criticism, go for it." Ned Wilbury 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry misunderstanding. You said: Did you notice the end. I didnt realise you were talking about th epost on his page. I thought you were talking about something in my quote above. THis one:

To Light current: I'm sorry to see that I've made your list of grudges on this encyclopedia. However, as I can tell, it's getting pretty long at the moment; I'm not sure I could count on one hand or even two the amount of administrators and users whom you seem to have it out for. Instead of holding grudges every time you get blocked for incivility, maybe you could learn to live and let live.

See how easy it is to get fooled? And what do you mean by this exactly?: People have bent over backward, it appears, to explain things to you, but yet you so frequently ask for more. --Light current 03:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL??

Well, it is hardly "ALL" screwed up. Discussion can take place on the RD talk page and there is even a convenience link in the doc. Let's see what the others say. If there is agreement to move then we can move. At least I did something to get this going again. --Justanother 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's pretty screwed up. I think we need an admin to fix it. Ned Wilbury 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was fine the way I had it and that format is specifically supported by policy. I did not invent this. Please review Wikipedia:Subpages re: placing drafts on subs of talk pages. --Justanother 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They mention doing this with articles so nobody finds it via "random article". Do you see a reason to do it in this case? Why don't you want a talk page for the proposal itself? Ned Wilbury 16:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the "discussion forking" that I have mentioned about six times now. And if I sound short it is because this work has not moved in three days and I make a bold move to get it going again and you race in and start messing with my effort after I clearly asked you to hold off moving anything until we got some more input. --Justanother 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a bold mistake. It's no big deal, it can be fixed. But please, stop and listen and think before defending your mistake. Ned Wilbury 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see as the mistake? And realize that, so far, it is only you saying I made one. And you have not shown me any policy that would indicate that I have made a mistake while I have shown you policy that supports me. --Justanother 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Namespace. I'm not trying to be a dick, but you really should not move pages if you do not understand the concepts involved. Ned Wilbury 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Really, we should probably leave the page moves to people who understand namespaces." Please don't get personal with me. I take a very dim view of that. --Justanother 17:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, about that reference. Here is one of two specific statements in Wikipedia:Subpages that support what I did.

From "Allowed Uses" - Temporary subpages in Talk namespace, usually formatted Talk:Example Article/Temp, for example the kind of "/Temp" pages that can be created from Template:Copyvio. But avoid additional incoming and outward links that would make it appear as if this "/Temp" page is part of the encyclopedia: that is, in the case the Copyvio template is used, only this template, applied in article namespace, can link to the "/Temp" article from article or "main" namespace. See below Disallowed uses for further recommendations on how to avoid creating the impression a "/Temp" page is an encyclopedia page.

Can you give me the specific statement that indicates that I erred? My way clearly shows that this is NOT policy and that is the intent of subbing off talk pages. --Justanother 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After further reflection, I think that your move is a clear error in that now a draft of a "proposed policy" is in the RD space when the subpage guidelines clearly indicate that a draft should be in the talk space. There is no admin needed. Just blank the destination page of your move, copy it back to the talk page, remove the redirect, and it should be fine. --Justanother 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. Do what you want. If others want it a different way, they can do whatever they want. Ned Wilbury 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't question your motives, only your eagerness. I did what I did in line with consensus about Ten's draft and the possible POV forking and only after three days with no action on this. Now I really don't know what to do as the page where you would have us discuss has a redirect on it. Actually it is OK as we can still discuss on the regualar talk page as I suggested in the first place. At least until this is straightened out. I suggested to Stu that he ask Ten to help fix it. --Justanother 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done?

Hello Ned and thanks for your comment. In response to your question, I have no clue what the hell can be done at this point, LOL. No useful advice, sorry, I'm just tired of the petty bickering and everyone having to be right all the time. There's no structure, there's no consensus, there is a lot of shifting divisiveness and fuzzy animosity. I guess the only advice is for myself to stay away from the talk page. ---Sluzzelin 18:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I was hoping you had the magical, easy answer. Thanks for the reply. Ned Wilbury 18:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by THB

Ned I think I recognise this behaviour. THB is annoyed at having been blocked and is seeking some sort of 'equalisation' (shall we say) of the percieved wrong done to him for his earlier edits. I would just let it ride: hell calm down and start to act 'sensibly' very soon. (as we all do eventually)8-)--Light current 20:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. If you know how to talk him out of whatever he's doing, that would be awesome. I'll just back off and do something else. Ned Wilbury 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ill try but he's just throwing a bit tantrum right now. Ill just let him cool for a while-- see how it goes. 8-)--Light current 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that you seem to have unnerved THB for some reason. But I have assured him that you are OK and not out to get him! 8-)--Light current 21:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained the edit summary thing on THB's talk page. If you apologised for not realising what was happeneing there, and THB agreed to think twice before posting "insect stomping" questions, maybe we can resolve this amicably? Carcharoth 02:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]