User talk:Ned Scott/archive2

; Archives • ℹ
1. 02/06 - 05/06; 2. 06/06; 3. 07/06 - 08/06; 4. 08/06 - 09/06; 5. 10/06 - 11/06; 6. 11/06 - 01/07; 7. 02/07 - 03/07; 8. 04/07 - 05/07	9. 05/07 - early 08/07; 10. 08/07 - 10/07; 11. 11/07 - mid 02/08; 12. mid 02/08 - mid 05/08; 13. mid 05/08 - mid 07/08; 14. mid 07/08 - 11/08; 15. 12/08 - 05/09; 16. 06/09 - 04/11; 17. 05/11 - 06/18

This page 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.

Your bot

I've approved your bot for operation, please feel free to request a bot flag when you are ready -- Tawker 07:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need a bot flag per say but if you're going to do multiple non contoversial edits in a short timeframe its a good thing as the RC feed gets a little clogged up :) -- Tawker 19:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob Saget

The Image:Bob Saget.JPG I am using for the Bob Saget page was taken with my own camera. Therefore we can use it. The reason it is everywhere is that a friend of mine used the image, and in turn it got passed arround.--Alabama Man 07:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

right.. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did take the picture. Can you prove that I didn't take it? --Alabama Man 09:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. The burden of proof is on you, the contributer. -- Ned Scott 11:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it got deleted anyways.. -- Ned Scott 11:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How am I suppose to prove that it came from my camera? --Alabama Man 14:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in. Please provide links in talk pages to what you are talking about. To prove it, Alabama Man is easy: re-upload the image at the original resolution - at least 800px wide. -- RHaworth 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did provide links on the image's talk page, but during the time when the image was re-deleted by an admin. The talk page is actually still there if you wish to look. Image talk:BobSaget.JPG -- Ned Scott 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! So I put it up and you take it down again? Alabama Man 14:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete the image, I am not an admin. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: The new Japanese episode template....

I have observed that with the new template in use, the table is so large that the horizontal scroll bar comes onto the window, and even though the full table is still displayed even without the use of moving the bar itself, it still is a minor inconvenience and it makes the page look less professional, at least to me. I have figured out that a setting of:

{| class="wikitable" width="98%"

intead of:

{| class="wikitable" width="100%"

fixes the problem.

Here's an example: Ouran High School Host Club has the 100% setting and Kasimasi has the 98% setting.--Juhachi 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

reply -- Ned Scott 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm using the latest MSN browser; version 10 I believe.--Juhachi 06:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

screenshots

According to my computer, the images only come out to be 72 dpi. Anything under 100 dpi is considered to be low res enough. Basically, if it's not good enough to use as a background image it's fine.--SeizureDog 07:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode list template

		The Template Barnstar
		I've begun to include the Episode list template into the List of South Park episodes page. Before the template was made, the WikiProject was pretty much dead. Thanks for your hard work into making this a reality! Here's a barnstar to show my appreciation. Will2k 03:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My first Barnstar! Thanks man! -- Ned Scott 01:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Digimon message

Gee, thanks for your message. I'm not really sure how much I'll be able to do, but it certainly couldn't hurt to check it out. -TPIRFanSteve 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries

Please refrain from uncivil remarks/profanity in your edit summaries, and try to keep a cool head. It's one thing for you to write to me, "What the hell is your problem?"; it's an entirely different and very inappropriate to write "bullshit" in an edit summary. Please review WP:Civil. Thanks, PKtm 05:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was rather descriptive and summarized my message. But I understand.-- Ned Scott 06:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your latest summary says things like "Ed as well as others need to stop ignoring discussion". Please attempt to see that that constitutes a bit of a personal attack. There's no need to call out a specific individual: you could write something like "Reverters, please don't ignore the discussion here", for example. I think your point would be better made (and better listened to) if you could frame things more like that. Thanks for taking this into consideration. -- PKtm 02:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Very true, I shall do that from now on. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

On FLC

Use of DVD covers instead of individual screenshots has been deemed as an acceptable and even less controversial solution in terms of Fair Use claims (see for instance List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Oh My Goddess episodes).
Full description of each episode belongs to its own article, so it is reasonable to keep summaries in the list as concise as possible.
class=wikitable (which is what people were really claiming for) does break the table display on Firefox. In any case table looks are not as crucial as the content of the list when it comes to promotion.
Moreover, about two weeks ago I promoted List of Planetes episodes with exactly the same characteristics as List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes; while I recognize that standards do get tougher in FLC, in my experience it does not happen so quickly.

Also, I tend to mark promotions as minor edits (see my edit history). In any case, I always mention which lists are being promoted in the edit summary, so no conspiracy here. Regards, -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 11:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

reply -- Ned Scott 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to ask in the case of controversial nominations, for transparency and all that. It also helps to remember that promotions are not set in stone and can be removed at the heavily underused WP:FLRC. Cheers -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 12:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

fictional flight attendants

The Category:Fictional flight attendants is up for discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Fictional flight attendants. You can make your vote known there, and if the category is deleted, then the anime characters won't have those categories any more. Otherwise, the tags should stay.--Mike Selinker 18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wether or not the category stays it's it's own issue. I did not know of the CfD when I removed them, I removed them because I thought they shouldn't go on those articles. Such a category should go on an article of a character where being a flight attendant is a major identifying feature of that character. -- Ned Scott 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me like it's a major feature of the characters from Infinite RYVIUS, as they're both described as being in the flight attendant program. I guess if you're going to keep removing them I can't stop you, but it seems like it's a major feature to me. (I agree with you on Catwoman, though.)--Mike Selinker 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Catwoman?? -- Ned Scott 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just assumed you removed that. She was in my initial grouping of fictional flight attendants (she was one before she turned to crime), but I thought better about it since it's such a trivial aspect of the character. But somebody removed it before I could.--Mike Selinker 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Air (series)

This is a friendly warning. Please allow articles to grow. You objected their creation hours later I created them and we have discussed this and I thought it was settled. So what is the issue? --Cat out 20:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Ergo Proxy episodes

I am sorry I forgot to complete the image licence information when uploading the images. I have followed the format from the images provided by the Planetes page as guidance. I will leave it to your expert hands to determine whether the image pages I have loaded are up to Wikipedia standard or not. --GoogleMonkey 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did put in the info, but the system automatically taged the no licence tag for all the uploaded images regardless. It needs to be removed manually by hand. Now I know.--GoogleMonkey 23:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They also need a fair use rational written up for them, you can use Image:Kamisama Kazoku ep04.jpg as an example. -- Ned Scott 23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. However I feel that there should be a clear official endorsed format for listing licence information. Is that example from Kamisama an officially endorsed format? I notice a lot of existing images do not have a separate fair use section, just only a licensing section. --GoogleMonkey 11:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I've done one here. Image:ErgoProxyE1.png. Any good? --GoogleMonkey 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. As for an official example, you can find that at Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale. -- Ned Scott 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil

Hi. Just a quick message to remind you to try and stay civil at all times. I appreciate that anger and stress can run high during disputes, but please try and keep your cool. Thanks, — Fire Fox 21:16, 20 June '06

I think a certain level of outrage is appropriate in this situation. -- Ned Scott 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't. You should try and keep calm at all times, getting stressed and appearing as angry is not going to help your case, and will only make other users disrespect you. Remember that incivility can turn into personal attacks soon enough, which can warrant a block. — Fire Fox 21:24, 20 June '06

List of Air episodes

The only reason I am not reverting is because of WP:3rr. I will continue that revert war as long as it takes. I will not be intimidated with you waging war against me on all air related articles, naruto episode list, fma episode list just because I made a damn suggestion at a list you worked at. Simply stunning, you have degraded me into a person revert waring. Congradulations. --Cat out 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

References

Sorry to bother you but how do you add a reference, I'm still new to it.--Amigobro2 05:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--Amigobro2 06:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comprimise

Lets settle this with a comprimise. So far I have comprimised the thick borders (with delight might I add). I also converted the template to folow the "LOE" table markup.

So far you have not comprimised at all. Now I request to be able to use whats left of my tables. The only difference currently is where kanji, romaji, and episode numbers appear. I prefer my syntax.

Perhaps that could be applied to the LOE template? Or a new LOE template for articles using dvd covers?

--Cat out 06:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith I have removed thick borders on every page I used my syntax on with the exeption of locked air list. --Cat out 06:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I await your response anxiously. --Cat out 07:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you have responded to a comment I make on the talk page of the List of air episodes I believe you have noticed this post. While you have the liberty to reply at your conviniance, please respond confirming you are considering the suggestion. --Cat out 03:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would I compromise something that isn't just my view, but the view of many editors, and is backed by logic? I'm all for getting along with you, but I won't sacrifice these issues for the sake of appearing friendly. I don't have much reason to trust you, ether. Sure, you are speaking of compromise and collaboration now, but is that only because you have been backed into a corner with no choice? I noticed on some of your archived talk pages that one editor reminded you to put fair use rational statements on images, and your response was something to the extent of "I don't have to do what anyone tells me to do". It was only until it was a requirement of the featured lists and it was brought up during the OMG candidacy that you complied, when you had no other choice. We will make some sort of peace with each other, surely, but not by sacrificing editing values. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In war there are only two ways to peace. Either through one sides surrender, or both sides comprimise. What you ask of me is unconditional surrender.

View of many editors are met. That is why I comprimised by modifying my version of the template. I have taken into account their arguments especialy about "easy use". The template now is almost identical to the LOE template with a few minor differences. The point of a comprimise is to let go certain things you disagree with as should the other party.

I am making an effort to settle this in a civil and cooperative enviorment. Both sides made mistakes such as revert warring. In a cooperative enviorment, no one is cornered.

Oh and btw, OMG achieved fac w/o the fair use rationales (see timestamp of the addition of the rationnale). I added that later on after someone bothered to expain me the reasonings behind fair-use rationales via IRC. I not only agreed with his reasonings, but became an advocate of the issue. I am not as close minded as you portray me.

What is it that you do not trust about me? I havent decieved you or anything have I?

--Cat out 11:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Discordance posted a message on your talk page, I can't seem to find it right now, asking you to make a fair use rational argument, and you simply brushed it off, ignoring POLICY (as in, you don't get a choice, you have to do it). Why I don't trust you? You're rude, you ignore logical statements because you feel that someone is just trying to tell you what to do, you have ownership issues, you undermine WikiProjects, you undermine common consensus, you try to use articles as a way to get fame for yourself, you try to make other editors not feel welcome, you take everything personally, the list can go on and on about why I don't trust you. Good faith? I have no faith in you, because of your behavior, and you have no one to blame but yourself. -- Ned Scott 12:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But even ignoring all of that, your template and episode style is still losing in the straw poll, not because of your behavior, but because it's not what people want. I'm not trying to make you feel bad or "beat you", but I'm not going to hold back if you ask me why I don't trust you. -- Ned Scott 12:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do regret my behaviour with the fair use rationales and I am not going to make excuses. If you are going to hold grudge against me because of a comment I directed at a third party (probably before even you registered your username), you are welcome to do so.

When debates get heated we often say things in a manner which we breech civility. Some people have better control over their anger, I admire them. I apologise for any inaproporate comment I had made so far. Complaining for a featured list candidacy passing (your comment his response) while impliying a conspircacy is hardly nice. Would you consider your contribution on Talk:List of Planetes episodes polite? Also, revert wars are hardly polite and are a breech of policy. If I am violating policy (which I am) so are you. You say you cannot assume good faith, well that is a policy (See WP:AGF). You accuse me of WP:OWN issues, while you commit identical behaviour. I do not believe either one if us is the policy saint.

If I were ignorant of logical statements I would not have bothered modifying my template. Last time I checked, during the course of my Air list edit war, the only logical argument you threw at my general direction is that LOE templates was the standard, which it is not.

You are accusing me of seeking fame, which rather ridiclous but anyways there are better ways to seek fame on wikipedia. Revert waring on a discrete anime episode list no one cares about is no way to gain fame.

I can undermine wikiprojects as they are a voluntery effort supposivley to better articles. They have no juristiction whatsoever. They can be summarised as a list of related articles and people who want to relate to these articles. And for common concensus, I see no evidence of it.

You see, I am trying to coexist here while you are the one with an attitude one might view hostile. Think it this way, you are the one accusing me. I do not expect you to trust me, but your arguments apply to yourself as well.

--Cat out 17:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ned, Cool Cat has asked me to look into this. I have tried to explain to him, among other things that the fact that his view differs from the consensus out of a poll does not mean that he has a 'right' to a consensus. And I understand how you have become frustrated with his actions, and you've shown more patience than many other editors. However, based on the discussion above, I'd like to ask you (both of you, actually) to keep commenting on the edits, not so much on the editor. If you don't like his proposals, please tell him why and leave it at that. I hope you don't mind my 'intruding', I know from experience that an outsider's opinion can be either refreshing or frustrating, so please don't take this the wrong way. Kind regards, --Joanne B 18:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is so much for us to gain and so little to loose if we cooperate. --Cat out 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, but he did ask me why I didn't trust him. -- Ned Scott 01:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

98% width issue

The 98% isn't important. It was a minor adjustment so some browsers wouldn't show a horizontal scroll bar when rendering the Wikitable. It's not really apart of any guideline. -- Ned Scott 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia is quite possible w/o a guideline or a straw poll. With little care, pages can look perfectly on multiple browsers. --Cat out 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, you prove that wrong. Normally people accept progress, instead of hanging on to "their things". -- Ned Scott 03:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry what progress are we talking about? What is the point of that comment? --Cat out 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets take the example of the Air nav templates. How many times did you revert me on that before taking it into consideration? Take the bold table lines, how long did it take for you to question that it might be a simple bug and not a requirement? Why is it that we must corner you in order for you to realize simple things? Look at your attitude towards official guidelines and WikiProjects. Of course they're not the final word, and no one is expected to live in "fear" of them. But rather than you looking at them and saying "hey, I bet there was a conversation behind that and I bet someone made a really good point that lead to that being a guideline." Rather, you ignore it all together, despite when other editors cite it as something helpful, directly to you. I forget where it says, but I believe there's another statement or guideline about guidelines themselves, and it says it's more important to follow them in spirit than word for word. You lack the collaborative spirit, you lack trust in your fellow Wikipedians. We take ideas from all of us and try to take the best parts and go forward. These things you think are my ideas, aren't my ideas. They're ideas I took from someone else, that they took from someone else, etc. It's been very hard to get you to think outside your editing style. I'm not telling you this to be rude, I'm telling this to you because I really want you to realize it. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets take example of air templates. You revert warred against me. Have you not? Have you attempted explaining yourself? Have you attempted a comprimise? I had to get a 3rd person to come up with a 3rd version in between. Have you taken my version into consideration?
I believe (without quoting a guideline or polcy) that it is imperative for wikipedia pages to be rendered correctly on all browsers. At the very least an effort should be made to make pages work on multiple browsers. My views on the necesity of thick borders have not changed. I pashionately support the think borders. While being slightly ugly, thick boreds work well on firefox. But I comprimised something I pashionately believe in to cool of the heat of the debate. Somebody has to pull his hand off the triger...
Who is we? Who do you talk behalf of? Who is cornering me? What kind of an attitude is "cornerring"? I do not believe I have been cornered. I can just as easly continue the revert war.
My attitude towards wikiprojects is in accordance with Wikipedia:Wikiproject, a WikiProject is a collection of pages (just a list of links) devoted to the management of a specific family of information within Wikipedia. It is a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing. Nothing more, nothing less. Wikiprojects have no juristiction in any way nor are they in any way official. Wikiprojects do not set standards.
I do not ignore guidelines, I am just not obsessed about them. I edit in good faith developing a chain of articles. If a guideline or policy is making my life complicated, I forget about it until I have a working article. Then I consider weather or not applying the policy improves the articles value (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). Wikipedia is NOT a burocracy. Also which guideline am I allegedly not following?
I think it was you not trusting me (for whatever the reason). I do however trust you. I know for certain you don't vandalise articles. Nor do I consider you to be a threat to wikipedia. I monitor every edit of people I do not "trust" such as User:MARMOT.
I colaborate just fine, assuming I am beeing talked to. I prefer to resolve disputes with diplomacy and discussion. I prefer to discuss matters with other editors rather than forcing it as a standard or via a straw poll.
Again who is we? The Borg? Whoes input are we talking about? Certinly not my input... that has been actively dismissed at Template talk:Japanese episode list. I am not sure which ideas are we discussing, but the origin does not matter.
If you want me to consider something, you should talk to me and tell me precisely what I should consder. I was unaware that I had an editing pattern...

It was very late when I was posting this. If something doesnt make any sense its probably because I am sleepy. :) I'll correct any such error later on.

--Cat out 04:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to IRC where we can discuss our problems better. --Cat out 04:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

I'm not familiar with the debate, so let me run this by you.

Am I correct in assuming that no one is contesting that screenshots be removed from the individual episode pages? Is there anyone arguing that screenshots should be removed from the list of episodes page for shows that do not have individual episode articles? If not, then it seems silly that the images meet criteria number 9 on the list of episodes page when there are not individual episode pages, but if there are individual episode pages then the images do not meet criteria 8 on the list of episodes page. Qutezuce 08:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you, but basically the current debate is just for List of episodes type articles. Some of these articles feature links to full episode articles, there are also some who combine both (rather bloated, though). But for the most part, it is about the Lists and not individual articles. Feel free to share your thoughts, both pro and con. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It was rather poorly worded, let me try again.

Suppose we have two tv shows, A and B. A is only popular enough to get a List of A episodes page, and no pages for each individual episodes. B is very popular, it has a List of B episodes page and a page for each individual episode. Everybody agrees that an individual episode page of the show B can use screenshots. Do some people contend that List of A episodes can't use screenshots? This would seem like a silly position to take, as List of A episodes is basically all of the individual episodes of A concatenated into one page. So if individual episode pages can use screenshots, why can't you use the screenshots if the individual episodes pages are all combined into one page? Further, if you can use screenshots on the List of A episodes page, how is that any different from using them on the List of B episodes page? Just because you can click a link on the List of B episodes page to bring you to more information, that changes what you can use on the list of episodes page? Qutezuce 08:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, something similar to this has probably been brought up a few times, the basic response was a generic "no images on lists of episodes". I've asked a few times what the difference was between a list of episodes and a collection of episode stubs, also got no direct response. The anti-image group has also claimed that the episode descriptions are too short and also don't talk about the subject matter of the screenshot. The first part of the debate got archived to Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images, then it spilled back over to the main talk page of Talk:List of Lost episodes. It's a lot of people repeating themselves and such.. They have said that individual articles for episodes are ok to use the images, but not Lists, and have cited policy as their backing. Which.. I think is a load of.. stuff.. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello there Ned Scott, I noticed your disputes over Cool Cat's change over the design. Edit warring is highly discouraged on Wikipedia, and he has some arguments to raise over your choice of page design. Instead of repeatedly reverting Cool Cat, please try to discuss with him why exactly you feel that the page design you choose is better. Cool Cat is interested in discussing the design with you, so a straw poll is not necessary just yet. Try talking to him about the design first, then a straw poll if an absolute must. Have a nice day! —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 07:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, did you not look at Talk:List of Air episodes? Discussion was attempted many times, and other editors agreed that for a speedy resolution that a straw poll was necessary. And so it was, 8-2, WP:LOE's template over Cool Cat's template. This was pretty much reflected in discussion, but he didn't seem to go along with it unless it was "spelled out" in such a way. This debate has been going on for at least a week, and also covers other topics. Cool Cat continues to reject the input of others and even makes blatant statements that show he is opposed to considering Wikipedia guidelines, consensus, and the input of his fellow editors. I reverted his edit then attempted to discuss it on the talk page, his response was that he was the only one editing the article and he should be the one who decides. This is not a simple content issue, but rather, an editor who is unwilling to work with others. Reverting him and directing him towards discussion doesn't help, yes, so I'm taking the matter to WP:RFC. And, really, did you not look at the talk page? -- Ned Scott 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Article:Bukamon

Don't you think that this article is enough in terms of our policy Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/Digimon layout ? Maybe I think we should put (Digi-Expand) in this article but I think its not true to say that this article is a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onurkaryagmaz (talk • contribs) .

Even if the article follows a layout guideline, the amount of content it has is very low. Even though it has an infobox, a list of evolutions, and such, there's really only five sentences actually written about Bukamon. One thing to help us define what is a stub and what is not is Wikipeida's official guidelines, Wikipedia:Stub. If you wish, you can change the tag to {{digi-expand}}, since some might not be able to find much more to add to it. -- Ned Scott 19:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

- OK I Understood thanks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onurkaryagmaz (talk • contribs) .

List of Xiaolin Showdown episodes

Are you getting a strange error with the first season's picture column formatting? It's appearing on my computer as there's a little space to the right of each picture. Ryulong 07:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because the images are currently resizing to 125px and the column was set at 150px. Should be fixed now. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I discovered that the problem was that with the really really short summaries and my really really large screen resolution, there was a nice sized blank space to the right of each picture. Ryulong 08:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, the LineColor parameters do not work in Internet Explorer. Is there a way to fix this? Ryulong 00:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'M SORRY YOU DONT LIKE IT

HELLO THERE NED, I AM MATT DAVENPORT AND I AM THE ONE WHO ADDED INSIGHTFUL INFORMATION ABOUT ANGEMON ON THE SITE. I HAVE WATCHED AND DONE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON DIGIMON AND IN PARTICULAR THE ANGELS. THE INFORMATION I ADDED WAS USEFUL AS IT LISTED THE PERSONALITY AND THE BACKGROUND OF ANGEMON. IT ALSO GIVES READERS A UNDERSTANDING AT WHAT HE WOULD BE LIKE AND HIS DEMEANOR. IT ALSO IS APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE TRAITS ARE DIRECTLY FROM HIS APPEARANCES IN THE TV PROGRAM. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT JAPANESE ATTACKS AND NAMES SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE JAPANESE VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA, AS THE JAPANESE VERSION AND THE AMERICAN VERSION ARE NOT THE SAME. I AM SORRY IF MY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ARTICLE UPSETTED YOU, BUT I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THESE DIGIMON AND THEY ARE ALSO MY FAVORITES. I WILL CONTINUE TO RESET THE ARTICLE UNTIL YOU REALIZE WHAT I PUT IN THEIR WASNT CRAP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PLEASE RESPOND WITH ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR REPLIES.

(DopplerMatt 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

YOU ARE REALLY JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, IF WANTED TO VANDALIZE THE ARTICLE I COULD HAVE ALL TOGETHER ERASED IT AND MADE YOU MORE FURIOUS, BUT I FIGURED SINCE THIS IS AN AREA OF EXPERTISE FOR ME, I'D CONTRIBUTE. AFTERALL, IT IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE, SO CONTRIBUTIONS ARE ALLOWED AND ACCEPTED. IF YOU CANT MAKE A COMPROMISE I GUESS I WILL GO TO THE DIGIMON UPDATE PROJECT AND REPORT YOU AS BEING UNNEGOTIABLE. THANK YOU

(reply)

Megchan's

Just a quick comment re:this edit summary. Megchan released her original encyclopedia in the public domain afew years ago. Any data not from the original version is (C) the updater though, just to let you know. Circeus 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the heads up. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)