User talk:Netoholic: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:20, 4 December 2005

Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta

Add a new section

Motivation

"They are never alone that are accompanied with noble thoughts."

– Sir Philip Sidney (1554 - 1586)

"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.

– Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Simple Logo

Hi,

creating a transparent logo from a non-transparent one is a lot harder than just using the existing transparent one as a template. I would ask you to keep in place the Simple Logo I created, in order to maintain the distinction between the projects, until a better replacement can be found.-Eloquence * 19:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 3 2005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed?

--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wik's back

Thought you'd like to note that the above hard banned troll appears to have yet another new sockpuppet: Rivarez. Same old articles, same old trolling techniques. He's received 2 x 24hr bans in the last 3 days for breaking the 3RR against consensus at Sealand. I've already advised Jimbo. --Gene_poole 07:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bio infobox

That was a triumph, getting a chance to refer to the unwiki no-no of page "ownership", wasn't it? Your own editing implies that you do think there are such things as page owners, actually: the creators of templates. You're too downy to say so, but your actions say it. Please note the number of people at WP:TfD who vote "Keep" for the bio infobox on the express condition that the "editors" of the page get to decide whether it's appropriate to use or not; it really doesn't look to me like the word "editors" in those votes refers to template warriors who have never edited the pages before--never mind who created the damn articles--who have never edited them. Btw, I don't know if you noticed I reinserted your TfD vote, after you'd expressed on Fvw's talkpage how strongly you felt about it? Fvw didn't like it, but he wore it. Please don't think I mention it because I expect any return of graciousness from you, I'm done with that. Bishonen | talk 09:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KnightRider Bot

Hi,

I'm the mantainer of KnightRider bot that you have banned in simple wikipedia. I know its an authorized bot, but i was only updating interwiki links for the years and the days. Nothing else, and that's why I dont requested an authorization.

I have an 200kb+ of warnings for the simple wikipedia. If you don't want to allow the bot just say it and i will spend my time in others wikis.

--Armin76 13:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Vanbrugh

Do you think you could lay off the squabbling in this article? If I perceive that you're adopting an intransigent attitude and edit warring in the face of consensus, I'll put a proposal to block you on WP:AN/I and see how it flies. I don't want to have to do that. Work out your differences on the talk page, and stop edit warring meanwhile. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the recent history of John Vanbrugh shows that you're reverting more than anyone else in the edit war over this not-particularly important box thing. Would you please stop edit-warring, and engage in discussion instead? — Matt Crypto 18:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country

Your change here has broken this template on every page it appears. Please undo it and propose the change on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. That wasn't the change I meant to save; I just got confused about tabs or something. Fixed now. dbenbenn | talk 05:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't understand. My comment was two parts - 1> Undo your edit and 2> Propose the change on talk. I do not understand the need for your change, and it produces ugly ugly HTML and could actually break the page for various browsers. Please undo it for now and post your reasoning on talk before re-implementing it. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always hate it when people ask me to revert myself. How about you revert, if you choose to, and I'll propose the change on the talk page. But before you revert, check out Poland. dbenbenn | talk 05:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about you take a look at this section of rendered HTML from another country article - <div style="width: 125px; border-style: {{{flag_border}}}solid; border-color: {{{flag_border}}}black; border-width: {{{flag_border}}}1px">. Fuckin' ugly. Please show some respect to your fellow editors and revert yourself. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. As far as I know, any web browser that knows about CSS at all will simply ignore broken CSS parameters. Anyway, please continue this discussion at Template talk:Infobox Country. dbenbenn | talk 05:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cowbell image

Sadly, your use of the cowbell image on your user page is probably not fair use. See the note on Image:Cowbell2.gif. Rd232 17:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template transclusion

There has been some recent thought that certain templates should always be subst'ed, and a list is being compiled with the intent of having a bot automatically subst all those templates. The two main reasons are article stability, and server load. Since you're one of the main contributors to WP:AUM, it would be appreciated if you could give your opinion on this. The relevant page is Wikipedia:Subst. R adiant _>|< 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition

I saw your post on SilmVirgin's page. If she does not follow through on your reminder of policy, let me know if I can help you in ensuring that the rules get followed around here. I noticed that some of the very same POV-pushers that have been stalking me did a con job on the arbitration committee getting you banned from editing the Wikipedia namespace. I was very disappoited to see that, since you seem to be one of the few people who knows what's up around here. Cognition 19:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Don't drag me into your battles. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My battles are to get people around here to follow the rules. That's your battle too, right? Cognition 19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the above response. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Worlds article name change

While I have no problem with you renaming the War of the Worlds television series article from [[War of the Worlds (television)]] to War of the Worlds (TV series) (although I miss the former title as I'd gotten so used to it), I was upset that you didn't bother to adjust even one of the 40-plus links that directed to the article. I waited a couple of days to see if something was to be done, but wind up doing the imperative redirects myself. I'm not pissed off with you; I just wanted to vent my tired woes where they belonged. --Bacteria 14:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time out to explain yourself. It was all I needed to know. The only person who would seem to object to the name change would have been myself because I seem to be the main contributor every which way, but it's far too late to backtrack, and my initial unease has since worn off. So again, thank you. --Bacteria 12:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki redirects for deletion

You listed these, now at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old. I've moved all the reamining Template:VfD-<article name> into the wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ space, and deleted the redirects, can you advise what redirects are in the Mediawiki space? Rich Farmbrough 16:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I've done all apart from WikiMedia:Source which seems to be very widely used, the Wikimedia:Tooltip-Series whcih my Spidey-sense tells me to be wary of, and MediaWiki:Fundraising notice which has survived a VfD. Rich Farmbrough 22:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That's the last of the RfD/Old apart from Infatuation->Limerance ! Hooray! Rich Farmbrough 22:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

countryedit template

Netoholic, I thought that I should bring your attention to {{countryedit}} and the mess behind it. It's worse that the stub templates. --AllyUnion (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images on your user page

Both the Hulk and the Cowbell pictures are fair use only, and shouldn't be used on user pages. Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be annoying; just noting that Wikipedia isn't authorized to use these images on user pages. Ral315 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parody is fair use; I just didn't know that's how you were claiming the images. Sorry for bothering you. Ral315 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Jdforrester's note about the point of running for arbcom

In a conversation, Jdforrester pointed out this note on his talk page:

Your change to that page smacks of self-promotion. Your platform may be to retain the status quo in how the Committee operates, but other candidates (and many editors) are seeking a fundamental change in that process. Please revert your change, and feel free to express your view on the talk page or your own statement. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Arbcom has no authority to redefine itself is policy, not an election platform. An analogy: Running on such a platform would be like running for a school board on the platform that you will abolish the school board- but state law has defined that there will be a schoolboard. While there is nothing prohibiting you (or another candidate) from running on this sort of platform, it demonstrates that you miss the point of running, and have another goal in mind: a goal which will not be fulfilled directly as a result of your election. Now, you may collect votes from people who either have missed or willingly ignore the traditional 'point' of this candidacy, but ultimately if you get elected and then try to grossly restructure the arbcom in this manner, you're likely to either be thwarted by your fellow arbitrators or possibly ejected by Jimbo. Your confusion or protestation about this matter only hilights the need for such a statement pointing this fact out. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By stating on my page that "(the) fact that the Arbcom has no authority to redefine itself is policy"m I think you are failing to understand how that committee really operates. A cursory look at the history of the Arbitration policy shows that Committee members often redefines that body and its operating mechanisms. I think if you asked Jdforrester, he'd agree with that statement since he has been quite active in the changes to that policy page. It's flatly wrong for him, or you, to say that running on a platform which advocates change is inappropriate. -- Netoholic @ 05:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user talk page needs less Image:Cowbell2.gif

You have the image Image:Cowbell2.gif on your user talk page; this image is copyrighted and used in the Will Ferrell article under Wikipedia:Fair use. The use on your user talk page of that image is unlikely to be covered by use however, and as such is probably a Copyright violation. Could you remove the image from your user page?

And by the way, that does also apply to the image of The Hulk. Thanks. -- SoothingR^(pour) 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parody is fair use. -- Netoholic @ 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines don't mention parody as one of the means for which fair use applies... -- SoothingR^(pour) 08:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 And by the way, that does also apply to the image of [[The Hulk]]. Thanks. -- [[User:SoothingR|SoothingR]]<sup><small>([[User talk:SoothingR|pour]])</small></sup> 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
+:''Parody is fair use. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)''
+[[WP:FU#Images|The guidelines]] don't mention parody as one of the means for which fair use applies... -- [[User:SoothingR|SoothingR]]<sup><small>([[User talk:SoothingR|pour]])</small></sup> 08:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)