User talk:Netoholic

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 32005. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Radiant_>|< 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

"Overlinking"

Hrm. I'll discuss it with the other reporters, because if so, we should probably decide whether to link dates at all (we do so in other articles as well). Over the holidays I am going to try to get some sort of an editorial policy to standardize things (for example, whether to link to User:Jimbo Wales or Jimmy Wales; that kind of thing.) Thanks for your comments. Ral315 (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

(also posted here) Could this be intended to allow user preferences to be followed as to date format? AFAIK the system will only activate your preferences on dates or partial dates within links. Maybe we should have some other mechanism for this, but for now that's how it works. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please undelete

Done. Please let me know if you require further assistance. -- Longhair 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Your help will be appreciated

I have replied on my talk page User talk:0.39 to your remarks about the template I have been working on (User:0.39/Orbiter (sim)/Infobox Spacecraft Template)... Is your offer of help still on?0.39 11:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Firebug's RfA

I added a note to your vote on this RfA. I have no intention of having you change your vote, but was just wondering how long should someone should wait after an incident to try for Adminship. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox University

I've answered your complains on Template talk:Infobox University - David Björklund (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

meta-templates

Stop trolling. There is no room to debate that WP:AUM is not correct. -- Netoholic @ 04:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop assuming bad faith. There's plenty of room for debate on the talk page. Besides, "Avoid" ≠ "Antichrist". — Omegatron 12:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Warbox

Has anyone ever told you that you're an utter genius?

I'll copy your code into {{Warbox}}, if you don't mind; it's certainly a cleaner approach than using the logic templates. As an aside, is the "hiddenStructure" class documented somewhere, or is it one of those things you had to have been around for? —Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I'll bring up the naming issue on the project page; I suspect there will be no objections to renaming the template.

My deepest thanks for all of your help on this. —Kirill Lokshin 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and renamed it to {{Infobox Military Conflict}}. —Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Messages

I got your IRC messages. I wasn't identified at the time, so you didn't get my replies. Raul654 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (I'm still on if you want to talk) Raul654 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox movie

I noticed you're adding support for alternate titles of the fields. Could you also include the fields to make it possible to change cinematography to cinematographer and editing to editor to be more in line with every other field in the template? Thanks. - Bobet 22:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, and don't edit anything. All of the changes have already broken the infobox and some of them probably need to be reverted anyway. The movie title is currently outside the box and since the image caption field is missing for many (probably most) films, you just get {{{image caption}}} as the alternate text for them, which needs to be fixed. - Bobet 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

On my first point, yes, it's probably nitpicking. It just seemed odd to have 'director', 'writer', 'producer' followed by 'cinemetography' and 'editing'. But yes, I'd agree it's not a big deal, since I'd guess most people just cut and paste the infobox from somewhere and not try to guess the field names.

On the second point, it seems that there's been enough changes in the infobox recently without me changing them :) I don't really care about the aesthetics of the box either way, just want it to not be buggy (like adding the {{{image caption}}} when no caption field is present). Oh, and the title of the films isn't bolded right now, that should be fixed. - Bobet 22:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox movie

Well, no. I was attemptinf to fix the incorrect display of film titles caused by an error in the coding for the template. Appearently, I haven't helped. Can you fix this? The title needs to be inside the infobox, trather than above it. The Wookieepedian 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry about that

[1] -- I have absolutely no idea how that happened. Is there a bug in the section edit feature? Anyway it was quite unintentional. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

hiddenStructure in other skins

Sorry to bother you again, but there's been an issue raised here about hiddenStructure not working properly in non-Monobook skins. Since I'm not sure where that class is defined, I was hoping you could provide some advice. —Kirill Lokshin 04:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Company

Look, if you are completely incapable of preserving the template's formatting, don't screw around. Any further edits that do screw up the formatting will be considered VANDALISM. Adraeus 06:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came off harsh. The fact is that I've been dealing with plenty of idiots today on Wikipedia, and my patience is wearing thin. If I had one of those Wikipedia thermometer images, I'd be in the red. The problem with your edits is that they are totally uglifying the template. Just look at the history diffs. Adraeus 06:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And as I said, if you can't preserve the formatting, don't fix the structure. I will stand by my word if you continue to make changes that negatively affect the template. I will consider such edits vandalism. Adraeus 06:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct. Preserve the formatting, or go away. Adraeus 06:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh please, save your hollow threats. I've reported myself for 3RR violation. [2] I am in my right to protect a popular page from vandalistic edition. Adraeus 07:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Any edit that negatively affects a page is vandalistic regardless of intent. For example, a dictator may intend good by executing millions of civilians, but we cannot deny that such an execution is genocide. Adraeus 07:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your Template namespace restrictions. Please note that I'm only enforcing this because you revert warred there, not simply because you edited there. If you have any questions about this block, please post them here; I've put your talk page on my watchlist. Ral315 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Does saying "but Adraeus started it" help? At least you didn't buy his "vandalism" BS and blocked for a realistic reason. -- Netoholic @ 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I do understand the reasoning behind your edits, yes. I would have blocked Adraeus as well, had he not been blocked already. Ral315 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it's good to have that confirmation. -- Netoholic @ 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to lift this block - please feel free to leave an explanation of the dispute on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do about helping to generate consensus instead of edit warring. Phil Sandifer 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Please fix NetBot

Please fix NetBot so it does not insert "subst:" in templates that are inside <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags, e.g,.: [3]. It performs no useful service and confuses discussions. Thank you, MCB 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Replacing that text was intentional, to show how it should be used, but I see where the context is impacted in that instance. I suggest changing to "{{tl|prettytable}}" to avoid future subst: task problems. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not any better. You really should just leave references to templates on talk pages alone. "If it's not broken, don't fix it". Please do not use your bot to attempt to enforce your point of view about transclusion and subst: on talk pages. I just happened to catch this since MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css is a page I watch, but using a bot to modify references to templates on talk pages seems to me to be violating the spirit, if not the letter, of your edit restrictions. MCB 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

A few requests:

1. Please don't single me out in this fashion [4].
2. Read my previous reply on this topic [5] if you have not already done so, and indicate whether I'm missing something, or Mr. Sandifer opted not to point out some point of my reasoning that might be considered facetious.

I'm not trying to be a WP:DICK, but I'm curious how one evil (substing redundant copies of the same wiki sourcetext and html to separate locations) can really be lesser than the other (retrieving it from a common source whenever used). I did have a new signature that I was going to introduce sometime soon, maybe around new year's (which I would, of course, store separately rather than editing the original). I think it looks better. I'll subst it for you. The colors still need tweaking, I know. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK)

Incidentally, I had begun work on this before the issue came up. Any point I may have been trying to make is in the upper half, I assure you. I see your bot suggestion. If you can program your bot to subst only on inactive talk-pages I cannot reasonably oppose. If it is more convenient, just replace them with my username on any page that has not been edited for two weeks, thus:

{{subst:User:Freakofnurture/sig}} → [[user:freakofnurture|]]

noting, of course, the "pipe trick" and lowercaseness. This should keep total transclusions at a minimum, in case of a vandal attack. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have changed my sig into something similar in appearance, yet less verbose. Feel free to robotically subst it on all inactive discussions. ~~~~ 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I'd appreciate the courtesy of a reply, either here or at my talk page, rather than the locations you have chosen. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I really would like a reply. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Couple things

First, I've left a note on Adraeus's talk page pointing out that the developers have specifically asked for meta-templates to be deprecated, and that calling you a vandal was unhelpful. On the other hand, as I'm sure you're aware, you could probably have been more civil in that conversation too.

Second, and relatedly, I've heard told you're in the market for new mentors. I know there's been a history between us, but in terms of template-related issues, I'd be happy to serve as a mentor - I think we pretty much agree on use of templates, and, honestly, I think your input on TfD and in the template namespace is tremendously valuable. I understand that you'd probably prefer I not mentor in issues where there's a more substantial disagreement between us, so if you wanted, I could restrict my mentoring to issues surrounding the template namespace. Let me know if you want, and I'd be happy to file an appeal to the arbcom asking for reconsideration of that portion of the ruling against you. Phil Sandifer 06:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Amgine Administratorship

Hello. You can vote for or against Amgine becoming an administrator of Wiktionary here:[6] See ya', Comrade Gonzalo 19:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits

I welcome any attempt by you to have your editing restrictions lifted, but you will need to convince the arbitration committee that you will not be edit-warring. Susvolans ⇔ 19:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Pearle is breaking templates

As you can see from this example, Pearle is moving the category outside of the noinclude tags. This has the result of adding that category to ALL the pages that are using that template. Please correct this immediately, either by fixing them or reverting Pearle's edits completely. -- Netoholic @ 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am an idiot. Thanks for catching that. -- Beland 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox category

You've got a good point. Thanks for the link. Jacoplane 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"bad F1 templates"

gday - i stumbled across your comment on User talk:Snowspinner that Template:F1 season link and Template:F1sl are "bad F1 templates". They are designed to reduce workload (eg in this i'm working on, where I have to constantly link to F1 season pages) and are used as a subst: so people can understand easier when editing in the future and to reduce "server loading" since it is used so many times. just wondering why they are "bad", and if there is a better/more correct way that i should be doing it. thanks AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the (incredibly) quick reply! fair enough... is it ok to leave them there till im finished the list of drivers, because they speed it up a significant amount.. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Commons templates

Neto, I've seen that you've done quite a few edits to the commons template. But I have to object to the resizing of the template. Personally, I think the smaller one was more aesthetically pleasing, and the text wasn't too small. I think this new one is too large, and it doesn't align as well with images. - Hahnchen 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made a request to have that change made. -- Netoholic @ 14:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Question re: Pearl and cleanup templates

How does Pearle find articles that need their cleanup tag changed (example)? Do you just pull articles from Category:Wikipedia cleanup, or do you use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cleanup? -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I use the category, largely because this makes it easy to distinguish done from not-done pages, without having to examine the actual contents. Also, there are actually several templates and template redirects that put articles into that category, and Pearle handles them all. -- Beland 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 9

Actually, instead of using the WP:V card at every instance, take a look to examine the resources provided. Many of these "fan pages" yielded entire legs from races from the past 8 seasons. For example, the Utah leg from this season was leaked a full week in advance. I'm simply being bold in updating pages. There's obviously some cruft sources on those messageboards, but many of them are based on actual media sources (like the three Australian papers for the Perth, Darwin, and Adelaide sightings). You simply need to sort out what's verifiable and what's not from that source.

For Denver Airport photo see The Denver Post (Tuesday, November 8, 2005, (Denver and the West section), it's simply a photo and caption.)

Photo: [7] Photo caption: CBS cameramen for “The Amazing Race” film two race participants Monday as they pass through Denver International Airport. The ninth installment of the reality TV show, which pits teams in an around-the-world race, starts in Colorado and is expected to air in the spring.

Red Rocks Amphitheatre is the starting line, look here for preview vidcaps. If that's not Phil at the starting line at Red Rocks upper bowl, I don't know what it is.

Do you need anymore sources? lol. Just be careful with the language, cuz it's bridging on a personal attack. Cheers.--Madchester 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

commons templates

I reverted a couple of your changes to Wikiquotes and Commons, purely for aesthetic reasons, but looking back at the history of Wikiquote here it looks like the original version is the one preferred. Cheers Arniep 01:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, could you point out to me where you discussed these changes that you made? Thanks Arniep 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Heya

Heya Neto... hope things are going well with you and that people are treating you OK. Out of interest, is it easy to create a bot? I want to snag all the PD Australian Biographical material that Project Gutenberg's Australian chapter have and add it to Wikipedia. Do you think this would be easy or hard? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Heya, dunno if you saw this message. Whatcha say? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

sisterproject css

Sure; I've updated it accordingly. — Dan | talk 22:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

For your participation in and lack of support for my successful request for adminship. I hope to learn from your criticism and the wonderful experience of reading it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:38, Dec. 17, 2005

SIMPLE.wikipedia

Please see my request and unblock that account, to avoid autoblocks. I know him personally and he promised me not run a robot anymore at simple without flag. He has a reliable robot and later I will help him applying for a botbit. He is just a 13 years old boy, so please be a bit flexible with him. You may always contact me at my Dutch discussion page. Kindly regards, Jcbos 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject AFL

Don't know if you've realised, but we've FINALLY got a WikiProject on AFL up and running. Write your name on the list of participants and let us know your thoughts. Cheers, Rogerthat 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia account

Jimbo, can you please confirm whether this account (simple:User:Jimbo Wales) is you, or an imposter. I'm going to leave it blocked until you either confirm, or until you've contacted a developer in order to get the account handed over to you. Please contact me here on en: Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 07:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You did the right thing. Not me.--Jimbo Wales 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sister project templates

Hi, back in May, it seemed like you were against using this type of template (on history of Template:Wikiquote [8]), can you tell me why you changed them? Thanks Arniep 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

{{infobox highway}}

I've fixed it already, no thanks to the edit conflicts from you. --SPUI (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I don't want it to have a default width. I ran into this problem with railroad infoboxes, where some logos are very wide but short (in which case I want it wider) or very tall but thin (where I want it thinner). --SPUI (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? I've fixed it. --SPUI (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say that? What's not "fixed" about it? --SPUI (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Qif

What would it take to do cleanup on this template being killed? i.e. with the use of Netbot, how fast could we successfully deprecate it? Phil Sandifer 20:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should work on this. By we, I admit that I mean you. Phil Sandifer 20:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. If there's anything I can do, let me know, but I admit that I am not a l33t MediaWiki Haxx0r. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well. Everybody suffers from meta-templates. :) If you find yourself in revert wars on these, please let me know - the last thing you need is to get into a template namespace revert war. I'll be travelling for the next few days, so let David Gerard know too, as he's aware of the whole situation, and can actually help you before Wednesday. Phil Sandifer 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Net, you shouldn't be editing templates ATM I think; you can throw it at me if you like. The edit summary btw should include something like "See request from Jamesday at WT:AUM" to forestall stupid reversion - David Gerard 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to help as well. [[Sam Korn]] 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may say so, I'm grateful for all the effort you're putting into dealing with meta-templates. It's about time someone took the time to go through and really minimise the incidences of their use. Ambi 13:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Unblock me

I sent you an email yesterday but you didn't respond so I am posting here. I am the user known as Jimbo Wales on the wikipedia. You can not block me as an impostor of a name on another wikipedia. Each wikipedia has its own seperate log in system with its own set of usernames. As such, a user name on the simple wikipedia can not be an impostor of a username on the english wikipedia. Furthermore, if you look at my edit history, all of my edits have been constructive. Please respond and unblock me as soon as possible.

Template:Ed

...you are replacing the template. I don't understand why since the template is not edited it cannot cause extra serverload as described in WP:AUM. Thx for a reply at Template_talk:Ed, i will put it on my watchlist now. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My request

Please see my request above about simple:User:RoboDick. Jcbos 21:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you even answer? Jcbos 23:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

He has not answered my request to unblock my simple account either. arbitration?

I will note that, above you on this talk page, Jimbo says that Netoholic did the right thing. This suggests that the likelihood of your appeal getting anywhere is best compared to snowballs in hell. Phil Sandifer 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well okay then PHIL. You can go and tell your man Jimbo that I got the account name first, but if jimbo wants to play hardball he should know that I play dirty. Okay? you tell him that boy.

Film infoboxes

Thanks for fixing the redundant fields. - Bobet 12:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh?

What's wrong with the {{If}} template? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about infobox width

I was wondering if you could provide some advice about template best practices:

As part of the plan to eliminate meta-template use by the Military history WikiProject, we're going to place the main infobox and the campaignbox sequentially on the page; we'd like for them to be the same width. If we set a width in em for both, this works fine using regular-size text. When the text size is decreased, however, one of the boxes will shrink—but not the other, which includes an image that stretches it.

The obvious answer would be to specify the box width in px to ensure that it's always wider than the image. I'm wondering if this would cause any major problems. If doing so is a bad idea, would you know of any way to cause the image to shrink with the text; or should we just ignore the issue of different-width boxes entirely? —Kirill Lokshin 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

{{album}}

...has been unprotected. Sorry it took so long, but I couldn't get the specialpages to load. Radiant_>|< 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The NoReviews is there for a reason

Reviews cannot be added to a hidden structure, because it'll make a chaos of pages because it contains HTML and it'll be evaluated.

There is a solution possible with an ifdef but that's very complex, so I didn't dare to touch it. Hence the quick NoReviews bug fix to make it possible to hide it manually. KittenKlub 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the code can be changed, but hiddenstructure(Reviews) gives a horrible side effect and breaks ALL single pages, so that line can never be put in there. KittenKlub 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

AUM

If you're still working on deprecating meta-templates, you may want to take a look at Template:Col-break and all other five templates mentioned on that page, which generate simple wiki markup that makes tables. I'd say substing would be a definite improvement. Radiant_>|< 13:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Late votes

I'll go grab the yes votes as well - I'd forgotten to look at them, truth be told. I think that, since Jimbo has instituted the policy, at this point the vote is functionally closed. But thanks for the catch on the yes votes. Phil Sandifer 06:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not terribly worried - though I won't revert anyone who puts them back. My main concern, honestly, was that the vote is getting used without people really paying attention as a breeding ground to generate stealth consensus against the arbcom, which is useless on several fronts and levels. As for Jimbo, I tend to think he has enough demands on his time. But as I said - I won't revert if someone overrules me. Phil Sandifer 06:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ok sorry

Ok sorry

Still a bit of a nooooooooooooooooooooob.

by the way I reverted my own edit before you posted that talk message to me ;) --Mistress Selina Kyle 07:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Goneski

Well done, Neto! I have deleted the template :-) Out of interest, how did you do it? Ta bu shi da yu 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Very clever, I must say :) Have deleted those other templates. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Chef Infobox

Thanks a lot for your help on the Chef Infobox template; I struggled with that conditional stuff for quite a while. Some of the categories were pretty rough, since I hadn't finished it yet too. What I'm curious about, however, is whether TV shows and books should really be restricted to the main article. I think it would be helpful for people to see that information upfront, especially considering that most chefs on Wikipedia are likely to be "celebrity chefs". I guess the books section could be too long for some chefs, though, but could TV shows be kept? Anyway, would this be bad form, or what are your thoughts on this? -- Chris 09:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

antichrist?

= Snowspinner?

lol.

Anyway as for the image.... Hmmmmmm. It's actually promoting both MTV and Eminem. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not unilaterally change the pope infobox. That design was the one chosen in a long debate. If there are errors that need correcting, change them while maintaining the design style chosen. It shows contempt for the detailed debate and contributions of a lot of users to unilaterally dump an agreed format and replace it with your own. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Changing an agreed design, that has met with withspread approval, to one in a format that was overwhelmingly rejected, is not fair on those who reached the consensus decision on what design to adopt. Yes we do unilateral things but I hope that we don't simply bulldoze a consensus reached after a long debate out of the way. The format was agreed and that agreement should be respected. Indeed many have said since in one-to-one conversation that they regarded the pope infobox as one of the most attractive on WP. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually every single pope page had a form of template that had been voted down in a detailed discussion. I simply returned the pages to the form that had been agreed. If there are problems with codes, fix them. But don't unilaterally redesign an agreed format to one rejected by the community. You did two things: changed codes and changed designs. I reverted the change. It is up to you to fix the codes without changing the design. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

CVG infobox

I went ahead and made the changes for your proposed version, however, as I noted at the CVG WikiProject, the column width concerns me because it changes depending on the information in the box. See Doom (notice the Release date line) and compare with Grim Fandango or Super Mario 64. Can we set the width? I unprotected the template so that the changes can get ironed out. -- not exactly sure why it was protected in the first place beyond what is in the summary "high visibility - no reason to edit this" per User:Ral315. K1Bond007 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite our differences...

I sincerely appreciate and admire the hard work that you're doing.

For standing up to the misguided masses (myself included), helping to free Wikipedia from the hidden horrors of conditional meta-templates, I, Lifeisunfair, hereby present the Barnstar of Diligence to Netoholic.

Please allow this to serve as a token of good will. —Lifeisunfair 15:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)