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)

---

question

May I use

Netoholic's Law

As a wiki discussion grows longer, the probability of an accusation by one user of another acting unilaterally approaches one.

on my user page?

Jakken 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm afraid this image, Image:Cowbell2.gif, is used in articles under fair uses and therefore its use is not allowed on user pages. Could you remove it please? Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 23:09, 12 January 2006 (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)

dog project folks again.

Hi, hate to bother you again..

We'd like your advice over at Template_talk:Infobox Dogbreed - you can see the issues we've run into on the talk page.

Thanks! - Trysha ^(talk) 00:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Campaignbox

I've added Template:Campaignbox Muslim Conquest, but since I did this unilaterally, others may want to have their say before it becomes an official change. Palm_Dogg 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD votes

Why would you nominate templates that have recently been added and well used, without asking these templates' creators for the reason we created them (which you have not taken into consideration), when clearly we (the creators) are active on Wikipedia. I myself have been active for nearly two years, have worked on countless projects and would not create a template willy-nilly without a damn good reason. Being that every time someone wanted to add an improvement on to their particular project's infobox that they wouldn't have to request a change to a template that may affect some possible thousands of articles.

You have made an effort to nominate and explain why these deserve nomination, some people deserve the common decency of finding out that you've nominated their templates for deletion instead of stumbling upon your "deletion notification" by accident. It's like you didn't want any potential opposition. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 03:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Garzo's blocks

I have been blocked by User:Garzo, who is directly involved in a dispute with me. Despite repeated attempts to express the importance of complying with Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, Garzo has repeatedly reverted my attempts to put in place a replace to the non-compliant Template:Language. I have been migrating a few articles to Template:Infobox Language, which does not use meta-templates, yet presents the same information on an article level. -- Netoholic @ 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak has unblocked you. I expect you to discuss all controversial changes with others first and build on consensus. You were warned that you would be blocked, but chose to ignore the warning and continued adding your template to articles. I don't expect you to be doing that. --Gareth Hughes 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and Garzo re-blocked. How fun. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have asked repeatedly not to replace templates on language articles with your own version. Your contribs show you have done this to dozens of articles today. No one wants this template. --Gareth Hughes 04:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

uh-huh, and look at your contribs today also... Violation of WP:AUM and abuse of admin privileges to drive home the point that you own the language template here. -- Netoholic @ 04:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox

Netoholic, regarding edits on Template:Taxobox. Personally, I don't care about whether or not the list headers are th or td based. However, your wholesale revert also abandoned the alignment attributes, which make a number of pages more legible and I imagine don't interfere with screenreaders. Also, using the infobox style was rejected repeatedly, so - whether or not the reasons were good - switching back to it is only going to created edit wars, and make it harder to accept any infobox standards in the future. Thanks, Josh 23:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah... The entire problem is that there is a table within a table. I'll take care of that, then you can see that the alignment is taken care of with the class=infobox. One thing disturbs me though... that you reverted because you are concerned about an edit war starting. That doesn't make sense to me. -- Netoholic @ 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because of the alignment, and if you can take care of it, I'll be happy. For the rest I'm simply warning you that the TOL consensus is against infobox formatting, so don't expect it to stick. I'd prefer we use a customizable style, but too many editors have tried to force the matter without discussion, which doesn't help. Thanks, Josh

Qif in template main

Template:Main recently started using Qif. Main is one of the most widely used templates on Wikipedia, and if qif is a resource drag, this is a big one. Template:main is also protected. If you can re-write it without the use of Qif while retaining the same functionality, I can work to get the new code in place. Let me know what you think. Or, if you can suggest what needs to be done to remove qif, I can ask the person who wrote the current version. --Stbalbach 19:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've overheard this discussion and created a non-{{qif}} replacement for {{main}}. See User:Freakofnurture/Main. Demonstrations of use are on its talk page. It uses the same input syntax as the current one but uses hiddenStructure trickery instead of meta-templates. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:09, Jan. 7, 2006

Since you seem to be online now, your opinion here (as an authority on templates) would be appreciated. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:49, Jan. 8, 2006

The infobox works

Hey, Netoholic. Thanks for getting back to me. I'll confess that I'm not that good with technology, and from a purely technical standpoint, I don't know, say, the feasibility of using family colors in a template. I'll just have to take your word for it; you clearly know more than I do about this. Again, thanks for responding! Take care, --Whimemsz 21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox City

Thank you for your recent edits to Template:Infobox City, especially concerning the hiding of various rows. Your contributions have made it usable with many more localities across the United States. I wish I had your magnitude of wikiexpertise; it would have saved me hours! — Seven Days » talk 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Ethnic group

Hi, Netoholic. I saw your work on the Language infobox template, and would like to incorporate a feature from there to the Template:Infobox_Ethnic_group. Basically, I want the "Related Ethnic Group" field to be optional. And when it's not in use, that field shouldn't show up. I tried to look at what you did on the language template, but couldn't really understand the boolean operators you used. So rather than screwing it up, I'm hoping you could help. Thanks. --Chris S. 08:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I see you used something totally different, so I was out in left field. heh. --Chris S. 09:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

indenting

I noticed that class="notice" and the colon indent give different depths of indentation:

Colon-indented text

The class="notice" method.

I was unaware of the customizations made possible by the method you recommended, but did note that uses of that template are often followed by another template using the other indent-style. I guess we should change them all over to class="notice" for consistency. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:36, Jan. 8, 2006

It would probably be best to compile a complete list and change them all at once. Very few would notice the difference then, let alone freak out to the tune of "omg uneven indenting" and revert. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:45, Jan. 8, 2006

A discussion that may interest you

Greetings:

You may be interested in the discussion regarding template redirects located at the bottom of User talk:Jamesday.

All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Language issues

Hi, Netoholic! Tobias Conradi informally asked me to mediate the issues surrounding the (Infobox) (L/l)anguage template. I agreed to look into the matter, and so far compiled a brief summary, available here. If you could review it and leave a comment if necessary, that'd be much appreciated. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Netoholic! Thank you for providing your comments. I drafted a proposed solution for you and other involved parties to review. If you accept it, please indicate so below the proposed solution section. If you do not, please explain your grievances there. Thank you!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as clarification—I offered protection not because I'm afraid the template is going to be vandalized often and not fixed for long (I'm sure enough people watch after it so it will not), but for the impact the very act of editing it would have. If someone vandalizes it (or even tries to improve it without knowing that a new template is being developed)—it's a couple hundred server calls already, then it's another couple hundred when it's reverted. Which is exactly what WP:AUM aims to prevent. Comments?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

New comment available.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another comment is there. I am also asking both you and Tobias to provide your proposed plans of action; the way you want it to be accomplished. I will then try to match all three plans (yours, Tobias', and mine) and at least establish common parts. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology for editing fluke

you wrote:

Would you please fix my vote page? Your recent edit removed a lot of votes on both sides. I don't want to interfere with the page myself. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 07:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed already by someone. I apologize. I noticed a fluke after my first edit and thought I fixed that by the next one. Apparently not. Sorry again. --Irpen 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Template Optimization?

Having recently helped with Template:Infobox Philosopher and having seen CDB's comment here, I'm coming to the conclusion that there is indeed significant need for competent template writers who are able and willing to help the "average Joe" in actually implementing WP:AUM, rather than just complaining about the situation. I understand you've been doing this thankless job for quite a while, and would like to help more personally, and I suspect I'm not the only one. I think there might be some need for, if not an actual Wikiproject, then at least a list of users who would like to help fix problematic templates. What do you think? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would help too as soon as there is consensus what to use as replacement for qif. I'm ok with the project name as proposed but would also be happy if we could name it just "Wikiproject Templates" so that possibly all problems around templates could be discussed there. Adrian Buehlmann 13:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

class=notice

I am well aware of the benefits of using a CSS class, but the notice class has 1.2em of margin and padding. Disambig links have been marked up in this way for years, so I would like to know how you justify changing the default appearance of half the pages on Wikipedia without discussion? Also classes should not be used just because their current properties suit your needs. The notice class, not designed for top-line disambig notices, may need to be changed, and shouldn't be tied down by extra uses. The dablink class already exists for disambig links ("dablink"), and this class should be modified to add any padding which, until you've had a discussion about it, should be on the left only. ed g2s • talk 15:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice is for inline notices which, when sandwiched between text, may require extra padding. Dab links do not have vertical margins, this is the status quo. If you want to change that you need to have a discussion first. The monobook.css file can be changed to include extra rules for dablinks. The current system of definition lists is not ideal, but nor is it invalid code, <dt> tags are not required in a definition list (from w3c: <!ELEMENT DL - - (DT|DD)+ -- definition list -->). ed g2s • talk 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to have dab links as <div class="dablink">''For other....''</div> then add .dablink to common.css. This way you won't have to disturb other elements that use "notice" already. ed g2s • talk 18:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The dablink class already exists and is in use, even on pages that don't use the template. Why add another class? ed g2s • talk 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css

Hi. I would like to ask if you would support an addition to MediaWiki:Common.css. I would like to add:

.if{
   display: none;
}

We would then be able to do:

<span class="if{{{Edition|}}}">, {{{Edition}}}</span>

instead of:

<span class="hiddenStructure{{{Edition|}}}">, {{{Edition}}}</span>

This could help to "sell" the CSS solution to the folks. What do you think? Adrian Buehlmann 16:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your message. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox University

Hi Netoholic. I notice your NetBot changing {[tl|Infobox British University}} to {{Infobox University}} on British University articles. Is this being done for a particular reason? I'm a little worried that some of the terminology in Infobox University is inappropriate for British universities: in particular 'School type', which is a glaring error on an article about a British institution. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. 'Type of institution' works fine for me. I hadn't realised there were so many different university infobox templates! --Nick Boalch ^?!? 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

I would like to see you on ArbCom, but I have voted neutral because I find your second plank ambiguous. If a problem user (in ArbCom's best judgment, on the evidence) simply ignores an arbitration, should ArbCom sanction them, or not? Septentrionalis

Infobox Bridge

Sorry about reverting your changes earlier on Template:Infobox Bridge. I think I figured out what happened. In the old Template:Bridge there was no field for an image, so I added the image under the "bridge name" field. Now that the bridge template redirects to Infobox_Bridge, image is an optional field. I'll move them, and when I am finished I'll fix the one field that is still off (I reverted everything back to your changes, minus the "bridge name" field). Thanks, Cacophony 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but... -- Netoholic @ 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox university - again

Your bot is changing a huge amount of these - and losing, or making the information incorrect ever time. Could this be done individually? Rkevins82 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, my bot made several edits, but due to quirks that crept in (due to weird usage of the templates), I made sure to check each edit and make follow-up corrections. If there is something specific I missed, let me know which articles. -- Netoholic @ 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed on an article I monitor (Illinois Institute of Technology) that it continually changes "Faculty" to "Staff." Staff and Faculty of a university are two very different groups, and should be kept seperately. A university with a large staff is very differnt from a university with a large faculty. To make matters worse, the bot also changed the word "Faculty" to "Staff" in a section heading - twice. -Duncanr 05:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is per Template talk:Infobox University. "Faculty" has widely different meanings in Europe and elsewhere. Keep in mind that the parameter is open-ended, so you can qualify the numbers with a short text description. Overall, "staff" has the clearest usefulness across many articles. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, a faculty in Europe is just one part of the university as a whole; see Technical University of Vienna, for instance. —Nightstallion (?) 07:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So the word is used differently in other countries, but wasn't this why there were different Infoboxes for different nationalities? That's what I gathered from Template talk:Infobox University - there seemed to have never been a consensus to change the usage to one template for all. Changing faculty to staff on American universities mostly just reverses the argument - at an American university, faculty are not generally considered to also be "staff" or even a subset of the "staff," since faculty are eligible for tenure, have their own governance, etc. Especially in modern times, the two groups are very different. At the least, try to keep the bot from changing other uses of the word "faculty" on the article (even those outside the Infobox). - Duncanr 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are correcting the usage of the template then it might also be proper to correct the faculty-staff information. American universities should probably use the American distinction. Rkevins82 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:tdeprecated

When I made that template, I had in mind that it could be used to mark a template that has been superseeded by another template, and inform the third part to use that tempalte instead. But before putting it eventually on tfd. _→AzaToth 13:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox School

If you are going to change the usage of the infobox, you gotta change the usage on the talk page, otherwise, revert. —Wikibarista 19:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for television shows (again)

I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I wasn't stalking. I noticed your comment on Template talk:Language and that's how I found out. --Khoikhoi 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I won't revert anymore, as long as you promise to stop threatening me. And what do you mean, "precisely my point"? Your point was proven wrong! --Khoikhoi 07:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying you'd be a complete hypocrite for reporting because I'm being disruptive. --Khoikhoi 08:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Various lists of colleges

Good job locating these, they've been fixed. See also [1], lol. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 10:54, Jan. 12, 2006

University infobox bot

Hi. Noticed your bot updated the infobox at Trinity University (Texas), and some other content on the page. Among a few welcome changes, I noticed that it changed mention of "faculty" to "staff." This suits me fine when done in box itself, but it changed a section heading (Notable Faculty) in the same way, which didn't seem to make as much sense, as there's a distinction between the two. However, people who know enough to use bots here tend to have a firm grasp on the style guidelines, so I figured you could fill me in on the change. Thanks. Deadsalmon 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I heard this happen on a couple articles. It was an unintended side-effect that I am going to correct the next time I run the bot against the university articles. -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks. Deadsalmon 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for your vote

I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/LawAndOrder , and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 21:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey are you Shane??

Hey are you Shane? - JedOs 02:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Governor

I added the image_size parameter because some articles use a very tall photo. See this old revision of Jeb Bush. It would be nice if one could specify both the (maximum) height and (maximum) width of an image and have it scale accordingly within an imaginary box. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:57, Jan. 14, 2006

I adjusted it to avoid that. If you specify the size in ##x##px , the first number is the max width, and the second is the max height. So this keeps the 250 max width and sets a 300px max height. Feel free to adjust, but it seems to work most places. -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. I thought I was just dreaming about that feature. Ought to impliment it in other infoboxes as well. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:18, Jan. 14, 2006

Be prepared, because some people, me included, kind of dislike the extra blank border on the sides of the image and would rather have it fill the box to the edges. -- Netoholic @ 08:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I can cure you of that really quick. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:25, Jan. 14, 2006

Regarding the above, I seem to have upset a WP:OWNer (see [2]) who has reverted my edit to restore his own Delaware-specific infobox (hist). Your input would be welcome. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:20, Jan. 14, 2006

enlighten me please

Why do you insist that it should be Template:Infobox Lighthouse when all the articles which use it, use it as Template:Infobox lighthouse? -- RHaworth 08:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. As long as you change all the articles which use it to avoid the redirect. -- RHaworth 08:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Oh My Goddess Infobox-Generic

ifelse structures do not work like that. Please stop. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia python library

What is the Wikipedia python library? Hyacinth 11:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Metatemplates

In the spirit of metatemplates, I would like to hear your opinion on this particular piece of convolutedness. Radiant_>|< 11:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ship table

I see that you have put the deprecated tag into the Ship table template and written your own template with needless duplication. I have now finished purging Ship table of QIF references so it now has no meta templates in its structure. Consequently I have removed the deprecated tag. I would appreciate it if you are going to do something like that in future that you let me know so that I have an opportunity to fix things.

I am not wedded to meta templates, they merely provided the most elegant way of creating functionality for the table that was available at the time. With their server load drawbacks, and the fact that a way has been to found to do 95% of what the meta templates were used for it is appropriate to replace them. David Newton 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The server load "drawback" which was the reason I was prepared to alter the template has now been indicated as far less of a problem than originally thought by Brion Vibber. I consequently reverted Ship table to a December version which was prior to QIF being removed. You then came steaming in, as I thought you probably would, and declared in the edit summary when reverting, "developer comments still ask us to avoid meta-templates - they are ugly and fragile". Developer comments do NOT say that. Brion said, "Complicated templates-within-templates generally ought to be thought twice about before being used, because they can be confusing and fragile." (italics added by me). There is a great deal of difference between saying that a situation can exist and that it always exists, which is what you claim in your edit summary. Brion then said, "I'd like to ask that anyone fighting against ugly, fragile meta templates at this time do so based on their ugliness and fragility." (bold in original). Your edit summary is based on a logical jump that is fallacious.

The code for Ship table is not fragile. It was around for several weeks in a QIF version and there were no massive problems with the template. Provided you read up on QIF syntax, understand wiki table markup, and follow the warnings of {{esoteric}} then it is no ugly either. If you want to see an ugly way of doing things look at this [3] previous version of the table before QIF was around. That is an ugly mess. The current table is relatively elegant within the limits of the syntax of the languages being used.

I switched from QIF to CSS because I thought that QIF was impacting on server performance. It does not do so significantly. The CSS way of doing things has significant accessibility issues which, by the way, are legal issues as well. Section 508 applies to accessibility features. I do not want CSS features destroying the accessibility of something I was originally responsible for writing if I can avoid it at all. As I have also pointed out elsewhere, QIF allows things to be done that cannot be done with the CSS hack.

I don't want to edit war and revert war with you, and I will not get myself banned for doing so. That said I will defend templates against your illogical obsession with enforcing a former Wikipedia policy that has now had its main basis shot from beneath it. BTW constantly reverting a template will impose server load far more than ordinary, stable, meta templates, which is kind of ironic given your claims over the past few weeks! David Newton 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Leet

Whoa, there. That's unilateral. Could you maybe try to gain consensus before acting like that? It's a significant change to the article. And you said "see talk", but left no comment. You can probably tell from the talk page therein that there are several people actively watching that page. Avriette 22:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nationality template

It wasn't exactly a test template. It was created for the article Bosnians but eventually was taken off the article and hasn't been put back since. Live Forever 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

tfd closing

when you close a debate, plese do not remove the content, and use {{tfd top}} and {{tfd bottom}} to mark. _→AzaToth 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for updating Template:Infobox University

I see you updated the USMA and the USAFA articles. I updated the USNA article. The USCGA and USMMA articles don't have infoboxes yet. As soon as I get around to getting the image and info needed, I will add it to them (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). Thanks again. --rogerd 03:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Template forks

I do have a concern with the office-specific Governor and Senator templates. At last check they did not adequately handle the problem of persons holding multiple offices, particularly historical figures such as Thomas McKean. You are obviously aware that I have slightly modified the Governor infobox and made it generic and somewhat flexible. It is intended to be a demonstration that the presentation you seek in the G/S templates is possible in a template equally useful for historical people. Nothing would please me more than to join the community in developing and adopting such a template, and I have so stated.

Because I much prefer to concentrate my limited free time on research and building content, it seems I have not learned all the proper ways to illustrate and advocate improvements. Your friendly assistance and guidance would be much appreciated. I will try and find the proper places to note these points.

stilltim 11:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am attempting to assist/cooperate by changing the remaining "Template:Infobox Politician-DE" to your nicely improved and very useable "Template:Infobox Politician" (thank-you). However, the links seem to have been made unavailable so it is hard to be sure I am being thorough. Is there a way you can help me by restoring my access to those links? stilltim 12:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to {{Infobox Software}}

Hi there. I noticed that you recently made an addition to the above template to add information about preview versions. Can you explain the inconsistency (in terms of parameter naming) between this edit and this one? I started off a discussion on the talk page of the template before I started doing any research, so responding there might be helpful. Cheers. --TheParanoidOne 11:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:PeerBox

PeerBox was something I was experimenting with that never worked out. It can be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Tagged. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Further

A question: why is your bot doing horrific things like this to perfectly nice pages like this? -Silence 13:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And also, why are you yourself doing similarly horrific things to articles like Ancient Roman technology? (For details, see the "Thermae" link you broke in the (apparently totally unnecessary) transition.) -Silence 13:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And now you've fixed the link, but left the random "." at the end of it. How very strange. And I still don't get why any of this is necessary; if a template move or merge is in order, why not just create a redirect? Odd stuff. -Silence 13:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here to ask about this also; I noticed the change at The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, where the change made the article look worse. I removed the excess period, but the new template is combining the Further note with the previous paragraph, which I won't attempt to fix myself. --Pagrashtak 17:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NetBot and changing Infobox British University to Infobox University

I've noticed that your User:NetBot bot has been changing university pages using Template:Infobox British University to Template:Infobox University and that the former template has been marked as depriciated (and is presumably up for deletion soon). However, your bot seems to have missed a lot of universities. About half of the unis listed on list of British universities are still using Infobox British University. Could your bot go back and pick up the ones it's missed? - Green Tentacle 14:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent

See also M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut (hist). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:11, Jan. 15, 2006

TfD nomination of Template:SilentRedirect

Template:SilentRedirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:SilentRedirect. Thank you. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbers in CategoryTOC

The numbers have disappeared in your last revision of {{CategoryTOC}}. I'm assuming this was an oversight? -- Samuel Wantman 11:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

I don't understand what you mean. L33t is a conlang based on English, started on BBSes in the 1980s, and verifiably so. The article itself explains that in the section on history, and it is well-sourced. Radiant_>|< 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Don't wikilawyer. You know perfectly well that I didn't create that box, I reverted your unilateral (gee, there's that law of yours again!) removal of something that is under discussion on the talk page, where most people seem to disagree with you. Radiant_>|< 22:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

pipes

Hi. Before proceeding further: Do you agree these kinds of edits ([4], [5], [6]) I did? I've done a bunch of these because I saw you doing this, which I think is good. Please respond here or on my talk. Thank you. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAITH, don't be absurd

And that, Neto, is a ludicrous assumption of bad faith. I was at that article because Avriette pointed out on my talk page that a revert war was going on. If I seriously wanted to annoy you or work against you, I would be well within my rights to block you for editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces while under an ArbCom ban. That I haven't, despite several revert wars, incivility and unilateralism on your part, is a substantial assumption of good faith in your competence. That you now seek to attack me does not speak well of your maturity or temper. Radiant_>|< 23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So wait, someone told you there was revert warring going on, mentioning my name specifically, and I'm to assume that you sided with the Azatoth (who was the one that originally "unilaterally" put that unsourced infobox in the article) based on what? I made my arguments on the talk page, and you're so much of a language expert that you weighed the arguments and happened to disagree with my arguments... so much so in fact that you re-inserted the infobox? And let's see your edit summary reads: "RV. Infobox is being discussed on talk page, Neto seems to be the only one who strongly dislikes it. Please form consensus.". I would expect that if you'd decided to add the infobox, you'd have said something constructive like "weighing the sources presented in this article, the infobox is a valid addition". I might even expect that you'd first post on talk, wait a while, and then re-add the infobox. That your summary admits that you are specifically reverting "Neto", that you reverted me so quickly, that you're so vigorously trying to back-pedal against my Verifiability warning (still no sources cited), and based on past similar confrontations with you (both me and others).... I am done assuming that any interactions you have with me are in good faith. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. -- Netoholic @ 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sour grapes much? Have you even noticed I've been helping out with the entire AUM issue? I thought not. Ever wonder why your talk page is full of complaints against you? Radiant_>|< 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • AUM isn't my issue, it's Wikipedia's. Why is my talk page full of complaints? Because, although I do get complements on my template work often, people, especially people on the Internet, are more prone to bitching that complementing. Your talk page isn't so rosy. But again, none of this interpersonal bullshit matters. What we're here to do is write a verifiable encyclopedia. If you violate the higher principles just to add conflict against me, that is to our collective shame. -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Neto, that rename was proposed by you on the talk page. You yourself said that the term "avoid" was too soft. Now do you have an actual argument against this, or are you just being bureaucratic out of spite? Radiant_>|< 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• You are obviously acting in bad faith now. Stop it. Radiant_>|< 23:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi, Netoholic. Per Wikipedia's fair use policy, fair use images cannot be used on user pages (such as Image:Ferrigno as Hulk.jpg and Image:Cowbell2.gif). I noticed your fair use rationale on the Cowbell image; that is an acceptable fair use rationale, but only for using the image in the article that it's relevant to. User pages are never an acceptable place for fair use images. Hope this helps. —Cleared as filed. 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again. Since you have not responded and you've readded the images to your user page, should I assume that you don't understand the fair use policy or that you're simply ignoring it? Either way is unacceptable, we have to obey the copyright law. Please don't put them back up, or you will have to be blocked. —Cleared as filed. 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the parody rationale can't apply to my user page. I am using the work in a way which parodies itself, for no profit, and with no damage to the copyright holder. -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'd interpret Cleared as filed's comments to mean that, while, per your fair use rationale, you do not seem to be breaking U.S. copyright law, the inclusion of these images on your user page is still forbidden by Wikipedia policy, which is stricter. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy, which seems very new and maybe not well thought-out, didn't anticipate that parody was a valid use for these images on user pages. Perhaps it's better to take this to some other talk page... someplace where we can get input from copyright experts. -- Netoholic @ 08:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There was actually a huge discussion / screaming match on this issue just a couple of weeks ago when someone tried to change the long-standing fair use standards (specifically item #9 in that list) to allow fair-use images on user pages. Some of it can be seen on the talk page of the policy above, but the general concept is that even if individual cases might be legal (fair use is very much a 'grey area') determining that on a case by case basis would be more hassle than it is worth - while doing nothing to 'build the encyclopedia'. So it's a policy which is wider than it strictly needs to be and the application of which often causes aggravation to those it impacts... while their reasoned arguments are met with dismissive comments about things on user-pages having no importance to outweigh policy. We've got a couple of those. :] --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing star ratings from albums

Was wondering if your bot could convert these star ratings (and their derivatives) in albums to plain text. I noticed you made the changes when the stars template was officially deleted. However, about a thousand remain. an example conversion. Let me know if you can do it. Otherwise, I'll just post on the bot requests page. Thanks. Gflores ^Talk 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Stars_to_text. Gflores ^Talk 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I was surprised to see some of these oppose votes, including yours. The issues mentioned by Grue and Starblind are from nine months back; and while I made an inapprpriate edit or two last April, it was only a couple such mistakes. Are there additional concerns you have? If so, is there anything I can do to help answer them? Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

simple:

Confirming simple wikipedia request of username change from IP Address to King of Hearts. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wiktionaryparlong

Thanks for clearing that up...I am very new at templates bcatt 12:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Formerly high use templates

I saw your request at WP:RFPP. I'm willing to unprotect the ones that are no longer high-use, but I'd like to know how you arrived at your determination of which ones are no longer high use. For example, all of the boolean ones there seem to be no longer used (boolne, etc.) but Ice hockey is still linked to 1000+ talk pages. I decided to stop unprotecting when I saw that and ask you. Also, I can't even seem to find a good definition for high use templates, not that we need tohave an exact number in some policy, but, being somewhat clueless as to the technical aspect of this, I'm not sure what constitutes a lot. Dmcdevit·t 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'll continue looking then, already unprotected a few. :) Dmcdevit·t 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I remember it and figured as much. I was wondering if you know anything about it technically and have an opinion, or have heard anything from devs. But, anyway. You should probably take some of these deprecated templates to TFD, as well. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

spacing out

You could just try adjusting the spacing.... or maybe leave it be for someone else... or contact me. All choices are better than just *yawn* reverting. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if the spacing and colors were to be corrected, it wouldn't make the text-based icons look presentable. Such a setup is okay for copyright tags, but these templates need to look better than that.

And FYI, the spacing was different in each of the three browsers that I tried. —David Levy 08:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the spacing is oging to be somewhat different in different browsers. Colors are easy to change, and these are project namespace templates.... the text looked "good enough". -- Netoholic @ 08:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. —David Levy 08:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And "I disagree" that the images are a responsible use of resources, or necessary. Shall we revert war over it? -- Netoholic @ 08:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

<Neto>Shall we revert war over it?</Neto>. ROTFL (no intention to push any buttons, I'm honestly laughing). --Adrian Buehlmann 09:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

These are tiny images, and presentation matters. No, I don't want to revert war; I'm merely expressing my opinion. Are you implying that it's wrong for someone to revert changes that he/she believes make templates look bad? —David Levy 08:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're expressing your opinion, express your opinion - like I am. I believe that the images are bad for the templates, and either they need to go, or be replaced with text icons. Would it be wrong for me to revert you? (You see, my point is that your argument works both ways and is how people justify edit wars). -- Netoholic @ 08:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, each up us believes that he's right. You modified the templates without prior discussion, and I did the same. I don't know what you want me to say. —David Levy 09:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Say that the next time makes a change that really is harmless and is obviously going to deserve discussion, that you'll leave it be and discuss. You've reverted those twice today, once when Radiant! removed the images and once when I put in the text icons. Obviously something here is going on. -- Netoholic @ 09:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this actually happening? Is Netoholic lecturing me about template reversions? —David Levy 09:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Flag template

Per Brion's recent remarks, I am no longer convinced that this is such a pressing matter, and so I have more urgent things to consider. Radiant_>|< 11:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 9

In this log, you nomninated the "Several meta-templates related to months". Apart from suffering from the whatlinkshere brokenness, I was wondering if you had, or could create, a definitive list of these since there seems to be some disagreement in the debate about their extent? -Splash^talk 02:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Help

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I was wondering if you could help me out with the template Politics of Pakistan. I think it uses a meta-template, but the main issue is that it's too big. If you notice on the Districts of Pakistan page, it pushes all the images down so the map of Balochistan is right next to the list of North-West Frontier Province's districts. Please help. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please? --Khoikhoi 07:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:main_article

Hi - could you provide some guidence on the main_article talk page on what this is about, including the bot thats running, thanks. --Stbalbach 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:If defined et al

Hi Netoholic. I've replied on my talk page since there's more than one editor in the discussion. -Splash^talk 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Inuse templates

It came to my concern that you've removed two templates, "inusefor" and "inuseuntil". I wonder what for? Please reply. Deryck C. 09:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Date and/or ~~~~ in template

You seem to be the person to ask :-). I've got a template (Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs/Photos in question/photoprob) that has to end with <br clear="all">. This means that the username & date need to appear IN the template before the br, but I haven't been able to figure out by trial & error, nor by reading the miles of template help, how to get the equivalent of ~~~~<br clear="all">. Is there a way? As a workaround, I've got a variable where the user types his username, but I couldn't get automated dates to work, either... and it seems there should be a way to do both username & date automatically. Thanks. (You can reply on the template's talk page if you're inclined to reply...) Elf | Talk 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

templates with parameters

Would you mind commenting on a discussion we're having regarding tables and the use of parameters in templates? I figure you're reasonably good with argumented templates, given your interest in the subject. Avriette 01:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

AFV infobox

Hi Netoholic. What was the purpose of your recent reformat of the AFV infobox? Accessibility is not an issue, except for a new "feature" in Jaws 7.0 where it decides that the infobox is a layout table and ignores its structure—I've already been talking with Graham about that.[*]

Were you trying to get the info to wrap more gracefully when the font size is huge? That could be improved if the table width was specified in em units, so it would expand with the font, however, then the too-small image would sit in its table cell instead of having the clean edge look. It may be workable if the image size was specified in ems, but wikitext doesn't have a provision for this.

Another possibility would be to use a definition list for the contents, which would make good sense semantically. CSS could make it look exactly the same as it does now, I think, but that would require a bunch of very specific CSS to be added to the style sheet. —Michael Z. 2006-01-25 14:43 Z

TfD notification

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 25#Template:Interstatedis TFD:Interstatedis and Intdis Tedernst | talk 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleting list of redundant expressions

Hi, thought you might be interested in this deletion discussionList of redundant expressions. Zargulon 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

point

Don't fight battles on individual infoboxs. Address the accessibility concerns on Wikipedia talk:hiddenStructure. -- Netoholic @ 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The concerns have been addressed. No one except you is saying that disenfranchising blind people and users with non CSS browsers is a good thing. In simplest terms: it has been established that qif is not harmful to Wikipedia and hiddenStructure is. So why are you continuing to convert templates to a methodology which is known to be detrimental and reverting efforts to reverse the damage? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Brion may be lead developer, and with that, his paying job is to make sure Wikipedia is running well. He certainly can never be expected to say it isn't. Jamesday, who I trust is better on the database side, has said we should avoid meta-templates. Even Brion said we should, but from the other perspective. We're at an impasse at the present. There is no need for either side to make moves. Leave the status quo. I am working on addressing concerns over accessibility, but the main jist of it is that too many uses of hiddenStructure in any one template is annoying to blind readers... not the concept as a whole. By taking up this accessibility issue, you are doing precisely what you've accused me of - using an issue of limited impact drive a major effort. At least in my case, I did have a developer specifically denounce meta-templates. -- Netoholic @ 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Where to begin. Ok first, 'Brion is not telling the truth' is a less than convincing argument. Second, 'There is no need for either side to make moves' might be less ridiculous if the hiddenStructure method actually worked and/or you hadn't continued to 'make moves' to implement it after Brion's statements. On 'limited impact to drive a major effort' - I don't recall having accused you of that, but obviously a developer (and everyone else) have specifically denounced reducing accessibility too... no matter how 'limited' the number of users impacted. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

HasharBot

On Simple:Wikipedia, I've renamed your bot to HasharBot, so it matches what you use on this wiki and others. You might want to go re-register the "Hashar" name there, to prevent someone else doing that. -- Netoholic 27 janvier 2006 à 19:32 (CET)

Done. Thanks for the notice :) Hashar 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main article

Don't revert again. There is a SPECIFIC REASON why that template is the way it is, so that we can convert Template:Main articles over to it. If a specific page looks incorrect, then fix it... someone is probably just mistaken about how to use it. -- Netoholic @ 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Template main have always been passed a string (article name) not a link. That's how it was always used prior to your edits. I am not willing to fix hundereds of links for you.

If you want to make an edit to a template you must be willing to fix any page you break. You have broken hundereds of pages. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles that currently use Template:Main are being converted to Template:Main article/Template:Main articles. You don't need to do a thing, just stop reverting what you don't understand. -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I see lots of articles with broken links, from what understand you are willing to break a large number of pages (thousands) without hestiation for no good reason. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do tell me which articles are "broken". -- Netoholic @ 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat is one. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NetBot broken

NetBot is replacing templates incorrectly. See Friday the 13th (film series). It's putting in:

{{main article|[[Friday the 13th (film)]]}}

instead of

{{main article|Friday the 13th (film)}}

So in the article we're getting:

Main article: [[:[[Friday the 13th (film)]]]]

Instead of:

Main article: [[:Friday the 13th (film)]]

Thanks -- MisterHand 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed the template:main article out from under me. Should be all set now, so long as ppl stop messing with what they don't understand. -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be working now, I've restored the F13 article. Thanks! -- MisterHand 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A Mini problem with NetBot in the following diff it substituted

:{{seemain|Method of undetermined coefficients}}.

with

:{{main article|[[Method of undetermined coefficients]]}}.

Note how both have a colon to indent. The {{main article}} template actually indents the text anyway so it ends up double indented. If poss it would be cool if the bot could removed the colon as well. --Salix alba (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Previous dispute.

Regarding my previous arguments and references regarding your involvement and actions in the article Leet. I feel that some undue hostily may have been expressed in the talk page, and in the AFD FARC discussion. As a result, I would to apologize for any and all hostile statements made. While I may not agree your philosiphies, I respect your edits and methods as that of a fellow Wikipedian; no hard feelings on this end.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

None here as well. We all try and make Wikipedia. Sometimes, things get taken wrong or aren't explained well. Thanks for the note. -- Netoholic @ 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. On an unrelated note, I "borrowed" the concept behind your cowbell notice (because that is the best skit ever). I just like to tell people when I do this, and I'll remove it or credit it if you care at all. :)--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

main references

Where is the basis for the changes you are making to the main reference to articles? I notice that the Manual of Style is using the very same main reference notation that you are replacing. In any case, the appearance of the article looks the same, so no big deal to me. Thanks Hmains 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It was proposed on Template talk:Main. -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

CSS verification

Can you take a look at Template:Featured article. It creates a star at the top of a page. I'm concerned about possible collisions with site notices or other kinds of screw ups. Can you verify that this isn't likely to break easily. Raul654 06:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main

FYI, I'm going to run one more pass just to double-check, but there are no longer any articles that use Template:Main for more than just one article link. I've moved them to use Template:Main articles. You are probably safe updating Template:Main to remove the esoteric code and look just like Template:Main article (though you have to add the [[ ]]'s ) . -- Netoholic @ 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. dbenbenn | talk 06:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You can probably remove the "Esoteric" template, and maybe add a "see also" linking to Template:Main articles. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's pretty un-esoteric now. Good ideas. If you still have energy for this kind of thing, see Template talk:See also. dbenbenn | talk 06:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Could explain what your revert has to do with WP:POINT? --Adrian Buehlmann 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

If you haven't seen it another request for clarification on your Arbcomm ruling has been made. I tried to suggest some thing that could make this go away - see my comments there. I am sincere in admiring the work you do and in being willing to help explain it where you feel it would be helpful. My only hesitiation is in time commitment, but if you email me I will make the effort to quickly respond and help. Trödel&#149;talk 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

alternative suggestion for duplicate #toc problem

I have suggested an alternative. Let me know what you think. Nicholas 13:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Language icons

Hi, I would prefer to place the discussion on Category talk:Language icons. Care to join? --Orzetto 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox

thx for catching the qif I missed. Trödel&#149;talk 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

regarding leet again

Just wanted to make sure you understood that I would like to discuss removing the template, as well as removing content with the note "require sources". I don't think the way you've been behaving is appropriate, and it's hard to accept it as good faith. You will note that quite a few changes have been made to the article in the last couple days. This makes your revert of content today seem arbitrary. I find myself wondering what your fixation on the article is related. At any rate, please do make some effort to coordinate. I have been trying to get third parties involved to help with this situation. Would it be amenable to request the help of the mediation cabal? I would hate to put both of us through an rfc, and I think that's a little heavy handed. Avriette 06:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

High-risk

I disagree with you, I think that those "main article" templates are high-risk, because they are right at the top of a number of pages, will likely end up used far more often than they're now, and should in general not be modified. Hence, I've dropped a note on WP:RPP to get a third opinion. >Radiant< 11:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for being engaged in five different revert wars, on three templates ({{Message}}, {{Languageicon}} and {{Infobox}}), one template-related page (Wikipedia:Meta-templates) and one article (Leet). Remember that per your ArbCom parole, you are restricted to one revert per page per day, and that you should be careful while editing the Wikipedia and Template namespaces. Your contributions to those namespaces are generally useful and constructive, but revert warring is not acceptable. You are requested to discuss controversial changes on the relevant talk pages, and to seek consensus on the issues involved. >Radiant< 11:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You should not have been the one who blocked me, even if it is true. You have been a vigorous opponent of mine. I feel like this is a coordinated effort among opponents of WP:AUM. Almost as soon as I was blocked, the WP:AUM was moved, and a version that I wrote and that Brion approved was overwritten by these opponents. "Avoid using meta-templates" is a position several editors agree with, and if these opponents want to write up their own page, they are free to do so.

On WP:RFAr#Netoholic David Gerard, Snowspinner, and the current arbitrators have been clear and said that I should only be blocked for disruption, not for the old terms of that Arb case. -- Netoholic @ 14:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am currently reviewing this block. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I moved Wikipedia:Meta-templates at 09:31, February 1, 2006 (UTC) . You have been blocked on 11:55, February 1, 2006 (UTC). So the move was well before your block. I'm not an admin but I fully endorse this block. "Avoid using meta-templates" is a position several editors agree with may have been true in the past, but since Brion has removed the policy tag this is definitely no longer the case. You are the only person that still opposes to have conditional support in MediaWiki. And you were still revert warring to push your CSS trick and your old WP:AUM message against consensus and Brion. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Accusing people of bias doesn't make them biased. Had I really wanted to block you on a technicality, I would have done so months ago. The case is very simple: edit warring is disruptive, and someone complained on my talk page that you were edit warring. If you refrain from edit warring in the future, I have no problem with you. As a side point, some people have claimed that your bot is unapproved and should therefore be blocked. While that's not actually true (the bot page shows approval by Anthere), it may be useful if you were to request a bot flag to prevent future confusion. >Radiant< 16:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It was approved only for a few specific purposes, with a lot of opposition. — Omegatron 17:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Neto - Since I just stated on this talk page that it was approved, how on earth is that harassment? >Radiant< 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • It is approved, see Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 5#NetBot request. This personal agenda and harrassment about every aspect of my work here has to stop. This clique of contentious users is working together on this harrassment, and going at it from every angle possible. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." — Omegatron 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

.infobox

The cellpadding was not in before, so I didn't keep it in. Some infoboxes uses different cellpadding, and I have yet to determine if overriding this with CSS will cause any undesired effects. ed g2s • talk 12:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, I can't actually find the discussion, but I am concerned that overriding the cellpadding will cause problems with some infoboxes where they may be used for positioning, or need to stay thin, e.g. Jubille Line. ed g2s • talk 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Google

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Template:Google. Dragons flight 12:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Hi. You have reverted four times at Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. If you do it again, you will be blocked for 24 hours for violation of WP:3RR. Please don't. Thanks. Babajobu 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Things are much more complicated than you think... and I didn't violate 3RR. -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I confess to not understanding the issues around the page, but how can you claim not to have violated 3RR? All of Locke Cole's diffs show genuine reverts. However good the reason, they're still reverts. Babajobu 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they were not. -- Netoholic @ 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Netoholic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Demi, I am not subject to any 1RR or namespace restriction, nor did I violate 3RR. -- Netoholic @ 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How were they not reverts? Babajobu 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Unfortunately you did. I suggest you recognize that this is a subject on which you have a hard time engaging constructively, and take a break from editing it. I've given you a head start. Demi ^T/_C 00:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing any tag (AFD, NPOV, etc.) that you disagree with is vandalism. That goes for removing a proposal tag as well, since, if you read {{proposed}} every one of those points is true (it is being worked on, being discussed, and is seeking consensus). -- Netoholic @ 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Net, it could also reasonably be characterized as a content dispute. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait, if I disagree with a policy proposal and repeatedly remove the {{proposed}} tag and replace it with {{historical}} or {{rejected}}, even though it is clearly an active discussion... it isn't vandalism? In this case, these editors failed in their recent WP:MFD attempt and resorted to this vandalism CLEARLY in bad faith. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're engaging in a Wiki-filibuster. An attempt to extend debate so long that the participants will give up and you'll have your policy back. That's not the way Wikipedia works. Maybe you missed it, but the only reason the MFD failed was because of a technicality ("we don't delete our old policies" or some such). If you go through the opinions, many wanted it rejected/historical and protected and since that is within a normal editors capabilities (well, except for the protection), that is what the obvious next course of action was. Obviously you disagree with that, and that's too bad, but the community doesn't appear to support your endless debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If removal of tags were 'vandalism' then your removal of the {{historical}} tag would have been so. This is a difference of opinion over whether the page is still 'being worked on' or 'has already been rejected'. Edit warring over that dispute is thus subject to 3RR policy. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No no no... My action was completely in good faith as if you read the "proposed" tag, it's wording is precisely what the status of WP:AUM is - active and being discussed. -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See my Wiki-filibuster comment directly above... —Locke Cole • t • c 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's precisely the point of the dispute... their edits were also 'in good faith' because "rejected" is precisely what the status of WP:AUM is. It has been rejected. You are trying to propose it again. I don't know if there are any policies on whether proposals can be 're-upped' ad infinitum, but the dispute is legitimate and not 'bad faith' or 'vandalism' as you claim. No call for personal attacks and 3RR. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Rejected" is a marking used when the community has had a chance to review the proposal and voted it down in flames. "Historical" is for obviously out-dated policies. WP:AUM does not fit either, and so it marking it such is in bad faith, and vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It was rejected per brion (if I now interpet it all good now), the MfD rules +historical and protect. One suggestion that I didn'ttype, was that to rollback to the rev before brion, and stamp historic on this page and starts something new somewhere else. _→AzaToth 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are well aware that Brion reviewed my current version, as he's posted on Talk. MfD was overrun by you opponents, and anyway cannot determine it's status except to be deleted or not. -- Netoholic @ 01:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)