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)

---

Unprotected TOC templates

Hi Netoholic, a while ago you requested that Template:CompactTOC, Template:CompactTOC2 and Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers be unprotected on WP:RFPP. I have done this now, so please go ahead and make whatever edits you had in mind. silsor 08:45, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

you != admin??

Hi again. I hope you'll be happy to know that your comment was the last one on my page before I archived it for the first time EVER (I've been keeping msg's there since 2003!) :). Congrats?

Excuse me for asking, but I was so sure that you're an administrator...did I miss you in Special:Listadmins, were you de-sysoped, or was I wrong from the beginning? Thanks! -Frazzydee|✍ 00:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and the link

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I will take this into consideration next time it happens. BigDan 05:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi image

Hi,

I nominated Mahatma Gandhi for featured article status a few days ago; the image in that article, Image:Mahatma_Gandhi.jpg, was uploaded by you - one of the objections to its being featured is that the image does not have source information. Do you remember where you downloaded it from? It would be great if you could respond at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mahatma_Gandhi. Thanks. --ashwatha 22:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikiquotepar

Many often-used templates are semi-permanently protected to prevent template edit wars, such as the ones you and Itai seem inclined to get into. Any admin can change the template, so long as it's according to consensus. I prefer to wait until the tfd debates are over, myself. Nothing personal - I don't think your proposed changes are bad ones. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:49, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Database compression

Can't currently undo that compression but compression of en hasn't progressed very far yet and I will try to dodge compressing those types of pages if that's readily practicable - as you say, they typically are small and have few revisions. Jamesday 18:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To get one of those pages deleted:

1. receive an actual copyright infringement notice or complaint from a copyright holder or other legal notice from an appropriate party which indicates that blanking and protecting for a few months is not sufficient.
2. point a developer to that notice so a developer can act appropriately.

Jamesday 06:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A followup on this: I've modified the database compression code to support excluding certain namespaces and am currently running the concatenated compression to exclude templates, categories and their respective talk pages. All pages prior to Bv in this run plus all from the previous run aren't affected by this change and may have revisions compressed with concatenation but there shouldn't be more (barring a human not adding the restricton clause to the job). Jamesday 23:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Addition of archival material to my talk page

I don't know whether you mean well (providing context – although a bit one sided, as you have no archive of your own) or not, but please stop adding archival material to my Talk: page. Only addition of new comments is allowed. -- — Itai (f&t) 15:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Templates

Thanks for the heads up. Where's the policy on use of template space for user purposes? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The reason I moved to template space was because editing a template in user space or user talk space didn't update the cache properly. This may have changed since the new version of the software was introduced. I may be one of the first people to encounter this a lot because I make extensive use of personal templates. I'll move the stuff back to user space and ask around about policy. Thanks for all those moves and fixes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks also for the unnecessary template moves :) —Neuropedia 22:14, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Clarification: the template was unnecessary, not the move! —Neuropedia 22:20, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Template:Category:Human body

Oopsie. Now tagged for deletion. Thanks for helping tidy up. 8) -- Beland 01:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More compression issues

I see you are already aware of the compression bug preventing some deletions. Amgine marked several user subpages for deletion, including one concerning you. That page is one of three that were affected by the compression bug. Just in case you were wondering why no one had deleted that page yet... SWAdair | Talk 11:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

iufid

Tony, I know you dislike his proposal. I do too. But listing his template for deletion is premature, and kind of trollish. Let the proposal die on its own, and then we can delete the components. I'm going to delist the template from WP:TFD, and I hope you'll agree to leave it be. You never know what can come of a proposal, and he seems to be working in good faith, so let's leave it be for a short while. Deleting this is only going to fuel animosity. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I agree, it was probably premature and I got carried away. I'm copying this to TIMBO's talk page, too, because he has already voted in support of the listing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves "not a vote page"

In the context of Pirates of the Spanish Main you made the above claim. However, the project page itself seems to believe otherwise:

Requested moves is used to ask for, and vote for, moves that are not particularly straight-forward or those that require the assistance of Wikipedia's administration. This will either be because the destination of such a move requires technical expertise to transfer or merge one article's edit history to the intended destination, or when the move proposed is controversial.
If there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion here, it is eligible to be moved. An archive of the discussion and votes on this page regarding the proposal and its outcome is then copied to the talk page of the article.

It hasn't been 5 days, the discussion isn't on the talk page, and the only votes were opposes. You also linked to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, claiming that a well-supported and clearly-expressed-therein policy was the lack of preemptive disambiguation - which I don't see at all. Can you quote specific paragraphs please? --Boco XLVII 01:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing spaces in headings

Huh. Never really occurred to me that some people might prefer it that way--I always assumed it was just leftover from some time period when the Wiki software required them for the page to look right (and from editors that started at WP during such a time). To me it looks MUCH tidier to not have a bunch of extraneous white space, so I got into the habit of removing them when I was editing an article for some other reason (ie I've never editted an article just to remove that type of white space--blank lines, yes, on occasion, since contrary to the WP docs last I checked, they DO affect how the page displays). I guess I'm also surprised to only now be hearing a complaint about something I've been doing for almost a year (~10,000 article edits). I guess I'll stop changing them, but I doubt I'll change the way I originally enter new articles. Niteowlneils 02:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I had a user remove blank spaces from headings of one of my articles .. to see if we are talking about the same thing, conversion of "== abc ==" to "==abc==" .. and he referred to the practice in his edit note as "decapitation". Courtland 04:58, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Decisions on TfD

In general, deletion decisions are to be made by admins, and you ought not delist something. Snowspinner 03:52, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner, that is just so much bullshit. Sysops only have a technical capacity to perform certain functions. In the case of archiving a deletion discussion with no consensus (i.e. "keep"), there is no admin-only technical assistance needed, so there is no requirement or even general desire that only admins perform the archiving nor make the final decision. I will continue to assist where needed. If this offends you, then you are certainly mistaken about your status. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy is fairly clear about the fact that administrators make the deletion decisions. To wit, "Only administrators have the ability to delete and undelete pages within the system. With our current deletion system administrators necessarily must use their best judgment in making this decision. You can expect administrators to follow the process detailed below to aid them in their judgment." This clearly indicates that administrators are the ones making keep/delete decisions. Snowspinner 04:07, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Snowspinner is mistaken here. Only admins can take the decision to "delete". Any user can take the decision to "keep", though any admin/user taking that decision is likely to be answerable for their actions and will no doubt be rebuked if it is felt they came to the wrong decision, jguk 10:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Non-admins can delist things and mark pages for deletion (using Template:vfd delete) though, of course the actual deletion must be endorsed by a sysop. Vacuum c 02:31, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

Neto, I have no animosity with you. I believe you are a great contributor. Deeming my comments as "trolling" was unnecessary. —Cantus…☎ 03:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Meta templates

I agree with you. From a programmer's perspective, I think they are harmful. I believe they should be removed. Plus, this will aid in the prevention of creation of useless stubs. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amphibian Visual Cortex

You blocked us from Simple English? I can't be mad, because you did warn us. I do hope you realize that "Amphibian Visual Cortex" is not a nonsense article. It's scientific fact. Jayrod 18:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) (on behalf of IP address 168.170.46.5, which is, by the way, a school.

I never said that it was scientific fact simply because it was on "Jimmy Neutron." I have seen the theory mentioned in several places. Either way, I won't rewrite it. Mr. Foompla 21:21, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks on self-referral substitution

In the PMID article, I'd been unaware of the format of the addition you made to refer to the same name of article in a different namespace (user space PMID referring to wikipedia space PMID). Thanks for adding that. Courtland 05:03, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Sisterproject template

Greetings again.

1. It is clear to me that consensus on the use of the Sisterproject template has not yet been acheived. The survey on the template's use has not yet ended, and the decision seems split at this time. There is ongoing discussion.
2. Just because you create a page saying metatemplates are harmful, that doesn't make it so. Legitimate complaints about metatemplates have been raised, and are currently being discussed.
3. It seems obvious that the reason you want me to unprotect the page is so that you can make changes to it. These changes would have to be made without consensus, since consensus has not been acheived.
4. I believe these changes would initiate a new edit war on an oft-used template.
5. After reading Template talk:Sisterproject#Technical impact of templates like this, I am more convinced than ever that edit wars on commonly used templates are harmful to Wikipedia.

Because of these facts, I will not unprotect the page at this time. Please be patient and wait for consensus to develop. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that big of a deal. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 14:36, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Put back CatAZ

CatAZ isn't quite the same as CategoryTOC, no numbers, and that sends the message that the category probably shouldn't have members that start with numbers. It works just fine for the categories that are using it. What is wrong with having two choices. It isn't hurting anything, is it? But, even if you are right, you shouldn't have deleted the link from the tempates page. You could have just mentioned that it is a candidate for deletion, and let the process take its course. Please put it back on the list. -- Samuel Wantman 03:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

tagging articles

Please put templates like {{expansion}} that only are useful to editors, on talk pages (the only exception I can think of would be the different stub templates). Thank you. :) --mav 08:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

cctld

See my Talk page before you go on reverting again and breaking 40 country pages. —Cantus…☎ 15:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

You broke 40 country pages. Congratulations. I'm not going to revert you because I'm out of reverts on that particular page. But you should revert it yourself.

Do you ever LEARN? Apparently not.

What is wrong with you? Not a single thing for the clear benefit of the project can be made without your authorization. I've never seen somebody like you here. And that says a lot. I just can't believe that you can be so possessive about a project that you ahve the nerve to go about reverting 30+ pages I have edited. This is insane. No and no and no. I did NOT need a consensus to make that change. —Cantus…☎ 15:55, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Answers

Why can't you go do something productive? Netoholic, you've got issues. You support Position A, I support Position B. I acknowledge that Position A is legitimate. You do not reciprocate. The survey was legitimate. We both know that I've asked - have well nigh begged - you to help me draft a survey. You refused, so I started one on my own. I will not allow the will of the community to be ignored. — Itai (f&t) 23:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Your changes there:

• broke the edit link on the main WP:AN page (which transcludes WP:AN/I - not something I like, see WT:AN#3 Incidents? for more, but that's the way it is for the moment) which allowed people to add a new section to WP:AN/I from there
• screwed up the TOC on WP:AN (again, because of the transclusion)

I am putting it back the way it was - please discuss any changes to the format of WP:AN or any of its subpages on WT:AN before doing them. Thanks! Noel (talk) 00:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, IMO the transclusion sucks, but there's no consensus to go back to the completely split format. Noel (talk) 01:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Warning for you

See Template_talk:Infobox_Country#Warning_for_Netoholic. —Cantus…☎ 12:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Netbot

I'd really rather you got somebody else to do it. RickK 05:17, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser request for arbitration

There's now an RfA on this matter - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WikiUser. -- ChrisO 13:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tolerance

Just FYI. I don't know if you watch the WIKIEN-L mailing list. But I posted this, and as I mention you, I thought I should mention it to you. BTW, I had thought that we were making progress, but your resort to requesting a blind enforcement of the 3RR in the matter completely undermines whatever increased estimation I might have had of you. older≠wiser]] 04:36, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Bkonrad/3RR for a lengthy response to your comments on my talk page. older≠wiser]] 16:01, Feb 13, 2005 (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)

IRT Ninth Avenue Line

I made the link like it was so it would be linked to the only section of the article that deals with the Ninth Avenue Line. Why did you change it? --SPUI (talk) 21:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sig

Thanks for the info, I'll consider it. Is there a policy on this somewhere or at least someone other than yourself who says this? Excuse me, but I'm not inclined to take your word as evidence of anything more than your opinion anymore. User:Bkonrad/sig2 17:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all

I don't mind at all :-) Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

from 212.113.164.99

Sorry to edit this, I don't know any other way to contact you. I just wanted to say 2 things: Approximately 30.000 Magic: the Gathering auctions on eBay is not an estimate, it is a verifiable fact. Just check the Magic: the Gathering category. Dave Williams should not be elevated to the notorious status of Jon Finkel and Kai Budde. In the lifetime winnings ranking ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/facts/winnings ) he ranks #97. Kai Budde and Jon Finkel rank #1 and #2, respectively. Dave Williams was never world champion so I don’t think he should be considered a notorious magic player because of his poker achievements. Should you wish to contact me back please send an email to slug_s ignore this part, I don’t like spam. At Hotmail.com. Best regards.

David Williams has an article here, and is notable - not just as a Magic player. -- Netoholic @ 02:13, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Still you insist that the verifiable fact that there are usually 30.000 auctions on eBay is just an estimate. Just run a search on eBay. According to your way of thinking Michael Schumacher should be listed as a famous soccer player. He does play soccer and since he his most notorious for his piloting career he should be considered a notorious soccer player. If you want to include David Williams as a notorious magic player please include the other 95 players that sit between him (in the #97) and the top 2 players in the lifetime winnings ranking. Poker is poker, Magic is Magic, don’t mix the two. There are a lot of player that deserve mention way before David Williams. @ 17:38, 2005 Feb 17 (CET)

3RR

ACK! Didn't notice, fixing now. Thanks for the heads-up. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Template:CatAZ

Please stop trying to redirect Template:CatAZ. There was a clear view that it should be kept as shown at [1].--Henrygb 01:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic, I was glad to see that you were getting into the spirit of improving CatAZ. Your last edit, making it a redirect, makes me wonder what you are up to. -- Samuel Wantman 01:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion

That edit was far more than a copyedit, which you full well know. I explained my revert in the summary - simply asking for you to explain your major, likely controversial, changes on the talk page first. It's a shame you didn't have the courtesy to do so. Ambi 07:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia templates

Why not? Hyacinth 05:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But that is one list, not a categorization (many lists?). Wouldn't it be useful to have a list of all music related templates? Hyacinth 18:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pages like what "this"? The templates? Hyacinth 03:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Main Page/Main Page suggestion

Delete away, it was my suggestion for how the donation-box should look. Even forgot i made it :P Gkhan 17:01, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

New footnote proposal Wikipedia:Footnote3

Hi; I've seen that you are created the {{fn}} and {{fnb}} templates. I've made a new proposal which is designed to allow automatic numbering. I wonder if you could comment or have any suggestions? If this turns out to be the "one" footnote system for the future, I'd also like to discuss about converting existing pages and eventually changing over the existing templates to use the same system. Mozzerati 13:55, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Please don't revert the templates or category, though, as a number of users have edited them and thus implicitly support them. If you don't like the category scheme, list it on CfD. Vacuum c 18:07, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The CfD tag you added to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets says, "Please do not...empty the category while the question is being considered." Please abide by that, or else remove that tag. Vacuum c 01:59, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Setting things straight

First of all, Wikipedia has a category for nude pictures. Second of all, the pictures I marked as unverified were unverified, and the "unverified" template can easily be replaced. And third of all, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say, "and I'd like to add that your behavior on other Wikipedias has been just as questionable."