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)

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)

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)

Wikistress level

Here is an image for in case your Wikistress level goes up any further: [1] :) Lambiam 22:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject C++

The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! --Deryck C. 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case

Do you accept another mediation case after the first one solved itself? --Fasten 21:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way: The admin in question was me but I'm not an Administrator. Nice to see that the {{spam}} worked even when it wasn't meant to be put on article pages. --Fasten 21:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Funky

All things considered, I'd rather not request deletion. Redirects are cheap, and if anyone wants the make a funky template, they can give it another name. I can't imagine what would be properly named Template:Funky, can you? So, if you don't mind too awful much, I'd really just rather have it be a redirect. You can always nominate it yourself at RFD if it's that big of a deal to you, but I don't think that I'm going to myself. Cheers, Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that... I just re-created the "funky" template, because I want to have the word "please" in there--just to be politeand all--and other editors are against that. So, I won't bug them about {{for}}, and will just keep {{funky}} for the "please" version. What's wrong with almost-redundant templates, after all? (Or is there something wrong with them--I honestly don't know for sure!) Anyways, hope that this isn't unacceptable to you. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Because when policy is changed regarding something, having two templates to change is twice the pain in the ass of changing one. In particular, {{main}} and {{seemain}} have been enormous pains in the ass in the past, and this template walks all over them. Not that I have a problem with it, but you asked what the problem had been in the past. ... aa:talk 05:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic/Locke Cole Mediation attempt

I was asked to take the mediation attempt between you two. I think it's best that the relevent discussion take place on the mediation page [2] since it's between two users and not necessarily about a page. Also keep in mind that this is my first mediation so please bear with me. :) Thanks a lot. - mixvio 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop removing optional fields in templates

Netoholic, please refrain from unilaterally editing templates to remove optional fields. WP:AUM and WP:ACT/WP:ADT are neither guidelines nor policies and neither proposal has consensus support.--TheFarix (Talk) 00:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. —Nightstallion (?) 10:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The principle is sound, and one cannot make any blanket assumptions that apply to all templates... In many cases, optional parameters have been added very casually, and for trivial reasons. If a bit of information is important across a range of articles, it should not be optional. If it is so narrow as to only apply to a few, it is probably better handled outside the template. I am open to reading your comments about specific fields on specific templates, but I don't need policy to dictate any blanket direction. -- Netoholic @ 15:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. Whether or not information is "important" is not the metric that should be used to decide if a field is optional or not. A field can be important and still be difficult to fill in, or not commonly known. An editor should be able to place an infobox with a minimal amount of information (if they have it), and other editors can fill in the blanks later. That's the Wiki-way, and it even makes sense applied to templates. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, you should not appoint yourself as arbitrator of wiki template design, especially with regard to a controversial topic as optional fields. Instead, you should discuss the need to make a specific field optional with the other template editors. If the other editors agree with your position then the template can be changed. However, if they are against removing the optional fields or making the fields non-optional, then leave the template be.--TheFarix (Talk) 21:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

With rare exception, the only people reverting me are Locke Cole and David Levy - not the main template maintainers. Where they have reverted and offered an explanation, I have done so as well. What's happening, though, is a LC and DL following me around and reverting on principle. -- Netoholic @ 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are reverting on the principle that you are wrong. These are two persons that haven't given up saying no to you. You are playing your divide et impera game as always. I feel you would make a damn good agent for a competing Encyclopedia. If someone is an example for being querulos, then you are it. Bind your competitors in endless revert wars and discussions. This is truly absorbing wikipedian hours. In your opinion, this is good, as you believe all your opposers are in the wrong and every second you steal them is one more good second for you. Maybe this is just a game for you. Gaming the system. Ah yes, sorry. I forgot. Arguing with you is pointless, as you never change what you said in the past because you are infallible. Sorry. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So hang on... "you believe all your opposers are in the wrong" but "they are reverting on the principle that you are wrong". Where's the difference? They and you assume I'm wrong, and so take action only based on that assumption? Isn't that what you're accusing me of? -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that you are alone. So this is why this smells to me so dickish. Ah I forgot: you count more because we are all wrong and so dumb. The misguided masses... --Adrian Buehlmann 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"They are never alone that are accompanied with noble thoughts." – Sir Philip Sidney (1554 - 1586)

I disagree that I am alone, and I submit that that even if true, asserting that I am a minority does not guarantee that I am incorrect. Your apparent majority also does not guarantee that you or any of them is correct on all occasions. The world (and the wiki) cannot be so easily summarized. -- Netoholic @ 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. So basically, we (the majority) have to get consent from you (or someone else) before making edits to templates, but you're free to edit however you see fit (and revert whomever you see fit so long as you believe you're right)? It's a good idea in theory, because it allows you to revert war forever, even if someone proves you wrong (afterall, you only have to believe you're right to continue your crusade). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I made no such statement. What I ask is that you not revert me just because it was my edit. I also ask that when you revert me, you explain your revert in terms of how that page is improved by your edit. I also ask that if you revert for one specific reason (hiddenStructure vs. Qif) that you only change that one aspect, rather than throwing away an entire edit that may have other unrelated and uncontroversial changes. I think there is value in considering stopping any "conversions" to or from Qif (as I have stopped with converting to hiddenStructure), because that is not the final solution, and just makes double-work. -- Netoholic @ 23:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It would surprise you to learn then that I'm not reverting just because it's you, but because of your edits? IMO, they're a textbook example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And you are basically remove the optional fields on principle. Are your edits really an improvement of the templates? They don't appear to be. Wikipedia works on consensus. You have already argued your case and the consensus has rejected it. If you can't work within that consensus, then you probably shouldn't be editing templates at all. --TheFarix (Talk) 00:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardly true. Where I see option fields that don't make sense to me, I remove them. This is not done lighty or for trivial reasons - I've considered them very well I'm not making any concerted effort to do so across templates in any systematic way. Consensus (or lack thereof) on one thing does not immediately imply consensus (or lack thereof) somewhere else. -- Netoholic @ 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia templates

You are right. I have reverted myself. Thanks for explaining. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Book

As centiments above

Such changes on a widely used template such as this should really be discussed first "before" change. Just as the documentation on this template requests. Please do not make more such changes without discussion first. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

George Washington University

Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Netoholic/Avoid dynamic templates

Netoholic, this is a very touchy subject, that I know you are close to. The community has shown on multiple occasions that this came from a reejcted poicy, and that they do not want this page at this time. I don't support destroying peoples work, and have restored a snap-shot of the last version of this page to your user-space. In making this restoral, I've got to ask you to accept the following conditions:

• Don't move this back to Wikipedia: space without community consensus.
• Don't bite newbies with references to this page.
• Don't categorize this page in to Wikipedia: space

Normally, I would have userfied this without further ado, except that there have been two attempts at doing that prior to it going through MFD, that didn't work out so well. AFAIK, there is no precendents outside of arbcom for using conditions like this, and you may very well ignore them, but I'm going to AGF that you won't. If you think these are unacceptable conditions, you can always list the page for speedy deletion, and it will quickly go away. Additionaly, you can always bring up the MFD for deletion review.

If it matters, I've got a middle-of-the road personal POV on meta-templates: they shouldn't be used if there is a simpler way to get the end result, nested templates should be subst'd if possible; but there are many good uses for meta templates, and logic templates such as {{switch}}. I would prefer more logical operators that would work in line, perhaps in a future release we will get them.

Thanks, xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The "hiddenStructure" CSS hack

Netoholic continues to insert this code into templates, despite your statement regarding the harm that it causes. He claims that it isn't harmful, and he maintains that you haven't actually condemned its use. Can you please clarify your stance? You've already indicated that the {{qif}} alternative has not been outlawed (and that you don't care if it's used until native support for conditionals is added to MediaWiki). Both methods are ugly, but {{qif}} appears to be the far lesser of two evils (because it doesn't break pages for some users). Thank you! —David Levy 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What's to clarify? --Brion 18:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, in my opinion, but Netoholic disagrees. He claims that the "hiddenStructure" hack is not harmful, and he insists that you have provided no indication that it's any worse than the {{qif}} template. (He believes that {{qif}} is much worse, and he continually reverts templates to restore the "hiddenStructure" hack.) —David Levy 18:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The main idea between what's been written on Wikipedia:HiddenStructure is for template authors who use it to be aware that it doesn't hide text on non-CSS browsers. The idea is to design the template to look good first, and then hide sections more as a convenience, not a necessity. So long as authors are careful, this is no problem... and is preferable to damn ugly template source which mixes wikitable and html tags. Regular users of lynx and screen readers have yet to complain about hiddenStructure. My view, is that the absolute best solution is to avoid using any conditionals beyond simple text generated by default parameters. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1. You neglect to mention the fact that you're unilaterally removing conditional parameters that don't comply with Wikipedia:HiddenStructure (despite significant opposition). In other words, you're switching to a broken method ("hiddenStructure"), and you're attempting to compensate for its severe shortcomings by making unpopular content revisions to the templates (which still fail to prevent the pages from displaying improperly for some users, even if you believe that "this is no problem").

2. How is the "hiddenStructure" source code any less ugly than that required by {{qif}}?

3. There have been complaints from users of both text-based browsers and screen readers. These pertained to "hiddenStructure" implementations that were less restrictive than what you currently prescribe, but I've seen even more complaints about the restrictions themselves (which you continue to force through, based upon the belief that you're right and everyone else is wrong). —David Levy 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide me a link to where someone who uses lynx (normally, not for testing) has complained. In fact, here's a lynx user who agrees that it's no big deal. Here's one comment from a blind Wikipedia as well. I think this is all argument from ignorance - there just have not been enough day-to-day lynx or screen reader users to comment on it, and we shouldn't be generalizing based on that lack of evidence. I wish that default parameters had never been turned on. -- Netoholic @ 21:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember where these complaints were posted, but I'm quite certain that they were. I recall a Lynx user, a user of an older Jaws version, and a user of an older version of Netscape (with CSS support disabled). Again, these comments were made before you began imposing the aforementioned restrictions. Your cited statement from a Lynx user describes the appearance of templates that you've unilaterally stripped of functionality (despite major opposition) to minimize the adverse effects of "hiddenStructure" code. Your cited comment from a Jaws user refers to versions "above 5.1." In his/her previous comment, he/she noted that older versions remain in use (and can be expensive to upgrade). This individual actually opposes the use of "hiddenStructure," and you're attempting to spin this into an endorsement. —David Levy 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Thanks. Nightscream 18:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

More of the Anti-christ

I think meta-templates do have good uses, I doubt these are among them. — Mar. 24, '06 [00:41] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Timezones template

I appreciate your attention to the matter, but not all the timezones have templates:

• Current time in UTC+8:45 is Template:UTC+8:45

Only the ones which are offset by multiples of one hour are currently supported. --Uncle Ed 15:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple

I know you are an admin on the Simple Wikipedia: have you had any problems reported with the email confirmation? I've tried a few times and the confirmation email hasn't arrived. Noisy | Talk 20:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent analysis - a comma instead of a full stop! Thanks for that. Noisy | Talk 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Heya Neto

Thanks for the well wishes :-) Sorry it took me so long to get back to you - I've been flat out over the past week or so! How's things going with you? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo at the Simple Wikipedia

Hi. A while ago, you deleted the Simple English version of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), saying that WP:ISNOT another English Wikipedia. Iglesia ni Cristo is the Phillipines second largest religious organization, second to the Catholic Church, which is planned to be tranlated into different languages.

Other than the "topics all Wikipedias should absolutely have" what does it take to get an article at Simple? User:Jondel explained at en's INC talk page, "If a non-Filipino would like to know about Filipino society especially the religuous climate, it would be good to know about INC. INC, Jeepney, Ninoy, etc are a bit representative of Filipino psyche, society, culture, etc." I would like to restore the simple version of the article soon, but I'm afraid it'll get speedied again. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sig images

Hey, thanks for the message. As it is, WP:SIG is only a guideline, and not a Wikipedia policy. It is, therefore, a reccomendation for conduct, but violation of these guidelines are not against Wikipedia policy...they're sort of just unwritten rules. Here's the section on images:

There are several objections to having images in signatures. In particular, they are said to cause server slowdown, and to serve no purpose in an encyclopedia project other than vanity in addition to making pages more difficult to read. There have been some calls for banning them entirely; some people have objected to such a ban, arguing it would stifle creativity.

I'm in the second group there. I don't think the images in my sig really drag the server all that badly, and I think when people see the U.S. and German flags next to each other, they know better with whom they're dealing. Please feel free to respond on my talk page. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 19:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. While you may feel I am acting irresponsibly, please accept my answer for what it is until the guideline becomes Wikipedia policy. Clearly people have not yet come together to ban the practice, so I retain my right to use the images. I may not be obeying the spirit of the guideline, but I'm obeying the letter of the policy. If you wish to change the policy, please do so and return to me with a cease and desist, but until then, please allow me to operate my username as I see fit. If you have any further comments, don't hesitate to post them on my talk page. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG

Thanks for the message. As it is, WP:SIG is a guideline, not a Wikipedia policy. They are simply preferences that have been expressed. Here's the section on images:

There are several objections to having images in signatures. In particular, they are said to cause server slowdown, and to serve no purpose in an encyclopedia project other than vanity in addition to making pages more difficult to read. There have been some calls for banning them entirely; some people have objected to such a ban, arguing it would stifle creativity. (emphasis added)

I'm in the second group. Knowing a thing or two about computers I don't think the image in my sig drags the servers all that much, and I think it says something about who I am. Therefore, when people see it in my signature they know better who the person on the other end is. For these reasons I think I'll leave it just the way it is. Thank you. --Mmounties (Talk) 21:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Race 9

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

Note that upcoming episode information is from official CBS press releases. Details have also been released to many major media outlets; for example a copy of the press release has been posted at The Futon Critic [3] Meanwhile, the latest Entertainment Weekly revealed a challenge in Rome [4] Since all these details come from credible sources, you shouldn't be removing such details from the Race page. Cheers. --Madchester 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Neologisms

Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 01:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple

I see you haven't even been here much recently, so I don't know if you have extra time for Simple. It would be nice if you could stop by a little more often--not for the routine cleanup-there's plenty of admins for that now. But I don't think I have the political capital to delete this or this (both copies straight from EN), or this (obvious nn vanity), and earlier intervention might have changed the course of the, MANY hours from being Simple, Hannibal. 24.18.210.22 04:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, forgot to mention this is Simple user Freshstart. 24.18.210.22 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country

Hey there, I love what you did with the Country infobox, it replaced the old version, Do you think you can do the same with Template:Infobox city? I tried to do it but it was too hard lol, thanks :) --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked on Simple

I have been blocked on Simple for Repeated harrassment from this range (Energis UK DSL Customers), I don't know how this could relate to me, could you please unblock me. Olive Oil 06:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC) I.P. 84.68.250.243.

TfD nomination of Template:In Wikipedia

Template:In Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (i hope i did all that properly :) Quiddity 04:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox U.S. city and Infobox city merge

I seen that you had questioned the need for the two silimar boxes. Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Vote. Thanks. —MJCdetroit 15:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

This arbitration case is closed, and the result has been published at the link above.

Delivered in my capacity as clerk to the Arbitration Committee. I take no part in making these decisions. --Tony Sidaway 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CSS

Hey, could you lend your opinion at Talk:List of Virtual Boy games#Removing the table colour on separating style from content. ed g2s • talk 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... This is a bout your template for Wargames.

I just noticed that your template is hard to NPOV filter. I have made a new template here. Please do not revert it back to your template. Hole in the wall 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are winning the war Israel, continue cutting those criminals in the world to maintain peace on earth. Finish them all for total peace for the human in the world. With all the best wishes and praying for your safety of the heroes of Israel. Congratulation for taking these action. You give them sample of peace and they do not listen so carry on until you finish those criminals on earth, they are the evils on earth and Jesus Christ will reign to us, I love you Israel and god Bless your war with the evils in the world. Joe

That's wonderful, but what has this got to do with my topic. Hole in the wall 09:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography July Newsletter

The July 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 08:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple

Hello. I thought to seek your advice: [5]. Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I do agree. --Bhadani 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Other uses" discussion

You were previously involved in discussions relating to whether the wording of templates such as {{otheruses}} should simply say "For other uses" as it currently does or should read differently. I've started a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"Other uses" of what? and thought you might be interested. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting an edit of yours

Without explanation, you changed the World Wide Web article to point to a version of my photo that was essentially vandalized. Someone attempted to erase the flash glare in an incredibly inept manner, with the result that the photo has a whole bunch of smudges on it. Generally, only newspaper tabloids inflict such drastic surgery upon photos; respectable publications, like newspapers, magazines, and encyclopedias, make only minor uniformly applied revisions to color balance and contrast. I am changing back the photo to the version that my camera actually recorded a year ago. If you disagree, explain your view at Talk:World Wide Web. --Coolcaesar 01:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am replying at Talk:World Wide Web shortly and then I'm going to bed. Please reply there. Also, in MediaWiki syntax, if you want to link to an image without transcluding the whole thing into the present document, you need to prefix the word Image with a colon. --Coolcaesar 03:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo. Are you going to reply or not? I'm trying to engage in a constructive debate, please. See Talk:World Wide Web. --Coolcaesar 05:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This section needs more cowbell

Yeah, you should really make this box a true template. Then, you can let me know so I can put it on my userpage. Cheers! BigNate37_(T) 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Administrator application

Hi Netoholic. As you may have seen, I have recently applied for administrative privileges on Simple English Wikipedia (Here), however I am unsure about the procedure for promotion and how many votes are required. As you can see, I have:

• 3 x Strong support
• 5 x Support
• 1 x Neutral

I have looked at the previous applications, but I am unable to identify a pattern to how much time or how many votes are required to become an administrator. If you could let me know the procedure, I would be extremely grateful. Thank you. Billz (Talk) 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost article on simple English Wikipedia

Hi - I see you are an admin (and bureaucrat) over on simple:. As you may be aware, the Signpost has been writing a series of articles on the largest Wikipedias in other languages, and it seems to be simple's turn (User:Treebark/Table). Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, no-one has signed up to write the article! Would you be able to help (either by writing it or pointing in the right direction)? Many thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to add to simple:User:ForestH2/Interwiki report. An orignal thing, however ForestH2 left wiki before we could publish. Sugarpine^t 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your helpful comment at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other. You don't have to write the report in simple English, but it might be amusing if you did :)

After having a quick look, I have been considering becoming active at simple, as a refuge from the madhouse that this place seems to be becoming. Are there any areas where help is desperately required? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

need expert on management

I need someone knowledgable to look at Matrix management and Matrix Management and determine what to do about merging them. Do you know an editor with a background in the field of management? Talk:Matrix management says that the article is wrong, but the editors who say so don't have a lot of edits so I don't know whether to trust them and it's not my field of expertise so I don't know if the articles are right, wrong, or incompatible. RJFJR 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost article

Nice job on the Signpost report, I wasn't aware that the Schools gateway had been used! Archer7 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me?

Why did you block me on simple? I am no sock of ForestH2, have no idea of how he is...Just wanted to help simple english. Obviously, you don't want me to, and I guess I should contact Jimbo Wales about you. I am no sock of ForestH2, unblock me on simple now. Lakelawn 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Netoholic, per discussion with User:Danny, simple:User:IanManka is not a sock of ForestH2, so I think it would be a good thing if you unblocked him. Cheers, Mak (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What did I miss with the whole ForestH2 controversy. Can you provide appropriate links to where I erred, or to whatever controversy there is with ForestH2? Thanks for your help. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 19:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. That clears up some lingering questions. Thanks for your help. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ForestH2, etc.

Watch for more socks on Simple and here...I've found at least three more of his sockpuppets here. Ral315 (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See User:Ral315/ForestH2 sockpuppets for a ton more. Ral315 (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cross-posted from simple

Netoholic, is there a WP:CIV or WP:NPA equivalent on simple? Because I don't appreciate being attacked by users. Cheers, – Chacor 15:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

UAV page?

Is there a reason you removed the TOCright tag from the UAV page? Having the TOC on the left uglifies the page with a large chunk of white space, which is undesirable. Akradecki 22:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the guidelines to floating the TOC. I'm a bit confused by your statement that I "used it recently for simple asthetics, but that alone is not enough." Seems like asthetics is indeed enough, as the first statement in the guideline is "A floating TOC should be used when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements". The default TOC pushes the text too far down, resulting in unsightly whitespace. However, you do have a point that I used it incorrectly by placing it at the top of the article, rather than after the first header. I've now corrected that, and the result improves things even more, as the TOC sits nicely under the lead paragraph image. Thanks for the help! Akradecki 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, "The guidelines talk about floating only when not floating is detrimental." With all due respect, it doesn't say that (which point in the list are you quoting?). What it actually says is, "A floating TOC should be used when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements." Note that it says should, not may. Beneficial includes asthetics. In this case, it is beneficial, therefore it should be used. Nowhere in the guidelines does it even imply that use is to be discouraged. Whatever your objection is, it's not supported by the guidelines. Sorry. Akradecki 04:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm not into dictating that my opinion rule, I've posted this to Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle so that a consensus of the group that I've been working with on the UAV project as to how everyone prefers this to look. Akradecki 04:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Meta RfC

I have now started a Meta RfC at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Netoholic_on_Simple_English_Wikipedia.

Your statement is obviously necessary to continue. Archer7 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Simple En

I've reverted several of the articles on Simple English vandalized by FatFat this morning, but have no time now for any more and I don't know how to deal with his original pages anyway (maybe only an administrator like yourself can?) 84.51.137.75 11:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

simple:User:Escarbot

Hello,

Would you please set the bot flag for my bot simple:User:Escarbot on simple:?

My request is here and there has been no opposition for two months.

Best regards,

Vargenau 18:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hiya, there's currently a very active discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television) about when suffixes should be allowed on article titles, and whether or not exceptions should be allowed (such as for the Star Trek episodes). Since it appears that you were the one that wrote most of the key section of the guideline that's being discussed,[6] I'd like to invite you in to participate.  :) --Elonka 23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)