User talk:Netoholic
Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta
"They are never alone that are accompanied with noble thoughts."
"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
|
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)
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)
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:
- 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.
- 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)
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)
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)
Passing of the proposed arbitration policy amendment
You should be aware that Jimbo Wales has ratified the proposed arbitration policy amendment, including the so-called "Snowspinner amendment". You should also be aware that there is a proposal in progress to remove the Snowspinner amendment; see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposals/Removal of "Snowspinner amendment", subject to the rules set out in the newly introduced Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Amendment. You may wish to inform other opponents of the Snowspinner amendment to comment on this proposal. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:52, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
Arbitration
Arbitration has been requesed aganist you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Netoholic. Sincerely --Neutralitytalk 01:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Personal attacks are unacceptable, and it is also unacceptable to edit another User's User page. If he's Rex, he needs to log in. If he isn't, he shouldn't be editing Rex's page. And if he's Rex he shouldn't be referring to Rex in the third person. RickK 07:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
RfC
Thanks for including the mention of my blockings in Snowspinner's RfC. The message needs to be gotten across to him that all the controversy he provokes with his unilateral "common sense" actions is disruptive and needs to stop. Everyking 03:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey :-)
We got off on a rocky start, but I've come to value your contributions around here. It unfortunate that you're so misunderstood! I hope that people don't start treating you like a troll. Cause I'm concerned about that, I've put a very brief message on Jimbo's page asking that he make sure you get treated fairly. Hope you don't mind. Good luck with everything Neto. I'll miss ya. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Show me where does it say that edits without an Edit Summary will be automatically reverted. If this is new policy I would like to know. Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 22:50, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee case opening
The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against you. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:06, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
RFDA
If you don't want them delinked, don't add them in inappropriate contexts. Specifically, anything that asserts or appears to carry the implication that it's (already) policy or an operable procedure. Alai 07:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
John-1107
He falsely cited several groups, including the arbcom, as demanding particular sanction against Willy on Wheels, including himself. This, on top of previous disruption, merits the month block as per the blocking policy regarding new accounts, as he has been in and out of disruption blocks since he showed up. Snowspinner 02:13, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you're a bit confused. The blocking policy is not part of the dispute resolution process. As such, there's no requirement for RfC or RfM. As for warning, I would think the previous two blocks for being disruptive might be taken as a sign that, you know, you should stop being disruptive. Snowspinner 02:41, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration request: Snowspinner
I am filing a request for arbitration against Snowspinner to which you may wish to contribute. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
Civility
"I have never spoken to anyone in such a way". That's a laugh! As a show of good faith, you must first remove your accusation of trolling at Wikipedia talk:Meta-templates considered harmful#Scope creep. BlankVerse ∅ 09:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ...and done in return.
- I have been going online for a very long time, starting with early Apple II and IBM PC-based bulletin board systems in the early 80s (and accessing campus mainframe computers before that). I then used almost all the major online services (Compuserve, The Source, etc.). In all that time, I never ran into anything close to a troll. Even after getting onto the internet, it was probably four years before my first experience with a real internet troll—someone who was deliberately disruptive rather than someone who was just normally abrasive or socially inept. Where I usually hang out—on poetry mailing lists—trolls are extremely rare. Even after I started editing on the Wikipedia, although I occasionally saw the actions of trolls (or reports of trolls at WP:RFC and WP:RFAR), I've had no direct experience with trolls.
- To be honest, I was very upset when you so casually accused me of trolling—especially when I was honestly trying to establish a dialog with my comments at Wikipedia talk:Meta-templates considered harmful#Scope creep. To get nothing from you but a "me-too" response plus the accusation of trolling (as well as your clear expression of article ownership) I thought was extremely disrespectful. Although I have not been editing on the Wikipedia for very long, I was ready to quit right then and leave the Wikipedia to the trolls, the edit warriors, the POV pushers, the vandals, the spammers, the bigots, the homophobes, the kooks, the cult and ex-cult members, the Nazis, the vainglorous, and whoever else wants to try to destroy a very interesting idea, but a rather chaotic implementation. To be honest, I'm still trying to decide if the Wikipedia is worth my time, effort, and knowledge. BlankVerse ∅ 12:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Template:CAMInfobox
I recently filed an AC complaint against Snowspinner regarding Template:CAMInfobox. I am requesting that you restore Template:CAMInfobox and find where exactly Template:CAMInfobox was used on Wikipedia.
I consider Template:CAMInfobox to be prima facie evidence that Snowspinner committed vandalism. That template was never created or used by the project on alternative medicine. -- John Gohde 04:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- According to Snowspinner: "The template was created by User:SuperAppleFreak, ... It was put into use on Osteopathy." However, I see only 3 user contrubitions by SuperAppleFreak. SuperAppleFreak put the template into Osteopathy, but I see nothing where he created the template. Who created template? Who is SuperAppleFreak: Snowspinner? -- John Gohde 05:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify, his edits to deleted articles won't show up on his contributions list - I got it by reading the deleted history of Template:CAMInfobox. And I have no idea who SuperAppleFreak is. But he or she is not a sockpuppet of me. Snowspinner 05:52, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Please cancel my request for the above info as the mystery appears to be solved. Snowspinner moved to delete Template:CAMInfobox by requesting a TvD.[1] The first entry on this vote stated: "This nomination is in bad faith." Snowspinner was the very admin who deleted Template:CAMInfobox. He then immediately started deleting all of the project's infoboxes. That makes Snowspinners involvement in the whole affair highly suspicious. Any additional information that you can add on the subject would be welcomed. -- John Gohde 12:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I nominated it for removal - the removal was actually carried out by Neutrality. The vote was 5/2, which made the removal of the template a routine job. Snowspinner 14:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Tim Starling has shown that I am not a sockpuppet on my RFA. In light of this, you may wish to change your vote. Thanks. – ABCD 00:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Petition to call a vote on whether to delete Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner
Despite its presence as a subpage of Vfd, this isn't really a Vfd at all, it's a petition. So I moved it to the petition namespace, which seems to be under Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/ . -- Curps 02:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The location of your "petition" is indeed debatable. You deliberately chose to put this "petition" under Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/ and when Theresa Knott moved it elsewhere, you promptly moved it back. If Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/ is really the petition namespace, then you should have no objection.
Really, the sensible thing to do is what Theresa Knott proposed: move your "petition" to your user namespace and the whole Vfd becomes moot. -- Curps 03:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On RFDA some more
Hello! Sorry to intrude, but I'd like to make some comments on RFDA to you.
You've become somewhat (in)famous on wikipedia by now for your RFDA proposal. (You can tell you've become famous if someone like Jimbo, or in this case Angela comments :-) ). If a senior (as in experience, not in rank, obviously :-) ) editor like Angela *does* makes comments or edits, it's usually a good idea to listen to them very carefully, you never know, you might pick something up. :-)
Well, at one point you actually reverted her! Ok, that might not be the wisest course of action. :-)
But what cuts the cake for me is that you went along and set up an RFDA-style petition (no matter how you white-wash it, that's what you did), against the then current consensus. Now:
- if you had set it up as an example
- if you had not set it up against a real person,
- if you had not set it up against someone you had an actual contention with [1]
You would have found that I'd have taken the time write some nice things about you on RFAr, since I'm impressed with your perseverence, and think thought we needed more editors like you on wikipedia, and doing so would have furthered my cause. :-)
Instead I'm writing this note to you, telling you that you have crossed the line way way too far, for some new value of too far which is in fact so far that it goes right out all the way around the planet and crosses the line AGAIN, multiple times, in broad daylight. Probably out of sheer bull-headedness, but still.
I wish you luck in your upcoming arbitration. Kim Bruning 11:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- [1] against your very own reassurances to me to the contrary claiming that that would never happen.