User talk:Itai/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Feel free to leave me messages here. Note that I may reply in this talk page or in your own, unless you specifically ask me to reply in either place (or, better yet, not reply at all). I will try to archive everything written here that isn't overly blasphemous, but if it's important, make sure you keep a copy as well. -- Itai 19:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Man pages[edit]

from the pump

Two questions: (1) under what license are Unix man pages released? (I guess that those used by GNU Linux, use, well, GFDL, but want to ascertain this.) (2) Is there a policy regarding inclusion of whole or part of man pages on Wikipedia? In the rlogin entry, for instance, it is awfully tempting to include sections of the man page, but I do not know whether there's a relevant policy. -- Itai 11:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think linux manpages are probably GPL, as they're distributed in source and binary packages that are GPL. My understanding is that, for our purposes, GPL and GFDL are sufficiently compatible. I think including chunks of a man page wholesale is generally a bad idea, as documentation really belongs either on openbooks (hmm, I think that's what it's called) or wikibooks. Man pages aren't very encylopedic anyway, as they rarely explain what a given command really does, why you would want to use it, who wrote it, how it does what it does, and other programs you might use that do the same (or similar) tasks. rlogin is (as of right now) perfectly encyclopedic (if rather too short), and I think an exlink to some LDP mirror for the man contents is probably the best idea. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While I don't think that command-line parameters from the man page would be appropriate in an encyclopedia article, the man pages do provide some encyclopedic content, such as "related topics", and POSIX standards information. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:25, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
I did as Finlay suggested regarding adding a link (thanks for the GPL clarification, by the way). There does not appear to be any additional encyclopedic content in the man page that would not be better served simply by consulting the man page, which it is safe to assume all those who need use rlogin can locate on their own. I agree that the essence of the program - what it does - is far more useful than command-line parameters to the lay reader. -- Itai 21:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is a bad assumption to make. First of all, hardly all Linux software is under the GPL (if you take "Linux" to mean "Linux distribution" as is common). Even if you restrict yourself to e.g. GNU utilities, the man page licenses differ from case to case, and may be different from the software. For example, the man page for gzip is under the license:
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to process this file through troff and print the results, provided the printed document carries copying permission notice identical to this one except for the removal of this paragraph (this paragraph not being relevant to the printed manual).
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the Foundation.
(Manuals for a lot of old FSF software use a similar license. Dunno if this is GFDL compatible.) In general, you have to look on a case-by-case basis for a license statement in the man page (ideally) or a license statement that came with the software. And the man page may not come with the software — many FSF programs don't even come with a man page, and use TeXinfo instead, so distros like Debian write or generate their own man pages. —Steven G. Johnson 05:59, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
Urgh. Well, so much for Man pages, except, as you say, on a case-by-case basis. I really am disappointed with the FSF on that one. -- Itai 23:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re:Ketuvim tempalate/s etc[edit]

Hi Itai, congratulations on the new Tanakh template boxes. I have picked up a few problems:

  • You have left out Song of Songs ("aka Song of Solomon) in the Ketuvim template. It should be the fourth item after Book of Job.
  • When I clicked on the "Edit this box" at the bottom of the Ketuvim template (to try to add Song of Songs myself), the information that comes up in the box is from the Neviim template section/s, so that is a big problem.

By the way, where does one see the list of templates on Wikipedia? Best wishes again. IZAK 07:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re; Hebrew language vs. "Canaanite languages"[edit]

Hi, please see:

Request for assistance in a conflict between users regarding Canaanite and Hebrew linguistics articles

Your interest and input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 09:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Update: The above discussion was moved to Talk:Hebrew languages. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. IZAK 06:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Alas, not only is this not an area in which I'm qualified to make judgment, but I'm also off for one week as of today. When I got back I'll be sure to check if this issue is not yet resolved, and do my best to assist if necessary. -- Itai 09:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism[edit]

Hi Itai, please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and perhaps you could join and contribute to it. (This is NOT related to the above issue). Thanks. IZAK 23:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages. Please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages Your input will be crucial.


You'd asked for this one. It's been translated. -- Jmabel 06:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Itai 14:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor[edit]

  • Article: de:Friedrich II. (HRR)
  • Corresponding English-language article: Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor
  • Worth doing because: Material to incorporate into English-language article
  • Originally Requested by: Itai 02:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Status: Complete. -- Jmabel 07:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Other notes: Not urgent, as English article is pretty comprehensive. (note put here by original poster)
    • This is proving to be a bit of a monster. I started on this 18 Sept & I've brought in all of the material that corresponds to the Life section; there is a lot more beyond that. The slant was very different from the English, and there were some outright contradictions, so it's been a tricky merge. Review would be very welcome. -- Jmabel 23:13, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. Article could possibly use some cleanup (redundancies, links, specific citations for specific facts rather than just an annotated bibliography). -- Jmabel 07:03, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis[edit]

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. Thank you. IZAK 09:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Need for support[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 02:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frohnau translation done[edit]

  • de:Berlin-Frohnau
  • Corresponding English-language article: Frohnau
  • Worth doing because: Material to incorporate into English-language article
  • Originally Requested by: Itai 16:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Status: Mpolo 19:27, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Other notes: Article currently machine-translated (by Google, I think), and thus highly amusing. A proper translation might be a better idea, however. -- Itai 16:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't transfer the map over from the German. If you want it, go right ahead... Mpolo 19:27, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade

Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 08:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tips of the day[edit]

Actually I don't have a list, I just try to remember and add a new one periodically so they don't get too stale. I'll try and work something up on Magic Button, although I wonder how helpful that is for the general audience if it doesn't work on IE. But any other ideas are welcome too. --Michael Snow 00:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"(Israel) in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then.."[edit]

Please see History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#The war for Palestine where User:HistoryBuffer insists on inserting: that Israel "in contravention of the Partition plan, began killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinian Arab population. Palestine's five neighbour states then attacked Israel."...When no-one but he says this, and refuses to accept anything else. He also insists on editing-away lots of NPOV's that don't suit him, take a look at [1] please. IZAK 08:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Let me inform you that you are far out of line to request an RFC on me. At best, this is a content dispute. I have violated no policies through this. Your RFC complaint cannot be certified by a second person, because noone else is involved. Listing that improper RFC is the same as a direct personal attack, and for right now I will ask you to remove it. -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Belarus adjective[edit]

Thanks, that list should be useful. (That was a quick reply!) — Mateo SA | talk 17:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Vaticinium ex eventu done[edit]

  • Article: de:Vaticinium ex eventu
  • Corresponding English-language article: Vaticinium ex eventu
  • Worth doing because: No corresponding English article
  • Originally Requested by: Itai 19:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Status: Done Mpolo 09:55, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Other notes: I added the bit on the Sibylline oracles. I linked it in prophet and put it in the categories for prophets and religion


See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion for IZAK[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK/Evidence. Thank you. IZAK 07:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Kings of Persia[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why you created the category "Kings of Persia" rather than the more commonly used "Shahs of Persia". The rule is not to translate everything into English, but to used what is most commonly used in English, which is Shah. john k 21:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently I did. Anyway, I don't know enough on the subject to know whether Shah is also applicable to the kings of old, but if this is the case, I have not the slightest objection to having the category renamed. (I'll even help doing it manually if a bot run cannot be arranged.) -- Itai 21:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, Shah is used for all the rulers from the Safavid Dynasty on, I'd say. john k 21:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has come to that point when we are both too lazy to file a request for the category to be moved, and tension is mounting. However, I doubt not that I shall prevail, being far lazier. Just wait and see. (For my part, I'll just wait.) -- Itai 00:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine, I gave up first. A request has been submitted to WP:CFD. Of course, as this requires a bot, having the category replaced could take quite some time. -- Itai 22:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Bohemian monarchs[edit]

Hi! When creating this category, did you notice that there is already Category:Czech monarchs? I don't quite see the reason for the new one and have set a merge tag. Martg76 21:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that "Bohemian Monarchs" is the more appropriate category, although I agree they should be merged. john k 21:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe Category:Bohemian monarchs could be a subcategory of Category:Czech monarchs, which would also include Samo and the rulers of Great Moravia (none of whom appears to have a page yet. Martg76 22:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't pay much heed to Category:Czech monarchs (mostly because a monarch is hardly a monarch unless he has a million titles), however, going over it right now, I agree that there's a duplicity. I agree with john that Bohemian is probably more correct (being the historical entity), and with you that it should be subcategorized. No objections raised. (By the way, the reason I created this category is not because I found this particular subject to be of interest, but because I've taken a fancy to adding Category:Dukes of Bohemia - I'm a busy categorizer ant - and figured we could do with a category to contain everybody else listed in List of rulers of Bohemia.) -- Itai 00:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I created a subcategory Category:Kings of Bohemia. Now they should be nicely categorized as Dukes and Kings respectively. Just in case you are going to take a look at List of rulers of Austria, it's not always clear which ones are Dukes and which ones are Archdukes. Martg76 01:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were no Archdukes of Bohemia, or were you saying something else. Should Maria Theresa go under "Kings of Bohemia" then? I believe that in Bohemia (unlike Hungary) she was actually Queen, rather than King, although I'm not sure on that. john k 04:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archdukes of Bohemia? What is that supposed to mean??? I was suggesting to User:Itai to be careful if he also wants to subcategorize Category:Rulers of Austria according to the title (Margrave/Duke/Archduke), as he began to do with Category:Dukes of Bohemia, which I completed by adding Category:Kings of Bohemia. I do not think it would make any sense to create a separate "Queens of Bohemia" category for Maria Theresia alone. The logical consequence is to categorize her with the Kings. Category:Bohemian monarchs including Kings (and Maria Theresia) only, but not the Dukes makes no sense, although a gender-neutral category of course has its appeals. Martg76 05:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course, if you think that Category:Bohemian monarchs should take the place of Category:Czech monarchs, this is fine with me. Martg76 05:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what you were saying with archdukes, sorry. I don't think I disagree with anything you are saying. In terms of Czech monarchs, since it's exactly the same thing, I don't see any reason to preserve both. I think I would agree with keeping the Dukes in the category - it's irritating we don't have a gender-neutral word that includes kings and excludes dukes...ah well. john k 06:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as Martg76 does not object to using Category:Bohemian monarchs, I've filed a motion for the deletion of Category:Czech monarchs (redirects don't work yet). Other than that, it seems everything is properly categorized. -- Itai 22:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Austrian and Czech monarchs[edit]

Hi Itai,

thanks for your message at my page -- I stopped reading yours, but I will do so now again. I wasn't aware that there is a separate categories for deletion process and page.

  • I think that historically, Category:Czech monarchs is not completely identical with Category:Bohemian monarchs. From some point in time onwards, all the Dukes, later Kings of Bohemia were also Margraves of Moravia. However, this is not necessarily true in earlier times, especially with respect to Samo and the rulers of Great Moravia, who are probably also Czech monarchs, but not Bohemian ones. I will post this on the deletion page.
  • As to the categorization of Austrian rulers (in which I have a slightly bigger stake since I created many of the pages), I think your proposal of having a common category for Dukes and Archdukes makes sense. There is the additional problem that not all Archdukes were also rulers, which is why I would like to keep those who were not out of all ruler categories and rather retain title-neutral category names. At the moment, there is Category:Rulers of Austria (which also includes those lines of the Habsburg dynasty who ruled in Inner Austria or Tyrol, but not Austria proper, and which has a Category:Emperors of Austria subcategory), and Category:Non-ruling Austrian royalty, which is a separate subcategory of Category:Austrian history. I think non-ruling Archdukes (and consorts etc.) should remain in the latter group. Another question would be whether it makes more sense to subdivide them depending whether they were Babenbergs (Magraves and Dukes) or Habsburgs (Dukes and Archdukes).

Looking forward to your comments and ideas, Martg76 00:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 19:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

French communes[edit]

Hi! good job on the French communes! Could we use categories in the format "Communes of Seine-Saint-Denis" rather than "Communes of the Seine-Saint-Denis département"? I have already placed communes of Calvados under such a category. The advantage is that it contains the same information in a much more concise way, and saves space in the category line of articles. olivier 14:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sister project templates[edit]

PLEASE stop screwing around with these templates. You are attempting to "fix" something that just isn't broken. These have worked fine for months without your really poorly implemented changes. -- Netoholic @ 17:28, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I have no particular axe to grind in the contest between yourself and Netoholic, but could the two of you please come to some sort of agreement on the various templates in Wikipedia:Sister projects: it's making my head spin. FWIW my opinion is that we need three templates per project, one for "stuff to be moved", and two for cross-references. Each "class" should be based upon a single master template which can then be copied across to the other sister projects to give a uniform appearance across the whole set. Maybe we could discuss this over there, like grown-ups? --Phil | Talk 17:36, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Itai - you are a fool, and a troublemaker. Damaging articles and adding burden to the servers by fighting over your shit-poor templates is a bad effort. Please stop. You also didn't even bother to check what you were reverting. Let the vote finish, and then we will consider using the meta-template. -- Netoholic @ 10:29, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

I want you to understand two things. First of all, a TFD discussion only decides "Delete or No" - it does not give a clear mandate to use that template everywhere. After its done, we should do what you should have done at first - test it on a few templates for a while, and see how it goes. I guarantee that template:sisterproject is incompatible with many changes I foresee and will not be used on every one of these templates. Secondly, I really do think you make some very poor design choices. This is not an insult, its just that this area is one I am pretty good at, and would like you to see that and work slowly and surely in the future. Keep in mind, these templates have been very stable for a long time while you were gone. Why rush in haphazardly? -- Netoholic @ 03:06, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Now that you know the negative impact of unnecessary edits to templates used on so many pages, your excessive edit warring over Template:Sisterproject is considered to be vandalism. Stop making edits which have no consensus and which impact the server performance. There is no chance that your changes will remain in place, until you have presented a properly run survey and have shown enough consensus to warrant the change. -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

FYI: Less than a month after it survived the TfD vote, Netoholic has again put Template:Sisterproject up for deletion. BlankVerse 06:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Itai, I have 24-hour-blocked you for your part in the revert war over Template:Wikibookspar. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 11:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Could you take a look at your request for translation of fr:Calendes on Wikipedia:Translation_into_English? I think the work is complete, but I'm a little hesitant to say so; could I ask you to determine the status and either add an appropriate note to the "Other Notes" section of the request or delete the request and make an entry in the "Recently Completed Translations" section? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:18, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


Why can't you go do something productive? Why do you have to do things that take others away from being productive? -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion[edit]

That looks good. I've made some tweaks. See what you think. Maurreen 06:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's cool. I think it's a good idea, and things are often better after they've had a chance to marinate. Have a good week. Maurreen 08:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic/Sister project templates[edit]

FYI: This recent edit to Template:Sisterproject is not the first time that User:Netoholic has done a redirect soon after loosing a TfD nomination. See [2] , which he did after the consensus was to retain Template:CatAZ. 12:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic does that sort of thing. He also frequently orphans template which he does not like, and have even used his bot, NetBot, to orphan a template about whose necessity we were arguing. The problem with Netoholic is that while he is pro-Wikipedia (and has made many good edits to show it), he is also decisively anti-community - that is, he is pro-Wikipedia his way. All other opinions simply don't count. I have considered leaving Wikipedia over this - my voice is to be heard throughout Wikipedia or it is not to be heard at all - but I stick around, generally from loathing to give bullies ground. The problem is that present community practices do not account for behaviors such as Netoholic's, thus allowing users to carve themselves domains from Wikipedia, to which none may make modifications. There is also the problem that there is no concept or repeated light offenses, things - often trivial, as above - that were evidently done in bad faith, in favor of illegitimate goals, and cleaning up which, when they are spotted, takes time. In my humble opinions, Netoholic should be banned, for taking up to much of the editing time of other editors if nothing else. How to achieve this goal, however, I know not. — Itai (f&t) 16:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia just to make a point, I'll ensure that it is you that is banned before I. You have been told repeatedly that editing those templates is a significant hit on server performance. They are not broken, and your edits will not stand. -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

I am not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. As a matter of fact, I am not disrupting it at all. The community has decided, Netoholic. As for your turning the template into a redirect, such audacity I have never seen on the 'pedia before. You should be banned, Netoholic. (Of course, in the end they'll ban us both.) — Itai (f&t) 16:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Netoholic is that he works in the nooks and crannies of the Wikipedia, so not many people notice his behaviour. Worse yet, it also means that the people frustrated with him in one area don't know that he is causing problems in other areas. In the end, though, it is like suffering a death from a thousand paper cuts. In some ways, I think that his behaviour is worse than the User:Wik's and User:Plautus satire's of the world because he specializes in editing templates, so if he gets into an edit war on one of those, it effects many more articles.

Netoholic doesn't work well with others, and either ignores or subverts consensus. I've never seen him Work toward agreement or engage in negotiation. He calls anyone who disagrees with him a troll. He only observes policy when he wants a way to bludgeon someone he is in an edit war with. He writes cryptic or misleading edit summaries or uses them as a substitute for dialogue on an article's talk page. He regularly gets into edit wars instead of discussing things on talk pages. He often acts if he is the owner of the article or template that he is working on.

For an example of how Netoholic works, you might want to look at the controversy over his use of User:NetBot at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 5. I am sure that with just a little digging (including checking past RfC's, RfM's, and RfAr's (plus his "fanclub" in his RfA), you shouldn't have any trouble getting at least a dozen people to sign on for an RfC with a goal of taking things all the way to arbitration for all of his violations of Wikipedia policy (as well as his violations of common sense and m:Don't be a dick). As part of your evidence, you should include a list of those editors who have quit editing, at least in part, because of Netoholic's behaviour. 05:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well phrased, well said. (Nooks and corners, templates, ownership, edit wars – a fair outline of Netoholic.) Actually, Netoholic is pretty amazing a fellow. As for launching an RFC (which I tried once - [3], later to be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comments/Netoholic 2, later to be deleted for lack of users willing to verify the case) - truth be told, I am going to be away for real-world reasons for a nearly two weeks as of tomorrow, and cannot presently undertake such projects. Furthermore, launching an RFC because of dozens of unrelated (if following a certain theme) violations would appear to people unfamiliar with Netoholic as ganging up on him. In short, present Wikipedia procedures neither account for Netoholic's behavior nor provide tools to deal with it. For my part, I think I might simply abandon Wikipedia - it's not like I am at all productive these days, my entire editing time dedicated to this silly conflict (my latest attempt at solving this being Template talk:Sisterproject#Enough). It's really quite frustrating. — Itai (f&t) 07:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, if it means anything, I spent over a week monitoring the situation and reading all the relevant pages and comments; Netoholic has clearly decided that Netoholic knows best, and community and/or consensus be damned. Accordingly, I'll be watching those Templates whenever I have a moment, and will act accordingly. I've got no dog in this fight; I just can't abide a bully. KingOfAllPaperboys 21:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It means a lot. Thanks. — Itai (f&t) 01:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please be advised that it also means that I am assumed to be your sockpuppet, and that it fans the flames. He has outright accused me of being your sockpuppet, and has circumvented the 3RR. I can take the heat; I've naught to lose. KingOfAllPaperboys 01:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you're my sock puppet, I'm a very talented puppeteer - I didn't even know I had a puppet, and must have been using it while away. (Of course, Netoholic's accusations can be ignored, and it's nice to see someone else cares.) — Itai (f&t) 01:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 12 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 18:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't simple vanderlism.It has been established the VFD votes are not binding in the long run (other than that admins can't delete the thing without another vote). Anoying I know. In fact I only blocked you for 12 hours. Yes I know what Netoholic is doing (which is the reason I only gave you a 12 hour block) however breaking the 3RR is not the answer. Have you tired contacting that other people who voted in the TFD vote?Geni 08:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least you know what Netoholic's been doing... No hard feelings on my part. Not to mentions that blocks are a wonderful thing that allows me to get a good night's sleep. (I would that I could set up an auto-block to block me for 8 hours a day.) Presently, I am of the opinion that it's all quite pointless, that the community does not care, that Netoholic will win through unscrupulous persistence, and that maybe I should simply quit Wikipedia. Gloomy, I know. — Itai (f&t) 09:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Don't quit Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 03:03, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Hi Itai,

Just happened to look at the RC and was rather surprised that you are calling a ban for Netoholic. As frustrated as you might be, don't forget to observe Wikipedia's official policies. :) Avoid calling for ban or blocks. (Wikipedia:Civility). In fact, Netoholic is using your violations of official policies aganist you and to his advantage. [4] [5]. I know that he has has called you a fool and a troublemaker (Wikipedia:No personal attacks), but two wrongs simply don't make a right.

If you think you are right in this dispute, I recommend that you go ahead and file a Request for comments as a legal means of dispute resolution. Let others judge who is right and who is wrong, no need to worry if you feel that you have done nothing wrong. Perhaps you may also want to consider taking a WikiVacation and come back feeling better to settle this dispute.

- Mailer Diablo 18:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfA : Netoholic[edit]

Hi Itai,

You may be interested to know, that a Requests for arbitration has been filed aganist Netoholic by Neutrality. The case has not been officially accepted yet though. You may also be interested in going through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2/Evidence.

- Mailer Diablo 03:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add, please. If you'd rather not become a direct party to the case, feel free to e-mail me the evidence. Snowspinner 06:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
You've already made him a direct party by adding the current evidence. In his case, the Arbitrators will see evidence that recently his only activity is to return and revert these templates.
Itai - it's more like this... if you'd rather you and I work this out, you'll ask Snowspinner to remove the evidence from the Arbitration. I can assure you if you don't, I have to defend myself and show that you're just disruptively reverting the templates to make a point and that my actions are justified because of the technical problems documented at Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. I still hold hope that one day you will stop reverting endlessly, but if I'm wrong, then let just allow him add evidence on your behalf. -- Netoholic @ 06:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Netoholic, I have observed this dispute impartially, and I have made my decision. I can pass any objective test you set. I will point out that I have NO IDEA how templates work, per se, but I HAVE seen that you haven't made your case. Until such time as you can garner a consensus of editors to enjoin the use of Meta-Templates, I am specifically forbidding you to prevent other editors from using them.Is that clear? KingOfAllPaperboys 02:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 10:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I'm not taking sides in the revert war over Template:Wikispecies and similar templates, but your recent edit summary "revert, until trumpets sound for all I care" [6] is alarming. Please note that the wording of Wikipedia:Three revert rule does not create an entitlement to revert. -- Curps 16:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Got it - I'll add it before I leave town tomorrow morning. Snowspinner 22:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion[edit]

I've linked this from the page on resolving disputes, so it is "live" now. Have also asked at WP:RFC about linking from there. Maurreen 02:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Well, I note that according to Wikipedia:Protected page, another of this group, Template:Wikisource author, has been protected since March 4 to prevent a revert war (on your version of that page, I note). Given that you and Netoholic seem determined to have an edit war over these things, it seems they will be protected for a long time - that one's been that way for almost a month. Noel (talk) 17:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I've been slow to get back to you - I've been offline, sick. More in a bit, once I'm caught up on my mop/broom stuff. Noel (talk) 22:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice, you have been mentioned as a possible owner of a sockpuppet[edit]

Itai, evidence leads me to suspect that User:KingOfAllPaperboys may be your sock puppet. I present the evidence at [7]. There are other suspects as well. I am notifying you because the evidence is at a site you may not have been watching, which I suspect is not true for the others. Apologies if you are not the one.--Silverback 21:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Itai, don't revert this guy's "meta-template" stomps so quickly. I'm going to watch him, too. Don't let him make it a one-on-one fight. — XiongXiong2char.pngtalk 12:27, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

The guy is a kind of human HIV virus, attacking the immune system of his victim. He's managed to get a few other users I've seen banned while trying to deal with his vandalism. Now he's in arbitration, but he's still out there stenciling his diktat on page after page. I think he's just about worked his way across every page I ever touched. — XiongXiong2char.pngtalk 12:42, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list. Carbonite | Talk 19:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

radio show about Wikipedia[edit]


My name is Robin Amer and I’m a producer for an American public radio show called Open Source, which you can check out at

I’m writing you because this week we’re doing a show on Wikipedia including an interview with Jim Wales. We’re also looking for some particularly passionate and interesting Wikipedia users to talk to, especially users outside the US. I would love to talk to you about your involvement with the site. If you are interested, please give me a call at 617-497-8096, or email me at and send me your phone number.

Thanks so much.

Best, Robin Amer

Articles for IDF Chiefs[edit]

Hi Itai: As you can see at: History of the Israel Defense Forces#List of Chiefs of the General Staff, there are no articles about six (out of 18) of the Israel Defense Forces' Chiefs of Staff: (1) Dan Shomron (1987-1991); (2) Moshe Levi (1983-1987); (3) Mordechai Gur (1974-1978); (4) David Elazar (1972-1974); (5) Tzvi Tzur (1961-1963); (6) Chaim Laskov (1958-1961). Are you able to provide some history and information about them? Thank you. IZAK 11:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

  • This has now been done. IZAK 07:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for all the work in categorizing the math lists, and for creating the Category:Derivatives and integrals. That is very helpful.

By the way, if you have some interest in math, I would invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. It can be fun. :) Oleg Alexandrov 20:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin[edit]

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:49, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Soissons translated[edit]

Your requested translation is done; I splitted it off to Battle of Soissons(486) Lectonar 10:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)