User talk:Netoholic

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

Some thoughts:
"To avoid unkind criticism: say nothing, be nothing, do nothing."
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)
"There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy."
Jimmy Wales

DYK for The Lucifer Effect[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 12 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Lucifer Effect, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the book The Lucifer Effect, author Philip Zimbardo examines parallels between his 1971 Stanford prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse case in 2003? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Lucifer Effect. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Lucifer Effect), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hey Netoholic,

I'm asking you since you were opposed to my naming suggestion so this won't seem like me trying to game the system and it seems that you have more experience in these situations than I do. Since I wasn't the one who started the survey section and some editors replied with their preference in the discussion section, does this matter? Should I ping them to ask them to give a more formal opinion in the survey section? Also, do you think I might have missed a place to attract more people to the discussion? Thanks. --Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, right now it seems more like a straw poll rather than formal opinions, unless you want to raise it to the level of an WP:RFC. You linked to it from the naming convention pages, but I suppose you could also post a link to it on the associated WikiProject talk pages like WT:TV, WT:FILM, etc. -- Netoholic @ 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it was meant to be more of discussion but it was changed into a survey which then made it more official I guess. Anyways, thanks for the input. --Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey Netoholic, how should I raise the discussion to a formal RFC? Should I create a new section with the formal RFC request? Should I add to the not-so-formal survey started the RFC request? --Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk: List of box office bombs[edit]

I'm not looking to derail that thread over this, so I'll just say here that perhaps you should consider your own comments before criticizing others. Many editors put a lot of time and effort into that article, and for you to come along and call it "click bait" could certainly be considered rude by some. Now, unless you are extremely sensitive, I don't think it's reasonable to label my reply to you as "intolerably rude", but it would be fair to call it dismissive, as that's what it was intended to be. That said, I don't think this needs to become a 'thing'... does it? I'm sure we can continue on that page collaboratively. At least, I'm willing to if you are. Have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 19:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: - This is now the second time you've falsely claimed I called the article "click bait" - I said the TITLE was, not the article. To say you are being "dismissive" is an understatment when you can't even present what I said accurately despite me twice now point out this. If you reply with anything else than "Oops, you're right, I misread about what you called click bait", then I'll simply delete this section as being willfully antagonistic. You cannot simultaneously admit to being "dismissive" yet try to claim the high road by requesting to work collaboratively - its impossible to collaborate with someone you dismiss. -- Netoholic @ 19:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

WP:AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Netoholic. Are you planning to reply to this complaint? EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I have fully protected Political views of American academics for three days due to the apparent resumption of an edit war. I hope that anyone who has opinions on what should go in the article will post on the talk page and try to reach agreement there. If not, admins might be expected to take further actions under WP:ARBAP2. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Isometric video game graphics[edit]

There is another requested move for this article if you would like to participate in it as well: Talk:Isometric_computer_graphics#Requested_move_7_September_2018. ➧datumizer  ☎  06:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Direct-to-video television series[edit]

Hey, I saw you created Category:Direct-to-video television series. Do you happen to know about any other TV series which fit this category? I looked for hours for non-Japanese TV series until I found this category. --Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Gonnym - there are definitely more. The "adjacent" categories within Category:Home video releases have some buried within. The tricky part (as with the Japanese OVA's) is distinguishing those that are films/short films series from the ones that are TV series. I'll see if I can add a few and populate that category a bit more. -- Netoholic @ 22:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Netoholic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Returning the Favor[edit]

Hey Netoholic,

I was hoping you might do me a favor and take a look at the most recent edit over at the article Returning the Favor. Another editor has consistently attempted to remove an entire section of the article regarding accolades/awards that the series has received. The awarding organization "Got Your 6" has partnered with various entertainment companies such as 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, CBS, HBO, Viacom and Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lionsgate, A+E Networks, Live Nation Entertainment, UTA, 44 Blue, The Ebersol Lanigan Company, DreamWorks Animation, Endemol Shine North America, and Valhalla Entertainment. The awarding event was reported on by Variety as seen here: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/got-your-6-veterans-the-gifted-disjointed-1202607620/. The other editor has argued that the paragraph/section of the article should be removed and cited General Notability Guidelines and Undue Weight as an issue. I may be in the wrong here but I am of the belief that the information warrants mentioning in the article given the stature of the organization within the entertainment industry and the fact that the awards event was covered by a major publication (being Variety). I don't know...maybe give the article and its edit history a look and let me know what you think. Worth noting that I've created an article for the organization here: Got Your 6. – BoogerD (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so this was a deliberate solicitation. I thought i t might be. There is no article on this non-notable award. There was no article on Got Your 6 until you created it today. This is POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I can assure you he had no idea what view I would contribute on this subject. Could have went either way. And he literally said he created the article for the organization, so I don't get how you can be so accusatory. Your claim of POV pushing is rich. -- Netoholic @ 18:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh I think he did: I think he chose the target of his canvassing very carefully. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Rethinking[edit]

Hey, I wanted to let you know that your comment at Talk:Think Twice (Celine Dion song)#Requested move 22 November 2018 inspired me to create an article on rethinking. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for being bold enough to keep up the discussion of the move you proposed to Unfulfilled. Just be careful, if you disagree with Nightscream too often, he'll label you as a liar and start disputing every thing you do. :)
Comment is made slightly tongue in cheek. But only slightly. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)