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.
|
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)
a new proposal
Thought you might be interested: Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Proposal 2. – ugen64 15:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the warning, but not for its content, but for what it revealed; I have a doppleganger at User:GoIbez. Note the capital i instead of lower case L. Thus far all he's done is make redirs to my pages, and edit your talk page; how do I find out this person's IP, so I can determine if I know them? --Golbez 20:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just about to correct that error, but you beat me to it. This guy is really beginning to tick me off. —Lifeisunfair 05:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
"Merge" templates
The new code causes the icon to always remain in the upper left-hand corner of the box (a trait that's especially visible when viewed with a text size larger than the default). I recently realized that my sample versions contained this problem, but I was under the impression that you had corrected it. (Your previous revisions looked fine.) I wish that I could help more, but I really don't know very much about this type of coding. —Lifeisunfair 21:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- At most resolutions, everything looks fine being that is just one line. Even at small resolutions or with large text, the effect is minimal (compared to many other things that look bad) and I think that top and left aligning it is good. Removing it from a table is a trade-off for those of us that will want to remove the box and colors in our personal CSS settings. I think it is very workable. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that this is far from unacceptable, and I realize that there are other factors in play (which is why, after noticing this flaw in my examples, I didn't ask you not to implement the changes). I was just hoping that you might be able to somehow eliminate this issue without compromising anything else. If not, I understand. —Lifeisunfair 21:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am going to work on it. Just gotta find all the right balances. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for investing the time and effort. —Lifeisunfair 21:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Copy and paste repair (Pro Tour)
Can someone please merge back Pro Tour (Magic: The Gathering) into Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 04:32, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
- This has been completed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kelly Martin 05:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Oh...
... sorry, didn't realise you were converting! Will our templates be uniform? that is my only concern. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Template:Reqimage
Hi, did you by chance read the discussion on the layout at Template locations discussion. As we were discussing its change, and that users should discuss such changes before making them. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 08:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
why accept big and ugly when there is consensus that it's trash. tweak it later
Please be WP:Civil. The reasoning is that it is still in discussion. Part of that discussion is layout and design. If each person drastically changed each template, then there would be a revert war. As there already was, hence the reason for the discussion. I proposed its change for quite some time before changing the template. I have no problem changing the template, but drastically changing it to a version that is not on the discussion, just means that it will be edited again later. Will you revert back to your version because you dont like the proposed version that had consensus? This is the only reason I reverted the change. I left a kind note on why I did, along with where the discussion is being held. These kind of things can be avoided with communication, which you did not do before changing the template. Until we actually close the discussion, it would be nice to actually participate in the discusion before changing the template. I am reverting it back, not out of spite, but only because it is currently in discussion. Thank you. ∞Who?¿? 08:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
zero people like this version, except Who, who created the monstrosity
I do not appreciate the rude comments. If you simply do not like the template, then thats fine. I have not been rude to you in the least. I reverted the template back to the semi-original version, that IS on the proposed discussion. You have not wanted to even participate in this, since I politely asked you to, instead you insisted on just changing the template to your liking. I at least took the time to discuss everything, as well as proposing the change to the template, to the entire Wiki community. I already stated that the template should probably be changed if it was going to be used on the talk pages, but I was waiting for other input, as one individual should NOT make this determination. ∞Who?¿? 08:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- {{reqimage}} has been that "monstrous piece of ugliness" for over a month. Why do you need to get into an revert war over that template when you have not participated at all in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template locations#Design and layout issues, nor have you participated at all in the discussion at Template talk:Reqimage until today. I HATE revert wars, and to have you paraphrase me as the justification for this most resent revert war has me doubly pissed off. BlankVerse ∅ 08:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Neto - if the template goes on the talk page (and almost everyone believes its should) then it must use the standard talk page template. →Raul654 15:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Neto: "Now, where/how did I "paraphrase" you?"
- BV: "The current version of {{reqimage}} is a monstrous piece of ugliness..." here
- Neto: "zero people like this version, except Who, who created the monstrosity" reqimage history
Netoholic, I think that you need to realized that your "mentors" (or should I say mentor, since Kim has quit and Grunt is AWOL) are giving you enough rope to hang yourself. That means that you are still doing many of the things that have gotten you into trouble before, except that now with your mentorship, in a few of the bigger or more obvious problems →Raul654 will occasionally slap you on the wrist. Even when you are right (e.g. a template should be written this way instead of that way), the way that you go about things is all wrong (mostly revert wars without any discussion on talk pages). Eventually you are going to get another RFAR filed against you, either as a result of the collective outrage of everyone you have been revert warring against, or because you've finally run into a single individual who is more stubborn than you are. Here's my prediction on how the ArbComm will rule: Just as they've said in their Charles Darwin ruling that there is no "right" to continually do 3 reverts on a single article, they will rule that there is no "right" to continually do 3 reverts on multiple articles. They'll rule that it is just a special case of Incivility, because reverts "without any discussion" are like a slap in the face and are the equivalent of saying nothing in your edit is worth anything. BlankVerse ∅ 22:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. Please consider if you wish to change your vote on WP:TFD now that the template has changed. Radiant_>|< 08:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
messagebox standard-talk
Before I revert your changes to back to class="Talk-Notice" (from class="messagebox standard-talk" ) I thought I'd ask you for your reasoning. If the classes are the same, why change them? There are loads of other articles that still use Talk-Notice. violet/riga (t) 17:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Improvement Drive
Thank you for your contribution to the Improvement Drive. However, please propose major changes on the talk page of the WP:IDRIVE first. The new signature color has worked well, since I changed it when the project was almost dying. If you wish to further contribute to our project, your efforts will be most productive if you help finish last week's project Refugee, help edit this week's project article Mario or vote for one of our future projects. Thank you and best wishes.--Fenice 18:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Improvement Drive
Thank you for your contribution to the Improvement Drive. However, please propose major changes on the talk page of the WP:IDRIVE first. The new signature color has worked well, since I changed it when the project was almost dying. If you wish to further contribute to our project, your efforts will be most productive if you help finish last week's project Refugee, help edit this week's project article Mario or vote for one of our future projects. Thank you and best wishes.--Fenice 18:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
What?
After your earlier actions on the CSD vote, you are in no position to make any kind of formal request. Radiant_>|< 22:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Resulting the CSD proposal
Thanks very much for you help pointing out suffrage problems in the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal. I would like to ask if you would be willing, at the end, to be the one to review results and post the conclusions. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm willing, but don't think that it's appropriate. I've made quite a few people unhappy by pointing out low-edit voters on the proposal, and I'm still very new myself. —Cryptic (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Nightscream RFC
Have you actually read Talk:Wolverine (comics) and seen how we have absorbed every piece of Nightscream's information into the section in abbreviated form, since the form he insists on inserting it in is longwinded and contains POV statements. Otherwise, thanks for your comments. Steve block talk 17:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Magic-spoiler discussion
I wrote: All that said, it is clear that my view and yours differ. I doubt that I will persuade you, or you me. But I hope that I may persuade others, so that a consensus forms. If you persuade others, so that there is a consensus favoring your view, I will of course yield. Thanks for discussing this here rahter than warring over it. DES 18:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
You responded: Yes, and thanks for discussing this here rather than murdering a dozen children. (damn you can be snide sometimes) -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Look, our past discussions over similer issues, specifically including other spoiler templates, have involved revert wars. Now maybe I was as much to blame as you. I didn't think so at the time, but no doubt you felt fully in the right in all you did. I've got to think that they way this one has been handled so far better is better, and I was quite honestly expressing my apprecation of your part in that fact. I really wasn't trying to be snide, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. On recent evidence, you don't think that revert warring is at all equivalent to murdering children. And really I don't either. This is a useful online project, it is not anyone's life I hope. 19:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I might add, I've been involved in usenet politics, and local real-life politics. You haven't seen snide until you've run for local office. When i want to be snide, I'm far more cutting than the above. I haven't been on wikipedia, and don't expect to be. DES 19:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)