User talk:Netoholic

Other Wiki's - simple

Previous items moved to:

Your bot

Your unauthorized bot has been blocked. Snowspinner 19:49, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Albert Einstein.jpg

Please provide the source and licensing information for this picture you uploaded. Do we need it at all, given that we have the excellent portrait by Yousuf Karsh, which moreover is in the public domain? Lupo 09:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is patent nonsense?

You're quite right about Senior_Partners not being patent nonsense; it was a lot closer to case 4:

"Very short articles with little or no definition or context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Turning such pages into relevant redirects may sometimes be appropriate."

I see now that it has been redirected to a meaningful article. It made so little sense as originally written that I am very impressed that you were able to figure out what it was supposed to be. I'll take more care to use the correct process for handling bad articles in the future. -- Zwilson 04:01, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did not delete any information. I integrated the information into the main body of the article. john k 04:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the future

While I apologize for the misunderstanding regard the biography template, in the future, if you're going to change a template in a way that breaks part of a page, and not fix that page (for whatever reason), you might at least leave a note on the associated talk page so someone doesn't spend half an hour trying to figure out why the page's image doesn't work any more. Shimmin 02:16, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Poker players

Hey, just following up on our discussion earlier. Aside from the 3 players that were previously on my "to do" list, all the other poker players 1) had articles already (Raymer, Mondaymaker, Bruel, Affleck), 2) Won the WSOP and were redlinked, 3) Were elected to the Poker Hall of Fame and were redlinked, or 4) are famous, visible, or otherwise notable (Sexton, Duke).

Unfortunately some of the shorter articles are on more recent winners like Raymer or really old time players that were famous like McCorquodale. After your comments I reconsidered the notability of some players and I will likely only create 6 more articles on players (see User:CryptoDerk/poker again). The other 60 or so redlinked people listed are household names for poker fans & players, but their notability could easily be questioned by anyone outside the poker world (of course, we have articles on baseball players and chess players that are only notable within their communities). If you have any comments about the notability of any of them (or the others) let me know. CryptoDerk 07:00, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have requested arbitration against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Snowspinner 19:04, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

"...but in either case it's not worth editing anything solely to make that change."

Sure it is! It's Wikipedia! :) jengod 21:50, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not personal preferences to use English punctation correctly. Emdashes "can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak." It's really the right thing to use there. A semicolon would work too, which I notice was the style used from Dec 9, 2003 until your personal preference edit of 23:58, Sep 29, 2004. So, it's not like that endash is a holy relic of the disambig page. jengod 22:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

The point is don't make minor edits to change only that item. I'm pretty sure that's a tad nonsensical. Minor edits, fixing typos and changing elements of phrasing are key to collaborative edit process in wikipedia. The caching of it is an added dimension, but it's not a reason to leave Wikipedia littered with errors. Both en or em dashes are correct, but both are weighted with the preferential issue; everybody loves the semicolon. Maybe we can agree on that? jengod 00:22, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

this change was not a typo I'm a professional copy editor, and in my opinion, it was incorrect. That was why I changed it. I am, however, perfectly willing to conform to Wikipedia's house style. But let's get real: You're irate because I changed something you did, not because it was some noteworthy transgression upon Wikipedia's way of life. jengod 00:34, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Aren't you sweet? jengod 00:48, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

early unlistings from VfD

Good evening, Netoholic. In several entries on VfD, you've suggested that there is apparent unanimity of response and that you would like to remove the listing "in 24 hours". Rather than removing the entry, can I recommend that you convert it from a transclusion of the full discussion to a regular link? See the draft recommendation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance for some thoughts on when and why to do that rather than a straight delete. By the way, I'd appreciate your thoughts and builds on the Maintenance page. I think we should go public with that fairly soon. Rossami 03:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In a separate question, could I also ask you to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion#Case 4? I believe that the wording of the "little or no context" case for speedy deletion is ambiguous and is being misused. I've proposed a couple of different versions to try to reduce the ambiguity. I can't seem to get any interest in the topic except from Ambi who simply reverts the proposals. Thanks. Rossami 04:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion

Salutations, Netoholic. I have received your suggestion that I create a named user account. Rest assured that I do have such an account (or two...) in good standing, with thousands of reputible edits and creations to my credit - and I'd wager you have already surmised this. At this moment, and with the current IPs that I am using while away from my own equipment, it is more expedient for me to remain not logged in. If ease of communication with me is indeed your primary motive, please know that I diligently monitor the discussion pages associated with any article to which I am a contributor.

I noticed that you appear to have weighed in on the side of support for the inclusion of the brief quote in question at the Going Upriver article. Thank you for the addition of the quotation marks, by the way - that was an oversight by the original contributor. As for the long form of the source site address, I guess that is a matter of style preference. Our "admin," mister RickK seems to be a little cranky as of late. He has apparently turned in for the evening, but I look forward to politely quizing him about his understanding of copyright law and Fair Use stipulations - which I believe is lacking. Having RickK block one of my IPs, and one of a friends, without explanation, was essentially a symbolic tossing down of a gauntlet which I cannot ignore. Perhaps we will see where this goes tomorrow. -Rob

Hello. Whilst grateful for your advice about the rules on speedy deletions, I would like to reassure you that I know what they say. In my opinion, the Paula Kelly stub fulfilled criteria (3) and (5). It is not a question of whether Ms Kelly exists or is famous, but a question of whether the article as written contained any valuable information. Not only was it rendered almost incomprehensible by the use of slang, it was clearly created for the purpose of offending, and that constitutes vandalism. As you haven't listed the other examples of "questionable" deletions I am supposed to have made, I won't attempt to respond to that accusation. Deb 21:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I accidentally reverted your change...

Hi there -- I was editing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade for quite a while, and I think that I accidentally reverted your edit to your comments -- I hit the save button, saw a typo in my entry, fixed it and then hit save again before I got a response from the server. With apologies, BCorr|Брайен 16:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Opposition to Sam Spade

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 10:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oi veh... ;) See my thoughts on the spam above @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Info. Sam [Spade] 12:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sister projects

You haven't replied to my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Sister projects#Modification to the Wikisource Templates in several days. This is not urgent, but it would be nice to finally get it wrapped up. If you have given up on reaching a compromise (I believe we nearly got there) with someone like me, we can always refer this to the greater community. A user has unknowingly expressed support for my view at Template talk:Wikisource, and there are several pages on which requests for comments can be listed (possibly Wikipedia:Peer review). -- Itai 21:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's been a while. I'm going to assume that you lost interest. -- Itai 05:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can honestly say I don't care much for the way you've been handling this, largely ignoring everything I say, nor for the way you've taken to reverting my changes. This probably already qualifies as an edit war. I honestly don't understand your comment to the effect that ("[e]mbedding templates creates unpredictable results"). I have never seen or heard of such a thing. Can you provide any verification? (If not, you have to admit that having Template:Wikisource and Template:Wikisourcepar use the same format makes perfect sense.) -- Itai 15:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic, I assume that you are well intentioned as well. However, that does not make your edits any better than mine, nor allow you to decree mine worse than yours. I can't see how the use of Template:Wikisource generic makes using Template:Wikisource and Template:Wikisourcepar any more complicated. They are a convenient interface, and one that I'll use myself. However, as you'd have known if you've been extensively adding Wikisource links to Wikipedia articles, the frequent name difference requires the creation of a "Wikisource generic" (on which I'll insist, whether it is called by "Wikisource" and "Wikisourcepar" or not); and if it exists, it only makes to use it. Wikisourcepar (the) (or an alternative) is essential. I am willing to put this up to vote, if you like, but I'll believe that the community will agree with me that Grammar cannot be ignored.

If you believe we'll be unable to reach a consensus, let me know and I'll rig up a poll. Naturally, reaching a compromise will be faster. -- Itai 15:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doable. Not pretty, but doable. I'll let it pass until I can come up with concrete objections. On another subject, you seem to have the misleading impression that one author template is enough. In that you are entirely wrong, as there are multiple cases where Wikipedia and Wikisource names differ. Let Template:Wikisource author generic be. -- Itai 16:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you even reading this? Kindly remove your request for deletion of Template:Wikisource author generic at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#October 13. (You may remove my comment as well.) Unless you agree to this Author compromise, I am going to have to object to the deletion of "Wikisource generic" as well - I'm compromising, but not convinced that it is not better to use a single template to generate both Template:Wikisource and Template:Wikisourcepar. As always, we can put this up to a vote, but going behind my back is not nice. -- Itai 16:39, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Now I've got some homework to do. Thank you for your supportive RfA vote and consideration. Fire Star 13:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Thanks for commenting on my nomination for adminship and letting your voice be heard. Rest assured that I don't take votes personally. I look forward to improving Wikipedia further along with you and all other Wikipedians. --Slowking Man 00:13, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

"Be bold" article

I looked throught the "What links here" of the former title and found that Wikipedia:Be bold got many links. Plus, it's more inclusive of what the page actually says and is less wordy. So I though I would be bold myself and move the page. Do you have any objections? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

RfC Certification

Netoholic, your certification is invalid unless you can show that engaged IZAK directly on the issue of anti-semitism. I am moving your certification until you show that and restoring the notice. Ed Poor's certification is also in doubt, and I have contacted him directly. Please understand that there appear to be valid complaints against IZAK and I am no way approving of the behavior that is alleged. I engaged HistoryBuffEr at some length in the simple method he could have become a valid certifier, and he refused.

Do not remove the notice again. Consider this a formal warning. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This comment shows you know nothing of the conflict. It is IZAK who accuses other users of anti-Semetism, not the other way around. He engages in personal attacks, which include spamming user talk pages (my main complaint). He has been adequately warned, and refuses to change his behavior. Your interference is unwelcome. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)