No edit summary |
|||
Line 442: | Line 442: | ||
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3]] has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3/Evidence]]. Thank you. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 18:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC) |
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3]] has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3/Evidence]]. Thank you. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] [[User talk:Sannse|(talk)]] 18:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
==Warning== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Linuxbeak&diff=14540260&oldid=14538570 Ahem]. Your de-adminship proposal got shot down (badly). Voting against people because your policy wasn't approved is clearly a case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Please avoid it in the future. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 01:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:57, 2 June 2005
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.
|
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)
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)
Talk page revisions
Net -- I'm on IRC right now and just replied to some points on the injunctions. Please contact me there ASAP if you are on or on AIM. --Wgfinley 19:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
block
I am not saying that what you did was either a revert or not a revert, merely reporting the fact that you were blocked (iirc it was Blankfaze who blocked you. I am not an administrator and can't block anyone). At the time I spotted that you hadn't been unblocked, but evidently now you have. I will look again at the block log and that page and see if I feel I need to add any more to my evidence or rephrase anything I have previously said. Thryduulf 11:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
TfD
I was unclear in my clarification - I meant that you had not linked James's comments in the TfD discussion, which was the really important discussion, since it was the one that went 11-2 in favor of keeping the template, and the one that had the weight of official policy behind it. I'll make that clearer on the page. Sorry. Snowspinner 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but all of James's comments in that discussion look to be made after the fact, and in support of keeping the template. Snowspinner 17:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- OK. but my point stands - nowhere in any of the TfD discussions did you respond to the requests for Jamesday's sayso on the badness of those particular templates, and it appears that, for whatever reason, Jameday's opposition to those templates was/is limited. Snowspinner 18:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I've never actually said the templates were good. In fact, as I look at it, I think I agree with you on it - there are better ways to do it. I just wish that you'd presented that case in a way that didn't alienate as many people. In all seriousness, if you find yourself in a situation like this again, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page explaining the situation as clearly as you did here. I'll see if I can keep disasters like the one that sprung up out of this issue from happening. (And I'm not being faceitious here, I swear. If your position is as reasonable as it is here and is going as badly as it did here, I really am willing to do what I can to help you.) Snowspinner 20:17, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Arb Case
Net -- talked to several people today on the case, need to talk to you asap, contact me when you are able. --Wgfinley 03:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Calendar templates
Have you really edited any of the templates beyond 2005? The templates created from 2006 to 2025 are non-meta-templates, and I created them in advanced so that no one would pull the same trick with the 2005 templates. See Template:MayCalendar2006Source for an example. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talk, great plan!
Nice to hear from you :-) I'm going to have to fwap you a bit I'm afraid (wear a helmet), but maybe we can go from there and get productive. I'm typically on irc during weekdays at 18:00 UTC or so, sometimes a bit earlier, sometimes a bit later. Sometimes I'm on at additional random times in weekends too. And you can always try at 18:00 UTC eh?
Finally users JRM, PZFUN and Oscar have my number; so if you see them but not me, you can ask them to phone or sms me to come online. I don't think they'll mind... much. :)
Hope to speak with you soon!
Kim Bruning 12:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Recusal reason?
You have asked me to recuse several times, but, despite me repeatedly pointing out you had provided no justification when you did so, you continued to ask providing no justification. In fact, you still haven't - just blank assertions. We are now down to just six arbs on the case, so I am definitely not going to recuse just for the asking (and never mind the horrible precedent that would set to be abused by some of our more creatively antisocial ArbCom defendants, as I'm sure you'll see if you look back through AC history). What was your actual reason? With diffs. - David Gerard 19:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't even realize it was protected. The earlier edit to which I was referring was, in fact, identical to my recent one (not counting my reversion of User:RicKk, a sockpuppet/impersonator of some sort), i.e. I removed the same six words. I have no opinion regarding meta-templates, and to make any edit relating to that dispute while the template is protected would be an abuse of my rights as an administrator. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 23:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The English cricket season
Hi,
As you've seen I've started to create what will probably end up at about three dozen encyclopaedic articles on the English cricket season that has just started. As part of this, details of various games could go into up to four articles - one on the season as a whole, two on the teams and another on the competition. Such an approach is only possible if there is a way of inserting the same text in a number of different articles. Without that facility, such a series of articles would be too time-consuming a task: every time a comma or typo is changed, or every time someone changes one article - either all four would need to be corrected or they would go out of kilter.
Thankfully, Wikipedia has the technology to allow this. It will allow us to adopt an approach and report on the English cricket season in a way that no-one else does. We can report thoroughly and in an encyclopaedic manner that differentiates us from the rest.
This is why I am using "transclusion", and also why I should be grateful if you would allow me to continue to use "transclusion" without reverting. In this instance it will be to the benefit of Wikipedia - greatly improving our cricket coverage. Kind regards, jguk 18:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Catching Up
Neto, haven't seen you in a day or two, look me up on IRC if you are on or drop me an email. --Wgfinley 20:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
TfD / VfD / UfD
Hi there! I don't know where you got the idea that I was frustrated, but let me assure you that isn't the case. However, you do realize that VfD is going to reject this because 1) it's a template, and 2) it's a userpage. I fail to see how it doesn't belong on TFD or how it 'becomes disruptive'. We might need a new section for this, but since VfD can deal with inappropriate user pages, so should TfD deal with inappropriate user templates. Radiant_* 14:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't factionalize the issue. This has nothing to do with high schools, it is simply the fact that I (and many others judging by the votes) find voting-by-rote using non-subst'ed templates considered harmful. You do realize that on VfD this will become another of the daily shouting matches, that will yield no consensus and miss the point entirely? Radiant_* 15:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Also please consider rephrasing your VfD vote in a less inflammatory fashion? Thanks. You do have a point that there should be a more general proposal regarding voting (in fact I was discussing this earlier this month with some users) and I'd be happy to work on that. However, TfD should have the ability to deal with templates in other spaces, to prevent abuse thereof. Radiant_* 15:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
User:Dr Zen/keepschools
The discussion on this template on a user subpage has been moved from WP:TFD to WP:VFD as user:Netoholic closed the discussion in its former location with the comment that TfD is only for entries in the Template: namespace. I have taken the liberty of moving your vote from its former location to the present discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dr Zen/keepschools. You may of course change your vote or stikethrough it all together in the normal way. To avoid any allegations of vote stacking I am contacting everybody who voted at TfD and Netoholic who closed the discussion, but not anybody who had not already expressed an opinion. Please feel free to disucss this on my talk page. Thryduulf 14:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SamuraiClinton RfC
I want to thank you for adding your voice to this issue and especially for your call for civility. I hope our efforts pay off. Take care. - Lucky 6.9 03:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
VfD Templates
You stated that templates should not be used for VfD voting and that "we're closing any loophole which allows this sort of thing". Who is "we", and what Wikipedia policy forbids the use of templates in the VfD process? As a programmer, the use of templates makes perfect sense here - hard coding is considered bad practice, using a #define statement (here, a template) is generally preferable. Firebug 15:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Xiong
Would you be willing to co-certify an request for comment regarding Xiong's recent strings of odd behavior? I think he has a distictly different view of Wikipedia than most others, and perhaps an RFC would show that the feedback he gets from individuals is supported by many others. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I think he mostly just has grand ideas and needs to be shown that it isn't just a "secret conspiratorial cabal" that is opposing them. He needs to edit a little less boldly and relax a lot. If the request for comment will show him that a large majority of the wikipopulation disagrees with him, maybe he will turn his enthusiasm towards more productive endeavors.
- He seems to have a personal vendetta against you, though, and frankly, I'm not sure where you rank on my list after all this meta-template nonsense, so I'm not sure about a co-certification... I'll read up on RFCs. I usually try to avoid this political stuff. - Omegatron 18:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok. I've read about them. I will participate in an RFC, but I'm not ready to be the co-certifier. Let me know if you can't find someone else and I'll reconsider.
- Maybe just try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts about the meta-templates stuff for now? - Omegatron 19:37, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
As one of the people who's tried to encourage this user to act more appropriately, I thought I'd let you know I have opened an RFC on him at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong. In short, his actions have continued to be disruptive, especially his recent nomination of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion for deletion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Templates for deletion.
If you'll consider either certifying or supporting the summary, that would be appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 21:47, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
Contact Needed
Neto -- you haven't been responding to my requests for contact but I've seen you have been on. We're really going to need to talk if I'm going to be able to represent you at all. Please get in contact with me ASAP. --Wgfinley 19:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Same here, ditto what he said. Wanted to talk with you last week. Seek contact ASAP. Kim Bruning 21:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Withdrawing
Neto, Unfortunately you haven't replied to my last email to you and continue to edit and make comments on your arbitration case. I'm unable to work with someone who either doesn't want my help or can't communicate with me so I can do my best to advocate for them. Since this appears to be the case here I'm going to have to respectfully withdraw from being your advocate and wish you the best of luck with your case. --Wgfinley 20:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In reply to your message I'm not opposed to discussing it some but my impression was that I sent you that emaill and then you made a bunch of edits over at the arb case so that indicated you weren't interested in my help any more, if I'm incorrect in that then straighten me out. --Wgfinley 22:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm on IRC right now. Catch me there, I don't see you in the room right now. --Wgfinley 22:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This template seems to largely duplicate Template:Nonsense, and is also not worded in a way that is supported by any WP:CSD guideline. Can you please explain why this templates is necessary? -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
- Criterion 1 for articles: "Very short articles with little or no context". This template is useful for articles that can't be called patent nonsense but are still candidates for speedy deletion for that reason. Firebug 00:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Is there any reason you feel that using this instead of the more generic and flexible {{deletebecause}} ({{db}}) is preferable? We have deleted templates before for being far too specific when a flexible alternative is easily used instead. -- Netoholic @ 00:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
- It saves keystrokes. Firebug 00:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Then use {delete} and trust that the admin can see it has no context. I am going to nominate this for deletion, as I don't believe the extra template is needed, and I don't like instruction creep. -- Netoholic @ 00:48, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
- It saves keystrokes. Firebug 00:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unexpected?
Netoholic: Let's look at the evidence:
- Scope Creep: You start an edit war. Then you demand that I justify my edits although you hadn't explained your own revert. When I do explain my concerns, you insult me, make snide remarks, and casually dismiss my comments. Then much later, you make an edit to the Scope creep that only makes it worse in my opinion.
- Use lists: Some snide comments in reply to my concerns, and then you ignore the issue. Finally you edit the Use List part of the proposal without ever addressing my concerns, but still "borrow" my comment about WikiProjects. [FYI: Long todo lists such as the one at the Japanese WikiProject have been basically ignored so your change doesn't help your arguments.]
- move to guideline status: This is the ONLY time that you appear to want to seek input, but when I offered some comments and suggestions, they are ignored (and I wasn't going to do the edits myself because I just expected that they would be reverted).
- Subst: You edited out my mention of Subst:. You only leave an addition to the main article on Subst: that someone else adds much later after Jamesday endorses its use.
- For my part in the exchange, I will admit to one snide remark at WP:TFD.
You thought that we had started to work out some solutions? Just because you finally edit out calling me a troll and made a single attempt at seeking my input over a month after your first revert and almost a month after your first insult and incivility, and after you had ignored my comments and concerns up until then? I have to ask if you are completely clueless, or if you are delusional, or if there is some other explanation. After your last Scope Creep edit to the proposal I took the page off my Watchlist and gave up on it--it just wasn't worth the hassle. Since I have worked as a database programmer in the past, I could have helped improve the Meta-template article, but you never gave me the chance.
Normally I am a very easy-going haiku poet. It is extremely rare that I get this pissed off at anyone. I would suggest that you ask someone you trust, either within the Wikipedia community (User: Ta bu shi da yu?) or someone in Real life, to give you their opinion on our dispute and the rest of the evidence in your RFAr. BlankVerse ∅ 05:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My template
Thanks for the compliment. With regard to the HTML coding, that was changed by Susvolans ("use
...
instead of ==...== to remove [edit] box, making sure that users who want to get rid of the message edit their talk pages instead of blanking this template"). You edited, not the template (which is at User:Mel Etitis/Wel) but my sandbox. I'll copy over the changes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Image deletion warning | The image Image:Mahatma Gandhi.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion. |
Thuresson 21:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration case - final decision
You are listed as a participant in the case relating to 172. A decision has now been reached. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 23:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:X
Will you, kindly, just knock it off? Find something else to do with your time. I will not be bullied off this project, and I will continue my work. I will resist your every interference. You will not get rid of me, you will not destroy me, and I will do exactly as I please, subject to the will of the community -- which you do not represent.
Knock it off, let me be, find another, younger, weaker victim. I have fought much bloodier battles against much stronger foes. We will go over the cliff together before you muster the strength to push me off. This I swear by all the gods.
I cannot seem to find anyone brave enough to ban both of us from the project, so I propose this simple solution: You stay on your side of the room, I stay on my side. Don't screw with my stuff and I won't screw with yours. Don't turn your nose up at this offer, because it will not be repeated -- and if you continue down this road, it will start to look like a mighty good offer.
Be good. Play nice. Play with somebody else. — Xiong熊talk 06:20, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
You find this threatening? You run for help to deal with the bad man? This is not a threat -- it is fact, and by now I thought a smart guy like you would see it for himself. I promise you that I will not be shoved out of this project by you -- we go together. If you find that unacceptable, buzz off -- let me be, go peacefully.
One (admittedly long-winded) rant of mine on the Talk page of your pet project and you have pursued vendetta for a month. Give it up. Go peacefully. — Xiong熊talk 17:51, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
My Talk Page
Please do not remove anything from my Talk page whatsoever -- incorrect tags, vandalism, comments you feel are in bad taste, comments you put there. You have the same right as any other user to place comments on my Talk page; do not remove or alter existing content for any reason. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk 09:08, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
ArbCom email
I sent an important email to you last night on behalf of the ArbCom about your case, via your Wikipedia user mail page. Wgfinley says he also forwarded you a copy. If you didn't get it, please email me (dgerard at gmail dot com) and I'll resend. If you did, your response would be most welcomed, including "I'm still thinking about it" - David Gerard 23:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No close to an RFC
I uh, appreciate your statement to please leave the RFC as it is.We can't sweep these things under the rug. (kill them all , nuke them, I'd like to convert the RFC into an <gasp>inquisition )--Jondel 02:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Xiong
Arb Proposed Remedies
Neto - see my note on the whole Remedy #2 issue, hook up with me, Kim, Raul or Grunt if you don't understand. --Wgfinley 19:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Got your note, sorry, I totally missed what the major issue was on this, I see what you are saying now after the further conversation (I wasn't at my computer long after I wrote my initial response) and this appears to have been cleared up and there's solid support for the revised remedy. Let me know if you have any other questions on this. --Wgfinley 03:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Subst
It occurs to me that you might be interested in this too, as it has some relation to the whole meta-template business. Bug 2003: Allow templates to be marked call-by-value-only. Then again, it would only help for performance in some cases, and wouldn't address the other things you don't like about them. JRM · Talk 13:41, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Xiong arbcom
I'm looking into an arbcom case against Xiong for personal attacks, disruption to prove a point, etc. Any evidence you can provide (Either for why this is a good idea, or for why Xiong is best left alone) would be a real help. Feel free to e-mail me or leave it on my talk page. Snowspinner 18:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- That's right -- stir the pot, dig, dig, dig. Heavens forbid the whole ugly mess might just blow over. — Xiong熊talk* 23:53, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
Xiong vs Netoholic RfArb
You are listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Xiong, Xiong vs Netoholic.
Please note that this is not a hostile request for further findings against you. I am content with ArbCom's current findings and am happy that you and I go peacefully and do not tread on each other's toes. — Xiong熊talk* 01:41, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Identity theft on simple.wikipedia.org
Take a look at the contributions made under the username postdlf on simple.wikipedia.org. Needless to say, that wasn't me, and it seems clear from what was done that it was one of those damn kids that was causing some disruption on here awhile ago. I just discovered this, trying for the first time to register on the simple site. Is there anything that can be done to delete that account so I can assume my identity on there and not be, well, besmirched? I've already left a message on "my" userpage indicating that it was created by an impersonator. Thanks! Postdlf 04:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Never mind. Problem solved. Postdlf 07:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
As your luck (or unluck) would have it, I'm not your mentor yet, officially. So this is still free advice. :-)
I suggest you re-read WP:HEC and follow those guidelines to the letter. :-)
Don't worry about it, that page can look ugly for a day or two while you discuss whether it's improved or not. After that your position will be rock solid, and wikipedia is going to be around for ages anyway. :-)
Ok, so go do that! happy editing!
Kim Bruning 20:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
2005 English cricket season
And stay out of jguks hair for a bit, maybe. Actually I think we should take a different stratagy wrt templates altogether ;-) But that's for another day. Just hmm, keep a low profile for a little while, we can always fix things later.
Kim Bruning 21:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
"Ummm....why did you move that page?" BlankVerse ∅ 05:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- No reply was given by you, so I moved it back. Please don't revert my revert. First communicate. Kim Bruning 01:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Ok that was close to perfect, but you re-moved the page, which is annoying to fix. And I wanted to go play Halo even! ^^;; Let's put the page in wikipedia namespace for a day or two, and leave it tagged with {{notpolicy}}. Let's allow other people time to edit it! Kim Bruning 01:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration case - final decision
A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
(I know you are aware of all this anyway, but this keeps things tidy - I really hope this mentorship idea works out for you -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC))
Mentorship page
If we can't use the mentorship page User:Netoholic/Mentoring to discuss your behavior, then where shall we discuss it? - Omegatron 01:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- To behonest, I currently don't believe you have an interest in using that page except to attack me. Please email my mentors and discuss with them. It was meant for a constructive purpose, which you're not interested in. Sorry you misunderstand what the point of the mentorship is supposed to be. Please take a break and go edit some articles, and if you have any issue, then go to my mentors however you want. I ask that you stop using my status to attack or criticize me, and stop reverting me "on sight". If you take issue with an edit of mine, don't revert it until you've discussed on the appropriate talk page. Reverting without discussion is what I got in trouble for, and you're on that path. -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
- Is it an attack? If the point of the mentorship is not to improve your behavior, then what is the point?
- I'm sorry for the double revert. Obviously, you're irritating me. You're probably aware of this. I won't do it again.
- I'd like the mentors to step in, but they're apparently not around, so I'm taking a break, and we can continue after they join in. I suggest you do the same. Thankfully, everything is revertable.
- Reverting without discussion is what I got in trouble for, and you're on that path.
- I did it once. You are obviously making no attempts to change. - Omegatron 01:37, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Edit summaries
I left a response on my talk. Sorry to see that your wikistress level is Lou Ferrigno —you ought to get that checked out. -SV|t 08:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Rather than be a smartass and quote the book at me, answer me this simple question: If I had left it unprotected, would you have undone my revert? Secondly Im on the MC - and some of those recent protects were by request etc. Appreciate your thoroughness, but thanks for your concern. -SV|t 04:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Removal of votes
I got your message:
- Do not remove votes or other people's signed comments from pages. This will lead to you being prevented from editing here. -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
... but I have no idea why this happened. I wasn't even editing those sections. I was only editing the section for template:selfref to add my own vote. Stoive 20:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Also, I was quite offended by the accusatory tone that you took. Had I known this had happened, I would have undone that change myself. Might I suggest that you assume good faith, and phrase such comments differently in future. Perhaps something like "It appears that you have (possibly inadvertently) removed some other people's votes. Please take care not to do this, as repeated occurrences may lead to you being prevented from editing here.". A little politeness goes a long way. Stoive 21:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
PS. For the record, my best guess at what happened is that a known bug in the MediaWiki software caused the other sections in the page to revert to the version of the page prior to my edits.
The Jimbo comment
I'm not sure why you're reinserting that Jimbo comment - as I've said, I have now resolved all of the issues Jimbo had, making the comment inapplicable. Snowspinner 20:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Give Peace a Chance -- 0RR
I really do think you and I would get along better if you took my contribs off your watchlist. We frequent some of the same pages, true -- but I'm pretty sure I'm the only thing that brought you to José Padilla. As much as we work in the same project and share some concerns, I really do try to give you a wide berth.
Notice that when you went so far as to edit my user page, I did not lash out with a strident demand; indeed, I have given you privilege of that page, lest another member discover an issue. Please don't confuse non-violence with weakness. I desire peace, but on equal terms.
I would go so far as to suggest -- though not to demand -- that you and I make a private policy never to revert each other's edits. Let us assume that if either one of us does wrong, some other member will revert us; we need not do so to one another. Agreed? — Xiong熊talk* 05:52, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Prohibition #1
Given your continued revert warring there, I have prohibited you from editing Template:Notpolicy. →Raul654 15:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
PS - This is your chance to use the talk page to convince others that you are right rather than fighting with them in revert wars. →Raul654 15:41, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Don't turn this into another unilateral revert war, please. There are people monitoring your actions on IRC and they are not impressed with what they are seeing. It's clear that you're being opposed in adding this tag; as I've stated previously revert warring is not the approach to take when you are being opposed if you do not want to start conflicts. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:31, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
- (even more commentary) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:43, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Concrete Overshoes Clause
Before entering any conflict, if you do not talk with your mentors or in fact anyone who can give advice, then EVEN IF IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT, I fit you a new set of concrete overshoes, and take you swimming, remember?
Here, try the light variant.
Have a nice (84 hour) swim!
Next time, be more patient, and take every possible measure to contact one of your mentors upfront. Kim Bruning 18:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
"signatures shouldn't use templates at all"
You're posting this ceterum censeo wherever you can. But what gives you the authority to tell users what they should or shouldn't? If you have any rational argument for your commandment please post it on Wikipedia_talk:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#templates_in_sigs. I have been waiting for a reply to my question there for three weeks. — Sebastian (talk) 06:29, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt and to the point reply on my talk page. I replied there. — Sebastian (talk) 07:41, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
In your second reply, you wrote:
- "The only reason someone would use a template for a signature is so that in the future they can change its appearance in all locations at once."
Are you telling everyone else they can't have any other reason? Do you understand why you come across as domineering?
I'll probably move the relevant parts of our discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#templates_in_sigs when i get around to it. — Sebastian (talk) 20:55, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Save us the trouble
This goes both ways, my friend. Instead of deleting them, leave them alone, and I will soon enough gather both a proposal and a working model together. Things dont always have to work at Netholic speed, by the way. Let things be - just because you dont forsee the a possible future doesnt mean that its not there. -SV|t 18:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Quit it now
Stop trying to cram your failed policy proposal down our throats by revert warring. Meta-templates are helpful because of the level of abstraction they provide, and your attempt to restrict them by Wikipedia policy failed to meet community consensus. You are trying to enforce your failed policy by means of waging a revert war. Firebug 00:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, what fury! Having criticized Netoholic for much tamer language i can't remain silent now. Firebug, this is not an appropriate way to address anyone at Wikipedia. You can't bend someone into shape by being worse than them. Calling his exaggeration (below) "an outright lie" is an exaggeration, as well. I don't know the context, but if the other developers remained silent then it is understandable (and arguably good democratic practice) to take this as the opinion of "the developers". — Sebastian (talk) 01:36, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
templates
If your only problem is maintainability of the templates, I promise to ensure these series of templates remian in a standard format. We have been specifically asked by the developers not to use meta-templates in this way. That I trust, and must make sure we try and abide by.
Please leave these be until the developers tell us it is safe to use. -- Netoholic @ 00:23, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
- Your statement that "We have been specifically asked by the developers not to use meta-templates in this way" is a flat-out, bald-faced lie. There is no other way to put it. The Arbcom ruling found the contrary - there is currently no consensus on this issue and the issue has been referred to the developers for further study. One disgruntled database admin is not "the developers", and should not be allowed to override the will of the Wikipedian community. Firebug 00:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
It's not a lie, please don't be so aggressive over this. You're disrupting not only me but Wikipedia on the whole because of the server impact of your actions. Jamesday is FAR from a "disgruntled database admin" and was very clear on the message at Template talk:Sisterproject#Technical impact of templates like this. Please please please leave these as simple templates until you can provide something better. -- Netoholic @ 00:41, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
- You said "the developers" - plural. So far all we have is one guy's opinion. Sorry, that's not enough to force through a policy against community consensus. The machines exist to serve us, not the other way around. Firebug 00:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- To participate in the edit war and then protect the template would not have been appropriate. I protected it as soon as I noticed the edit war. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 11:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I think you're a bit confused about the nature of the "community". The community is simply like you not sure that the developers agree with this guideline. Noone hates this proposal, they just want to see more. That's all fine. Let me ask you this, assuming I can get multiple developers to agree it is a good guideline, would you then support it? -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
- You state that "no one hates this proposal". I do hate it; it is a case of inconveniencing ourselves for the sake of the machines. There are lots of things that could be done to reduce server load. We could turn off images and resort to ASCII art. We could ban templates altogether. We could get rid of user and talk pages. We don't do any of these things for the very good reason that they would defeat the entire purpose. Meta-templates should stay for the same reason. If you could get a community consensus to agree with this guideline, I would acquiesce in it, but still disagree. The answer to hardware and software limitations is to fix the hardware and software, not inconvenience ourselves for its sake. Firebug 04:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
DYK templates...
... are in use every time I update Template:Did you know (using {{subst:...}}). See User:Gdr/DYKbot. Please leave them alone. Gdr 08:25, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Template and CSS solution for CE/AD
In my experience, it is better to be proactive and create a work around solution. Historically developers have been much quicker to respond with a full-featured solution when you have already hit them with a half-arsed one :). Pcb21| Pete 19:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- At the moment, it can't be used live, as I have only implemented it for the monobook skin. You can see a demonstration at User:Pcb21/ADCE testing page. Pcb21| Pete 19:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Substub archive
I was planning on archiving the substub discussion elsewhere as well, but wasn't entirely sure what the fate of the template would be. I asume it's to be deleted/redirected? Joe D (t) 23:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Meta-templates
Due to your repeated disregard for community consensus, I have requested that your mentors prohibit you from making any reverts related to meta-templates. Firebug 09:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hm, maybe he has a point. I was wondering why you oppose applying WP:TS to WP-namespace templates; it seems mainly a matter of taste, and your vote seems to be in the minority. Radiant_* 12:46, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, speaking now as both a mentor and a member of the arbcom - our chief sysadmin (Jamesday) and our primary software developer (Tim Starling) have both said that the Meta template idea is a *DISASTER* from the technical side. So, either (a) those two qualify as the "offical recommendation by the developer committeee" as specified in the previous arbcom decision conerning netoholic and the template should be changed, or (b) in the interrum, we should go with their unofficial recommendations pending a more official. Either way, Netoholic is right. (The arbcom is currently considering this issue in the clarification of the decision).
- And, for the record, consider your request to limit Netoholic's editing privileges rejected. In this instance, Netoholic was totally right. →Raul654 15:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- "Disaster," Mark? ROFL - I respectfully disagree, but they certainly need some organizing and protocols. Netholic, first of all, let me apologise for getting off on the wrong foot with you - my advocacy for WP:TS reform no doubt seemed to come from left field, and its hard for an oldbie like myself to grep the Wikipedia as its grown into this big, monstrous thing in need of extreme pruning. When I read "we delete several hundred pages a day" I almost SMP. Things change quickly - so my tendency for creating new things, and leaving them to work on later comes from an older way of doing things - back when deletionism made very little sense for a young project. Now, of course its necessary to be proactive in getting rid of crap, but IMHO people still use VFD as a cop-out for things that need cleanup or correction. In fact that was the whole point of cleanup to begin with - to tell the difference between a VFD and something needing some attn. IMHO thats what TFD needs. On the issue of my quickie-deletes today, it looked almost certain that those would be voted down - I'll put them back if theyre not there already. -SV|t 23:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- They do think they're pretty damn evil, and that Sisterproject really needs to go. See current intro to Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates and its talk page - David Gerard 23:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up; I shall keep that in mind. I was referring to this edit where Neto removed a colored box from a template on grounds that Meta-templates are harmful, and I didn't see the connection. However, it turns out that the current template standard incorporates a meta-template on every template (Template:standard template style). I've seen fit to add this to TFD. Radiant_* 10:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- The point still remains that the impact is actually felt when a "meta-template" is edited: once it's been inserted, it causes a small but bearable extra load when rendering the "client article" for the first time. When such a template is edited, the change has to be promulgated to all those "client articles" which is what creates the extra load. What annoys people is that Neto insists on reverting and re-reverting, causing exactly the problem about which he is complaining, whilst insisting on his superior moral position. Unless I've totally missed the point of what is gong on, which is always a possibility. --Phil | Talk 11:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Once a meta-template has been edited, all of the articles linked to it are flushed from the Squid cache. I've made it a point to specifically revert only immediately after these other editors made their changes or during off-hours. Neither of these have much incremental impact. The editors who've been inserting the meta-template don't seem to have any regard for that. What I really needed was for more people to step up and tell these editors to stop using the meta-template, as Jamesday told us we should. To single me out as an edit warrior is one-sided, but not to chastise these other editors for intentionally making an edit they knew was disruptive to the servers.... that's just hypocritical on your part. -- Netoholic @ 14:36, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
- They do think they're pretty damn evil, and that Sisterproject really needs to go. See current intro to Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates and its talk page - David Gerard 23:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I have replied at Template talk:Peerreview with evidence. :) Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Variable {{PAGENAME}}
I have replied at my talk page. --Theo (Talk) 20:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Template:Memoryalpha_article
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I finally read and replied to a comment you left a long time ago at Template talk:Memoryalpha... ~leif ☺ (talk) 22:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Please respond there to concerns about Reworded new RFC template and Archiving RFC. Thanks, Radiant_* 09:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Vandal masquerading as you
I thought you might want to know that the infamous "ass puss" vandal has just struck again, masquerading by your user name on en:Wikiquote. — Jeff Q (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Reusing template:sisterproject
Itai has expressed concerns about reusing this for a different purpose (hijacking, he calls it), and I feel his concerns are valid. I would blank the template, but (I think) you've gone ahead and added it to articles already. Please remove it from articles and blank it until such time as you and Itai come to an understanding as for how to reuse it, or (failing that) please use a different name for the template. →Raul654 08:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
VfD votes in Template namespace
Just found these two redirects to old debates archived in talk: Template:VfD-Variegated and Template:VfD-Jeff Veasey. You might want to check those as well. FYI in case you didn't notice it already, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clergy has been moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy. Presumably Joy has some reason for it. I see no point in restoring the redirects to that page in template and mediawiki namespaces, because they contain no history and nothing of importance links to them anymore. jni 19:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
India edits
Hi, I was wondering why you removed the sister project boxes on the India page. I think they are extremely useful. =Nichalp (Talk)= 07:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Re: VFD clergy
Yeah, it was broken back when it was in MediaWiki namespace :) I merely extended the cleanup to include that issue, too. --Joy [shallot] 09:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Just because you disagree with me doesn't make you right. Several people have commented to me that it's a good idea to relist a template if there's no consensus (and this has strong precedent on VFD) plus the fact that several of the 'keep' votes do not give any reason for doing so (as requested on TFD policy). Please stop unilaterally reverting other user's contributions when you are unable to show evidence of consensus on your side. Radiant_* 13:18, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it has consensus to keep; I count six 'keep' votes and five 'delete' votes. And two of the 'keep' votes are precisely the kind of vote one should not cast according to TFD description ("Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement."). But if you feel so strongly about it, I'm not going to edit war on this.
- I do feel you're putting your message across too aggressively. I started cleaning out TFD because nobody else would; it's pretty much a thankless job. If I should do things differently, I'd be happy to discuss it (for instance the 5 vs 7 days thread on TFD/talk). However, you simply revert my work and post a rather unfriendly message stating I am wrong, without even considering if I might have a point there. Please show some consideration in the future. Radiant_* 07:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee case opening
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Warning
Ahem. Your de-adminship proposal got shot down (badly). Voting against people because your policy wasn't approved is clearly a case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Please avoid it in the future. →Raul654 01:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)