User talk:Netoholic

Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta

Add a new section (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&action=edit&section=new)

---

Motivation

"They are never alone that are accompanied with noble thoughts." – Sir Philip Sidney (1554 - 1586) "To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. – Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

---

Contents

1 Simple Logo 2 Edit prohibition removals 3 Thanks 4 RFC 5 lots of edits, not an admin 6 Vote comments 7 Rovoam 8 Wikiquette 9 Moved from Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning

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)

Edit prohibition removals

I have removed the not-policy prohibition (which was trivial considering the page no longer exists), as well as the recent prohibitions on editing Wikipedia:What is a troll and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Just so you understand why I put the two recent ones in place -- I put them in place to cool down the fighting, as well as slowing it down until I had more time to deal with the problem. I'm a little dismayed that you decided not to take my advice to talk on IRC.

Now rather than going right back and resuming the conflict, I suggest you discuss it on the talk page, and get input from others before editing the pages.

Also, "This is a guideline, not policy, so it isn't necessarily a disciplinary offence to make your point by demonstration." - while this is true (in the sense that not all disruptions are punished), it conveys *exactly* the wrong message. Disruptiing wikipedia *is* a blockable offense (you need look no further than Lir to see this), and the point of that page is to discourage people from doing it. →Raul654 04:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for renaming the nomination. I wasn't sure what to call it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I'm not sure that I'd be able to contribute much, or that it would be that constructive (given both the previous RFC and his claimed leaving). I will however be willing to certify it. --SPUI (talk) 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you intend to proceed to open an RfC regarding RickK, you should notify him on his talk page as soon after you start the procedure as you can. I don't think it matters that he's stated that he's leaving the project and won't be back. --Unfocused 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

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) 17:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vote comments

I understand you have strong feelings on certain issues, but please stop commenting on every single vote. When you comment on votes you agree with, you're being remarkably redundant (essentially "me too!"). When you comment on votes you disagree with, you tend to just repeat your previous comments and also tend to be abrasive and condescending. I invite you to return your concentration and energy back to the encyclopedia articles, and not get so stressed about silly templates. -- Netoholic 17:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my remarks seem abrasive and condescending. From my perspective, yours have come across as arrogant and dismissive, but I'm willing to assume that my interpretations are as inaccurate as yours are.

As for redundancy, the purpose of these discussions is not to list each viewpoint once, but to establish consensus. This occurs when most members of a group convey the same or similar opinions. Agreement should be expressed, not repressed. But of course, you're welcome to interact (or not interact) to the extent that you see fit. —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam

Yeah, the pages have been protected before. I think Tony Sidaways protected a bunch from May 10 to May 22, and then I protected a bunch starting on May 26, but they have since been unprotected. I'm really not on this guy as much as I was before cause I have just not been on my computer as much lately. CryptoDerk 20:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I'd like you to read the above page, because I fear you really don't understand how to interact productively.

On a public page like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, you should be polite and "argue facts, not personalities". This means that you should probably direct your comments (like I have) towards the issue, not the people. These talk pages last for a long time, and comments directed at people are of low value.

On the other hand, on a User's talk page, like this one, it is entirely appropriate to refer to "you" more often, since that is the context. In the future, if you want to discuss my behavior or attitude, please do so on my talk page. On Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, please talk to the issue -- describe your position and don't challenge me.

If you want to move the conversation from the Spoiler talk page to my talk page, do so and then reply to my original message as I'm suggesting. -- Netoholic @ 23:36, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

"I'd like you to read the above page,"

I read it before I made my first Wikipedia edit.

"because I fear you really don't understand how to interact productively."

Yeah, I'm the condescending one.

Since when is declaring the equivalent of "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong!" the gold standard of productivity?

"On a public page like Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning, you should be polite and 'argue facts, not personalities'."

I am arguing facts. You engaged in behavior that I deem inappropriate, and I addressed this behavior. I didn't say, "I'm intelligent and Netoholic's a crazy moron!" (which is not my belief).

"This means that you should probably direct your comments (like I have) towards the issue, not the people."

1. Your idea of addressing the issue is to ignore a clear consensus, repeatedly state your minority opinion as though it's a widely accepted belief, impose this decision upon the community (while announcing your intention to revert any and all contrary edits), and dismiss all pertinent criticisms as personal attacks.

2. You dedicated your most recent Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning reply (in its entirety) to criticizing me, thereby disregarding the content of my previous reply that you claim is absent.

3. Your uncalled-for (in my assessment) editing is a relevant editorial issue. How am I supposed to discuss this without referencing the fact that you're responsible for these acts?

—Lifeisunfair 01:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning

This is your "long-standing desire." You're ignoring the result of your deletion proposal (nine "keep" votes to your one "delete"), as well as the nearly year-old text to which you just reverted:

"If this general purpose template is not suitable for the particular article you are working on, feel free to custom-design your own warning text, tailored to the page in question, but please link back to this page."

I'm trying to assume good faith, but you aren't making it easy. —Lifeisunfair 17:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That deletion vote is not over, so don't call it a result. True results will be seen later. In the meantime, that section you keep quoting is the part to be debated. While it might have been there for a year, noone has put it into practice by creating a new template. Any such "custom" spoiler warnings were done on individual pages without using a Template:. As I said, we are already doing a favor putting any messageup at all, we don't need to add complexity though - the "heads up" is enough. -- Netoholic @ 17:39, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Yes, you keep authoritatively stating this as gospel truth, despite the fact that everyone else (thus far) has disagreed with you. (Even Omegatron, who voted to delete Template:Tl, endorses the existence of both Template:Tl and Template:Tl.) I'm not implying that the vote has concluded, but the present consensus overwhelmingly supports the use of more than one spoiler template. But of course, you aren't interested in the consensus, as indicated in your present tense proclamation that you "revert changes to this page . . ."

If you do so again, I'll follow suit. Then both of us will be finished for twenty-four hours. I despise edit wars, however, so I truly hope that it doesn't come to that. —Lifeisunfair 18:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count the number of times that Lifeisunfair has used the word "you" in reference to me in his responses above. Rather than discuss the issue, this thread has dissolved into nothing but gross accusation. Phrases like "you aren't interested in the consensus" show that Lifeisunfair is not prepared to assume good faith in discussion with me, so I choose to end it. I welcome others to join in and provide their views, without condescending reference to other editors. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

"Count the number of times that Lifeisunfair has used the word 'you' in reference to me in his responses above."

Well, what am I supposed to say? You are behaving in a manner that I deem inappropriate. Am I supposed to ignore that?

"Rather than discuss the issue, this thread has dissolved into nothing but gross accusation."

I've attempted to discuss the issue, but you refuse to do so beyond proclaiming that your "long-standing desire" shall prevail. Much of my previous reply addressed the specific nature of the dispute, but you ignored all of that, choosing instead to complain about my comments regarding you. Hypocritically, in doing so, you dodged the main issue and concentrated entirely upon me.

"Phrases like 'you aren't interested in the consensus'"

You aren't! You're the only person expressing this stance, but you've decided to override the overwhelming consensus.

"show that Lifeisunfair is not prepared to assume good faith in discussion with me,"

As I said, I've attempted to assume good faith, but you've made it very difficult.

"so I choose to end it."

End it? You never began it! You simply reverted the page and announced that you would continue to do so in perpetuity. The pertinent "discussion" is over on the templates for deletion page, where no one has supported your "one spoiler template" policy. Now you've added the Template:Tl tag, thereby exploiting the technicality that the discussion didn't transpire on this talk page. But you were careful to revert back to your version first, thereby locking it in place indefinitely. I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like good faith to me. It's a clever method of circumventing the spirit of the process to get your way.

"I welcome others to join in and provide their views, without condescending reference to other editors."

And "abrasive" Don't forget "abrasive." That's the other adjective that you used to describe me on my talk page (while instructing me to stop posting so many comments). And do you know what? I see an awful lot of "you"s. —Lifeisunfair 22:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)