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.
|
Netoholic, please check your e-mail, or go to IRC.--Bishonen | Talk 20:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Right. I shouldn't think anybody goes there twice (the talk page, I mean, not IRC ;-)), but this place is so big, the steady trickle of new visitors could keep up forever. There should be somewhere to hang a warning sign, "owner bites", or something. I'm on IRC at odd times, as I'm on GMT, one hour later than UTC (am about to go to bed now).--Bishonen | Talk 20:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No so much bites, as a snappy vicious, badly trained terrier that needs muzzling Giano 09:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
If there's anything you'd like to add, or anything I should know to be a better admin, please let me know. Thanks Pedant 21:18, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Duplicate categories
See [1]. The NetBot created a duplicate of a category that was already there. It should be a bit more sophisticated than a search/replace bot; please fix this, especially since many pages are likely to have the same combination of categories. grendel|khan 22:30, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
- Seems innocuous, but I'll see what I can do. It doesn't break the category display in read mode, just leaves a little clean-up in edit mode, so there's no urgency. NetBot is definitely more than a simple search and replace bot (though that is a typical simple function sometimes used). It works on categories in a more intellegent way, but I suspect this is a new minor bug due to the MediaWiki upgrade.
- As far as the categories go, "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory", so I'd not expect a lot of duplication. Still, something to work on. -- Netoholic @ 02:13, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
SPAMing user talk pages
I take exception to being accused of SPAM - I only reminded those that contributed to the discussion on the relevant Wikiproject, and several days after the page was first put to a vote. Things happen quickly on the Wiki (for me) - I have only recently began checking stuff everyday becuase it seems if I don't major decisions are made without me even realizing what happened. Now that I have started to contribute more, I thought it would be useful to let others who have shown an interest in a specific debate to know about it. As I mentioned on Wikipedia:Requested moves I notified all even those I thought would vote against (though only 1 of the 2 I expected to do so did vote against). I think we have an obligation to notify those that have shown an interest in a subject when a decision affecting that subject is to be made.
Unprotected TOC templates
Hi Netoholic, a while ago you requested that Template:CompactTOC, Template:CompactTOC2 and Template:CompactTOCwithnumbers be unprotected on WP:RFPP. I have done this now, so please go ahead and make whatever edits you had in mind. silsor 08:45, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
I am not clear about a couple of this concerning your removal of the section regarding the proposed moving of the Freedom of Information Act page. Firstly where is it defined how long requests should remain on that page? Secondly where is it defined what constitutes enough votes to support a move? Jooler 11:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. You said the "Freedom of Information Act discussion was not active". However, the last comment was by User:NeilTarrant at 08:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC). So I think I have to disagree with you about it being inactive. At the time you removed the debat, there were 9 votes supporting the move (which including the nomination itself counts as 10 votes) versus 4 votes opposing the move. Now by my reckoning this is more than a 2:1 majority. If this doesn't count as a rough consensus then I think that you have to agree that it was close to one and a few more days might have clarified whether it could achieve that or not. So, perhaps you can see why I was suprised that the discussion was removed. Perhaps especially so, when discussions from December 31 still remain on that page. Would you object if I re-instated the debate? Jooler 22:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Netbot
Thanks for catching my mistype. I did in fact mean blocked. Snowspinner 21:39, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)