User talk:Netoholic

Archives
30 August 2004 - 15 September 2006

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page, or click here to add a new section.

If something is very urgent and requires administrator attention, please post a note also on my User talk page on en: and use the email feature.

Re:User:Alastor Moody/User Misses Pluto

Okay and no offenses, but it wasn't really a template at all. It rather was like a subpage of mine. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No upload message

I did feel that the my message about the no image uploads would have stopped all uploads because it was so eye catching, which was my plan. Your message is good, however, in my honest opinion, it will not stop them as effectively. Users will not be looking at the upload file page for long, so it doesn't matter how much it hurts their eyes, really, since we should be trying to get them off the page. Billz (Talk) 06:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

hello

hello Netoholic I make a bot for done some interwiki, I make the request here, I hope that's is all ok....thanks a lot for your interesting --vector ^_^ (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect

You may unprotect my userpage. I want to catch more vandals is all. --Kimmy 21:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Escarbot

Hello,

I have made a request on page Wikipedia talk:Bots to get the bot flag for my bot User:Escarbot one month ago with no answer.

What should I do now to get my bot flag?

Best regards,

Vargenau 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Core Articles...

Though I agree Simple should focus on Core Articles, why did you speedily delete the Chaotix article without any discussion on Rfd? After all, please remember, that all the Wikis, be it Simple or not, are based upon community consensus. Also, the Sega Genesis and Dreamcast can be considered Core Articles as both are hardware (not software products) that have sold millions globally (not regionally).--TBCΦtalk? 06:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Article deletions

Deleting articles created out of good faith without any discussion or consensus whatsoever is a clear violation of Wikipedia's basic guidelines. Please remember that Wikipedia is a community-based project.--TBCΦtalk? 06:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete all the district articles? Couldn't you have redirected them to Lower Saxony?--TBCΦtalk? 06:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Even so, you shouldn't be speedily deleting them without any discussion. If you personally feel they violated WP:CORE, you should have nominated it on WP:RfD instead.--TBCΦtalk? 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, speaking of RfD, could you please restore the recently deleted articles and then nominate them on RfD instead?--TBCΦtalk? 07:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to stop speedy deleting articles immediately without discussion. As I've stated before, this is clearly violating Wikipedia's principle's on consensus and community.--TBCΦtalk? 07:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:CORE is a very vague policy. It doesn't explain clearly how important a subject has to be to be considered a "core" article. Thus, due to this issue, discussion on WP:RfD is highly reccomended, especially since the above articles were obviously created out of good faith.--TBCΦtalk? 07:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think what I did was in good faith and not vandalism, then why did you delete it without discussion? Please, for the love of god, restore the articles and nominate it on RfD so that the community can decide if applies to WP:CORE or not, like what a Wiki is meant to be.--TBCΦtalk? 07:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Wikipedia is not based on consensus? Then's what's the point of having pages such as RfA, RfD, or ESP? By "wiki process", the Foundation Issues page is clearly referring to the collaborative nature of wiki's. Also, why can't you just restore the articles and nominate them on RfD instead? If it really does fail the WP:CORE policy, then would it really matter either way? Cheers, --TBCΦtalk? 07:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's what I think. Dreamcast and Sega Genesis should be restored and placed on RfD. The other articles should be redirected to Lower Saxony. Archer7 - talk 08:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but shouldn't the deleted templates and Chaotix articles be put on RfD as well?--TBCΦtalk? 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note that I've recently heavily expanded the Dreamcast article, so the original rationale for redirecting no longer applies.--TBCΦtalk? 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles?

As you seem to be a very experience editor on the Simple Wiki (evidenced by your adminship), would please comment on this proposal on Simple talk, advocating for the creation of some sort of featured article process?--TBCΦtalk? 08:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

New logo vote

Thank you for commenting on the logo proposal at Wikipedia:Simple talk#New logo. We're now holding a final vote at Wikipedia:Simple talk#New logo vote to decide our new logo, so please take a look and vote when you have time. Cheers, Tangotango 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bots

Hi Netoholic, when you get around to it, can you look at my request for a bot flag (User:Tangobot), listed at Wikipedia talk:Bots? Thanks, Tangotango 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sig

The issue on the length of sigs has been heavily debated on Wikipedia recently [1], though the general consensus is that sigs that take up only one line are acceptable. Regardless, I agree with you that sigs should not contain images.--TBCΦtalk? 23:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Join Esperanza!

Alastor Moody has invited you to join Esperanza! As you may know, all the members have one important goal, which is the success of this encyclopedia. To do this we want to make the community better, and be the nice side of Wikipedia. So join us now and help form our very own community! --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 01:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Netoholic, is there a en:WP:CIV or en:WP:NPA equivalent on simple? Because I don't appreciate being attacked by users. Chacor 15:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, of course there is. Why wouldn't there be one? (sorry for interrupting) RaNdOm26 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Manecke

Hello Netaholic,

First of all i´m not a sock puppet, the image doesn´t mean this.

mfg --- Manecke

Vandalism

Hi Netoholic. Uh, I think your userpage should be protected because of several recent vandalism attacks from IP or new users as a suggestion in order to protect your userpage. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 00:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, never mind and my bad. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... slow down a bit there; actually the IP users tried to add some nonsense to articles but if you really dislike my way of reverting vandalism, its fine, just tell me to stop and I will, no need to throw any heads off. And also when you stated, "If you don't stop being so random, I will start using blocks to encourage you.", well although I won't say you did it, but you somehow threatened me by saying to block me that actually dosen't do that serious (as in dead serious) to the wiki. But please don't throw away your temper. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And including to that, would you call this and this vandalism if you thought that I was acting randomly? --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 01:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

...and one last thing, when you said everyone has the right to express their opinons, that IP user gave a bad-faith edits since he/she wanted to abolish this wiki, which is a great threat to the Simple English Wikipedia. Would you be happy seeing a group of anonymous IP users striking this wiki for that they hate it and constantly giving out bad-faith edits? That wouldn't be good for the sake of this wiki, wouldn't it? But usually I'd prefer to give out the test template, and then the warning template so we wouldn't make the IP users angry. Thanx. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 05:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My own user page

Since it is often targeted by vandals, could I ask you to protect it? Thanks a lot, M7 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. --M/

Geeksluvpi block

Good day, Netoholic. I understand you have blocked Geekluvpi for being a sockpuppet. However, in an email, he has denied this, asking you to perform a CheckUser. Do you mind doing so? Thank you.-- Tdxiang @ 08:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no local checkusers on the Simple English Wikipedia (bureaucrats are not always checkusers), I've taken the liberty of asking a steward to checkuser both Geeksluvpi and me. The steward's results are posted here. As you can see, the results show that neither I nor Geeksluvpi have any sockpuppets or are sockpuppets of anybody else. Netoholic, please take a look and unblock both Manecke and Geeksluvpi. Thanks, Tangotango (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Coffee Lounge

The Coffee Lounge has been restored and placed on RfD. Please don't delete things with no discussion. Archer7 - talk 20:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My actions

I do not judge people by the number of edits that they have, or whether they are an admin or not. Being an admin isn't like parenting, 'mixed signals' are perfectly fine as editors are able to make up their own minds. I stand by you on many points, but as an admin, I cannot let what I view as unacceptable go by unnoticed, which I'm sure is one of the rules you stand by. Reversing your block to Manecke and Geeksluvpi was not an aggressive move, I viewed it simply as a mistake anyone could make. Threatening users with blocks simply because they don't comply with your view of the perfect editor is not acceptable.

I will not be turning down my adminship simply because I disagree with you on some points, and I am insulted that you would ask me to do such a thing. Archer7 - talk 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What about threatening Alastor Moody with a block just because he didn't have enough edits in the article namespace? Archer7 - talk 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I can't be bothered arguing over all this, because we're not going to get anywhere. Just think about what you do, and stop intimidating other users. Archer7 - talk 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic, I thought I've told you that I am currently only willing to create articles instead and has quit that "vandalism checking" job. How come you never listen on anything I have to say? seriously, it ain't funny. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 01:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Alastor Moody and Archer7. Though you may be a bureaucrat, please don't act without consensus from the community or warn users who's edits were in good intention, as such is a breach of both Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and assuming good faith.--TBCΦtalk? 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I do admit that Simple English is very different from the English Wikipedia, I strongly disagree with you that guidelines such as those on civility and respecting each other (regardless of which Wikipedia they apply to) are "unproductive elements that forget what we are for". I also disagree with your comment stating that Simple Wikipedia is a place for users "tired of EN or other wikipedias". Many Wikipedians come here because they want to contribute to articles for readers who do not understand English very well (which is the purpose of having Simple Wikipedia), and not because they previously had arguments on the English Wikipedia. --TBCΦtalk? 06:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And what do you mean as if I'm creating extra work for you? Actually, I think you are giving yoursel extra work cause I've done nothing to you. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 22:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on TBC's page

That is completely wrong. I am here in Simple, not because I am tired of EN. Also, I have no problem with the policies in EN. I believe ALL Wikipedias should have the same policies. RaNdOm26 04:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Travelling Salesman Problem

Hello, Netoholc. I simpilfied some of the page; but without a hint what is found unsimple, it is a hard thing to do. -- Eptalon 17:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Undiscussed Deletions

Please do not delete articles that should be discussed on WP:RFD. Pages direct from en (Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages) should be discussed before they are deleted. Thank you. PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 20:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of biting, consider changing the policy. Considering there was already an RfD discussion open, it might have been *gasp* considerate to pay attention to the comments other users had on the page. Someone already said that the page should be kept and simplified. In short: change your demeanor. You're methods aren't very productive. The deletion policy SPECIFICALLY says that pages copied directly from english should be discussed. PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 00:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Meta RfC

I have now started a Meta RfC at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Netoholic_on_Simple_English_Wikipedia.

Your statement is obviously necessary to continue. Archer7 - talk 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote removal?

I'm afraid that in your last edit here you've removed a valid vote. Can you please have a look? Thank you, M7 19:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mixup

Sorry about the mixup. Just being on the safe side. But on another note, if somebody ever did guess your password, blocking them would do no good since they can unblock themself the same way! Blockinblox

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism by Shandlewood on my user page and for reverting all the vandalism he did. It's greatly appreciated. zephyr2k 12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the protect on my userpage. zephyr2k 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On meta.wiki

I've added my opinion on meta.wiki. I'd like to hear your own, hoping that you are still willing to do your best efforts, as you did in the past. Ciao, M7 21:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ehm...

sorry.....why you are chaing my signature????? --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User subpages deletion

Which is the rationale for doing this kind of actions, without even asking the user? (Deletion log); 20:33 . . Netoholic (Talk | contribs) (deleted "User:Vector/firma": content was: 'Vector (write to me please)') --M7 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

information

I have create my pages /firma and /Firma but I not use them....thanks ;-) --vector ^_^ (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping in pointing out my own failures, but I'm not asking for a sysop position here; furthermore since my work was due to administrator's absence, I'm asking for you to do better your own work and to avoid mastering simple wiki. --M7 10:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that it's your fault if the template was including another template, thus nullifying the "noinclude" section. Now the Template:non is not included in the Category:Deletion requests. Next time you put your hands in a template, please try to do not alter its functions. Thank you. --M7 15:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Duffus

Dear Netoholic. This user Duffus is causing some trouble by voting on Rfds of articles which have already been deleted and votes in Rfas without telling why. I think this might be a sockpuppet.-- Tdxiang ^Adminship 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request the blocking of a vandal only account ,User talk:I see! Jon looked at Springfield Dagosse! (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log).

Thank you.-- Tdxiang ^Adminship 04:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sysop

Hey Netoholic, thank you for sysopping me! I hope to use my administrator tools in ways that are beneficial for the community and the Simple English Wikipedia. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Put an end to "wordend"?

Greetings, Netoholic!

When you have a moment, would you comment on my suggested change at [Talk: Basic English]? (Instead of "wordend", how about introducing the word "suffix" and explaining it as "a letter or letters that you add to the end of a word to change the meaning"?) Thanks. DBlomgren 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Request to Stewards

I've posted a Request that is specifically addressed to Stewards, since I'm not sure that you can hold a veto right against sysop candidates on simple.wikipedia. Please review it and express your opinion. Thank you, M/ M7 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your point of view just where I've pointed to, I'm not involved in politics, nor I am trolling you. Please keep calm and remember that people can see through every page's history and get themselves an idea. --M7 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see you need to improve your calculation capabilities: Here you can find 8 support votes and 1 opposition. That makes consensus, of course. Not unanimous, but there is consensus. --M7 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking M7?

How on earth would you justify blocking a perfectly good-faith active editor, even if you did immediately unblock him? He isn't trolling you, and he isn't breaking any policies. PullToOpen ^Talk 01:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My adminship

Dear Netoholic, I understand what you mean. It's okay, adminship isn't everything. I understand your concerns. Your worries. Fears that I might not be able to abide to the policies. I clearly understand. Although it was the mistake of overlooking a policy, I do not hold anything against you. Thank you so much for your guidance.-- Tdxiang ^Adminship 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Kid friendly?

I was previously asked by another user whether Simple WP is kid friendly. I'm assuming it is since the target readers include children, but since EN is not censored, then I thought EN would also be the same. Just wanted to know so I'd be able to answer any future queries. Thanks in advance! zephyr2k 05:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the help. I'll try to post something on Simple Talk just to see if there are others who will support the idea. zephyr2k 06:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Mariusz

About the death threat, I removed it and gave a warning. Blockinblox warned him soon after, and I assumed that he had seen the comment and reacted appropriately. As for the sexual harassment, I was not aware of it until later (I left one minute after the comment and didn't return for half of an hour.) When I returned, the message had already been reverted. I am sorry. However, why are you ignoring the above question about blocking M7? PullToOpen ^Talk 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hello

have you recived my mail? --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ok I'm very sorry :( --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I not agree with this, this and the fact with Tangotango...but If you want to change I will change my vote --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I see this and I'm sorry for you, but If you do a good work, I will change my vote for you, I never vote "oppose" for an admin, in simple or in it.wiki, but I don't approve some of yours decision, beh happy and good work! --vector ^_^ (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza

Netoholic, I would like to ask you why you are so anti-esperanza. Do you want wikipedia simple english to be an unfriendly place? Why don't you join, maybe it will do you some good. Thanks and god bless.--Sir James Paul 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Personal reasons. Don't ask too much, Sir James Paul.--203.124.2.7 05:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar! I am giving you this barnstar for being a faithful and hardworking administrator. God Bless.--Sir James Paul 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

NetBot

I've revoked NetBot's bot flag, as you no longer seem interested in editing here. This will be immediately reinstated upon your request. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 10:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Basic English, again

Some time last year, I made a request that the Basic English spellings be changed to the spellings used in Ogden's original publication (see articles in Category:Basic English. I thought this would be a simple matter and an easy-to-understand argument. But I've just noticed that you have completely ignored the points I made, reverted my changes and protected the pages. This is unacceptable. You should know that your argumentation is wrong. Your stubbornness annoys me which is why I will not give in concerning this issue. I will summarize here what annoys me:

• The spelling of the original word list is British, since Ogden is from England and the book and the list were published in London. I you don't believe it, go to a library and check for yourself.
• Even the American publication "Basic English: international second language" uses Ogden's original list with British spelling. I know that for sure since I had this book in my hands! I have in-depth knowledge about Basic English. I doubt that you have ever read any of the books.
• Academic sources on the internet use the list with British spelling. The best reference which exactly matches Ogden's Basic English word list from the 1932 publication can be found here: http://www2.educ.fukushima-u.ac.jp/~ryota/word-list.html
• Your only argument that you repeat all the time (that the "offical" source is http://ogden.basic-english.org/words.html, the "Basic English Institute") is ridiculous:

A closer look at the "institute" reveals that it's a private website by a person called James Bauer. He even admits on one page that he followed the MS Word spellchecker and changed some spellings to American English. Whoever thinks that this is the basis of a good source should not be a Wikipedia admin. DenisL 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Netoholic left late last year. It is not known when he will return again.-- Tdxiang 10:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a sysop on another wiki. How do you unblock a user? - RCG

Basic English, Rules Section Citation

Hi. I'm sure you are better at this than I am but you apparently added the "Rules of word use" section in Basic English back on Sept 15, 2004, without a reference. Where did you get all that information? Do you have a citation? I'm concerned because that exact text somehow found its way into the main English Wikipedia's Basic English article and we therefore have a circular, non-cited reference. Both entire sections (in SEWP and enWP) could be removed for NOR.

Have I missed something? RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I just wanted to let you know that Netoholic has not been active in this wikipedia for at least two years. The article you mention cites a book of Mr Ogden, published in 1940. I guess that is where these "rules" are from. Has this been checked yet? --Eptalon (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it! At [[2]]. Inserting the citation in both SEWP and enWP today. Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just being anal. (The two messages above were originally posted to my talk page.) The important point is that Netoholic isn't active anymore. However, someone (Eptalon?) is watching this page so you may get answers to other questions for Netoholic. Eptalon, you don't have to reply to this posting. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick deletion of 13

The page you wrote, 13, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Cuddles9999 • 💬 • 📜 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

RfD nomination of 13

An editor has requested deletion of 13, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/13 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Cuddles9999 • 💬 • 📜 16:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)