User talk:Betacommand/20061207

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Unblock

Beta Command... You clearly did NOT read my notes. You simply voted as a team against a non admin. IF you had.. You would have read the UPDATE and CORRECTED link going ONLY to the article to bypass the page that was only partly similar to a DMOZ site, in that it is directory of only actual companies and not internet spam companies- but it has articles. It is NOT an advertising site. My argument wasn't for the site, it was that DMOZ not have exclusivity since it is not really open. My corrections were not read- IF you HAD checked the CORRECTED link- you would have seen that. If anyone reads this they may be more carefull to see if you are truly objective and not acting in a pack manor with other admins which will put YOU in a bad light. I am not an admin. What is your excuse for not reading the corrected link and simply closing rank to discourage users from getting a fair opionion? Wiki is meant to grow not close off to existing admins.--162.83.180.170 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for spamming, and you did not present an apology, you presented a personal attack against the admin who blocked you. Unless you were looking for a longer block, that was not wise. As is, if the block is not indefinite, then wait it out and just edit afterwards. Otherwise, I suggest an apology and appeal to the admin you attacked, and to Beta for your unfounded allegations. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks are a bad thing and User:162.83.180.170 clearly should appologize for them. However I cheched his edits and I do not think that what he added was spam. It was a link to a directory of companies, providing described service. While the source might not have been sufficiently good for Wikipedia and its inclusion is a matter of oppinion, it was not spam. User:162.83.180.170 might have been blocked for revert waring, but per WP:AGF and WP:BITE calling him spammer and blocking him was too strict. (BTW.: My personal oppinion is that Wikipedia does not need links he added.) --Jan.Smolik 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well even if the link was good, (s)he should argued it's merits, instead of attacking the administrators involved. Incivility is a good way to increase block times. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon, Thank you also for NOT READING. This pack mentality of admins makes you appear desperate to please the adins so you may remain part of their group. If you would have CHECKED the history and the last LINK UPDATE- you would have seen the correction went only directly to an article. As for debating the merits, it is clear you do not appreciate that Wiki itself was once criticised by existing encyclopedias for it's new approach. This was merely a non-DMOZ information site specifically on the topic. But it was improved by my updating directly to the article that was relevant, instead of leaving the viewer to go to the original index page. You still are arguing over an updated link that has no directory part of the page, and a block WAS issued without checking. Gwernol and any person so hopeful of adminiship will be a deterrent to Wiki's growth if they do not take time to read, verify what is said, and correct. The apology should be GWENRNOL's and BetaCommands, and Wizardry Dragon's to me. Because they are failing to check the updated link that would NOT have resulted in a block. The scaries thing to read is Wizardry Dragon sad comment that my protest of their error, was "a good way to increase block time". This is not a communist site where free opinion on the talk page should warrant punishment.

Any admin reviewing this should see the changed link, see the block was given without checking within less than what appeared to be ten seconds. The admin was POUNCING and the additional reviewers were simply repeating the error by not reading or fearing dissent. It is just ludicrous and silly to see the ignorance of facts and checking on the change made.

Wiki should not be a popularity contest amongst admins and wannabee admins. It should be accurate. In my opinion if Gwernol and the two added opionion's (who FAILED to read and follow the updated link of the last edit change) determined the entire opion of Wiki, far fewer would be here today. Wiki does not want you to alientate the attempts of others and rush to rash decisions without READING.

Thank you for reading Jan, and for giving an opinion that appears rational, unbiased and considerate. Especially the part where you aptly indicated the inclusion of the source was more a matter of opionion, even though you did not think it was needed. Regarding the "personal attack", I assure you it was me, a contributor who felt attacked when IN GOOD FAITH, I changed and improved the link to an article only. By not having it read, and having a BLOCK put on me, so that I could not even communicate, I take the highest offense. It was the thwarting of my ability to communicate. I have written for this complaint to be viewed on the backlog of complaints because it was so frustrating to be part of such behavior.

Gwernol in my opinion is like a good prosecutor, who in hurry for speed would accidently convict only a few wrong people. But on is too many. Hence the complaint stands and the tip to not go into law enforcement! LOL --162.83.180.170 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not participate in personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [[Image:Alex garden.jpg]]

Hi,

You deleted [[Image:Alex garden.jpg]] with the reason "speedy deletion under I7". I'm inquiring as to how the tag used in the description was a "clearly invalid fair-use tag". The only dispute, to my knowledge, was over whether it was a replaceable fair use item, not whether the tag itself was invalid. The pending deletion was disputed, yet you deleted it without discussion or justification.

At the very least, a note on the talk page or the disputer's talk page seems appropriate. — ceejayoz talk 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJay, this is actually an ongoing debate coming after Jimbo said that most fair use images should be replaced with public domain images. Beta just deleted this and several others that were tagged because of this a few days ago. If they were improperly tagged, he can undelete it for you. if it was fair use, it may help to clarify to Beta how it was a fair use image that was not replaceable. Cheers ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I listed a rationale (duplicated on the talk page) after receiving the notice that it could be deleted, which was apparently ignored as the image wound up speedy deleted anyways. I was under the impression that disputing the pending deletion in the manner laid out in the deletion notice would at least put it on hold until a discussion could take place. — ceejayoz talk 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Beta probably just missed the tag, CJay. Beta went through the entire backlog that day, so there was bound to be one or two things he missed. If you could provide a summation of the rationale here, Beta can probably have it undeleted if the rationale is reasonable. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The image is now undeleted, CJay. if there are any further problems let I or Betacommand know. Cheers! ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49 4 December 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections open The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek AfDs

The same people are back at it. Coolcat believes they are purposefully hitting these articles with AfDs, I kind of agree with him but will hold off on making any accusations. See:

Thank you! -Husnock 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, please see WP:N and WP:V. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT should also be reviewed by the mass AfDers. -Husnock 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Husnock, it should also be reviewed by yourself. Chris cheese whine 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Following my edits around, Nebor? Like the way I look or something? How have I violated WP:POINT? Please, tell me. Have I AfDed four articles in under a week to antogonize the people who wrote them? Nope, that was other people. -Husnock 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to suggest the nominations are a deliberate attempt to antagonise you? Chris cheese whine 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Coolcat claims he is gathering such evidence. This whole thing just stinks, it really does. The exact same people are AfDing articles on the same subject and have brought up four of them to AfD in just over a week and then, in two cases where they were kept, launched into a deletion review. There is also the matter that Starfleet Security was nominated for deletion just a few minutes after I had finished a rewrite to make it better. Almost as if they saw me doing that and then said "Lets piss him off now by AfDing after he did all that work". A fourth article was nominated for deletion in the middle of the debate about Starfleet Security, by the same person, almost as if it was a tactic to try and get Coolcat to say something uncivil. I'm not saying that every single person who is voting Delete is in on some kind of thing, but a blind man could see that there appears to be certain people who, for whatever reasons, are trying thier damnest to get these articles off of Wikipedia. I have to wonder, I have to ask: are they doing this because they don't like the articles or are they doing this becuase they don't like the editors involoved with them. After all, no talk page discussions on user Pages, indeed comments seem to be heavily sarcastic, calling articles "crap", edits "hogwash", and making statements that the sources provided are either distorted or flat out untrue. You, yourself, are throwing things in like telling me to go visit an unencyclopedic website after I indicated I would like to start working on a new article. Why would you say that? As well as childish comments on the JAG AfD page when Coolcat and I are trying to explain ourselves and make these articles better? And, yes, we've had some personal attacks with me being called "contempable"; I am waiting to see if more name calling does not occur. Something stinks here and I don't like it. P.S.- THANK YOU BETA FOR LETTING US USE YOUR TALK PAGE! -Husnock 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Beta, as an Admin, can you close these two AfDs? Law in Star Trek is now a sourced informative article and Starfleet Security should never have been AfDed in the first place. People continue to use these AfD pages to make comments about the contributors to these articles, call the articles names, and act sarcastically towards those who are trying to improve these articles. Enough is enough, lets close these things. Thank you so much! -Husnock 05:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Ian 101

Can you explain to me why you fully protected a user talk page? Sure, the user is a delinquent, but why did it require a full protection? Diez2 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If the user using the talk page is blocked and is being disruptive there, they may find the page protected to further stem their disruptiveness. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments such as You know what fuck wikipedia, screw u i'll hack into your webpage in fuckin want to is what made me push to protect the page, after I declined an unblock Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot)

[edit] switching license templates

Let me know as soon as your bot has finished replacing CopyrightFreeUse. I'm going to delete that template and remove any references to it in the pedia. It looks like we're close - only about 1000+ to go! Thanks for your work on this. I'm determined to get the licensing template situation cleaned up. I'll probably have a few more lined up for you soon. It's such a mess right now. Kaldari 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Hey Betacommand, were you still planning on finishing the template switch? It looks like there are less than 1,000 left. I'm tempted to try to do the rest by hand, but it would probably take me a couple months :) Kaldari 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survival Horror

I was curious about why my entry for Survival Horror was deleted. It was not an advertisement, and was not promoting a company, producr, group, or service. Please let me know why this was deleted, because I followed the rules as I read them, and it did not violate any of the rules in the generap criteria. Mikehendo 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also be aware of proper tone and wording, to adhere to WP:NPOV and avoid "weasel words". ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, what I meant is that i did not believe it to be in violation of the rules. If it was, please let me know how i can correct this. Mikehendo 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It appeared to be G11 at first glace because of the links, but upon futher examination it was aslo G1 Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

G1 being patent nonsense? "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content"? The purpose was to reference a series of role playing games and in time to provide possible campaigns, NPC templates, etc. Mikehendo 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose my have been that but the article was not Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to provide an article that achieves those goals after i get back from work. Have a great day Mikehendo 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decorated Period a stub?

Short, yes, succinct, yes, but a stub? You should have seen it when I found it (and it wasn't labelled as a stub)! SiGarb | Talk 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops! So it was, and I left it there...! Sorry about that. Would you personally rate it as a stub, or not? SiGarb | Talk 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)––––––
Personally I don't rate pages :) Im just a bot operatiorBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Wheaton

No clue what that page is about or what's going on with it, but whatever-it-is appears to have moved to Scott M. Wheaton now that Scott Wheaton is blocked. DMacks 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ARCH bot request

Massive thanks for that. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of stubs

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean.... SGGH 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Ah, well thats the problem, we don't have any stub templates, I was hoping that the bot could assess as a stub rated article any unassessed article in our wikiproject which has a stub template from anything (for example...ARWEN ACE has 'This firearms-related article is a stub. You can help by expanding it') I hope this is possible?SGGH 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an Idea. Create a stub template for your project. Ill have my bot add it if it finds another stub tag. and then tag all the pages with the new template. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 11:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HI cats

Thank you. Left you a msg on the bot requests page under the hawaii section, letting you know I forgot to include the unassessed articles cat as well. —Viriditas | Talk 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left you a new request for stub assessment in the same section. If you need me to modify my request in any way, please let me know. I appreciate your time. —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of no source tag on image

Hello. I was wondering why you removed the {{no source}} template from Image:Roywink2.jpg in this edit? You didn't add source information or provide an edit summary. Thanks. Khatru2 07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

the page appeared to have source info Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It has a description and a license but no source information. Do you have any objection to me reverting your change? Khatru2 07:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
revert Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new "how to get started" page for writing bots - your opinion?

I think there is confusion on how to go about starting a bot (eg here and here) and there is no wikipage covering this, the main bot page talks only about policy, not avenues for getting started, how to make a bot etc. I have made a suggestion that a howto page be established and, as a frequent editor helping out with bots, I would appreciate your comments. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD close rationales

Any chance of a brief explanation of the rationale behind your closes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General ? "The result was Keep" might be seen as a bit short on details for AfDs where many editors argued that there were were non-negotiable content policy issues mandating deletion (i.e. WP:NOR). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to know. Original research cannot fufill verifiablity requirements, and at the very most/least to me, the AfDs seems to have no consensus. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since neither of those was original research, the reason should be clear. Law in Star Trek now had a very clear external source while Starfleet Security was referenced with several in-line citations from movies and episodes. The entire AfDs were nothng but nasty business. Even when the defenders of the article tried to compromise and reference the mateiral, we were met with heavy sarcasim and incivility. Coolcat and Husnock were even offically reported for harrasing other users and making personal attacks against other users [1]. This thing had to end, as a without-merit AfD. -Husnock 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you not close such things. I think your personal opinions may be getting in the way. Friday (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Friday, Husnock was not the closer, Betacommand was. Either was, citations to it's own canon consitutes self references, if not original research. Wikipedia policy is to avoid self-references, and as such they were clearly a contentious AfD, not as clear-cut as Husnock suggests. I would think that there is clearly no consensus (remember this defaults to keep), but Beta's closing I feel was probably premature, as the discourse was still ouccuring. At the very least he could have referred discussion to the appropriate talk page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 19:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What Peter said, but the reason I asked was that Betacommand had already closed a very similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia, not once, but twice. Rushing off to DRV without asking politely for an explanation is terribly non-U, even when it takes WSOD rather than AGF to believe that the closer didn't have a very big axe to grind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
He probably closed one and only skimmed over the other one before assuming it should be kept. I think it would be best for him to recuse himself from something he is personally invested in, myself, per Conflict of Interest regulations. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I closed as I did was because that 1. the AfD's were borderline Keep/no consensus. 2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General was completely rewritten addressing the issues that were given and in the AfD I saw no real issues that were not addressed in the rewritten article. 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security there was no consensus to delete it was again borderline. 4. In cases that I see are borderline I WP:AGF and go to the more positive side of caution. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced, given that WP:NOR is non-negotiable, and that your rationale smells like vote-counting, but it'll have to do. By my reading, the articles are still loaded with original research, and this issue will never be resolved so long as the primary contributor has no understanding of what constitutes original research. Still, there's always the chance Husnock will read and understand WP:NOR, or failing that, the restatement at WP:ATT. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"The primary contributor has no understanding of what constitutes original research"- rather insulting since we bent over backwords to find an established outside source to add it to the Law in Star Trek article. Similar searches are underway to find Starfleet Security references in text and literature. So, yes, I do know what Original Research is. See my user page for the dozens of articles I've written to and contributed to. -Husnock 13:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not about finding an "established outside source", it's about not filling in the gaps. The correct order is "find references -> write article", not vice versa. Chris cheese whine 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If a person is not "allowed" to write an article before they find a referenece, then why have stubs? In the above case, we found a reference, its in the article and the article is now sourced. The AfD is over, people should just let this go. Beta thanks again for letting us use your talk page. -Husnock 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your desire to avoid original research, however you know how it goes, you have to start the ball rolling before you have an article that is acceptable - the articles that people call "stubs". While I think it may have been best for Beta to abstain from articles where he has strong personal feelings, as I feel this is a conflict of interest situation, I also don't see any lasting harm coming to Wikipedia from two articles staying, out of 1,500,000+. A couple extra pages really isn't going to hurt that much. I believe it is probably much more useful to point out where the problems are to the editors working on the article than it is to simply delete it. This satisfies both parties - you will have an article with no original research, and they will not have their article deleted. I think that would be the best outcome in this matter. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Hello.. I found your name from the requests for Bots page, I would like to put the WikiProject tag to a number of categories, most probably nearly all the articles listed under Cat:Turkey and its subcategories, minus a few. How does that work? Do I use the bot myself after filling some sort of form or does someone have to it for me, and if so how will it happen? I tried especially to put a WPTR tag on provinces, cities, history but there were simply too many! :) Cheers! Baristarim 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a bot created to do that, please go to Wikipedia:Bots and request a bot be created in the appropriate section. It should have instructions on how to do so there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Or, just wait on Betacommand to reply, this is exactly what betacommand's bot does. —— Eagle 101 (ask me for help) 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Beta Command... You clearly did NOT read my notes. You simply voted as a team against a non admin. IF you had.. You would have read the UPDATE and CORRECTED link going ONLY to the article to bypass the page that was only partly similar to a DMOZ site, in that it is directory of only actual companies and not internet spam companies- but it has articles. It is NOT an advertising site. My argument wasn't for the site, it was that DMOZ not have exclusivity since it is not really open. My corrections were not read- IF you HAD checked the CORRECTED link- you would have seen that. If anyone reads this they may be more carefull to see if you are truly objective and not acting in a pack manor with other admins which will put YOU in a bad light. I am not an admin. What is your excuse for not reading the corrected link and simply closing rank to discourage users from getting a fair opionion? Wiki is meant to grow not close off to existing admins.--162.83.180.170 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for spamming, and you did not present an apology, you presented a personal attack against the admin who blocked you. Unless you were looking for a longer block, that was not wise. As is, if the block is not indefinite, then wait it out and just edit afterwards. Otherwise, I suggest an apology and appeal to the admin you attacked, and to Beta for your unfounded allegations. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks are a bad thing and User:162.83.180.170 clearly should appologize for them. However I cheched his edits and I do not think that what he added was spam. It was a link to a directory of companies, providing described service. While the source might not have been sufficiently good for Wikipedia and its inclusion is a matter of oppinion, it was not spam. User:162.83.180.170 might have been blocked for revert waring, but per WP:AGF and WP:BITE calling him spammer and blocking him was too strict. (BTW.: My personal oppinion is that Wikipedia does not need links he added.) --Jan.Smolik 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well even if the link was good, (s)he should argued it's merits, instead of attacking the administrators involved. Incivility is a good way to increase block times. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon, Thank you also for NOT READING. This pack mentality of admins makes you appear desperate to please the adins so you may remain part of their group. If you would have CHECKED the history and the last LINK UPDATE- you would have seen the correction went only directly to an article. As for debating the merits, it is clear you do not appreciate that Wiki itself was once criticised by existing encyclopedias for it's new approach. This was merely a non-DMOZ information site specifically on the topic. But it was improved by my updating directly to the article that was relevant, instead of leaving the viewer to go to the original index page. You still are arguing over an updated link that has no directory part of the page, and a block WAS issued without checking. Gwernol and any person so hopeful of adminiship will be a deterrent to Wiki's growth if they do not take time to read, verify what is said, and correct. The apology should be GWENRNOL's and BetaCommands, and Wizardry Dragon's to me. Because they are failing to check the updated link that would NOT have resulted in a block. The scaries thing to read is Wizardry Dragon sad comment that my protest of their error, was "a good way to increase block time". This is not a communist site where free opinion on the talk page should warrant punishment.

Any admin reviewing this should see the changed link, see the block was given without checking within less than what appeared to be ten seconds. The admin was POUNCING and the additional reviewers were simply repeating the error by not reading or fearing dissent. It is just ludicrous and silly to see the ignorance of facts and checking on the change made.

Wiki should not be a popularity contest amongst admins and wannabee admins. It should be accurate. In my opinion if Gwernol and the two added opionion's (who FAILED to read and follow the updated link of the last edit change) determined the entire opion of Wiki, far fewer would be here today. Wiki does not want you to alientate the attempts of others and rush to rash decisions without READING.

Thank you for reading Jan, and for giving an opinion that appears rational, unbiased and considerate. Especially the part where you aptly indicated the inclusion of the source was more a matter of opionion, even though you did not think it was needed. Regarding the "personal attack", I assure you it was me, a contributor who felt attacked when IN GOOD FAITH, I changed and improved the link to an article only. By not having it read, and having a BLOCK put on me, so that I could not even communicate, I take the highest offense. It was the thwarting of my ability to communicate. I have written for this complaint to be viewed on the backlog of complaints because it was so frustrating to be part of such behavior.

Gwernol in my opinion is like a good prosecutor, who in hurry for speed would accidently convict only a few wrong people. But on is too many. Hence the complaint stands and the tip to not go into law enforcement! LOL --162.83.180.170 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not participate in personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [[Image:Alex garden.jpg]]

Hi,

You deleted [[Image:Alex garden.jpg]] with the reason "speedy deletion under I7". I'm inquiring as to how the tag used in the description was a "clearly invalid fair-use tag". The only dispute, to my knowledge, was over whether it was a replaceable fair use item, not whether the tag itself was invalid. The pending deletion was disputed, yet you deleted it without discussion or justification.

At the very least, a note on the talk page or the disputer's talk page seems appropriate. — ceejayoz talk 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJay, this is actually an ongoing debate coming after Jimbo said that most fair use images should be replaced with public domain images. Beta just deleted this and several others that were tagged because of this a few days ago. If they were improperly tagged, he can undelete it for you. if it was fair use, it may help to clarify to Beta how it was a fair use image that was not replaceable. Cheers ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I listed a rationale (duplicated on the talk page) after receiving the notice that it could be deleted, which was apparently ignored as the image wound up speedy deleted anyways. I was under the impression that disputing the pending deletion in the manner laid out in the deletion notice would at least put it on hold until a discussion could take place. — ceejayoz talk 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Beta probably just missed the tag, CJay. Beta went through the entire backlog that day, so there was bound to be one or two things he missed. If you could provide a summation of the rationale here, Beta can probably have it undeleted if the rationale is reasonable. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The image is now undeleted, CJay. if there are any further problems let I or Betacommand know. Cheers! ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49 4 December 2006 About the Signpost
Arbitration Committee elections open The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek AfDs

The same people are back at it. Coolcat believes they are purposefully hitting these articles with AfDs, I kind of agree with him but will hold off on making any accusations. See:

Thank you! -Husnock 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, please see WP:N and WP:V. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT should also be reviewed by the mass AfDers. -Husnock 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Husnock, it should also be reviewed by yourself. Chris cheese whine 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Following my edits around, Nebor? Like the way I look or something? How have I violated WP:POINT? Please, tell me. Have I AfDed four articles in under a week to antogonize the people who wrote them? Nope, that was other people. -Husnock 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to suggest the nominations are a deliberate attempt to antagonise you? Chris cheese whine 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Coolcat claims he is gathering such evidence. This whole thing just stinks, it really does. The exact same people are AfDing articles on the same subject and have brought up four of them to AfD in just over a week and then, in two cases where they were kept, launched into a deletion review. There is also the matter that Starfleet Security was nominated for deletion just a few minutes after I had finished a rewrite to make it better. Almost as if they saw me doing that and then said "Lets piss him off now by AfDing after he did all that work". A fourth article was nominated for deletion in the middle of the debate about Starfleet Security, by the same person, almost as if it was a tactic to try and get Coolcat to say something uncivil. I'm not saying that every single person who is voting Delete is in on some kind of thing, but a blind man could see that there appears to be certain people who, for whatever reasons, are trying thier damnest to get these articles off of Wikipedia. I have to wonder, I have to ask: are they doing this because they don't like the articles or are they doing this becuase they don't like the editors involoved with them. After all, no talk page discussions on user Pages, indeed comments seem to be heavily sarcastic, calling articles "crap", edits "hogwash", and making statements that the sources provided are either distorted or flat out untrue. You, yourself, are throwing things in like telling me to go visit an unencyclopedic website after I indicated I would like to start working on a new article. Why would you say that? As well as childish comments on the JAG AfD page when Coolcat and I are trying to explain ourselves and make these articles better? And, yes, we've had some personal attacks with me being called "contempable"; I am waiting to see if more name calling does not occur. Something stinks here and I don't like it. P.S.- THANK YOU BETA FOR LETTING US USE YOUR TALK PAGE! -Husnock 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Beta, as an Admin, can you close these two AfDs? Law in Star Trek is now a sourced informative article and Starfleet Security should never have been AfDed in the first place. People continue to use these AfD pages to make comments about the contributors to these articles, call the articles names, and act sarcastically towards those who are trying to improve these articles. Enough is enough, lets close these things. Thank you so much! -Husnock 05:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Ian 101

Can you explain to me why you fully protected a user talk page? Sure, the user is a delinquent, but why did it require a full protection? Diez2 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If the user using the talk page is blocked and is being disruptive there, they may find the page protected to further stem their disruptiveness. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments such as You know what fuck wikipedia, screw u i'll hack into your webpage in fuckin want to is what made me push to protect the page, after I declined an unblock Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot)

[edit] switching license templates

Let me know as soon as your bot has finished replacing CopyrightFreeUse. I'm going to delete that template and remove any references to it in the pedia. It looks like we're close - only about 1000+ to go! Thanks for your work on this. I'm determined to get the licensing template situation cleaned up. I'll probably have a few more lined up for you soon. It's such a mess right now. Kaldari 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Hey Betacommand, were you still planning on finishing the template switch? It looks like there are less than 1,000 left. I'm tempted to try to do the rest by hand, but it would probably take me a couple months :) Kaldari 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survival Horror

I was curious about why my entry for Survival Horror was deleted. It was not an advertisement, and was not promoting a company, producr, group, or service. Please let me know why this was deleted, because I followed the rules as I read them, and it did not violate any of the rules in the generap criteria. Mikehendo 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please also be aware of proper tone and wording, to adhere to WP:NPOV and avoid "weasel words". ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, what I meant is that i did not believe it to be in violation of the rules. If it was, please let me know how i can correct this. Mikehendo 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It appeared to be G11 at first glace because of the links, but upon futher examination it was aslo G1 Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

G1 being patent nonsense? "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content"? The purpose was to reference a series of role playing games and in time to provide possible campaigns, NPC templates, etc. Mikehendo 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose my have been that but the article was not Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to provide an article that achieves those goals after i get back from work. Have a great day Mikehendo 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decorated Period a stub?

Short, yes, succinct, yes, but a stub? You should have seen it when I found it (and it wasn't labelled as a stub)! SiGarb | Talk 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops! So it was, and I left it there...! Sorry about that. Would you personally rate it as a stub, or not? SiGarb | Talk 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)––––––
Personally I don't rate pages :) Im just a bot operatiorBetacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Wheaton

No clue what that page is about or what's going on with it, but whatever-it-is appears to have moved to Scott M. Wheaton now that Scott Wheaton is blocked. DMacks 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ARCH bot request

Massive thanks for that. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of stubs

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean.... SGGH 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Ah, well thats the problem, we don't have any stub templates, I was hoping that the bot could assess as a stub rated article any unassessed article in our wikiproject which has a stub template from anything (for example...ARWEN ACE has 'This firearms-related article is a stub. You can help by expanding it') I hope this is possible?SGGH 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have an Idea. Create a stub template for your project. Ill have my bot add it if it finds another stub tag. and then tag all the pages with the new template. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 11:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HI cats

Thank you. Left you a msg on the bot requests page under the hawaii section, letting you know I forgot to include the unassessed articles cat as well. —Viriditas | Talk 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've left you a new request for stub assessment in the same section. If you need me to modify my request in any way, please let me know. I appreciate your time. —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of no source tag on image

Hello. I was wondering why you removed the {{no source}} template from Image:Roywink2.jpg in this edit? You didn't add source information or provide an edit summary. Thanks. Khatru2 07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

the page appeared to have source info Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It has a description and a license but no source information. Do you have any objection to me reverting your change? Khatru2 07:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
revert Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new "how to get started" page for writing bots - your opinion?

I think there is confusion on how to go about starting a bot (eg here and here) and there is no wikipage covering this, the main bot page talks only about policy, not avenues for getting started, how to make a bot etc. I have made a suggestion that a howto page be established and, as a frequent editor helping out with bots, I would appreciate your comments. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD close rationales

Any chance of a brief explanation of the rationale behind your closes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General ? "The result was Keep" might be seen as a bit short on details for AfDs where many editors argued that there were were non-negotiable content policy issues mandating deletion (i.e. WP:NOR). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to know. Original research cannot fufill verifiablity requirements, and at the very most/least to me, the AfDs seems to have no consensus. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since neither of those was original research, the reason should be clear. Law in Star Trek now had a very clear external source while Starfleet Security was referenced with several in-line citations from movies and episodes. The entire AfDs were nothng but nasty business. Even when the defenders of the article tried to compromise and reference the mateiral, we were met with heavy sarcasim and incivility. Coolcat and Husnock were even offically reported for harrasing other users and making personal attacks against other users [2]. This thing had to end, as a without-merit AfD. -Husnock 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you not close such things. I think your personal opinions may be getting in the way. Friday (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Friday, Husnock was not the closer, Betacommand was. Either was, citations to it's own canon consitutes self references, if not original research. Wikipedia policy is to avoid self-references, and as such they were clearly a contentious AfD, not as clear-cut as Husnock suggests. I would think that there is clearly no consensus (remember this defaults to keep), but Beta's closing I feel was probably premature, as the discourse was still ouccuring. At the very least he could have referred discussion to the appropriate talk page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 19:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What Peter said, but the reason I asked was that Betacommand had already closed a very similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia, not once, but twice. Rushing off to DRV without asking politely for an explanation is terribly non-U, even when it takes WSOD rather than AGF to believe that the closer didn't have a very big axe to grind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
He probably closed one and only skimmed over the other one before assuming it should be kept. I think it would be best for him to recuse himself from something he is personally invested in, myself, per Conflict of Interest regulations. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason that I closed as I did was because that 1. the AfD's were borderline Keep/no consensus. 2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General was completely rewritten addressing the issues that were given and in the AfD I saw no real issues that were not addressed in the rewritten article. 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security there was no consensus to delete it was again borderline. 4. In cases that I see are borderline I WP:AGF and go to the more positive side of caution. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced, given that WP:NOR is non-negotiable, and that your rationale smells like vote-counting, but it'll have to do. By my reading, the articles are still loaded with original research, and this issue will never be resolved so long as the primary contributor has no understanding of what constitutes original research. Still, there's always the chance Husnock will read and understand WP:NOR, or failing that, the restatement at WP:ATT. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"The primary contributor has no understanding of what constitutes original research"- rather insulting since we bent over backwords to find an established outside source to add it to the Law in Star Trek article. Similar searches are underway to find Starfleet Security references in text and literature. So, yes, I do know what Original Research is. See my user page for the dozens of articles I've written to and contributed to. -Husnock 13:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not about finding an "established outside source", it's about not filling in the gaps. The correct order is "find references -> write article", not vice versa. Chris cheese whine 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If a person is not "allowed" to write an article before they find a referenece, then why have stubs? In the above case, we found a reference, its in the article and the article is now sourced. The AfD is over, people should just let this go. Beta thanks again for letting us use your talk page. -Husnock 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your desire to avoid original research, however you know how it goes, you have to start the ball rolling before you have an article that is acceptable - the articles that people call "stubs". While I think it may have been best for Beta to abstain from articles where he has strong personal feelings, as I feel this is a conflict of interest situation, I also don't see any lasting harm coming to Wikipedia from two articles staying, out of 1,500,000+. A couple extra pages really isn't going to hurt that much. I believe it is probably much more useful to point out where the problems are to the editors working on the article than it is to simply delete it. This satisfies both parties - you will have an article with no original research, and they will not have their article deleted. I think that would be the best outcome in this matter. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

Hello.. I found your name from the requests for Bots page, I would like to put the WikiProject tag to a number of categories, most probably nearly all the articles listed under Cat:Turkey and its subcategories, minus a few. How does that work? Do I use the bot myself after filling some sort of form or does someone have to it for me, and if so how will it happen? I tried especially to put a WPTR tag on provinces, cities, history but there were simply too many! :) Cheers! Baristarim 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a bot created to do that, please go to Wikipedia:Bots and request a bot be created in the appropriate section. It should have instructions on how to do so there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Or, just wait on Betacommand to reply, this is exactly what betacommand's bot does. —— Eagle 101 (ask me for help) 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 50 11 December 2006 About the Signpost
From the editor: New feature
Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit
Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire
Trolling organization's article deleted WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt"
News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VP Approvals

Good evening! I noticed that you are the last one to have processed any VandalProof Approval Requests [3], so I was hoping you might be able to help with the backlog of requests currently waiting, or at least point those of us who are waiting for decisions to someone more appropriate who can help. I (and the others on the list) would appreciate your help (or at least advice on who else to contact) when you have a chance. Thanks in advance! —Krellis 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops... it seems I'm unable to read history, I wasn't paying enough attention and noticed that you had actually done some work on the backlog recently. I was thinking I was looking at the edit from November (which was also you). Anyway, if there's a better person to poke who might be able to clear some more of the approval requests up, please let me know. —Krellis 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BOT question

Given the current status of Jmax-bot, would it be acceptable for me to fulfill this request? --Jmax- 03:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Ignore this question, thanks. --Jmax- 09:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For You

The Silver Wiki Award
Oftentimes sysops end up with tasks that can make them less than popular, but they nonetheless serve the wiki with integrity, thought, and preseverence. This award is for just that, Betacommand - you've fielded a lot of flak for you actions against vandalism, but you've always been professional. This award is in recognition of that and your priceless contributions in fighting vandalism. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality) 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] law enforcement

Regarding your request for the stub templates, sorry its taken so long to get around to replying to you.

{{law-enforcement-stub}} is the law enforcement one

But i was still hoping that the bot would rate as stub class articles with any stub templates on them which are in the wikiproject. But if thats not poss, then ones with the above mentioned template will be great! SGGH 11:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks that is what i needed Ill work out the other stuff later. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] using new nobots template but not opt-in - acceptable?

Thank you for your comments during PocKleanBot's recent bot RFA. I'm (manually! no spamming! :-P ) contacting the bot operators and admins who commented on the bot's RFA to find out what their position would be to running the bot obeying the new nobots template but not using opt-in. Would this be acceptable to you or not? I think the nobots template is a great idea and I wish it had been introduced years ago and was more widespread. The only problem I can see running the bot this way is that there's going to be a whole lot of people out there who haven't heard of the nobots template and a few of those more violently opposed to bots adding a message to their tlak page will doubtless get irate just like last time. I would be interested in hearing your comments. - PocklingtonDan 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good like a good Idea especially the opt out the only bot that should be exempt is orphanbot. the nobot template should be implemented wiki wide. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 51 18 December 2006 About the Signpost
From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss" News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination) --Cat out 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle_101 Userspace deletion

Hey beta, what's the meaning behind the deletion of all those pages in Eagle_101's namespace? o_o; Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I did that per a request of eagle on IRC helping clear out his userspace. All I deleted were redirects within his userspace Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley Award

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5b

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

{{subst:debate bottem}}

[edit] Block of Irpen (talk · contribs)

Hi, there. I must admit I'm a tad concerned over your block of Irpen. I'm normally not one to wikilawyer, but while his comments were inappropriate on WP:PAIN, he wasn't given any warning (nor a block message after the block), so I think it might be a good idea to bring this up on WP:ANI as it seems to be a controversial block. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Cowman's concern. Are you planning to leave Irpen a block message any time soon? Bishonen | talk 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
I think this whole thing is quickly blowing up a lot more than it has to, and I feel responsible. Could someone leave a block message on his page, and let him cool down for however long the block is? I would myself, but I fear that'd just escalate the situation. I think the whole matter, at this point, could use some disengagement and cooling down. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
All right, Betacommand, the block was placed at 23:51, 25 minutes ago, and you have neither placed a block message on Irpen's page nor responded to concerns voiced here. Please respond, either here or on ANI, or I feel I'll have to unblock. Bishonen | talk 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't believe Betacommand is online right now. At the top of his page: "I am currently away" ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have to suggest you yourself don't do the unblocking, Bishonen, as you are clearly involved from incidents in the past, no offense. It would be better if a neutral administrator saw to this, lest we have a wheel war on our hands. An ANI report could handle that part. Cowman109Talk 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The could just request {{unblock}}, could they not? I'm rather leery of this thing blowing up more if posted to ANI, myself :| Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Cowman, and I won't if it's inappropriate, but the thing is, nobody knows about this block except people who happened to see the note on WP:PAIN--Betacommand hasn't posted the block anywhere, which is exactly the trouble. How do you figure I'm involved with Irpen? I don't know him. Do you mean I'm involved because I've posted on WP:PAIN, in the same thread as he did? Isn't that a little tenuous? Bishonen | talk 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
I think he drew that implication from the statement "I'll take a shot, Piotrus". I'm not saying it's correct, but I think that's where they got it. Can we just try to calm down a bit, all of us? All of this started over what I suppose was an overreaction on my part - let's not continue it with further overreactions, okay? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"Take a shot" at reviewing the warning of Ghirlandajo, yes. I didn't see that as anything to do with Irpen. And Cowman talks about "the past". Cowman, you were the one I asked, I'd appreciate an answer. Peter, frankly, to me you're the only one here that doesn't seem calm. What exactly is it you're urging us to do/not do? Are you saying unblocking Irpen would be an "overreaction"? Bishonen | talk 00:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

I was looking through WP:PAIN#Ghirlandajo_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 and I fail to see any personal attack by Irpen having sufficient venom to warrant a block, especially the 48h long. Please provide a rationale for this block Alex Bakharev 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling it was sustained attacks on the integrity of Peter. No comment on whether it merited a block or not. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was in part due to such notes such as this diff, an edit that only served to inflame matters by suggesting people were ganging up on IRC against Ghirlandajo. I don't believe that such comments warranted a block, especially without warning, but I do agree his comments were unnecessarily inflammatory as he seemed to put too much emphasis, in my opinion, explaining how he believed the user who issued the warning to Ghirlandajo was inexperienced and foolish, while this matter could have gone so much more smoothly if it was simply mentioned that he believed such a warning was inappropriate without all the comments about user behavior. This is really being blown out of proportion. Cowman109Talk 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel a block in this case is definitely a knife's edge borderline case. I would have felt a lot more comfortable with it, however, if there was at least a warning on their talk page. As this was not the case, I noted the block on the PAIN report. I dont want this blown out proportion any more than it has, so if they request an unblock and are not going to bother me or further aggrivate PAIN, I'm okay with it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the block is to do with Irpen's behaviour on WP:PAIN. Anyway, just to let all know that I've added {{npa5}} and details of when the block expires onto Irpen's user talk page. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cowman that Irpen's criticism of IRC was misplaced and unnecessary inflammatory. I also agree with Bishonen and Cowman that the matter does not warrant a block. Since there seems to be a consensus that the block was excessive and Betacommand is not here to explain his block I am unblocking Irpen Alex Bakharev 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection here. Cowman109Talk 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think he knows that he's been blocked by now, Heligoland. It would have been good if Betacommand had given specific reasons and preferably some example of a personal attack—this both for the information of the user, and to make the block reviewable by other admins without fumbling in the dark. Anyway, I've posted a request for review on WP:ANI. Not an "overreaction" to a 48-hour hit-and-run block for unspecified personal attacks, in my opinion. Bishonen | talk 01:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
Oh, good. Alex, please make a note of your action on ANI. Cowman, for the third time of asking, would you mind telling me how you reckon I was "involved"? Bishonen | talk 01:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
The user now being unblocked, I don't see there being any positive outcome from dragging the issue on further. He was (in our conjecture) blocked over, as Bryant put it, "sustained attacks on the integrity of Peter". I'm not complaining any further. I don't have an issue. I just want this done with. So let's not drag it on, please? There is no reason to drag an admin who seems to have acted in good faith to ANI for a minor misstep. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that this block was misplaced. Irpen should have received a npa template at best, it is Ghirla who made most of the offences in this case. Either way, don't worry, Beta, we all make mistakes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, while your own desysopping is under discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, any anti-Ghirlandajo rant is misplaced. As for Betacommand's actions, I view his abuse of tools as disruptive and strongly urge to start a desysopping process on this issue. If I'm not mistaken, some IRC advice played a part in his "decision". It's enough to check the previous thread to see what dictates his admin actions. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Desysopping is grossly excessive. There's no evidence that Betacommand acted in anything other than good faith in blocking a user he believed was being uncivil towards another user. I'm a regular on IRC and all the admins I know won't block just because a friend asks them for a block, they are always conscious about following the rules, whether it be warnings for vandalism, warnings for spam or ensuring there is truth to any allegation made of any other user. If a totally unknown user posted a complaint about Irpen on IRC or on Wikipedia and Betacommand was about, I know Betacommand would act in the same manner. I also think the block was justified but can accept that a lack of prior warnings over Irpens conduct is a concern here. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 08:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
A 48-hour-block for an established contributor with no previous history of civility blocks was justified? Justified by what? Sorry, I don't follow your line of thought. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Irpen's conduct towards Peter on WP:PAIN - Totally unacceptable in my opinion. Irpen has avoided blocks before but he's certainly not an innocent party in this, he was spotted removing civility warnings from another users talk page by Cyde earlier on yesterday too. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 08:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Only because Cyde had no business placing them there in the first place. Giano 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish I had no business placing them there, but alas, you make it necessary. When will you realize that your rampant incivility is only getting you and your friends in trouble, and that you would be best served by taking it down a half dozen notches? --Cyde Weys 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please check your facts Cyde - don't you care at all what the community thinks of your actions? Are you're IRC friends happy about your behaviour? Giano 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I am sorry for not placing a notice in the user's talk page I had a real world issue to handle. I pressed the save button an walked away to handle that. when I came back I had a "loss of session data" error. the reason behind the block? plain and simple personal attacks. if you read the PAIN thread you can clearly see the attacks both on wizardry dragon and the other users. there is a zero tolerance for personal attacks, I have see a several personal attacks from Irpen. that is why I blocked. 48 hours might have been slightly too much but in regard to personal attacks i dont think so Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
PS Cyde never contacted me over this issue on IRC or wiki. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for not placing a notice, but not sorry for the block? Recalcitrance, lack of conferring with others, deciding "there is zero tolerance" and then, and here's the sneaky part, deciding that a personal attack has taken place, and all without any conferring with anyone! Amazingly bad behavior, there. That you then went offline and only explained anything, to anyone, here, on your own talk page, a day later only makes the offense worse. How about this: there is zero tolerance for unilateralism. Confer, confer, confer, and do it on Wikipedia. Go to AN/I and ask. Go to AN/I and announce (second choice) as you explain. By all means, though, seek resolution long before you reach for the block button. Warn. Plead. Wheedle, if necessary. Count to ten. Count to a hundred. While you count, ask other people what they think. Doing none of those is abusive. Geogre 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Let us find out what happened

I'm concerned to have been told that Betacommand was also involved in initiating the block of Giano. Is that right, Betacommand, and if so, could you say what's going on? My apologies if I have it wrong, but I'd appreciate some clarification. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin the only part that I played was asking for a {{npa}} warning for Giano II as some of the comments that they made where pa's. I did not ask for or want a block in this situation all that I asked for was a simple npa warning, nothing more. I knew as an involved party that I should not do so. So I asked for a unbiased third party to take a look and if needed issue the warning. I had no knowledge of said block until I came back online over an hour later. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please point out where I have ever addressed a remark directly to you, or mentioned your name? Giano 07:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
the comments that were in question were not necessarily to me with your infantile and hostile warnings in the future copied from:WP:ANI#Giano.27s_rampant_incivility Oh look everyone [60] another little IRC kid has turned up! copied from:WP:ANI#Giano.27s_rampant_incivility and there are others along with your previous block for personal attacks. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
..."and there are others along with your previous block for personal attacks." Why would you want an npa to cover comments for which someone had already been previously blocked? Doesn't that make them "old business"? – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:26, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).
The previous matter did affect the npa warning other than to show that this there is a history of npa. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Last night you instigated a conversation in IRC with words stating clearly that I threatened to have you desysoped and banned along with Cyde. I want the diff for that, not that with Cyde, for you. I want to see the truth of your statement.
  • You then went on to ask for help which led to block of me for that reason. Either you were copy-pasting rather carelessly the words of another, or you were deliberately misleading. Which? If I don't have a straight answer we can go to all the others in that chat room discussing this with you and ask them what they understood you to mean. I'm not bothered I have nothing to lose. Giano 16:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I stated that, But I later stated that I had made a misquote about you in that statement and that it was Ghirlandajo on my talk page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No you did not make a mistake. You later claimed I had said to you "Are you're IRC friends happy about your behaviour?" So where did I say that to you? You did not mistake me for Ghirlandajo because you went on to say "Ghirlandajo's comments should be looked at". You were either misleading or copy pasting someone else's words. Which? Giano 17:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In case it clears up any confusion: in the previous section, "Block of Irpen", Giano directed the question "Are you're IRC friends happy about your behaviour?" to Cyde. At my window width, that question begins a new (unbulleted) line, the previous line being the (bulleted) first line addressing Cyde. A hasty reading might not connect the two lines, leaving the second seeming directed at Betacommand simply because this is his talk page.
I can't count the number of online (Usenet, blog, list) arguments I've seen which stemmed from misreadings or misrememberings of who said what to whom. May I suggest that one extra disadvantage of IRC is the immediacy, and thus haste, of discussion, allowing less time to check the record and think things over, making misreadings and misrememberings more likely? And that another disadvantage of IRC is the impossibility of anyone else going back and reviewing the record, then attaching to it clarifications like this? Sometimes you need more eyes on a topic than just whoever's online at the time. – SAJordan talkcontribs 18:55, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Also, the frequent absence of whitespace lines between separate comments here made it easy for those two lines of a single comment to misread as separate comments. If whitespace consistently separated comments here, it would have been more clear that these two lines, unseparated, were one comment. – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:11, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).
I am stepping back now before I say anything stupid, I am attempting to find a page that I saw yesterday. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
PS I did not state that the comments were said to me, only that they were PA's Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No matter to whom it was said, how does "Are you're IRC friends happy about your behaviour?" constitute a personal attack? – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:13, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Lets end this I had no part in having the block placed. end of story all I asked for was a npa warning. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Baseballthinkfactory

WHy was Baseballthinkfactory deleted? I strongly disagree with this decision. This site is mentioned regularly by ESPN, and is in the wikipedia article on Sabermetrics. This is one of the most important sites on the web for Sabermetrics, and its deletion was a huge mistatke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.46.138.218 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penguin

Per your request I'm notifying you that I'm unprotecting this article. Feel free to reprotect it if the vandalism resumes. Thanks, Alphachimp 21:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medievia

Hello--your bot just tagged Talk:Medievia with WP:MMOG; being a MUD, that article doesn't fall under the scope of WP:MMOG. I didn't want to just delete the tag from the talk page, but if you think that's appropriate, go ahead.

Like all machines BetacommandBot isnt fool proof. If there is a misstag please fix. I am just Tagging per a request Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I sort of understand why you blocked me, but...

Please see my post to here--->[[4]] and please get back to me on my talk page.TheAnonomousFundraiser 01:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

These names are mostly disallowed due to the potential for misrepresentation, impersonation, and sometimes harassment (believe it or not, there have been people with these kind of names participating in harassment). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of fairuse images

Hi there, I noticed that you deleted an image that I uploaded on fair use claims. However, contrary to policy, you didn't notify me about this. Thanks. —lensovet–talk – 09:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's generally the responsibility of the person who tags it to inform you, though Beta should have checked to make sure that you had been informed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 14:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I'm curious: Why did you revert the bot's edit [5]? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 52 26 December 2006 About the Signpost
Seven arbitrators chosen Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof Approvals

Hello. There is a huge list of users waiting approval for Vandalproof and since December 15 no new approvals were done. Please do something about it! Thanks and have a happy new year :) --KaragouniS 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppet Vandal

Hello I am currently having a problem with a Vandal I believe to be RevolverOcelotX. He deleted my attempts at a check user on a Apocalyptic Destroyer. If you check my page you will see that another user has been active there and my IP adress page has even been vandalised. I rarely edit, but wanted the it to be known about this puppeteer.ShuckyDucky 03:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of policy violation here, so there no rationale for a checkuser. This is a retaliatory request by ShuckyDucky for his content dispute in the Bruce Lee article. ShuckyDucky made improper report here which should be deleted. Guardian Tiger
I'm sorry this is being brought up on your page...but I have no prior dealings with Guardian Tiger before tonight. It is rather curious that he is following me around to every page I have edited. Why was the my report deleted? The admins can dismiss the report if it is wrong? Thank You.ShuckyDucky 04:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop spamming talk pages with the same message and adhere to Wikipedia's policies. What you did is considered vandalism in Wikipedia. I suggest that you gain consensus on the talk page before making drastic changes to other editor's works. Guardian Tiger

[edit] Thanks for approving me

Thanks for approving me! -- DJREJECTED 16:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello! That's wonderful news. Thanks for the Christmas gift! Question for you: when it is downloaded, does it go with the user account? or the PC. The reason I ask is because I have a wireless laptop that I use often, and a PC at home. Just figuring out where to download best, or if it matters. Again, thanks.--Pinay (talk•email) 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. --Pinay (talk•email) 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof

Hi, I noticed that I was approved to use VandalProof. I tried to login, and it said that I was not on the userlist, yet I was. What's up with that? Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] running Vandalproof

Hello! I have already downloaded Vandalproof, and tried it out for a couple of minutes. My internet went down, and when I logged back in, I did not know where or how to run Vandalproof again. I will appreciate an enlightenment. Thank you. --Pinay (talk•email) 07:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I had a similar problem as well. I downloaded Vandalproof, but when I pressed on the verify button it told me that I wasn't on the list. I think that I have a dynamic IP, might that be the reason? Cheers! Baristarim 14:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VandalProof

Thanks for taking the time to go through all of the approvals for VandalProof today. It looks like it was quite a task. ~ BigrTex 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Yes. Thank you for approving me. Cheers, PullToOpenTalk 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for approving me, but i've a problem: Everytime I press Verify Authorization the program says Your are not on the User list. How can I fix this error?! --KaragouniS 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for approving me too! I have a problem: I keep getting kicked out of using VandalProof for various reasons. I keep getting these warning messages.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I keep getting Rune-time error '91' Does that mean anything?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome message. Culverin? Talk 00:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for slogging through that backlog and approving (most) everyone! Cheers, Dar-Ape 17:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please approve me? Lego1496 08:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Migrating CopyrightedFreeUse

Hey Betacommand, were you planning on finishing the template migration from CopyrightedFreeUse to PD-release? If you don't have time to finish it, I can repost the request for another bot to pick up. It looks like there are only about 1000 transclusions left to switch, then we can finally delete that template (which people are still inexplicably adding on a daily basis, even though it says in the template that it's deprecated). Kaldari 06:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BAG

Hello. I would like to be on the bot approvals group, and since you yourself are in the group, it would be great if you can stop by and either support or oppose my request. Thank you! —Mets501 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Approve!

I have been working away tonight, and I really want to use VandalProof. I have quite a few edits, but not 200. Lego1496 09:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing a tag

Hey there. A user put a "this reads like an advertisement" tag on a page I wrote, and doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue or remove the tag, and I don't know how to go about removing it without someone else's help. I don't know too much about this stuff, but I'm pretty sure I can't remove a tag from a page I wrote. Discussion at the Electric Mirror talk page. Any help would be appreciated! thanks Squidge37 01:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)