User talk:Betacommand/20080601
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Blocked for 3RR on WP:BOTS
I've blocked you and Locke Cole for 24 hours for edit-warring on WP:BOTS. — Werdna talk 06:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
How would I get a page reinstated?
Hello.
I have a query about how to reinstate a deleted page.
A page regarding a band was deleted because it was considered to be a non notable band.
The article in question was regarding Enochian Theory, of which i believe you were involved in the deletion process.
I am a frequent user of wikipdeia and have noticed in my near daily forays that there are atricles for other artists on the site which have less references and sources cited than the article in question.
What is the criteria for these articles to stay and for other more referenced articles to continue to exist.
Below are acouple of examples...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentaporta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Zero
I believe recent devolpments with Enochian Theory, have made them a notable band and would like to now how I should go about trying to reinstate the article.
Many thanks
Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr B Bond (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/
Hi,
Why did you redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ - to - Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/rohittripathi.blogspot.com?
This doesn't make any sense.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ should be the entry point at which multiple sites have links to their project pages.
Thanks,
IP4240207xx (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was reverting page move vandalism. βcommand 03:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you aware of this "petition" which lists you as a supporter? Do you really want to reinstate the "Siberian" Wikipedia? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- yet more people attempting to impersonate me. βcommand 2 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bot requests
Hi, in this section Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_needed_to_clean_up_50.2C000.2B_disambiguation_pages of the bot requests page, you mentioned that you might be interested in the disambiguation cleanup project. I'm checking to see whether or not you are. Someone else has just left a message offering to write the bot, so since you left your message first I wanted to check with you first. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Are we still working on...
User:BetacommandBot/Sandbox 3? You did not answer my last message; I hope we can wrap this up quickly and perhaps devise some semi-standarized tool to do such counts for other categories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- sorry I got distracted. let me get some stuff together. βcommand 01:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
WPF1 NW 200806
It is posted here. The recipients are where they normally are. Chubbennaitor 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks
This is just a friendly reminder to chill. Invoking the dick principle in the way you did is a personal attack. Kindly respect the fact that your fellow contributors might have a legitimate point to make. Andre (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- invoking m:Dick was not a personal attack but rather an observation, the Bot Approval Group used to close those discussions that where obvious, but the community decided that to avoid and prevent a clique like environment that Bureaucrats should take full responsibility for BAG nomination closures. Your rude, disrespectful, comment ignoring the decision that the community made was uncalled for and out of line for someone in your position. Im sorry if you dont like the fact that I am blunt and call things how I see them, but you where out of line with your original post. βcommand 02:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
VandalProof is not working
I have been accepted by Daniel for VandalProof user rights. However, when I run the VandalProof program (logged on to Wikipedia in Internet Explorer), VP shows up my IP Address instead of my username. I click "ch" and type in my username and password, however, that does not work as well. Any ideas? Prowikipedians (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Addition to cat wrap
Hi
What I want is instead of reading the trusted list of users from inside the bot is to read it from a page on the wiki where it could be edited by other people than me. could you do that please?--Alnokta (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, problem, Ill send it to you on IRC in about 24 hours. βcommand 2 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Bot
Hello. I'm StewieGriffin!. I am interested in making a bot, and was wondering if you could give me some advice. How did you do it? What did you read? After making a bot, what then? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- what languages to you know? βcommand 2 15:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Retract your incorrect template
I am well within my rights to dispute that policy via WP:BRD. I have done my work for today, but I will not allow you and others to WP:OWN those pages. It is not vandalism nor is it disruption. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- like hell its not, changing the meaning of long standing policy without consensus is vandalism. It was reverting once per WP:BRD please read what you quote, BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. you attempted to ignore megabytes of previous discussion regarding that topic and remove text from the policy. (as you call it being "BOLD") it was reverted ("REVERT"). instead of discussing you re-reverted against consensus, and policy, at that point it becomes vandalism and disruption of policy pages. Please read prior discussions before making a complete fool of your self again. βcommand 02:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand...
Don't do this. You are smarter than that. You can come out of this situation on top and in the right without needlessly inflaming things. Grandmasterka 02:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I call them as I see them. that was clear cut vandalism. knowingly changing policy against consensus is vandalism. Im not going to coddle those users who cannot understand and follow policy when they know better. βcommand 02:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Beta, you can call the situation without escalating to the badwords. Your edit summary could just as easily show "changing policy against consensus" or "rv - pls discuss on talk", it's only a few more characters to type. You lose some support from the rest of us when you label as vandalism what some others would label a policy dispute. I support you on this particular change, but you don't have to be the sole defender-of-the-wiki - if it's that wrong, someone else will change it back. In this case, I would revert it myself, for sure. Franamax (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- if you look, I stated that that change should not have been made without consensus in the prior revert. after the re-removal I considered it vandalism and reacted appropriately. the user in question failed to actually read what he was removing and the prior discussions about that piece of text prior to removing it. it was not a policy dispute it was clear cut vandalism. if one wants to significantly change a policy its brought to the talk page first. Please look into the history of WP:NFC and WP:NFCC prior to harassing me about perfectly valid vandalism reverts. these statements have been carefully developed over time to address issues that have come up. βcommand 03:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now you're saying I'm harassing you, and we're supposed to be deep into the period where the pressure is off Beta and he can be a normal contributor. Calm and relaxed? I won't push the subject beyond this, but: you had the option to open a thread all by yourself on the talk page, as your own contribution to BRD, where you could have said "I've reverted this edit as I don't believe it has consensus, please discuss it here in future". You, all by yourself, chose not to take that course and to instead pull out the vandalism label and edit toward your chosen version of status quo - and you have done that in the past, change it back and term it as vandalism. You had the option to initiate the discussion, whereupon every future revert you made could easily be summarized as "rv - see talk page". You discarded that option. When I try to comment on that process, you label it as "harassment", in the face of your "perfectly valid" actions. I've had some pretty spirited discussions on this wiki so far, but I've yet to be accused of harassment. Thanks for helping me to break new ground. Franamax (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- take a look at my actions. per BRD he was bold, I reverted with a comment (Longstanding policy placed here for good reason please do not remove without discussion) instead of attempting to discuss the situation Dragon695 reverts back to his removal, that violates WP:BRD. you completely fail to look at more than the single link that was given. the text that is refered to was added 12, 2007 by User:Wikidemo. had Dragon695 left it at WP:BRD we would not be having this discussion. Dragon695 ignored WP:BRD attempted to push is POV (complete lack of knowledge about policy) on others repeatedly and then when questioned he brings up that he was following WP:BRD when in fact he was ignoring it. so please dont jump all over me without knowing the facts. had Dragon695 actually attempted to discuss the issue prior to reverting a long standing policy against consensus we wouldnt be here. βcommand 06:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll break my promise to disengage - don't jump all over me without knowing the facts, I know how to click on the history and contribs buttons for everyone involved, checking talk pages of the remotely-involved parties and whatever admin and policy noticeboards could possibly be involved. In this case it looked like a pretty straightforward case where someone made an unacceptable policy change, which you reverted - fine so far - now the same user does it again, and you jump to vandalism. Beta, your reflexive attitude I guess prevents you from seeing the other way out - on the second go-round you, of your own volition, could have posted to the talk page, all by yourself, and said "I've reverted this edit because...", then for your second revert use the summary "pls see talk". It's as simple as that. You can set the stage for confrontation, or for defusion, it's within your grasp at all times. It's frustrating, 'cause you're an intelligent guy yet you seem to consistently choose the course of escalation, like everything is a battle that you have to win. If I jump all over you, that's what it's about - there are such easier ways to win other than head-on confrontation. I've been there. Franamax (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- take a look at my actions. per BRD he was bold, I reverted with a comment (Longstanding policy placed here for good reason please do not remove without discussion) instead of attempting to discuss the situation Dragon695 reverts back to his removal, that violates WP:BRD. you completely fail to look at more than the single link that was given. the text that is refered to was added 12, 2007 by User:Wikidemo. had Dragon695 left it at WP:BRD we would not be having this discussion. Dragon695 ignored WP:BRD attempted to push is POV (complete lack of knowledge about policy) on others repeatedly and then when questioned he brings up that he was following WP:BRD when in fact he was ignoring it. so please dont jump all over me without knowing the facts. had Dragon695 actually attempted to discuss the issue prior to reverting a long standing policy against consensus we wouldnt be here. βcommand 06:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now you're saying I'm harassing you, and we're supposed to be deep into the period where the pressure is off Beta and he can be a normal contributor. Calm and relaxed? I won't push the subject beyond this, but: you had the option to open a thread all by yourself on the talk page, as your own contribution to BRD, where you could have said "I've reverted this edit as I don't believe it has consensus, please discuss it here in future". You, all by yourself, chose not to take that course and to instead pull out the vandalism label and edit toward your chosen version of status quo - and you have done that in the past, change it back and term it as vandalism. You had the option to initiate the discussion, whereupon every future revert you made could easily be summarized as "rv - see talk page". You discarded that option. When I try to comment on that process, you label it as "harassment", in the face of your "perfectly valid" actions. I've had some pretty spirited discussions on this wiki so far, but I've yet to be accused of harassment. Thanks for helping me to break new ground. Franamax (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Request
Beta, could you trivially make a list of articles for me? I want a list of all the talk pages in here that belong to #REDIRECTs instead of to proper articles. Would it be really easy to create a list for me and stick it on my talk page or in subpage for me? It shouldn't be more than about fifty articles. I can do it by hand... it's just pretty tedious and seems like it would benefit from automation. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks!! WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Archiving AN
Re this? Some of these were removed far too quickly. I had to trawl through the archives to find out what happened to threads I had commented on or was interested in. Misza13's bot autoarchives AN and ANI; please don't remove threads that are not dead, or have only just been resolved. It also looks a bit like you used some kind of bot to do this as it also automatically edited people's signatures to remove underscores. Neıl 龱 08:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot to disable general fixes when making that archive. I archived stale request and those marked resolved for over an hour. Ive done it multiple times in the past for both AN and ANI. having long pages is very hard to those who have slower connections. βcommand 20:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Polish category count
So, when can we finish it? And pretty please, copy your reply to my talk page; I don't check other user talkpages often (since I don't get the new messages notification). It's easy, just click on my signature... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this hasn't run since march, do you have to ping it manually or is/was it automatic? and ditto Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi/fungus articles by size. If manual, could you run them again. They are great :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"oldrequestbot" for Articles requested for more than ...
Hi Beta. SimonP manually added AR3s to the AR1 page. The "oldrequestbot" bot can overwrite and/or add to these if need be. Bebestbe (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- can you see what you can do, Im thinking about doing the main switchover but I need more feedback from others (regarding the new format) as soon as we can, Id like to start the switch over to the usage of {{req}}. when that is done I can add the timestamps to the pages which will make working with the articles a lot easier. once all the REQUEST pages are converted maintenance will be a piece of cake. βcommand 01:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
hey, can you help me out here?
I am a rabid user of wikipedia, but i am currently on the Wiktionary doing some amazing edits, so i wont be back for a while. However, i require assistance with a bot i am making, the SinBot (creative, isnt it? The name is after my name, and it fights "sinning"), which will inform me whenever a page is created, what was said, and how much was said. Then, it will ask if i want to revert/delete that page. Also, it will inform me of pages that are blanked, and will issue a warning to the user as well as ask me if i wish to remake the page or not. However, i am very confused as to 1. Where the source that i created (see this page [1] please) goes in order for the bot to work, 2. What file to save it as (.?), 3. How to make sure the bot does what i have written, and 4. I need you to help me out by going over the code and seeing if it will do the action. This is a huge favor, and i will be in debt to you all my life, but please help me out here. My mom blocked all sites other than wikipedia and wiktiopnary so i cant go to outside sites, i cant download the tool everyones been using to make bots (pywikibot or something like that), and i can only go off my skills in programming. Please, please help me out here. Respond to me on the wiktionary @ [2]. If you do not have a wiktionary account, my account here is rarely used, but i will be able to respond ASAP. Please, please help me out, Iamthe7DeadlySins (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC).