User talk:Betacommand/20080401

Why did you remove a legitimate forum link?

On the People's General page you or your 'bot removed the link to Redball's Express but you left the link to another forum (PeG & PeG-WW2 at JP's Panzers). No rationale is given for that deletion.

Redball's Express is the only forum where SSI's original People's General game -- the subject of the Wikipedia article -- is regularly discussed. In fact, people at the JP's Panzer's forum generally refer their visitors to my forum.

I've reverted your edit. If there is other clean-up which you wish to do, please do it without removing legitimate content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redball2 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

forum links do not pass WP:RS and WP:V. β^_command 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how WP:RS and WP:V apply in this case as the links are not being used as references. Is there some other guideline that prohibits the inclusion of Forum links in articles if the referenced forums are primary forums for the discussion of the topic of the article as long as notability and references are based on WP:RS and WP:V? The article does need some additional references to meet wikipedia standards. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL can be tossed in there also. you need a strong reason to add forum links. this user has admitted that he has a conflict of interest, because he runs that forum. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, WP:NOT#LINK. unless there is a valid reason for including the link it shouldnt be there. β^_command 04:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is right: WP:EL strongly discourages links to chat boards. T"he relevant text is: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: [....] Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET." So unless the article is about the chat group itself, no such links belong on the page. Would you like to have all of the external links reviewed, so that we can more completely (and fairly) remove all chat boards? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that Betacommand has now allowed the link to Redball's Express (RE) to be included.

However, it seems to me that there are some editorial issues involved in this instance which Wikipedia ought to examine more carefully.

It's true in a crude sense: I have a "conflict of interest".... I actually know something about the topic in question. Presumably I am one of the people Wikipedia seeks to write articles.

I disagree that my editing of the People's General article constitutes a "conflict of interest" (COI) in any meaningful way including Wikipedia's own description of a COI: At most, by including a link to Redball's Express I am "citing oneself".

My "financial interest" in the topic of the article is that the more people who use my forum, the more money I pay ... and I get no income from it. I don't see any content in what I wrote or in the inclusion of the link to RE that

(forgoes) advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests

If I am merely trying to use Wikipedia as a "link farm" rather than inform its users then please feel free to revert all the way back to the June 2, 2007 12:53 version. That was a weak & uninformative stub article. I did an extensive rewrite of it on July 1, 2007.

I included a link to Redball's Express for the valid reason that any Wikipedia reader who wants to know more about People's General will find more carefully researched and documented information about it at Redball's Express (RE) than anywhere else. The game is not a particularly important part of human existence but anyone who does want information about it will eventually come to RE. (Nobody writes about what happens on game forums like RE so I can't give you third party verification of my statements. You'll have to check it for yourself, rely on my expertise or throw all this out.)

The information at RE is provided in the "chat" forum as well as a substantial FAQ library. There are chat forums on the Internet which consist of one line of blather and emoticons. There are also "chat" forums like RE which try to inform participants about the forum focus no matter how inconsequential it is.

I also included links to other forums and sites rather than simply naming my own forum -- but for this, RE is excluded and all those other sites remain.

But if WP:EL or WP:RS or WP:V have any significance for deleting the link to Redball's Express then why weren't they also applied to deleting the link to the PeG & PeG-WW2 forum at JP's Panzers?

Would you like to have all of the external links reviewed, so that we can more completely (and fairly) remove all chat boards?

In the context of removing external links from a single article, the answer is clearly "Yes".

IMO, Wikipedia's editing process is weakened by using 'bots, inconsistently applying rules such as WP:EL etc., and using kitchen sink logic to justify whatever you choose to do.

--Redball2 (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, my mistake -- now both links have been removed. Very helpful. Are you aware that you have left in links in this article where the site owners actually ARE charging fees and promoting products?

--Redball2 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Panzer General II page -- another title in the *General series of games from SSI. Once again, the JP's Forum and General's Guild Forum links are left in place despite a recent (March 21) edit by you BetaCommand. Both forums are pure chat -- numerous 1 liners. There is also a long list of web sites including several "clubs" which are also chat forums. So BetaCommand, why is it that you feel compelled to remove some forums but not others? Inquiring minds want to know. --Redball2 (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist. Forums are Links normally to be avoided, as already stated above. --Hu12 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, that's not even the argument that I am making so it doesn't matter whether you say it is "convincing".

My argument for inclusion of the Redball's Express link is that it constitutes a legitimate, important and unique source of information relevant to anyone who is interested enough to look at the topic in the first place. IMO, this fits the "strong reason" required for inclusion of an external link. That argument hasn't been addressed.

It is my contention that in this case, and probably in many others, external links to forums will probably provide the best source of additional information on older games. By contrast, external links to web sites merely provide downloads. If one wants to provide information to Wikipedia users then forums should often be included but web sites should usually be deemed "link farming".

In addition, I ASKED why BetaCommand uses the "no forums" rule to justify removing one link yet, until I point it out, he/she leaves other links in place which are exactly the same sort. I also ASKED why BetaCommand invokes the "no forums" rule for forum links placed under the "Forums" heading in an article, yet forums placed under the "Web Sites" heading are left in place.

Both of these link types have now been removed. But what exactly is BetaCommand's 'bot doing?

Finally, I am still ASKING why the "no conflict of interest" rule is invoked with its implication of financial gain yet web sites which actually SELL the products mentioned are left in place ("5 Star General PeG Downloads" cited on the People's General page and "The Five Star Generalio", sic, actually "The Five Star General", left on the Panzer General II page).

--Redball2 (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question about what exactly Betacommandbot was doing: It was moving a template. Last November. Since then, it has done nothing at all in either PG or PGII.

Are you aware that Betacommand is different from Betacommandbot? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

{{db|image replaced with an SVG version}}

Please take care with your tagging! Image:Cdalbumicon.png is very different from Image:Cdalbumicon.svg, and "image replaced with an SVG version" isn't actually a speedy deletion criteria! Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

... however, the image was on Commons, and I've deleted it as a result of that. Was that what you were originally meaning? Mike Peel (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see ANI on this. I've gone straight there as opposed to raising it with you first as admin work is needed to determine any restorations needed for license reasons (not necessarily all of them) and not as a criticsm of the edits.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 Newsletter

The Newsletter is here and the recipients are here. Chubbennaitor 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be done urgently before the 4th of April. Chubbennaitor 18:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

it will be done in 12 hours, when I get back. β^_command 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Send it out very soon please. Chubbennaitor 08:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's important it isn't sent out before this weekend. Chubbennaitor 09:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

and what is that "-2 days"? Chubbennaitor 09:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Handout of WPF1

When we give out the Newsletter we give out the template. for example. {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Newsletter/200804-2}} is what we were going to give out. It's just a pointer for any next newsletters. Chubbennaitor 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh marvy.

Because we haven't got nearly enough of those. HalfShadow (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mega server

Ok, so I need someone with a powerful server. I've tried the toolserver and its not up to the task, and right now I'm 100 hours into the query on my laptop, and its only 1/3 done. I'm trying to get an output to 2 cat interesections.

1. Intersect Category:Fair use images and Category:All non-free media for non-compliant licenses that appear in Fairuse, but not in All non-free (like if a user subst'd an old license or something)

2. Intersect Category:All non-free media and Category:Free images for all images that appear in subcats of both (meaning they have a license conflict and need to be corrected to one or the other).

And I figure between multi-threading and the 8 gigs of ram you have, your probably one of the only people with the capacity to do it (and it will help with our NFCC compliance). Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

all I have is the toolserver but it shouldnt be that hard. give me a few days to play with the system to see what I can get for you. β^_command 02:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just do be careful, when East tried to use the toolserver, it crashed the server apparently. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

not sure what east did, but the toolserver never seems to break for me. β^_command 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Could you please edit BetacommandBot's boilerplates to reflect the fact that the word "media" is a plural in the English language? The first sentence in the last paragraph should be "If there are other fair use media, ...". I don't necessarily disagree with the bot's existence or actions, but the grammar error is extremely distracting and annoying, especially when it's repeated ten times in the talk for a given page. Speaking of that, perhaps you could rebuild the boilerplate so it simply appears once, listing all the images. Seriously, it takes over some talk pages completely, and bots should never, ever do that. Other than that, thanks. P.F. Bruns (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the word media, it is both singular and plural. β^_command 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For once I agree with βcommand. "Media" has been usable as a mass noun for decades. This shouldn't diminish the feature request about collapsing multiple reports into one list, which other image bots are doing and which I consider important. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Error in edit

08:31, 31 March 2008, Bridge Your replacement of the .jpg thumb with the .svg equivalent for caisson resulted in a blank image due to an error in the thumb rendering system (this flaw is noted in a following comment). Please inspect the results of your work after making a change. Thank you, and best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Thanks for delivering the Newsletter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity with User:BetacommandBot. We will approach you every time we need to circulate the new issue. Do you have a special page for your own bot requests ? or shall I make a page User talk:Betacommand/WPX Newsletter requests to ask for newsletter requests for our project ? - Tinucherian (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate this bot

Just like a lot of other users said, how the hell can a BOT decide what pictures should be deleted, and what pictures should not?? It makes no sense. It should be up to human users to decide whether or not a picture is valid/fair or not. I hate this bot, please make it go away.KnatLouie (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot does not decide, that is up to the admins who review. The bot just tags those images where there is something wrong that the bot can detect. I am sure a human can also detect that, but this is more efficient, since we do have a deadline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with KnatLouie. This bot is the worst thing that has happened to Wikipedia. 64.190.140.138 (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here. This bot is one of the main reasons why I don't much bother with Wikipedia anymore; I've seen it tag numerous images which have perfectly good fair use justifications which just aren't in a format that some dumb bot understands and which I or others can't be bothered to waste our time fixing up so that it does. Mark Grant (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Dirk Beetstra, how can you defend this stupid bot, it tags almost EVERY single photo there's EVER been uploaded to wikipedia! And the bulk of those pictures are valid - in some case perfect - images for their various uses on this site! If a (good) user sees a good picture with a bad description, he/she'll just correct the info, and then the picture stays, but this useless bot just marks everything for deletion, and within a few days, the pictures are GONE - for GOOD! It's just like the middleages where book-burning became all the rage, this bot makes image-deletion a whole new and very annoying trend. I for one will NEVER upload any pictures to wikipedia again, unless this bot is DELETED. KnatLouie (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than not uploading images, you could try simply following policy? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you write up a fair use rationale in the correct format, I promise you BC will never touch the image, ever. You just don't understand what is missing from your rationales. That's your fault, not BC. Timeshift (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people create and contribute, others trip on "power". Nice job, BetaCommand. I'm sure the world is a safer place now that you have a bot that can tag a scan of a US coin as OMG ILLEGAL. Just know that, when it comes down to it, you're still a fat nerd and now everyone hates you online as well as in real life. 76.176.224.55 (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure the personal insults you're levying against Betacommand will be a strong motivator to getting him to stop the bot. I recommend that in your future career you should use this tactic whenever you find someone you disagree with. Your paths to success and riches will be guaranteed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ummm, what? I thought Beta usually deletes the personal attacks. I reverted this edit and warned the guy, but Beta undid my edit. Is this to prove a point? Enigma ^msg! 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

its just one example I can point to. β^_command 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of hundreds. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

- Yes, we all *could* just "Follow policy", but since "policy" is ever-changing, why would anyone bother spending several hours reading (and MEMORIZING) endless paragraphs of words, just to find out everything has changed the next day anyway. And even if you follow policy, some bozo will still delete all your updates and additions, unless you keep a tight watch on everything you've ever added to this site. Which, I might add, is a waste of time. And therefore, I will not add any pictures to this site again (and I know some of you do-gooders out there will just smirk and not care, but so be it), unless these rigid and nonsensical rules change. KnatLouie (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "rigid and nonsensical rules" that this bot works on in the form of WP:NFCC #10c compliance has been pretty much unchanged for nigh on three years now. Not very ever-changing. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Hammersoft, you're so ever right, and I'm so ever wrong. You win yet again. Should I go kill myself now, would that make you happy too? My point was just that this bot serves no use, as nobody would EVER sue wikipedia because a user uploaded a copyrighted picture. If anybody has a problem with free advertising, they should just go and remove the picture themselves, and ask that it not be used here again.KnatLouie (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's a frequently made argument that "nobody would ever sue". Unfortunately, the argument fails for a number of reasons. The Wikimedia Foundation is contacted virtually daily regarding copyright violations for one. No, no suit has been filed against Wikimedia regarding copyright, but if Wikimedia didn't take a strong stance regarding copyright violations and proper handling of fair use, their most certainly would be lawsuits. Note how YouTube and others have been nailed with lawsuits. Wikipedia is a top ten website. Our visibility is plenty high enough for the lawyers to take interest. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Hammersoft. Copyright is an important issue if not in terms of protecting against litigation, then in terms of protecting the owner of the copyright. I've had a few images deleted by BetacommandBot, but all that tells me is that I haven't supplied the correct information or that the image can't be used. The Bot (and it's defenders) may appear to be dealing with things in quite a pedantic fashion, but that's only because the law deals in details. KnatLouie, I do understand your frustration!! Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As a point of fact: you haven't ever had an image deleted by BetacommandBot. No one has. The bot is absolutely incapable of deleting images. All images are deleted by real, live humans -- editors who could, if appropriate, fix the fair use rationales. If you want to complain about images being deleted, as opposed to being templated, then you're in the wrong place. Go find an admin's page and complain at them for enforcing policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, while some companies might or might not sue wikipedia, adding extremely detailed (and I do mean EXTREMELY) rationales for each and every image one uploads is really a pain in the jazz, if you know what I mean.. and if a user sees a user rationale that is invalid or wrongfully described, then why the heck doesn't that user UPDATE/CORRECT it him/her-self!?? If the uploader isn't online within a certain timeframe of the notice, the image just gets deleted! So to me, adding images to this site is a sisyphean task that I no longer feel like wasting my time on doing anymore. Not my loss, since I already have all the images I need, but definently a lot of other people's loss, as they won't see all the images I have available. KnatLouie (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The user of this bot also includes charges of copyright violations of textual material in the same paragraph for challenging the image violations, a blatant challenge without logical analysis or research. To make a long story very short, in my opinion, using this bot's rationale, maybe this bot should be marked for speedy deletion.LanceBarber (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• A bot can't add rationales itself. Whether we like it or not, the images have to have rationales. As for speedy deleting the bot, it's not going to happen. There's been a bazillion calls to shut down this bot, and none have been successful. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's like that old song "Only the good die young", so this bot will probably live forever.KnatLouie (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

stop bickering like little girls, its just a damn bot; nobody died here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.74.200 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please edit BetacommandBot's boilerplates to reflect the fact that the word "media" is a plural in the English language? The first sentence in the last paragraph should be "If there are other fair use media, ...".

In regard to what the bot is actually saying, I'm a bit curious: considering that Wikipedia is a reference work, how could the use of an image not be fair use? As I understand it under Title 17 of the United States Code, § 107 (the chapter on fair use):

   Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Wikipedia is certainly covered under (1), since it is a nonprofit educational work.

Since a picture, particularly a logotype (since it is the flagging and deletion of the Tampa seal that brought me here) is a single piece that almost certainly is easier to display than to describe, and since it is the work of a municipality, and was not created for profit in the first place, it would seem to stand to reason that display of the logotype for the city for educational and reference purposes could only be fair use. So much for (2).

For (3): Using only a piece of the logo would serve no functional purpose, so the portion used must be equal to the whole in order for people to understand what Tampa uses as its seal. QED.

For (4): Nobody is likely to try to sell t-shirts with the Tampa logo on, and if they do, Wikipedia's use of the logo will affect the market not one whit. P.F. Bruns (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of the GFDL, anyone is allowed to reuse Wikipedia's content for any reason, including selling that content for a profit. We don't make assumptions on what those re-uses might or might not be, we simply give them as few restrictions as possible. That is the main reason that Wikipedia exists. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop bringing your logic and reason into this debate Boomshadow, everyone knows that proper wikipedia policy is to create an automated process which functions entirely on the assumption of bad faith and acts destructively. It's just not the wikipedia way to assume good faith, add a fair use rationale yourself, or really act constructively in any number of ways. Superslash (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yeah you hit the nail right on the head there.. and I also like the argument "There's been a bazillion calls to shut down this bot"..Okay, then WHY the heck is it still here?? Nobody wants the damn thing around!! Oh wait, George W. Bush is still there too.. I guess some bad things just never seem to go away, no matter how many people want them to go away. All that matters is to have powerful friends with administrative power, and then you can create all the havoc and nonsense you want to. KnatLouie (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that the bot isn't doing anything wrong. If a human was doing all of these image taggings, you wouldn't be able to do a single thing to stop that person. You might think it's stupid, you might think it's pointless, but it's the one following the rules that have been set in place for years, not you. Legal considerations is only one part of why we are hard on non-free images. The other is because we specifically discourage them. These same exact requirements are in place for images where Wikipedia has specific permission to use the image, but are still not licensed under the GFDL, CC, or another compatible license.

So before going off and bitching about something, you might actually want to learn something about the matter first. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the bcbot tagging has not one single thing in common with the human judgement required to assess appropriate fair use, therefore a human comparison to the bot tags is irrelevant in this case, as those actions are not what you are talking about at all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why, given the lack of knowledge by uploaders, bot tagging followed by admin review is the best process, no? Bot identifies potentials, admins review. Problem solved. Minkythecat (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Task number?

Hi Beta, I noticed your interesting subpage listing active admins [1]. Could you point me to the task description for this bot? Thanks AKAF (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

there is no offical approval for keeping those stats. I just kinda applied WP:IAR β^{_{command 2}} 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And I wish you would do more stats! See below. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: VandalProof

Hello Betacommand! Could you please review [2] these applications? --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot reports

Could you get your bot to update this report please? Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:User wikisk

Hi. The bot made some changes at Template:User wikisk and something got broken. The user pages with this template turned completely messed. Could you repait it, please?

I have reverted the changes. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand this robot

So the picture to illustrate Between the Lines, an LGBT paper, is being targeted becaused supposedly its fair use rationale is not good enough. I don't see this robot targeting articles about mainstream newspapers which also use a picture of a typical front page in them. I think this robot is prejudiced against gays. Donnabella (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Every image i have ever uploaded has been deleted by this robot because of errors in the fair use rationale. Don't take it personally - this robot is EVIL INCARNATE!!! But is useful for maintaining copyright in cases that need it. Have a read through the policy and try again. All the best Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is why it's leaving messages in my talk page telling me it's deleting images that I didn't post. :) I've not been logged on in months until today, and frankly, have never posted an image on WP. Something's not working with this bot, it would seem, because nobody's been on my account. Kel - Ex-web.god (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Museums tags

This bot is currently tagging articles with a {{WikiProject Museums}} template. However, I'm not sure that Mario Lanza, Bobby Darin, and Chuck Berry fall into this category. I think something's going wrong somewhere. Paul20070 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Winona Ryder. Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Manhattan (film). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Add to that Ella Fitzgerald, Pat Boone, Doris Day and Hugo Winterhalter. Paul20070 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Paul Reubens. Murderbike (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And Trafalgar Square (yes, the National Gallery is on one side of the square, but the square itself is not a museum). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Teatro Colón is a theatre not a museum, also, I reckon that newly added banners should be nested if other banners on the talk page are already nested. English peasant 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Newton Lower Falls, Massachusetts). It's not a museum. It's still an active church. No museum category has ever been added to it. clariosophic (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

all of those pages are listed in categoris on Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Categories. Please address issues in regard to tagging to them. β^{_{command 2}} 19:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums#Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Categories. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Thanks for delivering the Newsletter for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity . We will approach you every time we need to circulate the new issue. Do you have a special page for your own bot requests ? - Tinucherian (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOVELS newsletter

It seems not all the members got it, see User_talk:Yllosubmarine. You want to look into the matter? It would be nice if You could sort out the problem, so WP:NOVELS doesn't have to change to another bot next month to deliver a newsletter. Hoping for the best, feydey (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's being delivered now. I think what happened is that only the names specifically mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach#Delivery options were sent the mail, which doesn't include the rest of the members. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Template edits

Template edits are done. Of them, I only had questions on 4 tags, that are used on less than 100 images, so I just left them the way they were. Thats a project for me to tackle by hand. Otherwise, all 550 tags have been checked, and the free ones got tagged the approp. {{free media}}. Sorry for taking so long. MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Duel

I challenge you to a duel. I choose pistols at dawn. Tool2Die4 (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think a bot would be considerably faster on the draw than any human. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not if someone cunningly blocked it just before the duel was due to take place! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Remember what happened to Alexander Hamilton.--WaltCip (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image stats

Would you be interested in this? Carcharoth (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The only unanswered question there is what the split in numbers is between the different file formats. Well, that and "ones where the image is on Commons, but a local copy has been kept and not deleted". Any idea how to find out that number, and also how to find out how many of each of these file formats we have in the Image namespace: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, svg, djvu? Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can get you rough numbers using SQL queries. β^_command 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• png: 107,633
• gif: 50,158
• jpg: 498,505
• jpeg: 5520
• xcf: 16
• pdf: 1,557
• mid: 134
• ogg: 5,550
• svg: 7,880
• djvu: 0
• β^_command 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For comparison, the total number of media files, as of this timestamp, was 775,671. Your total is 676,953. A discrepancy of 98,718. How rough were your SQL queries? Any idea why there is such a big discrepancy? Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest update is here. Any ideas why the figures still don't match up and why there are files with "not allowed" or mis-spelt filename extensions? Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies decided by the Arbitration Committee, viewable here, instruct Betacommand with regards to the operation of BetacommandBot, including placement of notifications and civility in replying to concerns raised about its operation. Betacommand is urged to be significantly more responsive to good-faith questions from users whose images he tags and either to respond directly to such questions, and also to develop an "opt-out" list for BetacommandBot without imposing conditions on its use.

All editors are advised that periodic review of images and other media to ensure their compliance with the non-free content criteria may be necessary for policy, ethical, and sometimes legal reasons, and are invited to participate in policy discussions concerning this and related areas. Editors are cautioned not to be abusive toward or make personal attacks against participants, including bot operators, engaged in this work. The community is also urged to re-examine our policies and practices for reviewing, tagging, and where necessary deleting images in light of experience gained since the policies and practices were previously developed, including the disputes underlying this case. The Committee listed five specific points in the specific remedy that they believe any review should attempt to cover.

The Committee expects that the disputes and disruption underlying this case will cease as a result of this decision. In the event of non-compliance or a continued pattern of disputes, further review by the Committee may be sought after a reasonable time. In such a review, the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions including but not limited to the revocation of any user's privilege to use automated tools such as bots and scripts, revocation of other privileges, topic bans, civility restrictions, or any other remedies needed to end the disruption. However, please note that nothing in this paragraph restricts the authority of administrators to take appropriate action to deal with any disruptive incidents that may occur.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hello β^command.
I filed a request to obtain VandalProof on March 31, two weeks ago. I do not know what the procedure for the moderators who review requests is, but there are at present 28 people, including me, who are awaiting approval. Two made their requests even before I did. I am not trying to bug you, and I know you have been busy with the ArbCom Case, but can you review the list of applications? I would really appreciate your help.
Thanks for your time.
J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Userpage of SMS Bot

Hello! I just read WP:BFDB, so what is going to be the fate of Userpage of SMS Bot? Should i propose it for CSD? --SMS ^Talk 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Or can I use it for my next BRFA,i.e. WikiProject tagging, which I was thinking to be the 2nd task for this bot. --SMS ^Talk 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of modification of bot approval

This message is to notify you of a recent decision made by the bot approvals group Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Approvals_group#BAG_as_.27arbcom_for_bots.27 here to modify the terms of BetacommandBot's approval as follows:

Betacommand is instructed to modify the notification tags used by the image portion of BetacommandBot to fit with the 'friendlier' versions used by OrphanBot or STBotI.

Suggested templates for you to base yours on are User:OrphanBot/nfcc10c, User:OrphanBot/nosource, User:OrphanBot/norat, and User:OrphanBot/nocopyright. BAG thanks you for your compliance. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 14:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont use any custiom templates except for {{missing rationale2}} which I hacked out of {{missing rationale}} for use on article talk pages, I respectfuly will not use any of those "custom" templates until they are better written. I have repeatedly asked about wording on the template and I have repeatedly gotten "I tried to but its written as good as it could be". β^{_{command 2}} 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So copy them to your userspace and fix them. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I personaly dont see anything wrong with what I use, and thus cannot fix them. why should I re-invent the wheel? it makes no sense. if carnildo cannot write a proper template why should I have to cleanup after him when I have a perfectly good alternitive? β^{_{command 2}} 16:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:OrphanBot/nfcc10c is much clearer as to the problem which the bot detected and how to fix it than the general template added by your bot here. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Question, have you read that template? its got a lot of problems. and has just plain wrong statements in it. something that you cannot say about what I use. β^{_{command 2}} 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Please explain your misgivings. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets start with the first part the section header is completly innapproperate. β^{_{command 2}} 18:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It says there's an 'image copyright problem'. That's more than enough. No need to load people up with "non-free image use rationales" with valid "backlinks" to any article it is "transcluded" on. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you see anything wrong with that title? I sure do. β^{_{command 2}} 18:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a copyright problem as a user error, however, it really isn't that big of a deal. It tells the user what to do if they want to use their image. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free Content usage rationales are not a copyright issue. I refuse to use messages that are poorly thought out messages that contain wrong wording. β^{_{command 2}} 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then fix it. Your current notification templates have been found unacceptable. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

and no one has ever been able to offer improvements to them, because they are well written. If you dont like the messages the bot leaves what improvements can you suggest? otherwise I will contine to use what I have been, and what was written by the community. β^{_{command 2}} 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The BAG has instructed that you use one which is clearer and more newbie-friendly. For example, NFCC10c taggings should use a warning that directly refers to the violated aspect of NFCC, which states that it must have a rationale, and that the rationale must contain a link to each article it is used on. Your current NFCC10c tag is a generic disputed rationale tag. This should be fixed to be more instructive to those who do not understand our policy. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

yet a template that you want me to use doesnt exist yet. how can this get any clearer? the notification for image problems are two part. the user notification is on writing proper rationales and the image tag clearly states exactly what is wrong with the image and how to fix it. Im always open to suggestions but I WILL NOT use any tag that has wrong information, any attempt on BAG to force that is against policy. end of story. β^_command 00:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) st47, I'm really not familiar with much about this issue. However, I looked the two templates that Betacommand linked in this section, and at the four OrphanBot templates that you linked, and I honestly don't see any difference in their friendliness level, except that one of Beta's includes an attention-getting graphic. I actually found Beta's instructions more detailed and therefore more friendly and helpful. So I'm confused, and I wanted to ask -- strictly in your opinion -- do you think this pronouncement really means "People get scared by the red graphic, and we want it removed"? The only other possibilities that have occurred to me are:

• "Editors voted to complain about 'friendliness' based on hazy recollections of some long-dead prior draft of the templates" and
• The template(s) that are being complained about haven't been linked in this discussion. I didn't, for example, find the words "backlinked" or "transcluded" in either of the Beta templates I looked at, although your message assumes their existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the template used when the rationale doesn't have a backlink. It instructs the user to check all parts of NFCC, not even stating where it found a problem. User:OrphanBot/nfcc10c and User:STBotI/NFCC10c do. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

St47, I still don't see the word "backlink" or "transcluded" in a Betacommand template, and I do see you complaining that there's '[n]o need to load people up with "non-free image use rationales" with valid "backlinks" to any article it is "transcluded" on,' exactly as if you are complaining about people being scared off by the inclusion of this jargon. If Betacommand uses a template that includes these quoted words, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I think you should retract or clarify your previous statement.

Betacommand, you have a syntactically undesirable situation in this template. "This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use" should instead read "This can be corrected by going to the image description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the image qualifies for fair use" or "... going to the image description page to add or clarify..." Also, if it's entirely trivial to implement, could you link going to the image description page to the specific page the editor should go to? It might be helpful.

The issue of whether this template should direct the user to fix a single specified problem (and thus risk multiple events on the same image) or to review the entire thing (and possibly catch multiple errors) is outside the scope of my interests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

break

As those contributing to this thread know, the arbitration decision includes the recommendation that the community (including those who do image work and those who do bot work, among others) take a fairly comprehensive look at the whole image tagging and deletion process, including among other things ensuring that the various tags are as clear and user-friendly as possible. While I appreciate the BAG members' being pro-active in assessing Betacommandbot's tags, even better would be participation by all concerned in the more global effort suggested. As an outsider to these general areas, I'd be glad to offer my own recommendations and thoughts as to wording, although as noted above it might be helpful if the various existing alternatives for each of the common situations that arise were all listed in one place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a clear and well-written message. It is full of Wikipedia jargon and includes a very confusing verbatim quote of 10c as the "concern". I would suggest a better version, but the STBotI version already is better, so this is a previously solved problem. Remember that part of the user error is that they don't know what this highly technical sense of a "rationale" is, so you can't rely on them knowing that. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BCB at commons

Hi Betacommand. I noticed BCB hasn't run at Commons since march 31st. Is this intentional ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just havent had the time yet. β^_command 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, figured that there might be a misconfiguration or something. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tildes

Not sure what sort of client you're running, but please disable whatever feature is causing "~" to be replaced by "~", especially when found in groups of four. See [3]. Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny/sad userbox

Thought you might be interested in this: [4]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

VP Approval Requests

Hello, I have applied for VP Approval and noticed that the list has become very long, and the last clear date was over 2 weeks ago. If you could look at it, it'd be great.

Thanks! --Aremith ^{tlk | eml} 04:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Zweig

Hi. I was interested by your edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Zweig&diff=next&oldid=204267669 where you've taken out a link to http://www.casastefanzweig.org , saying "undoing crosswiki link additions". I am sorry to be so dim but what does it mean? I had a quick look at the site and it looks plausible, real and informative, though my German isn't that great and my Portuguese is non-existent, so this is hardly an expert view. I assume that a crosswiki link is Something Bad, but I am not quite sure what the story is here. Any clarification you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Nomorenonotnever (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a spamming of that link to 7 different languages by User:201.53.59.137 see: de de en fr nl es it sv. that spamming was why I removed it. β^_command 15:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for rv-ing the vandalism to my userpage- for some reason I thought I'd already done it, mus have pressed the wrong button. Appreciated. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/AE filing notification

See [5] MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling? Re: User talk:BetacommandBot/Opt-out

That wasn’t trolling, that was just a comment on the controversial nature of the page in question. The fact that it has been sitting there with a speedy tag on it for as long as it has just proves that most admins, including me, wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole. Cheers —Travis^talk 02:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

VP Approval

Hi Betacommand, if you could check out User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval, it has a backlog right now. Thanks LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 05:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image uploads

Hi Beta, I've been watching image issues since not long after I joined, it seemed to me like a minefield early on (way before I learned your name lol). I've only tried to save images after the fact, which is bloody hard, and I'd bet you'd agree with me that the key is proper rationales supplied with the image upload. So my question to you is: can you think of a way to split off (in your case) your bot logic, and more broadly all the various image-bot logics, so that an image uploader could test their rationale against all the various bot rules that will be applied before they finalize their upload? This would be an optional upload path, but at least there would be a way for uploaders to have an idea whether they would be challenged immediately (and by automation, which seems to be a particular sticking point) - seems to me there's a gap here, where people are trying to comply but they don't have a good grasp of all the complexities and they get frustrated trying to figure it out. So could you and the other image-rule people create a rule-testing module for uploaders? One obvious thought is that the image is not yet in the article if it doesn't exist yet, but that could easily enough be turned into a requirement to red-square the article before the upload. The key here is to ensure that uploaders have a way to investigate the potential obstacles right at the start of their upload. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to bribe User_talk:Splarka#WP:Upload to do this. I've had an open bugzilla on this for months at bugzilla. Its possible, but it involves one of the only parts of the site built on javascript coded before our current team of developers came on board. User:Remember the dot does basic updates, but I'm not sure of his ability to recode the entire interface. MBisanz ^talk 07:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yah, I noticed in Oct/Nov last there was image discussion about requiring standard rationales and info fields, I have no idea why that wouldn't have been a no-brainer, I wasn't qualified to comment then & I'm probly still not. I'll support you all the way on the beg & bribe route, but there's the whole conservatism with the core software thing. I was thinking here about a possible way to run the image page against the enforcing bot-rules to see whether it will fail, probably something on the toolserver that contains the process_item(img) bits from various bots, with redirects from the error codes they would all spit out. This would require a bunch of coders to get together and hack their code together, so maybe the centralized new solution would be simpler after all. There is still the issue that if the upload gets through Splarka's putative enhancement and still fails a bot rule, the user ballistic trajectory will still be more, umm, skywards. Whatever, the average user needs some good guidance -before- the image tags hit their page, they're uploading in good faith and trying hard, then they see new obstacles coming up and get pissed off. Beta happens to be right at the tail-end of that process, that's not fair to anyone. Franamax (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

list of wikis

Remember the list of all languages for all projects I made for you? Would you send those back to me please? I have lost they links to them :( – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ping? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got off a very busy work weekend I should have what you need within 24 hours. β^_command 01:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi,

I feel my edits, that you threaten to be vandalism, are not such. You seem to think that you know better than everyone on the talk page and can constantly monitor Stargate (device) and revert my edits, despite the fact that I give detailed reasons to my edits on the talk page. Everyone is aware of the situation of the large use of non-free images. You do not agree on my edits, and you mention it on my talk page, and I respond. All I get is a warning to stop "vandalizing" or I'll be blocked from editing. Until they limit the exact number of images in an article per the Wikipedia:NFCC, and as long as certain images adequately add to the commentary of the article (And no free versions exist), than I can re-instate the meager two images I'd like on the article. Remember I deleted one (Specifically [[6]] towards the bottom of the article) so I'm really only raising the number of images by one.

At least, if you insist on those images being removed, could we agree on deleting the NFimageoveruse tag as long there's a good balance on the number of images?

- Thanks, Cody-7 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

you cannot re-add images in violation of the non-free content policy. Those images do not pass NFCC and thus where removed. Ive seen 98% of SG-1's ten seasons and Ive seen all of Atlantis's those two images your trying to re-add dont do anything to help the understanding of the subject. β^_command 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it in violation? As mentioned on the talk page (If you ever would look at it) and as anyone who reads the NFCC can tell - there's no direct limit on the number of non-free images. It meets nearly all of the 10 policy guideline points, except for possibly significance which is more opinion-based. And I believe it does help understanding with the subject as someone reading the articles gets a chance to see what a wormhole appears in the series. Sure, I've seen all of SG-1 and Atlantis as well but not everyone has. As a matter of fact, if you use that point of view, all the images of the DHD, gate kawoosh, Oneill's photo at the very top, could all lack signifigance. But we don't want to have an image-less article; or do we?

And since this article was tagged very recently with the NFimageoverus, and it now has far fewer images than it did before it was tagged, does the tag still need to show? Oh wait, I know the answer: You're going to tell me that it's against the guidelines to remove it. After all, with that imaginary limit on number of Non-free images in an article and all...

Have you even taken into account how long the article is? I think it'd be fairly obvious that a longer article would make it a little more acceptable to have a couple more non-free's. Cody-7 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of the article does not determine the number of non-free images. WP:NFCC#8 states: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. how does the images your adding pass that? an image has to pass everyone of the 10 criteria for inclusion, the DHD, opening photo and the gate opening all provide detail that is useful and relevant. I can defend the usage of those image and prove that they pass NFCC. you cannot say the same about the color design of the wormhole that they travel in is key to understanding the ancient device, the DHD, and gate size are both very important elements, and the gate event horizon and one way travel have played key roles in several episodes so that is key to understanding those events. How is the color of the wormhole important? β^_command 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And did you decide that article length does not determine amount of non-free images? It's not in the NFCC but a large part of wikipedia is based on consensus. Right now it's just your word against mine about this. My opinion: A longer article deserves more images, even if they're non-free. I'd be willing to speculate that other people would agree.

I don't see how any of the photos help illustrate "[...] the gate event horizon and one way travel have played key roles in several episodes so that is key to understanding those events.". Showing the kawoosh, or event horizon does not add understanding on the fact it's just one-way and other roles. It just shows a pretty ripple. And my point being: That's no better reasoning or explanation than I have for wanting to show a photo of the wormhole in-use. And it's not just to show the color. It helps bring to life what the actual wormhole appears like, much better than a diagram -- and brings the point across it's a long distance traveled better than numbers in billions of miles could describe. Also, I feel, it illustrates the "rough ride" it can be going through a gate if one is not adapted.

Reguardless, since arguing isn't going to get anything done. I propose a compromise: How about the image Image:New_wormhole.jpg be re-added to the article, leaving out the other photo displaying the wormhole earlier in the series. And since I removed Image:Stargate7thchevron.jpg (As it is a poor-quality image, and isn't needed to illustrate differences), the article will retain the same number of images as before I came along. It'l be like I wasn't even here. Cody-7 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

your "compromise" is violating the non-free content policy, that image fails #8. its not your word versus mine, its your word versus policy, and policy is always right. if you cannot make a solid defense for the usage of the image it cannot be used. it must also pass every one of the 10 Non-free content criteria. β^_command 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

#8 certainly is subject to interpretation. Your opinion is that the images wouldn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, but it still is just your opinion. I haven't even looked at the images in question, and I certainly trust your judgment over most others on issues of fair use, but it still does come down to opinion...and it still obviously isn't vandalism, no matter how strong a hand you think you need to use. --Onorem♠Dil 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I've been trying to say. It's just his opinion. And I find that a bit offensive that you're going to just give him the benefit of the doubt; what happened to the encyclopedia anyone can edit? Cody-7 (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether the images remain or not, it seems clear that this wasn't vandalism, and jumping to a vandal4 warning seems fairly inappropriate. I'm all for getting rid of extra fair use images, but maybe try some discussion instead of templated warnings if you want people to understand your reasoning for reverting their edits... --Onorem♠Dil 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a polite warning, failure to follow policy requires a stronger hand. β^_command 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got to jump in and say those 2 extra images are overuse in an article that already has a number of fairuse images. And I'm not seeing Cody discussing the images' inclusion on the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh really. I'll quote myself. Im not quite sure how you could of missed it:

"And I would just like one more image re-instated as I think it's important to show readers what a wormhole looks like in SG-1 (This one here: [[2] |Image:New_wormhole.jpg ). However, despite several of us on the talk page voicing that many of the images still belong, others are now claiming that it's still against the guidelines. Like said several times, there is no magical number on how many non-free images an article is restricted to . As long as an image meets the 10 guidelines on the NFCC page and is believed to add some importance, it can stay. And has anyone taken into account the length of the article? Sure, the article has many non-free images but it's a fairly long article."

The problem is Betacommand was the one not discussing on the talk page. And I'm trying to just get one image to be re-added to the article, not two, And since I already mentioned deleting a non-free image myself already, it wouldn't be increasing the number in the article. I do not believe one image of a wormhole in use would be violating the NFCC and It does have reason to be there. What I was typing a minute ago before it detected an edit conflict:

"I already stated why it passes #8; let me quote: "And it's not just to show the color. It helps bring to life what the actual wormhole appears like, much better than a diagram -- and brings the point across it's a long distance traveled better than numbers in billions of miles could describe. Also, I feel, it illustrates the "rough ride" it can be going through a gate if one is not adapted.". Now until someone agrees / disagrees more extensively on that, you can NOT prove it's violating the damn NFCC. Can you say anything other than that?"

I was also starting to type why the image of the kawoosh no better illustrates anything according to Betacommand's interpretation of the NFCC, and why the one image of the wormhole would contribute, by my fingers are getting a bit tired. I don't intend to sound harsh in this whole discussion, but this is starting to get on my nerves.

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. If a fair-use image doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the article it shouldn't be included. If it does it might be included depending on context (eg. how much understanding does it add? How many other fair-use images are on the same page? Can the understanding be provided with free images or in text?).

Your edit wasn't vandalism, but Betacommand is not alone in noting there are a large number of fair-use images on the page already and there may not be a need for another. Could I suggest this debate be returned to the article talk page where it started? You won't be blocked for a content dispute provided it stays civil and there's no edit warring. So feel free to keep contributing to the article. Everyone else interested in image issues (and why else would we be reading Betacommand's talk page?), feel free to comment at Talk:Stargate (device) on the image debate, and see if we can reach a consensus one way or the other. Euryalus (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome template...

Why are you removing the welcome template and substituting tons of text? Did I miss something, and Template:Welcome was deleted? Doesn't look that way... please explain? ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Template messages on talk pages are supposed to be substituted, so that they don't change appearance with time. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Defaultsort

Your changes to the categories are causing some unusual results. Default sort does not work on the genus categories; see Category:Forpus. This is why they are not defaultsorted. STOP. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please undo all the species defaultsorts, as the indexing needs to be selective. We have AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) to do this sort of thing and the writers of AWB have decided not to do change everything to a defaultsort. Snowman (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are several styles to index the categories correctly. User:Hesperian has recently given one suggestion on the "Green-cheeked Conure" article which seems to minimize the text used: nevertheless, the more verbose style prior to Betacommand's edits worked too. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment on this? Snowman (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the work you do for WP. I see a lot of people giving you hard time. I thought I'd pop in and say that I appreciate your work, and that I'll be careful with images if I ever upload any. Kind regards, Dan Beale-Cocks 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article

Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

This clearly isn't vandalism. Do not use such edit summaries again please, especially in the course of an edit war. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

blanking long standing policy without consensus is vandalism. β^_command 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. I'm not here to argue about it anyhow, please just don't do it again. If you must edit war, at least don't use automated tools. Majorly (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think that the automated "vandalism" warning could be expected to calm things down. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the absurd last warning for vandalism template that you placed on the talk page of an editor who's been around since late 2005. Come on man... Not that Locke Cole's behaviour is exemplary in the matter but you should know better. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

its perfectly called for, log term users should know better than to attempt to re-write policy and force it when he knows it has no consensus, POV pushing is unacceptable especially on policy pages. β^_command 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, his conduct was not acceptable, as I just said. This does not give you the right to inflame things further with that ridiculous warning or to use this edit summary. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but I call things as they are, as for the edit summary, hes known for that behavior. β^_command 03:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious

Stupidity is contagious...the one with the guy turning off life support so he could sleep was freakin' hilarious! bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

any more refs that you find are welcome :P β^_command 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi Betacommand. I'd like to thank you for taking the time out to consider me for the application. I know it must take a fair bit of effort to wade through the hundreds of applications you must receive, and I fully appreciate the concerns regarding the power of the program. In any event, I'm happy that you considered me and hope that in the future I shall meet the standards that you as a collective have set. Cheers! --Liempt (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

VP

Hope you're not too busy but I keep on getting "The username you are trying to connect with is not authourized to use VandalProof". Are you sure you authourised me? Thanks Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was inappropriately blocked while in the middle of approval. once I am unblocked I will finish up. β^_command 06:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it was inappropriate, why not appeal it? Enigma ^message Review 06:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am. β^_command 06:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Thabks Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also getting the same message. I'll assume it's the same problem? Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. TheProf - T / C 11:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility and repeated personal attacks. False accusations of vandalism (here and here), for which you were warned (here). False accusation of trolling (here), subsequently converted into an outright personal attack (here). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} - Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Beta, with regards to this, I was going to issue a block for 3RR, however, I see you've already been blocked in regard to this situation for other issues. Be mindful of this rule in the future. I know it's frustrating, but you've got numbers on your side. Lara❤Love 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. Upon further review, you did not break 3RR. Why are you even blocked? Lara❤Love 06:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

apparently maintaining consensus and reverting vandal edits is considered a personal attack. β^_command 06:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to re-think your definition of vandal. You entered into an edit war with other users on a specific topic Wikipedia:Bot policy. The lines are not always black and white, they can be rather grey as in this case.

Edit warring is a distinct behavior characterized by a confrontational attitude. It is different in spirit than bold, revert, discuss cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is never edit-warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism.

The edits you reverted as vandalism were good faith edits, as to being appropriate edits, that is another story to be hashed out by the editors including yourself. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the block was excessive, like using a sledge hammer to build fine furniture, but you do tend to be a bit head strong especially when you think you are right. It seems that it was the only way they could see to get your attention. Not necessarily the right way.Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This was a bit excessive, ten hours is plenty. The reverts appear to be to the stable version. Would think that someone slapping "Disputedtag" repeatedly on a policy page would invoke some sort of AGF upon the user reverting it back to the consensus version. Seems it would be more constructive if βcommand was not blocked from the discussions. Unblocked--Hu12 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

thank you for showing higher brain functions. That was vandalism inserting changes into policy that have no consensus and reverting multiple users in an attempt to force POV. β^{_{command 2}} 15:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

-

He was blocked for escalating personal attacks, not revert warring (I think that should be quite clear from the template and block log). Beta, you are an experienced user, you know fine well those edits were not vandalism, however much you don't like 'em. If you resume yesterdays behaviour, I'll have no hesitation reblocking you. Sorry I missed your IRC message btw, I had apparently just gone to bed. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, just because you were unblocked does not mean you were not wrong. You need to re-read Wikipedia:VAND#What vandalism is not which says "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such."

I find it worrying that your first comment after the block was lifted was say "That was vandalism inserting changes into policy that have no consensus and reverting multiple users in an attempt to force POV." This is just not so. POV disputes are not vandalism. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Knowingly adding false information is vandalism. β^{_{command 2}} 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say "thank you for showing higher brain functions", this sounds to me like a personal attack on the administrator who blocked you. As the block was apparently for personal attacks, this doesn't come across as a very good sign. Even if you feel wronged, please try hard to be the better person. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reguarding your denial of my VandalProof application.

While I certainly respect your decision, I am curious as to the reasoning behind it. What protocol do you speak of? I have been actively editing since May 2007, I have over 700 mainspace edits, I've never been involved in an edit war, and I've never been blocked. Any clarification that you could provide would be greatly appreciated. JSpung (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalproof Application

Hi Betacommand!

I was wondering what your reason was for denying my application after a simple name change? Before the name change I was active on VandalProof, so I really don't see the issue.

I don't mean to insult you or attack you, just wondering what your reason was.

Cheers,

_(criticize)Sp.Kthepurplepixel 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you had multiple re-names? β^{_{command 2}} 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot task 5 status

What is the status of bot task number 5? Have you completed the complete run of the images, or do you still have multiple sections to run? Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive done what I can without requiring further approval. β^_command 03:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was simply suprised to run into a few images that I would have thought would have been caught by the bot. Image:JCseal.jpg and Image:Villa Park HS logo.gif as examples. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof

I'd like a reason for my rejection. It isn't helpful if you just use a generic template without having a reason for the rejection. It doesn't help anyone in the situation to find out they were rejected, but not even have a reason for it. Aremith ^{tlk | eml} 05:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When approving users for VPRF I like to see current activity. Please continue to contribute and re-apply in a month. β^_command 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here too!If possible, please do give a reason so that we know what was found inappropriate. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the same as above. β^_command 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging

Your repetitive image comments will be deleted. I am no longer an active editor. If you want to actually help the project perhaps you should actually correct errors and omissions instead of just tagging items for deletion. If you can't be bothered to help, you should just quit and leave the task to people who want to help. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A robot does the actual tagging. β^_command 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Proof

Hello. I requested approval for vandal proof. I just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. --RyRy5 (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

missing ref tag bot

I saw you were involved in the "Unclosed ref tags" discussion and thought you might be interested in the related "Need a bot to find corrupted REFLIST outputs" discussion. What do you think of my algorithm proposal? -- Low Sea (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Hi, you have reverted my edits here and here. Please don't do this again - I have only corrected my own username and called for whitelisting the link to ac-nancy-metz.fr. See the discussion on this page. Regards --D.H (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalproof Application

Hey B, I was wondering if you could give a reason as to why I was declined, I have the proper amount of edits and I've been very active with fighting vandalism lately.

Also I think it's a bit ridiculous that you guys still say "and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power." Because I have a rejection notice from January 2007 that says the same.

Thank you, ^SyBer_WoLff 11:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Syberwlff#Template:Nikon DSLR cameras β^_command 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi there! I was just wondering why my application was rejected? Cheers, Conor (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was looking over your contribs and noticed you only had 16 user talk space edits, A key part of anti-vandalism is communication something that you need to improve on. β^_command 21:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have over 2000 user talk edits. I reply on others talkpages rather than my own.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5, I was talking about Conmalone's user talk edits. β^_command 02:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Vandal Proof Rejection

Hi β, I can sort of understand being turned down weeks before because I didn't have enough mainspace edits. Not sure I understand now though why it was refused. I have been here months, solid editing during the last 4 months. no blocks, no 3rr (apart from one on April 1st - check it was his bad not mine). Is there something about me that doesn't make me a candidate. please be candid. 1.3 may be powerful but I am unlikely to do any harm surely. Just don't get it. -- BpEps - t@lk 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

this is what caused me to not give you approval. β^_command 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

amazing that is the first time I have seen my rights log can I find a diff that will explain what happened? awarded rollback diffs the refusal rollback diffs which was the first day rollback came out. I was never given rollback for longer than a few minutes, certainly not long enough to know I had ever had them. That rights log is the first I have ever seen and I think it is a shame on Wikipedia that everyone else can see it and I can't. -- BpEps - t@lk 02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

everyone can see that log, if you know where to look. β^_command 02:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No if you have a non-admin account try if for yourself. Apply for rollback. Go to contribs and look at all logs or even just rights logs and you won't see a brass razoo. Everyone can see it if they start messing about with URLS and that is very very very unfair and certainly not in the spirit of a Wiki. I am just disgusted at what I have learned tonight. Amazing -- I even trusted you guys. BpEps - t@lk 03:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering Betacommand isn't an admin, and was able to find your log entry, that means it is public. If you look on the left side of your screen, near the search box, there is a link saying "Special Pages". Click that. You get a large list. Halfway down the page is a link saying Logs, click that. Then select "User Rights Log" from the dropdown and end the term "User:Bpeps" in the box Title:. Leave the box User: blank. Any person, even an IP, can use this function on any user's account. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think MBisanz means "anyone, even an unregistered or logged-out user" :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)yes I know that but it doesn't allow me to do it somehow. Compare the urls I get: β

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3ABpeps&year=&month=-1

and mine

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Bpeps&page=&year=&month=-1

can you spot the difference? and that is just by using the same method as described. -- BpEps - t@lk 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

mmmmm Yeah retried and got the same result as β. Its wrong, I thought that logs were open without having to play mother with them. How on earth do ordinary editors stand a chance when ever 5 minutes we get turf thrown back at us from months before. It was a long time ago. I have severed whatever penance I was supposed to, I came good and still that log say "aggressive" "aggressive". I dunno wish I had seen it (or knew how to see it months ago. Where is the open-ness on this wiki? BpEps - t@lk 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in this, you are seeing all the log entries done on User:Bpeps, which is why "User:Bpeps" is in the title field. This your rights log, block log, and the protection log for your userpage

In this, you are seeing all the log entries of actions done by User:Bpeps, which is why "Bpeps" is in the "user" field. This is all the pages you move and images you upload. It may be somewhat confusing, but it certailnly isn't programmed that way maliciously and you can certainly access the rights log for a user without having to mess with the URL. Mr.Z-man 04:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The logs are a little miss leading in your case, as you are right that you never had the rollback rights long enough to abuse them. But they do support the basic problem with your agressive edit history. The logs, in your case, only support the fact that the admins who granted your request for roll back, should not have done so base on your edit history, not that you abused the rollback rights.

I do have a bit of a problem with your following statement:

"I was never given rollback for longer than a few minutes, certainly not long enough to know I had ever had them."

The following long dicussion on your talk page makes it clear that you knew about it [7] And the second denial only 45 days ago post to your talk page [8] with a link to the following [9] The logs also indicate that Roll back was restored back to you on April 2 per a discussion you had with User:Pedro [10] and [11] Keep up the good work and reapply in 30 days and I would think it would be approved then. Dbiel ^(Talk) 06:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting to have your user page deleted and talk page blanked sure does not add much to a level of trust related to your request.

05:11, April 25, 2008 Deskana (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Bpeps" ‎ (user request)

Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 17	21 April 2008	About the Signpost

BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD	Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested
Global login, blocking features developed	WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology"
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes	WikiProject Report: The Simpsons
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In response:

The first rename was my choice: I didn't want to use my real name. This second (and hopefully last) rename was due to a copyright violation that I was contacted about (apparently ThePurpleMonkey is a registered trademark). So, I plan to make this my last ever name change. Hope this was able to clarify!

Cheers,

_(criticize)Sp.Kthepurplepixel 02:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

VandalProve Approved?

Oh, I thought you were talking to me since I used the same topic name. But did you approve me?--RyRy5 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not. Due to recent controversies you have been involved with I would like to see a couple months of strong editing before approving. β^_command 18:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I will do so.--RyRy5 (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was my VandalProof request declined?

Hello. I recently received notice that my VandalProof request had been declined. Can you provide me an explanation? Wikipedia states that for a VandalProof request to be accepted, user must have at least 250 space edits. I had around 250. Has this policy been taken too seriously? Prowikipedians (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

this raised some concerns. β^_command 12:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)]

Please see the talk page. The user created this account intentionally to harass me after another administrator accidentally regarded my edits in the Dalai Lama article as "bad faith," even though my intention was "good faith" edits. In no way what-so-ever was that user an administrator. Please check my user contributions for more information. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, please remember that user Pradia da Lulz is a fake administrator using templates that are reserved for admins. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot help for Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity

This is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. We need a help by User:BetacommandBot - for task request 8 .

Our Unassessed Project articles are in Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles .
We need bot assisted assesment for all the articles. Our project banner is {{ChristianityWikiProject}}
You need to
1) If "|importance=" is empty , replace it with "|importance=Low" . Make sure you dont overwrite if importance is assessed already.
2) If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assesment from the other project banners on the same talk page.
3) If there are No other wikiproject banners / any assessment already, please use the general wiki guideline of no of characters for Stub/Start classes and then add the appropriate class tag for quality

Thanks in advance - Tinucherian (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Any progress ? . Thanks - Tinucherian (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Im planning on looking into this in ~12 hours. β^_command 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks a lot for your response and attention. - Tinucherian (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback

When someone complains about your conduct, it's neither "trolling" nor "vandalism", and it's not a situation where you should use rollback. Just thought you should know. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If its trolling, non-productive, and insulting comments, I will remove the trolling. I also do not have rollback. β^{_{command 2}} 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You realize that reverting edits, especially with inflammatory edit summaries, only makes the situation worse and not better, yes? Civility is policy, and assume good faith is a guideline, you really should follow both of them. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry if I call a spade a spade. But that is how I am. those edits were disruptive and trolling. Im sick of the abuse so I just revert. dont like it tough. β^_command 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to re-disable my own access to wikipedia (had to complete a small maintenence task), when I noticed this (couldn't help but check my watchlist :( ) -- You fellas may be interested to know, Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. If he sees it as trolling, why not decide not to fuel things further by going on about it? Seems pretty simple to me. SQL^{Query me!} 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very much right, policy does support the removal of messages and warnings. But that policy does not support doing so with an provocative edit summary that could easily be considered a personal attack (referring to other messages from editors as "trolling" or "vandalism" (when it clearly is not) is a personal attack). If his goal is to simply remove the message then he should do so but keep his reasons (no matter how valid he believes them to be) to himself. FWIW, I know I'm not exactly a shining beacon of goodness here (I've used similar editor summaries in the past), but I've tried to temper myself. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If calling an edit trolling is a personal attack, Im Jimbo Wales. I was not referring to the editor. β^_command 04:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The direct implication of calling the edit "trolling" is that the person who made the edit is a troll. At best, that's bad faith, at worst it's a personal attack. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, trolling is an action. It's a common misconception that when someone says "you're trolling" that they mean the person is a green monster that lives under a bridge. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No matter what the semantics are, it's bad form to accuse someone of "trolling" just because they objected to one of your actions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: VandalProof

My VandalProof request has been recently declined. I would like to request that you check my talk page (which had been vandalized/harrased by another user.
1) The user created this account intentionally to harass me after another administrator accidentally regarded my edits in the Dalai Lama article as "bad faith," even though my intention was "good faith" edits. In no way what-so-ever was that user an administrator. Please check my user contributions for more information. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
2)Also, please remember that user Pradia da Lulz is a fake administrator using templates that are reserved for admins. Prowikipedians (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Billings, Montana

Hi there, your bot has tagged several of the images used in the above article as "missing an explanation why the image should contribute to this article". Well, they simply are related to Billings, Montana. Thus, they contribute to the article. I believe a real person should look over these things, not a bot, because a bot can't really find out if the use of the respective image is a contribution to the article or not. Is it necessary to always add something about this contribution thing whenever you use an image posted under "fair use..."? --Maxl (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary. To use a non-free image, you have to have a compelling reason why it needs to be there. Just because it looks good isn't enough, since you're using someone else's property. All the bot does is check whether Wikipedia's non-free policy is being complied with. If the image really does need to be in the article, you should be able to write a convincing reason pretty quickly, right? Franamax (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the way you explain it it's quite clear to understand. Thx! ;) --Maxl (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WPF1 NW

Our next issue is coming out soon. Are u able to send it out when sent to u? Chubbennaitor 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Im always ready. β^_command 21:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mess

The bot has made of mess of this talk page. You have to scroll around through tons of annoying "Fair use rationale" messages located in both the table of contents and the talk page body. With your permission, can I delete the messages from the talk page so we can read the thing again??? Cowicide (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)