User talk:Betacommand/20090901

Wikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

• Flagged protection and patrolled revisions: Misleading media storm over flagged revisions
• Flagged protection background: An extended look at how we got to flagged protection and patrolled revisions
• Wikimania: Report on Wikimania 2009
• News and notes: $2 million grant, new board members
• Wikipedia in the news: WikiTrust, Azerbaijan-Armenia edit wars
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jane Aagaard

Hi Betacommand, I undid your spelling changes to Jane Aagaard because none of them were actually incorrect in Australian, NZ or British usage and Jane is Ozzie, she just spells funny. Actually some of those words were OK even in American. It really is Women's Policy as otherwise it would only apply to one single Woman. Thanks for your interest. Ex nihil(talk) 03:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

deleted user page

I have deleted "User:Betacommand/Log". Please immediately disable any script that is populating it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you deleted the page but where should I send the information because it needs to be addressed. β^_command 03:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The simplest recommendation I can give is to send periodic updates to functionaries-en or oversight-l. But I am sure you know many admins and non-admins who can be trusted with this sort of thing. If we can get on top of this backlog, you could even email oversight-l as soon as a new entry appears. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref editing

I have reverted your edit to semen quality and thought I'd drop a note here. Having references in the body of the article confers a number of advantages: if one becomes obsolete, it is easy to find and delete; it makes it easier for new users to figure out how the ref templates work; it allows editors to see what the refs are while in the edit window (especially while editing a section) without having to go back to the normal-view screen.

In addition, the way the refs were named was identical to the naming style of the bot that restores deleted refs. It makes it look like you're running an automatic script. Lyrl^Talk _C 11:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not running a bot, all I did to name the references was to use the title parameter of the ref template, I think its a lot easier to edit articles when there are not numerous templates embedded into the text. it also makes it easier to work with refs if they are all in one place. β^_command 11:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When adding images

When adding animal species images from Commons, please check that it is the correct species. This was Hippocamelus bisulcus, not Hippocamelus antisensis. In fact, the image had already been deleted from the article 2 years ago exactly for that reason (see Talk:Taruca). --Jmk (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I actually took it from es:Hippocamelus antisensis (you have since fixed that article too) so thats where the error started ☺ β^_command 12:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I've made similar mistakes myself (copying from one language-wiki to another, only to find out that I've just been propagating something that was an error in the first place). It is all too common among wikieditors... --Jmk (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Admin Trial Period

I realize this but why is it dismissed regularly? Has it ever really been tried as a system or has the community's judgement on it been based solely on a few occurrences in which it has failed? My main question is why is it being annually put down?- Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 04:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

do some research and review the concerns and opinions raised in those discussions. β^_command 04:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Where should I start? - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 04:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)