Misplaced Pages

User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:37, 20 May 2008 editBetacommand2 (talk | contribs)947 edits re-add what was blanked← Previous edit Revision as of 21:58, 20 May 2008 edit undoBetacommand (talk | contribs)86,927 editsm Archiving 15 sectionsNext edit →
Line 30: Line 30:
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Because of your repeated kindness and willingness to help others when nobody else will even know about it, I sincerely thank you. You've helped me build an army of... well, I'll just leave it there. '':-D'' ] |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Because of your repeated kindness and willingness to help others when nobody else will even know about it, I sincerely thank you. You've helped me build an army of... well, I'll just leave it there. '':-D'' ]
|} |}
==Ince and Elton railway station==
Can you please re-rate this article. It is no longer a stub class in my opinion... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== James Amann == == James Amann ==


Removing criticism from a politician's article leads one to believe there's an agenda here Removing criticism from a politician's article leads one to believe there's an agenda here

== Warning ==

BC - you should know that is unacceptable. Suggesting another user goes to see a doctor is a serious personal attack. Step back for a second, reflect and calm down. I'm sorry, but if something like this happens again I'll block you. ] 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:It worries me that a user can exhibit such a lack of higher brain functioning, without serious risk to their health. I was making an observation. ] 01:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
::Final warning Beta - I don't care where the next comment like that is, but you won't be editing should it happen again. ] 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Really Beta, you and I have talked before once, I'm not on your side totally, but I understand where your frustration comes from. But hey, whoa, you need to calm it up a bit. That's not good stuff, everyone has their own approach to things, lots of times its not the same as your own. Chill bud. ] (]) 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: One of the effective ways to deal with trolls is to avoid feeding them, β. ] 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::The trouble with that advice is that this would mean Betacommand being unable to respond to lots of people. His definition of a troll seems to be anyone who annoys him at any particular time. The correct term for that is "someone who annoyed me", not "troll". Ultimately, the person who loses out each time Betacommand is unable to control himself, is Betacommand. Hopefully he will see that one day. ] (]) 07:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:BC, you do some great work here, but you can't keep treating people like that. You're lucky you weren't blocked immediately. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] Newsletter Issue V - May 2008 - delivery ==

Please deliver our project newsletter ( Issue V - May 2008 ) <br>

<nowiki>{{subst:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2008}}</nowiki>
<br>
to all members on ].
<br>
Thanks in advance -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">] <sup> ] </sup> </span> </small> - 07:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:Hi, Just wanted to ask if this is done. Thanks in advance -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">] <sup> ] </sup> </span> </small> - 02:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

?? Sorry to bother you again - -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">] <sup> ] </sup> </span> </small> - 05:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Important|Please cancel this request.}}

I guess you are busy. I have taken an alternative help this time. thanks -- <small> <span style="border:1px solid #6699FF;padding:1px;background:#6699FF">] <sup> ] </sup> </span> </small> - 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

== Advice request ==

Hi, as someone who I suspect has a much greater understanding of how Misplaced Pages works than I do, I wonder whether you would be able to comment on the potential ] issues involved with a template I'm developing, {{tl|cite doi}}. The template makes it much easier for an editor to cite a source, as they only need to enter a DOI; then, a bot creates a subpage, which is transcluded onto any page which cites that source through {cite doi}. Is this likely to place unnecessary strain on the servers?

Thanks,
]&nbsp;'''<small>]</small>''' 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:Very bad idea, why not have a pair of templates, user adds <nowiki>{{cite doi|#}}</nowiki> then the bot comes along and replaces {{tl|cite doi}} with a new template that has the same things the sub page would have? ] 14:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for the feedback; the problem with that approach is that no-one will ever know that the {cite doi} template exists, and that if the bot is unable to find a record for the DOI, it's not immediately clear to the user. ]&nbsp;'''<small>]</small>''' 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
:::if the bot cannot find the record have a Doi error template then. if it works people will find out. ] 01:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

== BCBot ==

I was curious. When I try to run ShepBot as fast as I can get it going the spam filter kicks in and stops it from editting. Is there a way to bypass the filter or am I just stuck; with using AWB as my software and all? I'll watchlist this page. Thanks for the time. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font> • <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font> 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:what are you referring to? ] 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, you mentioned on ] the speed of edits you can get BCBot to run. ShepBot if set to anything less than 3 edits a second gets stopped by a spam filter from Misplaced Pages. I don't have a job to run right now. If I get a chance I'll take a screen shot of it. <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font> • <font color="green" face="Comic Sans MS">]</font> 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
:Ive never had that error so im not sure what your talking about. ] 02:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

== FYI ==

. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for May 12th, 2008.==

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font>
|}
<br>
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
| colspan=3 |
----
|-
| align="left" | '''Volume 4, Issue 20''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']'''
|-
| colspan=3 align=center |
----
|}
{| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;"
<!-- -->
{{s-s|2|1|2008-05-12|Pornography|Explicit sexual content draws fire}}
{{s-s|2|2|2008-05-12|Sighted revisions|Sighted revisions introduced on the German Misplaced Pages}}
{{s-s|2|3|2008-05-12|Copyright claim|Foundation receives copyright claim from church}}
{{s-s|2|4|2008-05-12|Policy updates|Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy}}
{{s-s|2|5|2008-05-12|Citizendium 2|Update on Citizendium}}
{{s-s|2|6|2008-05-12|Board elections|Board candidacies open through May 22}}
{{s-s|2|7|2008-05-12|Maker Faire|Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area}}
{{s-s|2|8|2008-05-12|IP block exemption|New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks}}
{{s-s|2|9|2008-05-12|WikiWorld|WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"}}
{{s-s|2|10|2008-05-12|News and notes|News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones}}
{{s-s|2|11|2008-05-12|In the news|Misplaced Pages in the News}}
{{s-s|2|12|2008-05-12|Dispatches|Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists}}
{{s-s|2|13|2008-05-12|Features and admins|Features and admins}}
{{s-s|2|14|2008-05-12|Technology report|Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News}}
{{s-s|2|15|2008-05-12|Arbitration report|The Report on Lengthy Litigation}}
<!-- -->
|}
{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small>
|-
| colspan=2 |
----
|}

<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] (]) 09:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)</small>

== Quick Question ==

You seem to know about these things so...concerning images used on ], user ] is requesting permission from MAxis to include them in the article(and only on Misplaced Pages from what I can tell). Even if they do say yes, I was under the impression that that would not be enough for them to be included? <font color="#9966ff">]</font><font color="#cc6699">]</font><font color="#33cc66">]</font> 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

==Good call==

. Right after that he went silent for four months, and returned this morning as a vandalism-only account. Looking through the user creation log, I see he was a creation of an indef-blocked account called ]. ] ] 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


==Blocked==
You have been blocked indef by {{User|MBisanz}} for apparent sockpuppetry. This is currently being discussed at ]. I am willing to unblock you to enable you to present your case, if you promise to refrain from all mechanical or bot edits during that time. For now, somebody made a transclusion so that any posting you make on this page (outside these noinclude tags) is going to be transcluded to WP:AN. ] ] 09:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:Ah, the noinclude tags explain why this isn't appearing on the ]. Betacommand, I too am willing to unblock pending an explanation below of . That is the only edit I would want to see an explanation for. ] (]) 10:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

===]'s response to ]===
Betacommand, please respond here:
<onlyinclude>
I was attempting to start over under a new username, I was every careful to avoid editing the same pages, and the edit at ] was an accident. I think this issue has been taken far far out of context. ]s may be blocked for being abusive, how as that sock be used abusively? see for a listing of all overlaping pages. other than random cleanup there is no overlap except for the one error on ] ] 13:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
</onlyinclude>

==Snowman's question==
*I reported a problem on this talk page on 20 April 2008 at ] and I would like to know why I did not get a reply. On 15 May 2008, I reported a similar problem and I reported it again on this talk page, and I am also waiting for a reply to the second problem. ] (]) 11:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:im sorry it got lost the first time in other stuff. ] 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
::Please comment on all the genus categories that you have messed up putting in defaultsort. How long does it normally take you to reply? ] (]) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

== Proposed unblock ==

Betacommand, I've proposed an unblock . If you could be patient and wait for those two hours, I'd appreciate it. If you want to respond to any objections people raise, please use the section above as before. Meanwhile, would you consider answering Snowman's question up above while waiting? If not, don't worry, but it would be good if you could. Thanks. ] (]) 13:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:I've now unblocked you. The other accounts (three I think, two alternates and one bot) and the page undeletions, I've left for others to handle. I suggest you present your case at the AN thread or the appropriate venue to ask for the bot flag back or for the other accounts to be unblocked. If you could find the time to answer Snowman's question as well, that would be good, along with the other stuff about the DEFAULTSORT edits. ] (]) 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

== Unblock of BetacommandBot and your pledge ==

Trying to tidy up a few things here. In the AN thread, you said the following: <blockquote>"what should be done is Betacommand2, BCBot unblocked, BCBot flag is returned and "Quercus basaseachicensis" will no longer edit. I will also agree to a 30 day halt on BCBot edits, except for ant-spam related reports and the article by size see ] which are run on cronjobs."</blockquote> Given that the unblock was later done by MZMcBride under different circumstances, could you please confirm whether or not what the pledge you made there still applies? Also, could you confirm what you want done with the Betacommand2 and Quercus basaseachicensis accounts? Thanks. ] (]) 13:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:I still agree to those terms, and Betacommand2 should be unblocked as I use that on public machines where I cannot load this account. (minor errors in my monobook which firefox ignores, but the version of IE that I use other places pop up error messages which is very annoying). Since the alt account I was attempting to start over with was exposed I will not use it again. ] 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you. I'll unblock the ] account. I know I've mentioned it before, but could you ''please'' update the user page to indicate that it is more than just a test account. I will note the confirmation of the pledge, the discarding of the alternate account, and the unblock at the AN thread. If there are other pages that need undeleting or changing, let me know. I think the only other loose end from my point of view is the DEFAULTSORT stuff, but I'll raise that separately. ] (]) 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:::AN post is . I pointed out another automated task. I suggest you negotiate a restriction to the Misplaced Pages and User namespaces (and their talk pages), as that would be easier to keep tabs on. ] (]) 14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've blocked the BetacommmandBot account in response to a consensus supporting the proposed sanctions at AN. The review period needs to be worked out, two periods suggested so far include your 30 day pledge and the 90 days suggested by Durova. My involvement, outside of instituting the block, need only be as minimal as you would prefer; I trust any neutral admin to remove the block following the decided period. Let me know if you have any objections. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::you need to reverse that now. as per my comment on your talkpage. ] 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I had composed the previous message prior to getting your note. This block is supported by sanction, not an explicit agreement with you. Part of the reason for this block is the widely perceived necessity for a break from any and all bot activity from your accounts. I understand your concern that this bot is setting back progress, but that is something that many users have disagreed with. It will indeed stall some useful tasks, I take it that other bot operators have previously agreed to pick up the slack where necessary. Progress, as I define it, is at least a break from drama for the review period and a drastic reduction in errors made during your bot runs. Progress will take time. I apologize if my action temporarily increases any drama - I hope that in the long-term it will prove to be a preventative measure. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 18:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:What sanction? Beta was the subject of an accusation of abusive socking, which was later determined to be incorrect (in that the socks weren't abusive). The folks who oppose BCB & Beta in general have used this as a coatrack for all the complaints they've ever had about him - which is just plain wrong. --]]
::The sanction discussed at ]. This sanction is meant to be a break and reboot, giving Betacommand time to reconsider his methods and a chance to prove that he can function in a responsible manner that satisfies numerous valid concerns brought up surrounding his use of bots. I don't mean to block Betacommand from ever using a bot again and I've never agreed with the assertion that he was using a sock abusively. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (e/c)
:Anetode, I'd ask that you reconsider this block. The original block of the account turned out to be baseless, thus, any re-blocks are unnecessary. This block was not preventative in the least, and is grossly against the blocking policy, as BetacommandBot was not actively causing any disruption. - ] (]) 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::The original block included all of Betacommand's accounts, I agree that it was unnecessary. This is only a block of his Bot, in response to a clear consensus to enact a set of sanctions devised in an attempt to prevent further drama and bot mistakes. I understand that there are a number of users who tend to disregard any and all complaints and discussions about the bot because they consider the vast majority of them to be frivolous. This is not meant as a cool-down block, a content dispute block, or an endorsement of punitive sentiment. This is a community enacted preventative measure of the sort used regularly by other formalized processes, including Arbcom. The terms of these sanctions are still flexible, their intent is to propose a temporary break period followed by a review by a neutral party. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::the there is not agreement to what actions should be taken I ask that you reverse your actions as the conclusion of the discussion has not been reached. this is not a preventive block, but instead a punitive block that violates ] ] 19:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

::::Actually there is plenty of agreement with regard to the continuance of your bot-related activities. If anything, this is a mild version of the restriction proposed by the sanctions, a few users commented in favor of an infinite block rather than an indefinite block. Further, as is completely obvious to both of us, blocks supported by a consensus at AN are not a new phenomenon and do not violate the blocking policy. Rather than arguing for a continuance of the mega-size discussion already in place, perhaps you could take some time to consider what input you'd like to offer related to the terms of the review. Your 30 day pledge was certainly a good faith effort, however the community is not obligated to overturn these sanctions to abide by a solution devised entirely by you. I have to log off now, I'll be back on tomorrow. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::The bot was unblocked, anetode, until '''you''' blocked it. Don't hide behind the community here; if all of betas accounts werent (inappropriately) blocked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. - ] (]) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Perhaps not. Perhaps you should read over the discussion you have until recently neglected. And cease making accusations. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::How do you know what I've read, or "neglected" to read? Anyhow, I'm not playing games here. If you cannot provide one diff from BCBots recent contributions that shows need for a (preventative) block, then I don't need to say anything else. - ] (]) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::Your comments at the AN subpage were quite dismissive of even the possibility of some reason for enacting any sanctions. This led me to believe, to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you had perhaps not read over the dozen opinions supporting these sanctions. These included several extreme opinions that suggested permanent removal of Betacommand's bot priviledges. You can come out and say that the bot was unblocked until I blocked it - this is obvious and I'm not sure what type of an argument you are trying to make by pointing it out. If you mean to imply that this was in some way a unilateral action, then I'd like to assure you that it was not. It was meant as a sensible, even mild, attempt to work towards a practical solution to temporarily cease Betacommand's controversial actions (defaultsort, et al) until such time that he proves a willingness to take responsibility for his mistakes and drastically reduce the probability of further poorly thought out runs. You're not playing games here, I respect that, but neither am I. If you intend to neglect the hundreds of kilobites of discussion of mistake after mistake perpetrated by Betacommand (in good faith, I am certain), then I think you have a very myopic sense of the problem, or have chosen to dismiss it entirely. Prior to the block you had not commented at all about the proposed sanctions, and now you bring up the claim that they are fruits of the poison tree. I can sympathize with that statement, as the whole thread was initiated by an overreaction to a relatively benign alternate account. I can assure you that the block was not in any way meant as any sort of a punitive measure for using the recently uncovered account. The events leading up to these sanctions can best be traced to a pattern of lack of accountability and a well-established trend of mistaken edits. The intent of these sanctions may not satisfy Betacommand, then again, they are not meant to. The whole reason behind them is to enact a community supported trial period, an opportunity to Betacommand to prove that he has the humility to take a small break and start fresh, to prove to other concerned users that he can operate the bot in a responsible and uncontroversial manner. If successful, these sanctions will prevent a great deal of bad faith and animosity levelled against Betacommand and help him earn earn the respect of many members of the community who may see him as, at best, a necessary evil. Of course I realize that there is a contingency of users who already genuinely respect Betacommand's actions and will defend them through thick and thin, despite the frequency of his mistakes, incivility, and the attendant drama. I don't want to foster an antagonistic attitude against these users, including yourself, but at the same time I wish that they would take some time to consider the huge amount of well-established users who have serious grievances against Beta's m.o., many of which are not related to the regular red herrings of NFCC enforcement or assumptions of bad faith. It's true that I have a number of concerns with BCBot, but if you read over the whole discussion, there is a definite consensus that something must be done. The Betacommand and Betacommand2 accounts remain unblocked and Beta has every opportunity to prove his critics wrong by employing a little humility and a careful approach to successfully operating bots and other semi-automated tools. ˉˉ<sup>]</sup>] 08:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Appears to be punitive for the purpose of a "cool down". Might need to reconsider this block until a conclusion is reached.--] (]) 19:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta, I disagree with blocking the bot. However, people seem upset about doing unreviewed tasks on your user account. What would you think about agreeing to only do bot or assisted edits from the bot account (none from user:Betacommand or user:Betacommand2), and to get a review (BRFA) before any task? ] 20:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:as long as you can keep the trolls from harassing me link the last BRFA sure, ] 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Clean up using... ? ==

Hey... I noticed you're producing a large number of edit summaries of the form "clean up using". Shouldn't there be something after the word using there? — ] (]) 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:You're also making a large number of useless edits, such as . Can you explain why these need to be made en masse without a bot account? --]]]<small>(st47)</small> 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
::I was asked to go over the default sort edits and fix any problems, given that users have complained about the placement of default sort I thought it best to place it in the proper location. I am manually going over my edits and fixing defaultsorts and also doing typo fixing at the same time. (Im using a SVN copy of AWB I think I accidentally changed the edit summary) ] 03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

== ANI thread and 3RR breach ==

Betacommand, there is an ANI thread ] where it has been shown that you breached 3RR. The other editor was blocked, but has now been unblocked, partly because I unblocked you without realising that you had (despite what others had said) been edit warring and breaching 3RR. Please don't ''ever'' do that again. Whether or not you were aware that you had done the earlier revert with your Betacommand2 account is beside the point - you used multiple accounts in that edit war, and that is completely unacceptable. Please limit yourself to using one account if editing any one page in a 24 hour period, and please only use the Betacommand2 account for uncontroversial stuff. ] (]) 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


== AN discussion (another one) == == AN discussion (another one) ==

Revision as of 21:58, 20 May 2008

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note:
  1. There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria
  2. Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer.
  3. Read the policy
  4. Check and make sure the image has a valid source
  5. Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here)
  6. I will not add rationales for you. As the uploader it is your responsibility, NOT mine.
  7. I do not want to see images deleted
  8. All images must comply with policy
  9. A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale.
  10. If you're here to whine and complain that But <place image name here> is just like my image and isn't tagged for deletion I will tag that image too, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.


The Original Barnstar
Because of your repeated kindness and willingness to help others when nobody else will even know about it, I sincerely thank you. You've helped me build an army of... well, I'll just leave it there. :-D east.718 at 01:16, December 16, 2007

James Amann

Removing criticism from a politician's article leads one to believe there's an agenda here

AN discussion (another one)

Since the initiator of the thread completely failed to have the courtesy to notify you, I'm doing it. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed community ban of Betacommand. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image formats

Dear Betacommand,

When creating and uploading images, please take care to use the appropriate image format as described at Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Format. Especially take note that JPEG is for photographs only. It really diminishes the intended message to upload a big STUPIDITY IS DANGEROUS AND VERY CONTAGIOUS sign, and then (a bit stupidly) make the mistake of saving it in an inappropriate format that produces large artifacts, looks terrible, and warrants a cleanup tag. —Remember the dot 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)