User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:12, 24 May 2008 editKelly (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,890 edits →Request for arbitration: my advice← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:47, 25 May 2008 edit undoRyan Postlethwaite (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Conclusion of the AN thread: make clearNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 84:		Line 84:
	I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see ]. ] 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)		I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see ]. ] 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
	:Take it for what it's worth, but my advice is to not bother replying there unless requested by the ArbCom, let others defend you. This looks to me like a frivolous complaint by someone with a grudge, based on the extremely POV language in the dispute. But do whatever you think is best. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)		:Take it for what it's worth, but my advice is to not bother replying there unless requested by the ArbCom, let others defend you. This looks to me like a frivolous complaint by someone with a grudge, based on the extremely POV language in the dispute. But do whatever you think is best. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

			== Conclusion of the AN thread ==

			Per the consensus of the thread on ], the ] has gained community consensus. You are prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or your main account. You are also placed under civility parole, and any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate. Regards, ] 00:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:47, 25 May 2008

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note:

There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria
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.
Read the policy
Check and make sure the image has a valid source
Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here)
I will not add rationales for you. As the uploader it is your responsibility, NOT mine.
I do not want to see images deleted
All images must comply with policy
A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale.
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

Reply to your question on VPT

You asked: "If I give you a list of subcats would you be willing to filter out the non-pl cats?". I replied there and will repeat it here: "Yes" :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ive gone two levels deep here en:User:BetacommandBot/Sandbox 3, before I go deeper take a look. β 19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Your disrespectful behavior is reported as 3RR violation. Mukadderat (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Edit count

Hello BC. As I'm sure you're fully aware, this page was deleted twice by two admins acting independently. And as I'm sure you're also fully aware, an agreement had been reached about the original list to accommodate people who did not want their name on the list. The fact that this list is in your user space does not liberate you from the moral obligation of respecting that agreement. Citing WP:NOTCENSORED in creating the list is completely inappropriate and it has me wondering when was the last time you actually read that bit of the policy. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

the lists in question have a few major differences, see my prior post for specifics, as for WP:NOTCENSORED that refers to the removal of valid information, not the creation of the list. your deletion was un-callled for, which is why I re-created it. β 14:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

People don't really have the right to deny the release of their edit count. Every edit is released to GFDL so surely you are allowed to count those edits? I see nothing inappropriate about gathering useful statistics. Now there have been certain decisions about what to do in the Misplaced Pages space, which is all fine and well but I would say that it being in userspace makes all the difference in the world and that you should try MfD if you think it is inappropriate for userspace, not just simply delete it. I don't see any policy that supports deleting that page. _{1 != 2} 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

there is a DRV that says the same thing and opposes the first deletion without reason. β 14:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I have a a link to that DRV please? _{1 != 2} 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 21#User:Betacommand/Edit count. Just popping through. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The DRV is just overturning the speedy because it's more appropiate to discuss it at MfD, that's all. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm bringing the discussion here. Beta, to preent an Mfd if and when you recreate this list, it would probably help if you lay out in clear terms here why:

Your edit list is different from the wikispace ones
Why you actually need it, or what you use it for (bar the obvious)
Why, if it isn't a duplicate, you don't move it to wiki space
Why you do not allow anonymity from it despite it being allowed in the wikispace versions
Why your list qualifies as an appropriate use of a sub-page per WP:USER

MickMacNee (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that a DRV ~~reversed~~is clearly supporting the reversing of the previous deletion, I think the latest deletion was contrary to consensus and should be reversed. Using admin tools unilaterally in a content dispute, and this is a content dispute, is a big nono. _{1 != 2} 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The proper method would've been to MfD it, not to delete on sight. Enigma 15:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my deletion. If you're not going to honor the previous agreement about placeholders, I won't let this list be. Another MfD is the perfect way to lose everybody's time repeating the same arguments on the placeholder debate. Userspace is not a place where you can ignore the community when you don't like the compromises it agreed to. Note that you also reverted aggressively as vandalism any attempt to use placeholders so I consider the list to be a disruptive attempt to refuse the community's wishes. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Beta, if you would just implement a way for users to remove themselves from the list, I'm sure that your list would be kept at the MfD. So, please, just implement it. Your list is not going to be worse because of that, and you won't unnecessarily piss off other productive editors. You will save yourself a good amount of WP:WIKIDRAMA and create good will towards you. About censoring, I will just claim the privacy rights at WP:BLP. Lame, I know :P --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution

Hey, love your DANGER sign...may I borrow?

Anyway, I'm here about your recent contribution to WWII lists. This needs to be done in all the lists, so I was going to ask for a Bot request to do it. Are you doing this by hand? If so, please stop and prevent yourself from getting RSI :) However, your good intention and help is appreciated, cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a find and replace js that allows me to mass fix them in about 30 seconds, Ill go ahead and fix the rest then. β 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

should be converted to the better format now. β 00:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed a request for another issue in Bot requests that may be Misplaced Pages-wide if you want to have a look at that also.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Betacommand_3. John254 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it for what it's worth, but my advice is to not bother replying there unless requested by the ArbCom, let others defend you. This looks to me like a frivolous complaint by someone with a grudge, based on the extremely POV language in the dispute. But do whatever you think is best. Kelly 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion of the AN thread

Per the consensus of the thread on WP:AN, the Sam Korn solution has gained community consensus. You are prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or your main account. You are also placed under civility parole, and any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)