User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 01:34, 6 December 2006 editChriscf (talk \| contribs)5,611 edits →Star Trek AfDs ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:55, 6 December 2006 edit undoHusnock (talk \| contribs)12,977 edits →Star Trek AfDs: answer (Beta is probably wondering what is going on)Next edit →
Line 102:		Line 102:
	:::: Following my edits around, Nebor? Like the way I look or something? How have I violated WP:POINT? Please, tell me. Have I AfDed four articles in under a week to antogonize the people who wrote them? Nope, that was other people. -] 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)		:::: Following my edits around, Nebor? Like the way I look or something? How have I violated WP:POINT? Please, tell me. Have I AfDed four articles in under a week to antogonize the people who wrote them? Nope, that was other people. -] 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Do you have any evidence to suggest the nominations are a deliberate attempt to antagonise you? ] <small>] </small> 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)		::::: Do you have any evidence to suggest the nominations are a deliberate attempt to antagonise you? ] <small>] </small> 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
			:::::: Coolcat claims he is gathering such evidence. This whole thing just stinks, it really does. The exact same people are AfDing articles on the same subject and have brought up four of them to AfD in just over a week and then, in two cases where they were kept, launched into a deletion review. There is also the matter that ] was nominated for deletion just a few minutes after I had finished a rewrite to make it better. Almost as if they saw me doing that and then said "Lets piss him off now by AfDing after he did all that work". A fourth article was nominated for deletion ''in the middle'' of the debate about Starfleet Security, by the same person, almost as if it was a tactic to try and get Coolcat to say something uncivil. I'm not saying that every single person who is voting Delete is in on some kind of thing, but a blind man could see that there appears to be certain people who, for whatever reasons, are trying thier damnest to get these articles off of Misplaced Pages. I have to wonder, I have to ask: are they doing this because they don't like the articles or are they doing this becuase they don't like the editors involoved with them. After all, no talk page discussions on user Pages, indeed comments seem to be heavily sarcastic, calling articles "crap", edits "hogwash", and making statements that the sources provided are either distorted or flat out untrue. You, yourself, are throwing things in like telling me to go visit an unencyclopedic website after I indicated I would like to start working on a new article. Why would you say that? As well as childish comments on the JAG AfD page when Coolcat and I are trying to explain ourselves and make these articles better? And, yes, we've had some personal attacks with me being called "contempable"; I am waiting to see if more name calling does not occur. Something stinks here and I don't like it. P.S.- THANK YOU BETA FOR LETTING US USE YOUR TALK PAGE! -] 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: Please ]. Thank you. ✎ <b>]</b> <sup>(]) (]) (])</sup> 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)		::: Please ]. Thank you. ✎ <b>]</b> <sup>(]) (]) (])</sup> 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:55, 6 December 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Betacommand/20061117. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Smiley Award

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5b

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Unblock

Beta Command... You clearly did NOT read my notes. You simply voted as a team against a non admin. IF you had.. You would have read the UPDATE and CORRECTED link going ONLY to the article to bypass the page that was only partly similar to a DMOZ site, in that it is directory of only actual companies and not internet spam companies- but it has articles. It is NOT an advertising site. My argument wasn't for the site, it was that DMOZ not have exclusivity since it is not really open. My corrections were not read- IF you HAD checked the CORRECTED link- you would have seen that. If anyone reads this they may be more carefull to see if you are truly objective and not acting in a pack manor with other admins which will put YOU in a bad light. I am not an admin. What is your excuse for not reading the corrected link and simply closing rank to discourage users from getting a fair opionion? Wiki is meant to grow not close off to existing admins.--162.83.180.170 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for spamming, and you did not present an apology, you presented a personal attack against the admin who blocked you. Unless you were looking for a longer block, that was not wise. As is, if the block is not indefinite, then wait it out and just edit afterwards. Otherwise, I suggest an apology and appeal to the admin you attacked, and to Beta for your unfounded allegations. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a bad thing and User:162.83.180.170 clearly should appologize for them. However I cheched his edits and I do not think that what he added was spam. It was a link to a directory of companies, providing described service. While the source might not have been sufficiently good for Misplaced Pages and its inclusion is a matter of oppinion, it was not spam. User:162.83.180.170 might have been blocked for revert waring, but per WP:AGF and WP:BITE calling him spammer and blocking him was too strict. (BTW.: My personal oppinion is that Misplaced Pages does not need links he added.) --Jan.Smolik 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well even if the link was good, (s)he should argued it's merits, instead of attacking the administrators involved. Incivility is a good way to increase block times. ✎ Wizardry Dragon 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon, Thank you also for NOT READING. This pack mentality of admins makes you appear desperate to please the adins so you may remain part of their group. If you would have CHECKED the history and the last LINK UPDATE- you would have seen the correction went only directly to an article. As for debating the merits, it is clear you do not appreciate that Wiki itself was once criticised by existing encyclopedias for it's new approach. This was merely a non-DMOZ information site specifically on the topic. But it was improved by my updating directly to the article that was relevant, instead of leaving the viewer to go to the original index page. You still are arguing over an updated link that has no directory part of the page, and a block WAS issued without checking. Gwernol and any person so hopeful of adminiship will be a deterrent to Wiki's growth if they do not take time to read, verify what is said, and correct. The apology should be GWENRNOL's and BetaCommands, and Wizardry Dragon's to me. Because they are failing to check the updated link that would NOT have resulted in a block. The scaries thing to read is Wizardry Dragon sad comment that my protest of their error, was "a good way to increase block time". This is not a communist site where free opinion on the talk page should warrant punishment.

Any admin reviewing this should see the changed link, see the block was given without checking within less than what appeared to be ten seconds. The admin was POUNCING and the additional reviewers were simply repeating the error by not reading or fearing dissent. It is just ludicrous and silly to see the ignorance of facts and checking on the change made.

Wiki should not be a popularity contest amongst admins and wannabee admins. It should be accurate. In my opinion if Gwernol and the two added opionion's (who FAILED to read and follow the updated link of the last edit change) determined the entire opion of Wiki, far fewer would be here today. Wiki does not want you to alientate the attempts of others and rush to rash decisions without READING.

Thank you for reading Jan, and for giving an opinion that appears rational, unbiased and considerate. Especially the part where you aptly indicated the inclusion of the source was more a matter of opionion, even though you did not think it was needed. Regarding the "personal attack", I assure you it was me, a contributor who felt attacked when IN GOOD FAITH, I changed and improved the link to an article only. By not having it read, and having a BLOCK put on me, so that I could not even communicate, I take the highest offense. It was the thwarting of my ability to communicate. I have written for this complaint to be viewed on the backlog of complaints because it was so frustrating to be part of such behavior.

Gwernol in my opinion is like a good prosecutor, who in hurry for speed would accidently convict only a few wrong people. But on is too many. Hence the complaint stands and the tip to not go into law enforcement! LOL --162.83.180.170 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not participate in personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

]

Hi,

You deleted ] with the reason "speedy deletion under I7". I'm inquiring as to how the tag used in the description was a "clearly invalid fair-use tag". The only dispute, to my knowledge, was over whether it was a replaceable fair use item, not whether the tag itself was invalid. The pending deletion was disputed, yet you deleted it without discussion or justification.

At the very least, a note on the talk page or the disputer's talk page seems appropriate. — ceejayoz 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJay, this is actually an ongoing debate coming after Jimbo said that most fair use images should be replaced with public domain images. Beta just deleted this and several others that were tagged because of this a few days ago. If they were improperly tagged, he can undelete it for you. if it was fair use, it may help to clarify to Beta how it was a fair use image that was not replaceable. Cheers ✎ Wizardry Dragon 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I listed a rationale (duplicated on the talk page) after receiving the notice that it could be deleted, which was apparently ignored as the image wound up speedy deleted anyways. I was under the impression that disputing the pending deletion in the manner laid out in the deletion notice would at least put it on hold until a discussion could take place. — ceejayoz 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Beta probably just missed the tag, CJay. Beta went through the entire backlog that day, so there was bound to be one or two things he missed. If you could provide a summation of the rationale here, Beta can probably have it undeleted if the rationale is reasonable. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is now undeleted, CJay. if there are any further problems let I or Betacommand know. Cheers! ✎ Wizardry Dragon 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 49	4 December 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections open	The Seigenthaler incident: One year later
Wikimedia celebrates Commons milestone, plans fundraiser	Misplaced Pages wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Misplaced Pages in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek AfDs

The same people are back at it. Coolcat believes they are purposefully hitting these articles with AfDs, I kind of agree with him but will hold off on making any accusations. See:

Thank you! -Husnock 00:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, please see WP:N and WP:V. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT should also be reviewed by the mass AfDers. -Husnock 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock, it should also be reviewed by yourself. Chris cheese whine 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Following my edits around, Nebor? Like the way I look or something? How have I violated WP:POINT? Please, tell me. Have I AfDed four articles in under a week to antogonize the people who wrote them? Nope, that was other people. -Husnock 01:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to suggest the nominations are a deliberate attempt to antagonise you? Chris cheese whine 01:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Coolcat claims he is gathering such evidence. This whole thing just stinks, it really does. The exact same people are AfDing articles on the same subject and have brought up four of them to AfD in just over a week and then, in two cases where they were kept, launched into a deletion review. There is also the matter that Starfleet Security was nominated for deletion just a few minutes after I had finished a rewrite to make it better. Almost as if they saw me doing that and then said "Lets piss him off now by AfDing after he did all that work". A fourth article was nominated for deletion in the middle of the debate about Starfleet Security, by the same person, almost as if it was a tactic to try and get Coolcat to say something uncivil. I'm not saying that every single person who is voting Delete is in on some kind of thing, but a blind man could see that there appears to be certain people who, for whatever reasons, are trying thier damnest to get these articles off of Misplaced Pages. I have to wonder, I have to ask: are they doing this because they don't like the articles or are they doing this becuase they don't like the editors involoved with them. After all, no talk page discussions on user Pages, indeed comments seem to be heavily sarcastic, calling articles "crap", edits "hogwash", and making statements that the sources provided are either distorted or flat out untrue. You, yourself, are throwing things in like telling me to go visit an unencyclopedic website after I indicated I would like to start working on a new article. Why would you say that? As well as childish comments on the JAG AfD page when Coolcat and I are trying to explain ourselves and make these articles better? And, yes, we've had some personal attacks with me being called "contempable"; I am waiting to see if more name calling does not occur. Something stinks here and I don't like it. P.S.- THANK YOU BETA FOR LETTING US USE YOUR TALK PAGE! -Husnock 01:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)