Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:27, 23 November 2008

File:Dragon with text.GIF

• 20060127
• 20060409
• 20060508
• 20060713
• 20060906
• 20061017
• 20061117
• 20061207
• 20070101
• 20070201
• 20070301
• 20070401
• 20070501
• 20070601
• 20070701
• 20070801
• 20070901
• 20071101
• 20071201
• 20080101
• 20080201
• 20080301
• 20080401
• 20080501
• 20080601
• 20080701
• 20080801
• 20080901
• 20081001
• 20081101
• 20081201
• 20090101
• 20090201
• 20090301
• 20090401
• 20090701
• 20090801
• 20090901
• 20091001
• 20091101
• 20091201
• 20100101
• 20100201
• 20100301
• 20100401
• 20100501
• 20100601
• 20100701

Re: NOtice

Beta, I have a watchlist, I can see your edit to ANI. You don't think they won't look at your bad-faith edits here, on WVNS-TV (a page I monitor and have edited) and on the NFCC talk page. Your personal attacks above will come into question too. I might be on probation at the moment, but you got more to loose than I do. For now, you can talk to yourself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:57

24 hour block

"...your a fucking dumbshit..." violates the civility condition of your editing restrictions and, also taking into consideration the general tone of the comments which contained that phrase, I have therefore enacted a 24 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am only being blunt and stating the truth. Im sorry if that is offensive but it needs done. β 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You are on a civility parole; if you are adamant that it needed saying then I conclude that you are prepared to take the consequences. That is fair enough, and I based the tariff on the basis that you have not been sanctioned for quite a while. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please ensure that both sides, are treated equal as I was responding to someone who started the attacks. β 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall be pleased to look into the matter should you raise it at the appropriate venue, but it is unlikely that there will be "equal" treatment - unless the other party is also subject to a civility restriction such as you are. If there is a violation of policy, the other party may be warned (or be commented if stale) on a scale commiserate with their recent behaviour but only blocked if it apparent that it is ongoing problematic behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you blocked me I am unable to bring it to the proper venue, that is why I am bringing it to your attention. veiled threats and obvious insults would get a reaction out of almost anyone. I made my point clear, All I am asking is treat both sides of the coin fairly, dont just ignore part of the issue. it may not be the same response but some action is needed. β 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The treatment will be asymmetric in any case, since the other editor IMO was only being mildly un/in/non-civil. Nevertheless, I've left them a caution. Franamax (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

It occur to me that I should have promptly notified you of that thread. Sorry I didn't do so, it was discourteous of me. Franamax (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And if all that was a continuation of the endless "law trumps WP rules" argument from a few days ago - well, you have my sympathy on that. I think you often take a narrow interpretation, but that can reasonably be discussed, what I saw was complete incomprehension on the other side and it must be frustrating to deal with. However, you can (and know you can) make your points quite well in a civil fashion. Don't let yourself get badgered. Franamax (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One must be blunt, if those who are listing refuse to head kind words, for harsh words are more effective if they refuse to listen to the kinder ones. β 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe one "must" be blunt if one wishes to save the wiki all by oneself. The other strategy is to calmly restate your case and wait until other editors come along to back it up - which they would, 'cause you were right. I don't personally agree with you completely on the gallery thing, I see some other sides to the argument, but you were dead-right on WP/WMF rules being the only ones that matter. It's always better to keep the high ground though, especially when you're right. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

then why do so so few state that? I see fewer and fewer users standing up for the core policies that make wikipedia. those that have in the past have either given up, or been harassed off the project. β 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair point and mea culpa there. I saw what was going on and I could have chimed in to say the guy was dead wrong. I suppose I didn't partly because I thought it was in hand, and partly (being honest with myself) because I see you as a hardliner and didn't want to be on that "side" - which is my failing, 'cause you ended up getting blocked over it. I'll try more in future, and it would be much easier if you were a little more moderate too, then there would be a better "together" to which we could "stick". :) Franamax (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am moderate, the thing is good usage of non-free content needs very very little defense as it speaks for its self. β 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons rename bot

Dear Betacommand, Is there a reason why your rename bot has not run on Commons. According to this catalogue, there are more than 1,098 image files which require a rename of some kind. I have 2 pictures in this category but I just thought this situation was strange. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Key

You mentioned on WP:AN that a key was required, and to poke you for access, so... Please? : ) - jc37 11:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Drop me a email, with what ever you want your key to be. β 14:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Feel free to pick something, and I'll just use what you pick. - jc37 23:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource

Hello,

Could you please explain why your bot tagged random pages for speedy deletion? s:Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot_AWB_drive. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

its not me, its a impostor. please block and checkuser. β 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked on WS. Yann (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Block?

You are in no position to be threatening others. You threaten me again, and I might get you blocked. For the countless time. Baseball Bugs 19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. I am making no threats. I am just giving warnings. violations of the non-free content policy will lead to a block. β 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your empty threats. You have no authority, nor stature in wikipedia, to get anyone blocked. Baseball Bugs 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria rule #8

I'm not sure you're interpreting this policy correct. It states "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." Clearly, use of non-free content should be limited. But in the case of news personalities on television stations, visual references of said personalities increase readers' understanding of the topic. As a member of WikiProject Television Stations, I know that in order to use non-free content, there is a specific non-free use media rationale that must be used. I don't mean to cause a conflict, but I think there might be some other editors that agree with me on this. Cheers. Strafidlo (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The non-free content policy does not allow for galleries of images. β 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If that were true, then all city pages would have their galleries deleted, many user pages would have their galleries deleted (including mine), most state pages would have galleries deleted. So, I think you are interpreting this incorrectly, as those galleries continue to exsist dispite NFCC. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 07:27