User talk:Betacommand/20061117

Developing Sailing Articles

In a posting at the Catalina article you had suggested that that there were POV issues at the Catalina article.

I'm also working on an article for Hunter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Marine, and would like to develop an article for other past and present producers. Your feedback early-on would be appreciated and also suggestins for other realted articles.

Cleanup & Wikify

Hi.

Sure, clenup and wikify Hunter Marine, and you could also do the same to Beneteau.

Thanks.

Kevin

VandalProof

I've recently tried to use VandalProof, only to find out that it says that I am not on the user list. I'd like to ask why this is happening, as I was approved to use it. In addition, I have also noticed other users with this issue, but it has not been resolved. It would be wonderful if you fix this issue. Thanks. D dc c 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for the prompt response. It's working now. D dc c 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User List Bug

There is currently a very bothersome user list bug that is affecting many VP users.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift response however, I see my name already listed on the Approved list you provided, I did not though see my name on this list. Is it permitted for VP users to add their name on that list as well if they are encountering problems?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on VP list

For some reason my names not on the list. Note others having same problem. Thanks, --Billreid 11:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

If you're going to tag someone's block as reviewed at least provide a reason for denial or some other message [1]. -- Netsnipe ► 12:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled them back. Requests need to be reviewed properly, not blanked. These people won't understand what is going on if they get a blank page instead of an answer. Then they'll get frustrated and send abusive emails to the unblock list. If you don't want to answer them, please leave the requests active and we'll do it. Please don't just delete them. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few pointers:

If it's a IP address block, run a WHOIS and RDNS on the address. Check if it's a school IP address and convert the block to anonymous-only if necessary. Otherwise explain to them about creating an account in the "decline=" etc. Do not just add "reviewed" and be done with it. Please put in the effort to make sure due process is carried out when it comes to reviewing blocks.
Don't remove {{unblock&#124} altogether. Just remove the braces or change them to <<>>, it helps admins determine if someone is a repeat offender.
If the autoblock has expired, change the autoblock lifted to autoblock expired notice anyway.

Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 14:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocks

Hi. I notice you have recently been blocking users for an inappropriate choice of username. Except in cases where the username is blatantly offensive or constitutes a personal attack, I recommend you add {{UsernameBlocked}} to the users' talk page, as it explains what has happened and links to the appropriate policy. Simply seeing "{{username}}" in the block log may suffice as a block reason but will only puzzle a new user who does not understand what is wrong with their username. Thanks – Gurch 14:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disappeared from list of Vandalproof 1.3 users

Hi... For some reason I fell off the list of Vandalproof 1.3 users. You welcome message was here. --Rrburke 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Lewis

You speedily deleted Susanne Lewis. I contend that the article should not have been speedily deleted. Lewis meets WP:MUSIC notability criteria: she meets criteria 6 as a member of Hail (band) and for work with Azalia Snail and appearing on Hunger's Teeth. I think she meets criteria 4 (see discography[2]) and 5 (do a Google search) too. The article content had sufficient detail that a speedy delete as opposed to an AfD should never have been used. Bondegezou 11:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Test

How, if at all, could I get my Philip Riteman article restored?

I'd be happy to do whatever is required to make it conform to your guidelines. Thank you very much. ???

24.222.212.152 01:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Municipalities_in_Salamanca to List_of_municipalities_in_Salamanca

You mentioned on IRC you could have a bot do this for me? Thanks muchly. --humblefool ® 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Run time error 438

In VP1.3 I keep getting this error code. D: Do you know why? --SonicChao 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

VP.1.3

Hey Betacommand... You might remember yesterday you reapproved me so that I could use VP1.3.. Well it still doesn't work... A person that had the same issue (SonicChaos), for him, it works. Weird. --Deenoe 13:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't work :( --Deenoe 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for WikiProject Arthropods

That would be reeeeeally helpful. There are just too many arthropod-related articles for me to hope to tag them all. What must I do? Thanks, IronC hris | (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are: Category:Arthropods, Category:Insects, Category:Arachnids, Category:Spiders, Category:Crustaceans, Category:Diplura, Category:Myriapods, Category:Pycnogonids, Category:Arthropod anatomy, Category:Arthropod stubs, Category:Acari, Category:Scorpions, Category:Spiders, Category:Arachnid stubs, Category:Spider anatomy, Category:Amphipods, Category:Decapods, Category:Isopods, Category:Krill, Category:Freshwater crustaceans, Category:Caridea, Category:Crabs, Category:Crabs, Category:Crayfish, Category:Hermit crabs, Category:True lobsters, Category:Apterygota, Category:Beetles, Category:Cockroaches, Category:Earwigs, Category:Fleas, Category:Flies, Category:Hemiptera, Category:Hymenoptera, Category:Lice, Category:Mantodea, Category:Mayflies, Category:Mecoptera, Category:Megaloptera, Category:Neuroptera, Category:Odonata, Category:Orthoptera, Category:Phasmatodea, Category:Plecoptera, Category:Pterygota, Category:Strepsiptera, Category:Termites, Category:Thrips, Category:Trichoptera, Category:Insect stubs, Category:Cantharidae, Category:Carabidae, Category:Cerambycidae, Category:Chrysomelidae, Category:Coccinellidae, Category:Coleopterology, Category:Curculionidae, Category:Dytiscidae, Category:Elateridae, Category:Lampyridae, Category:Scarabaeidae, Category:Silphidae, Category:Staphylinidae, Category:Woodboring beetles, Category:Beetle stubs, Category:Culicidae, Category:Drosophilidae, Category:Hoverflies, Category:Formica, Category:Myrmicinae, Category:Subfamilies of the Formicidae, Category:Ants, Category:Bees, Category:Sawflies, Category:Wasps, Category:Apoidea, Category:Vespoidea, Category:Empusidae, Category:Mantids, Category:Regional dragonfly lists, Category:Crickets, Category:Grasshoppers, Category:Locusts, Category:Neoptera, Category:Centipedes, Category:Millipedes, Category:Trilobites, Category:Ant stubs, Category:Butterfly stubs, Category:Moth stubs, Category:Lepidoptera, Category:Moths, Category:Butterflies, Category:Butterflies and moths by region, Category:Euphydryas, Category:Icaricia, Category:Hesperiidae, Category:Lycaenidae, Category:Nymphalidae, Category:Papilionidae,Category:Pieridae, Category:Riodinidae, Category:Arctiidae, Category:Bombycidae, Category:Cosmopterigidae, Category:Drepanidae, Category:Geometridae, Category:Gracillariidae, Category:Hepialidae, Category:Lasiocampidae, Category:Limacodidae, Category: Lymantriidae, Category:Megalopygidae, Category:Noctuidae, Category:Nolidae, Category:Notodontidae, Category:Psychidae, Category:Pyralidae, Category:Saturniidae, Category:Sesiidae, Category:Sphingidae, Category:Thaumetopoeidae, Category:Tortricidae, Category:Yponomeutidae, Category:Zygaenidae, Category:Araneomorphae, Category:Funnel-web spiders, Category:Mesothelae, Category:Mygalomorphae, Category:Lists of spider species.

The template I use is {{ArthropodTalk}}. Thanks a lot!!! IronC hris | (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot for the help from the bot. There is one minor detail that you might be able to fix though: the bot puts the template in like this: {{ArthropodTalk|class=|importance=}}, but in fact the "class=" and "importance=" are unnecessary, as the template works something like this: {{ArthropodTalk|Start|mid}}, for example. I don't know if you can fix this, if not it's not a big deal. Cheers, IronC hris | (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 20th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 47	20 November 2006	About the Signpost

One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China	Military history dominates writing contest
News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
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 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is this shit, hmm?

Why in the bloody fuck can I not get an answer out of anyone regarding my article? All I wanted to do was provide a biography on a holocaust survivor, it was deleted. Then I wanted to FIX it, but NOONE will RESPOND!

Mattjblythe 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that the article you created was deleted was because it did not meet wikipedia's notablity policy WP:N if you have any other questions feel free to ask them Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VP Approval

Hey, can you please see if you can approve me to use VandalProof. I'm very eager to start using the tool, and it's been about 2 days with my name just sitting there on the list. Thanks. LestatdeLioncourt ^talk 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot question

I have a question about the following edits your bot took, [3] and [4] Under what process can a bot determine that an image license should be chagned from {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} to {{PD-release}}. The first is definatly not PD, its a screen shot; the second I am less sure, but still think it is a questionable PD claim. These were two images I was watching cause they were nomiated by me, I am not sure about other images that may have had their tags changed. If you could look into please or provide me an explanation for my education if the actions are correct. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm also confused by this series of subsitutions. The meaning behind {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} and {{PD-release}} are different and we cannot replace one with the other. I agree that CopyrightedFreeUse should not be used on new uploads, but we cann simply replace it out of existance. Can you provide a pointer to discussion on this?

I've blocked your bot for the time being, thanks/wangi 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a bit of digging I've come across a wee bit of discussion at Template talk:No rights reserved#Merge with PD-release, however that's just from today and on an a different template. Surely this level of change should be discussed in a more prominent location, and sufficient time for input allowed? Thanks/wangi 22:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see [5] and Template talk:CopyrightedFreeUse for the refernces and the request for template depopulation here Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{CopyrightedFreeUse}} and {{PD-release}} are the same thing. They both state that the copyright holder has renounced all rights to the image. Whether or not the image was accurately tagged in the first place is a different matter, but that is not the concern of this bot. The bot is simply replacing a depricated template with a less confusing equivalent. Kaldari 04:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I understand where the confusion is coming from. It looks like some people have been mistakenly putting the Free Use template where they meant to use a Fair Use template, which are not even close to the same thing. But again, that is not this bots problem. If an image was improperly tagged, it was improperly tagged. This bot is not responsible for or capable of recognizing and fixing those sort of mistakes. Kaldari 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prime example of why {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} needs to be deleted. The sooner we can get all those templates converted the better. Kaldari 04:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Templates_for_release_to_the_public_domain. Please continue the discussion there. Kaldari 05:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

AWB speed

Sorry about the speed. Do you know what speed I should try to stay under? Thanks Hmains 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3/minute. OK thanks. I would not khow how to deal with a BOT. Thanks. Hmains 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking StubListBot

You blocked StubListBot (talk · contribs) within 1 minute after I created the account, and before I had a chance to put a description on the user page. I'm following the regular procedure through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, so I don't think this immediate blocking was really necessary. Han-Kwang 09:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

VP kicked me out

I tried to log into VP, but it says I'm not on the user list. But I remember you approving me. Can you look into this? --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, VPRF kicked me off too. I've added my name back on the list but it looks like there may be some backlog on approvals. Can you have a look at it if you get a chance, please? Cheers! Budgiekiller 16:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XFF

m:XFF_project, [6]. thought you'd want to see this. 67.127.54.251 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:External links reversion

Hello. Is there some _reason_ that you choose to revert here? Because really you should use an edit summary for anything but obvious vandalism, you know. Sorry, a meaningful edit summary, not just "Revert to revision 90383397 by 2005."
152.91.9.144 07:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um yeah you removed part of the guideline. I reverted that as vandalism Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"um yeah" !? Please do use more care, and in particular when someone has pointed out to you that there may be a problem with an edit of yours it behooves you to look again. The total of what I "removed" was '#', '.', '#, '.' and '#'. You might note in particular that the last '#' was a formatting error in the form of #(SPACE)# Links to blogs. The edit summary of "corrected formatting only (minor edit)" might also have given you some indication. Someone later had to re-re-correct the error that you re-introduced.
152.91.9.144 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

Links mainly intended to promote a website, that primarily exist to sell products or services, or with objectionable amounts of advertising.

What is replaced

Links mainly intended to promote a website.
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

VandalProof

I registered my name to use VandalProof on the Awaiting approval list but I haven't got a message on my talk page stating that I was accepted or declined. I downloaded the software but when I try to use it a message appears saying that my name is not on the user list. Can I know why no response was sent to me, please?

--Meno25 09:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been approved to use VandalProof.

--Meno25 01:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

With respect to this deletion, please check the talk page which is always a good idea when making up one's mind whether there exists a consensus for deletion. Please add your thoughts at the page's talk, not at my talk. TIA, --Irpen 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Trilok Gurtu

I am not the original uploader of this image, but it is an image made freely available and specifically for downloading and reuse through the artist's official Web site, and there is no photographer or other potential additional copyright holder listed. There is no readily available free use image available, and I find it inappropriate for the image to be marked for deletion on the assumption such an image can somehow be magically produced. If so, find it, and substitute thereto, rather than simply marking an image for deletion on the assumption one should be available. Tvccs 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Trilok_Gurtu.jpg"

It appears you went ahead and deleted this image, even though its appropriateness is under considerable debate - See discussions on Chowbok, for whom there is an open debate ongoing - there is no acceptable free image, the image was tagged appropriately as promotional, and should in fact be usable. Are you an admin? I'm sorry, but I'm unable to tell from looking at your user page. Tvccs 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Therion1.jpg

Hi, why did you delete this image: Image:Therion1.jpg? [7] I know, it's about WP:CSD#I7, but what is\was an exact "invalid fair-use claim" in this case? Visor 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image:The View.jpg

Hi, you deleted an image although it was tagged replaceable fair use disputed without giving any reasoning or engaging in discussion regarding the dispute. At best that's impolite, at worst it's vandalism. Can you explain exactly how you reached the decision to delete it without notification?Citizensmith 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what gives. I noticed that the image was undeleted yesterday but now it has been deleted again. I'm getting a bit sick of this. Would you please explain what is going on?Citizensmith 17:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images

Please explain why you have deleted these image: [8] [9]. You have ignored the discussions on the related talk pages and do not appear to have informed the uploaders or contacted any of the relevant editors, and you have not supplied the alternate free images required before those images can be deleted. 172.202.174.36 01:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg

You deleted this under CSD:I7, but I marked that I contested its deletion as being fair use and not easily replaceable with a free version. What gives? --Dgies 02:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that deletion be overturned: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28. --Dgies 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nikkor lenses

When you speedy deleted this, did you look at the discussion page? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a response, so I undeleted it pending consensus, if you disgree talk with me and I will listen. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Image Deletions

Hello! Hmm... My understanding is that before an image is deleted, you (an admin) must look at the appropriate talk page, and determine the merits of the fair use claims within, especially for articles with the {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag. I would like to see some indication that you did, in fact, take in to consideration any or all of the discussion before your massive deletion. (This seems to be a common theme among recent posters to your talk page.) Thanks! Jenolen 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Betacommand, you know better. You can not simply combine your admin access and your technical skills to create a bot that deletes >1500 images in less than 2 hours, even if they have been marked as candidates for speedy deletion. The fact that it apparently ignored both {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tags and other talk page disputes over whether that fair use deletion critera applied has now created a larger mess for others to sort out, as the above talk page testifies.

I have blocked you for 1 week for using a bot with admin powers, and will be discussing the issue further at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive Image Deletion.

Dragons flight 08:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Blocking proxies

Hi Beta. I just came across your block of 202.45.119.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on November 3, 2006. May I ask you how you determined that it was an open proxy? I performed a Reverse DNS lookup on the address and it resolves to ck3.VicOne.netspace.net.au meaning that you had in all likelihood indefinitely blocked an ISP proxy server!

Before you block any IP address in future, please do a portscan using nmap or at the very least use vcn-proxycheck (currently down). If you had done so, nmap would have told you that 80, 3128 and 8080 were "filtered" and definitely not "open":

# nmap 202.45.119.41 -p 80,3128,8080

Starting nmap 3.81 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-11-28 21:49 EDT
Interesting ports on ck3.VicOne.netspace.net.au (202.45.119.41):
PORT     STATE    SERVICE
80/tcp   filtered http
3128/tcp filtered squid-http
8080/tcp filtered http-proxy

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 5.396 seconds

If you're not sure, ask someone else to scan an IP address for you or refer it to the WikiProject on open proxies in future. -- Netsnipe ► 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did scan the ports on that IP. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for assuming you hadn't. -- Netsnipe ► 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion of Image:Something Corporate Promo.jpg and Image:Something Corporate.jpg

Hi, I was wondering why these two images I uploaded where deleted. I made my case why they shouldn't be on their respective talk pages here and here, which nobody contested. I feel that fair use criteria #1 does not apply here as a free alternative cannot be created as e.g. the latter image is used to identify the band's members within the Andrew McMahon article during a notable phase of their career (members have left the band after the picture was taken). Also, the band hasn't toured in two years and is on somewhat of a hiatus, hence a free live picture can currently not be created. I would be happy if you could undelete them. Have a great day, HarryCane 14:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shauna parsons.jpg

This was undeleted... was it undeleted as part of the discussion with Radiant above? If so, it should be moved somewhere under Category:Replaceable fair use images (or directly processed). It's currently dangling since its maintenance category was deleted. --Interiot 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images

Hello. Regarding the deletion of the following images:

Image:Somluck.jpg
Image:SombatMetanee.jpg
Image:Tonyjaapannarittikrai.jpg

These were marked with {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tags, and I was under the impression that an admin would look into the dispute and respond to my claims on the talk page before the images were deleted outright. Is that an incorrect impression? Is the method of resolving these disputes to simply delete the images without so much as a by your leave to the Wikipedian involved? I'm fairly new to all this, and I understand this whole business of deleting fair-use images is not personal. I'm just trying to gain a better understanding as to how things work around here. Further, the images were still linked to the articles, which leaves behind a bit of a mess to clean up, but again if that's the usual procedure, then I'll accept that and soldier on. I sincerely hope I haven't come off uncivil. I appreciate the work you're trying to accomplish. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the images. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace link on Jason Falkner

I take issue with your deletion of the MySpace link from Jason Falkner. I agree that most MySpace pages are irrelevant and should not be used but the link I added was to his official MySpace page and the only place he posts updates on his current projects, album releases, etc. Rather than modifying the page again I'd like to know if you're willing to reconsider.

See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Links to MySpace) (I don't know how to link to URLs with spaces in them). Specifically the exception to the policy you quoted which states: "Links normally to be avoided" starts with "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid..." Tut21 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of related reading is WP:RS and WP:SPAM. Generally speaking, promotional sites should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians promote themselves. It's part of what they do. I still don't see why the fan site jasonfalkner.net is more legitimate than a MySpace page the musician personally maintains. Or why his former website jasonfalker.com once deserved to be listed there when the MySpace page doesn't. A domain registration does not prove authenticity. In short, the letter of this policy is being followed rather than the spirit. Tut21 14:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	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 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

SmackallBot

Have you completed the task that was requested by SmackallBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)? Let me know so we can take appropriate action. -- RM 15:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. The message above was meant for ArmadilloProcessBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) task 2. Sorry for the mistake. -- RM 15:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what-did-i-do?

I was editing the "2d Bomb Wing" page, and during the time that I was editing it (and had it properly flagged "inuse", I think), you had removed the "inuse" tag. Why did you remove it? Did I flag it inappropriately? Just trying to comprehend and prevent this accident from happening again.

BTW - I'm not angry or anything, just a newbie that wants to improve Wikipedia and understand the proper processes and everything.... Thanks for understanding. NDCompuGeek 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohlone

Ohlone has several active editors. Please read the talkpage. Reinserting tag {{underconstruction}} --meatclerk 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Try It now. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a try but no, it did not help. I probably need some shaman to dance around a fire, spit into it three times, and it starts working :). --Jan.Smolik 13:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Fault

Hello Betacommand The 'Bot' removed an 'inuse' tag from the page A 149 that I am editing . The reson for this was that the page had not been changed fro three days wich is not right as the page had only been created the day before. date of removal was:15:38, 29 November 2006. The bot is not working as it should.Stavros1 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Image deletion

Hi there! There is debate on WP:AN as to how you performed so many deletions so fast, and that you may have missed important tags on the image talk pages that could have influenced the decision to delete. Could you please elaborate? (Radiant) 14:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I assumed that since the Images in question were in the category, and that it was backloged I assumed that the disputes for wether or not the image should be deleted had been resolved. I modified my version of firefox, for a short time to allow for clearing this backlog. I set it up so that if I middle clicked a link it would open up the deletion page with the Image and the preset summary. I also had it set to autosave, and close the tab. That is how I mananaged to get the speed. Looking back of the Incident that was not a smart idea. The reason that I set that up was because of the massive backlog. But I see that i should have been more careful. Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, some images had the tag {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, and these should not have been dismissed so easily. I'm not sure how many there were. Perhaps Firefox could be likewise set up to view the deleted page and see if this tag is there? (Radiant) 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Could but since this as caused soo much trouble Im not going to use this method again. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block pulled (there may be autoblocks though).Geni 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how you modified Firefox to do tasks like this? Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that code looks confusing. I won't be doing automated tasks for a while, lol. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia

I strongly disagree with your early closure of this discuss since there is no evidence of bad faith and substantial OR issues have been raised. I strongly suggest you revert your closure and let the discussion progress. JoshuaZ 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree- there are real issues being brought up here, closing this now as a "keep" is going to be very controversial. No harm in giving it time. Friday (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can call it OR because the synthesis is OR (I'm not yet convinced that it is a syntehesis for WP:OR purposes but the matter is serious). As for civility issues- that isn't a reason to close nor is it evidence of bad faith (and I don't see any serious civility issues in the nomination anyways). JoshuaZ 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree, I was actually baffled by the decision to close the afd as there was a lot of discussion going on and some valid points raised to delete the thing.--Dmz5 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're now edit warring over this? Absolutely unacceptable. Many people have disagreed, at least one of them strongly enough to undo your closure. Aren't you an admin? Shouldn't you know better? Friday (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Friday. If you feel it should be kept, vote keep. Closing it as keep when there was a clear consensus to delete, and when these "delete" votes came from users in good standing was clearly inappropriate. I didn't bother to vote, but I did see that it was very clearly going in the "delete" direction. AnnH ♫ 17:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for "do not revert an AfD close", I wouldn't revert one if it weren't so patently incorrect. Chris cheese whine 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the main defender of the article, let them delete it. I have plans to rebuilt the entire thing into a much better article provided I am allowed to keep notes in user space. -Husnock 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<after 2 ec> I also disagree with the early closure and I urge you reopen it or allow someone else to. Also, I'm concerned that an administrator is asking, "what is wrong with citing wikipedia?" WP:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources: "Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia articles as a source..." Sarah Ewart 17:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The sources are largely other articles and some's personal web page. Not exactly proper sources, here. It disturbs me that an experienced editor would not realize this. Friday (talk)

Image deletions

File:Sub image bob.jpg

Bob Vila

You left this on Bob Vila. Please try and clean up after yourself, when you delete images. -- Zanimum 19:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You left something similar on The New Pornographers. I uploaded a new photo, which I am fairly certain works under fair use. Let me know if I'm wrong. Timothyarnold85

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport

Hi there. A Mediation cabal case has been opened regarding the dispute at Changi Airport. The mediators, User:Hunterd and I, would like to hear everyone's stand on the dispute. Any input is very welcome at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport#Discussion, could you please indicate your stand regarding the dispute, and why you think the names should stay/go? Thanks, – Ch acor 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject law enforcement bot

The template for stubs is:

And I was hoping if your bot could be modified from its original work for us to include adding the above banner to any articles with stub templates that are in the law enforcement catagory which either don't have a banner for our wikiproject already, or do and are not rated.

the outcome im looking for is, for the bot to rate as stub all articles in our wikiproject which were given stub templates by their creators. this is in addition to the fine work it already does for the wikiproject.

I hope this is possible, many thanks.--SGGH 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Copyrighted MMA images

Hi Betacommand, the image "Image:Tatsuya Kawajiri.jpg" was deleted under "Invalid fair-use claim". I asked what this means at the WikiProject because I can not find a free image for it. What do you think about other similarly copyrighted images such as: Image:Fedor.jpg, Image:Mirko Filipovic.jpg, Image:Wanderlei de Silva.JPG, Image:Matt-hughes.jpg, Image:GeorgesStPierre.jpg and so on -- do you think they qualify for fair use or not? Thanks. Shawnc 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]