User talk:Betacommand/20061207

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)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia does not need links he added.) --Jan.Smolik 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please do not participate in personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:Alex garden.jpg]]

Hi,

You deleted [[Image:Alex garden.jpg]] 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 ^talk 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is now undeleted, CJay. if there are any further problems let I or Betacommand know. Cheers! ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 4th.

The Wikipedia 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	Wikipedia wins award in one country, reported blocked in another
News and notes: Steward elections continue, milestones	Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With all due respect, please see WP:N and WP:V. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, as an Admin, can you close these two AfDs? Law in Star Trek is now a sourced informative article and Starfleet Security should never have been AfDed in the first place. People continue to use these AfD pages to make comments about the contributors to these articles, call the articles names, and act sarcastically towards those who are trying to improve these articles. Enough is enough, lets close these things. Thank you so much! -Husnock 05:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ian 101

Can you explain to me why you fully protected a user talk page? Sure, the user is a delinquent, but why did it require a full protection? Diez2 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the user using the talk page is blocked and is being disruptive there, they may find the page protected to further stem their disruptiveness. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as You know what fuck wikipedia, screw u i'll hack into your webpage in fuckin want to is what made me push to protect the page, after I declined an unblock Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)}

switching license templates

Let me know as soon as your bot has finished replacing CopyrightFreeUse. I'm going to delete that template and remove any references to it in the pedia. It looks like we're close - only about 1000+ to go! Thanks for your work on this. I'm determined to get the licensing template situation cleaned up. I'll probably have a few more lined up for you soon. It's such a mess right now. Kaldari 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Betacommand, were you still planning on finishing the template switch? It looks like there are less than 1,000 left. I'm tempted to try to do the rest by hand, but it would probably take me a couple months :) Kaldari 04:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survival Horror

I was curious about why my entry for Survival Horror was deleted. It was not an advertisement, and was not promoting a company, producr, group, or service. Please let me know why this was deleted, because I followed the rules as I read them, and it did not violate any of the rules in the generap criteria. Mikehendo 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also be aware of proper tone and wording, to adhere to WP:NPOV and avoid "weasel words". ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, what I meant is that i did not believe it to be in violation of the rules. If it was, please let me know how i can correct this. Mikehendo 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to be G11 at first glace because of the links, but upon futher examination it was aslo G1 Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G1 being patent nonsense? "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content"? The purpose was to reference a series of role playing games and in time to provide possible campaigns, NPC templates, etc. Mikehendo 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose my have been that but the article was not Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try to provide an article that achieves those goals after i get back from work. Have a great day Mikehendo 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decorated Period a stub?

Short, yes, succinct, yes, but a stub? You should have seen it when I found it (and it wasn't labelled as a stub)! SiGarb | Talk 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! So it was, and I left it there...! Sorry about that. Would you personally rate it as a stub, or not? SiGarb | Talk 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)––––––[reply]

Personally I don't rate pages :) Im just a bot operatiorBetacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wheaton

No clue what that page is about or what's going on with it, but whatever-it-is appears to have moved to Scott M. Wheaton now that Scott Wheaton is blocked. DMacks 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARCH bot request

Massive thanks for that. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of stubs

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean.... SGGH 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Ah, well thats the problem, we don't have any stub templates, I was hoping that the bot could assess as a stub rated article any unassessed article in our wikiproject which has a stub template from anything (for example...ARWEN ACE has 'This firearms-related article is a stub. You can help by expanding it') I hope this is possible?SGGH 11:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an Idea. Create a stub template for your project. Ill have my bot add it if it finds another stub tag. and then tag all the pages with the new template. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 11:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HI cats

Thank you. Left you a msg on the bot requests page under the hawaii section, letting you know I forgot to include the unassessed articles cat as well. —Viriditas | Talk 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've left you a new request for stub assessment in the same section. If you need me to modify my request in any way, please let me know. I appreciate your time. —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of no source tag on image

Hello. I was wondering why you removed the {{no source}} template from Image:Roywink2.jpg in this edit? You didn't add source information or provide an edit summary. Thanks. Khatru2 07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the page appeared to have source info Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has a description and a license but no source information. Do you have any objection to me reverting your change? Khatru2 07:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new "how to get started" page for writing bots - your opinion?

I think there is confusion on how to go about starting a bot (eg here and here) and there is no wikipage covering this, the main bot page talks only about policy, not avenues for getting started, how to make a bot etc. I have made a suggestion that a howto page be established and, as a frequent editor helping out with bots, I would appreciate your comments. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD close rationales

Any chance of a brief explanation of the rationale behind your closes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General ? "The result was Keep" might be seen as a bit short on details for AfDs where many editors argued that there were were non-negotiable content policy issues mandating deletion (i.e. WP:NOR). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know. Original research cannot fufill verifiablity requirements, and at the very most/least to me, the AfDs seems to have no consensus. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since neither of those was original research, the reason should be clear. Law in Star Trek now had a very clear external source while Starfleet Security was referenced with several in-line citations from movies and episodes. The entire AfDs were nothng but nasty business. Even when the defenders of the article tried to compromise and reference the mateiral, we were met with heavy sarcasim and incivility. Coolcat and Husnock were even offically reported for harrasing other users and making personal attacks against other users [1]. This thing had to end, as a without-merit AfD. -Husnock 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you not close such things. I think your personal opinions may be getting in the way. Friday (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friday, Husnock was not the closer, Betacommand was. Either was, citations to it's own canon consitutes self references, if not original research. Wikipedia policy is to avoid self-references, and as such they were clearly a contentious AfD, not as clear-cut as Husnock suggests. I would think that there is clearly no consensus (remember this defaults to keep), but Beta's closing I feel was probably premature, as the discourse was still ouccuring. At the very least he could have referred discussion to the appropriate talk page. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 19:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Peter said, but the reason I asked was that Betacommand had already closed a very similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia, not once, but twice. Rushing off to DRV without asking politely for an explanation is terribly non-U, even when it takes WSOD rather than AGF to believe that the closer didn't have a very big axe to grind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He probably closed one and only skimmed over the other one before assuming it should be kept. I think it would be best for him to recuse himself from something he is personally invested in, myself, per Conflict of Interest regulations. ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I closed as I did was because that 1. the AfD's were borderline Keep/no consensus. 2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General was completely rewritten addressing the issues that were given and in the AfD I saw no real issues that were not addressed in the rewritten article. 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security there was no consensus to delete it was again borderline. 4. In cases that I see are borderline I WP:AGF and go to the more positive side of caution. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced, given that WP:NOR is non-negotiable, and that your rationale smells like vote-counting, but it'll have to do. By my reading, the articles are still loaded with original research, and this issue will never be resolved so long as the primary contributor has no understanding of what constitutes original research. Still, there's always the chance Husnock will read and understand WP:NOR, or failing that, the restatement at WP:ATT. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The primary contributor has no understanding of what constitutes original research"- rather insulting since we bent over backwords to find an established outside source to add it to the Law in Star Trek article. Similar searches are underway to find Starfleet Security references in text and literature. So, yes, I do know what Original Research is. See my user page for the dozens of articles I've written to and contributed to. -Husnock 13:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about finding an "established outside source", it's about not filling in the gaps. The correct order is "find references -> write article", not vice versa. Chris cheese whine 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is not "allowed" to write an article before they find a referenece, then why have stubs? In the above case, we found a reference, its in the article and the article is now sourced. The AfD is over, people should just let this go. Beta thanks again for letting us use your talk page. -Husnock 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire to avoid original research, however you know how it goes, you have to start the ball rolling before you have an article that is acceptable - the articles that people call "stubs". While I think it may have been best for Beta to abstain from articles where he has strong personal feelings, as I feel this is a conflict of interest situation, I also don't see any lasting harm coming to Wikipedia from two articles staying, out of 1,500,000+. A couple extra pages really isn't going to hurt that much. I believe it is probably much more useful to point out where the problems are to the editors working on the article than it is to simply delete it. This satisfies both parties - you will have an article with no original research, and they will not have their article deleted. I think that would be the best outcome in this matter. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Hello.. I found your name from the requests for Bots page, I would like to put the WikiProject tag to a number of categories, most probably nearly all the articles listed under Cat:Turkey and its subcategories, minus a few. How does that work? Do I use the bot myself after filling some sort of form or does someone have to it for me, and if so how will it happen? I tried especially to put a WPTR tag on provinces, cities, history but there were simply too many! :) Cheers! Baristarim 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have a bot created to do that, please go to Wikipedia:Bots and request a bot be created in the appropriate section. It should have instructions on how to do so there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 23:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just wait on Betacommand to reply, this is exactly what betacommand's bot does. —— Eagle 101 ^{(ask me for help)} 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]