User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 22:58, 21 February 2008 editBetacommand (talk \| contribs)86,927 edits →Your spamming ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:58, 21 February 2008 edit undoBetacommand (talk \| contribs)86,927 edits →Your spamming Next edit →
Line 171:		Line 171:
	::::Thanks. ] (]) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)		::::Thanks. ] (]) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Not a problem, If this computer had javascript enabled on it I could do it for you right now in about 30 seconds. ] 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)		:::::Not a problem, If this computer had javascript enabled on it I could do it for you right now in about 30 seconds. ] 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::3096 ~~images~~. give or take 20. ] 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)		::::::3096 tags. give or take 20. ] 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Picture ==		== Picture ==

Revision as of 22:58, 21 February 2008

−6114 days left

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

Vandelism

Hi, I am Rbpolsen (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC). My userpage has been vandelised 5 times by 70.128.185.15 from Texas. Can you please do something? Thanks. Rbpolsen (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A further note about civility

Betacommand;
Your recent edits to this userpage are outside the bounds of civility. In what circumstances do you imagine that editors will respond in a positive manner to being told not to "whine and complain?" Pages in user space still do belong to the community and they exist "to facilitate communication." There is clearly some value in an informative header, and it is widely agreed that repetative discussions are harmful. However, the tone (and image!) of your header does not assist in building the encyclopedia.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

also you are not supposed to change others comments, I stated that way for a reason. if you dont like my headers get over it. you have zero grounds to edit my comments. β 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there was something cut off before the "also," but as it stands your reply has several factual errors:

It's not a signed comment, it's a header box.
I (and every other editor) is actually supposed to, and is encouraged to fix anything they perceive as a problem.
To respond to my (I thought) polite response with "get over it" is highly uncivil.
And, to reiterate point #1, I have every grounds to edit the header at the top of your page. It's rude.

I again make the argument that it does not actually facilitate commmunication. In fact it impairs communication. I won't re-edit the header right now, but I'd ask nicely that you make the change yourself. I may also ask a random editor to review this thread, as my discretion.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't deny that he's being slightly uncivil, but it does happen to be his Talk page so he can have it say what he wants, basically. Enigma 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not true. I linked it above, but here it is again: Pages in user space still do belong to the community. If pressed, I'll provide a long list of discussions at the Administrator's notice board, the incidint notice board, and multiple findings by the Arbitration Committee to support this. Betacommand does not own this page, he's simply given "wide latitude" in its contents.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Got to agree with Betacommand on this. He's entitled to put whatever header he wants on his own talk page. If you think it's incivil, tell him, and he might or might not change it. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Even if you accept that he only has "wide latitude" in his talk page's contents, surely that includes warning people about whining and complaining. In my mind, this is far from incivil--it might not be the cheeriest thing to do, but there's no WP rule saying everyone should be cheery. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, you are tough!

You take all these comments, and don't get discouraged over them! I don't think I could ever deal with all this...you have quite the tough skin! Following the ways of Compwhizii...

Soxred93 | talk bot has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Doesn't hurt to ask

At Misplaced Pages:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c#Probably not the right place for this but..., I've said that your bot's closed source is a roadblock to me writing an improved version, and MBisanz has suggested that you might give it to me if I ask. So, I'm asking.

Would you give me your bot's code, along with permission to modify it, distribute it, and release it under a free license, so that I can make what I consider an improved version and run it by the bot approvals group? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do have a problem with what you want to do. when I let other see the code it under one specific condition, do not distribute it. β 13:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but can I ask why? It's not like you're going to sell this code for a profit. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metamorfoz.JPG

Sorry, but this image () is not orphaned, since it is being used by the article Metamorfoz.
Beegeesfan (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Metamorfoz.jpg is being used in the article. Image:Metamorfoz.JPG is not used anywhere. --Onorem♠Dil 15:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks I was just about to say that. :) β 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

your sig

Loads of people do, please can I keep it, the image is off Misplaced Pages too its not off another wbsite. Its off of the Wiki. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, few if any people do.. and they shouldn't. The smiley font is ok, but the image is an unnecessary, wasteful use of system resources. Every time someone loads a page with your sig on it, it has to make an extra call to the servers to retrieve the image.. --Versa geek 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Lawless

What is? Because you withdrew the image Lawless.jpg of Article Lucy Lawless, just give me a reason logically.

Like I have stated on your userpage see WP:NFCC β 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Form

Put an image in the commons with the same name, so withdraw the image here of wikipedia, can illustrate the article of the Lucy Lawless with a picture of commoms, putting current image in another part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawless fan (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Overwrought comment

Betacommand, please see this edit, where I removed an overwrought comment of yours and added a long and hopefully informative reply for Torc. I'm letting you know in the hope that you won't revert or restore your comment. Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Premature archive

For your information, you have now archived the same open conversation twice. If the archive is an automatic process, it looks like there's some sort of bug in the process. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Instructions on the bot talk page

Hi Betacommand, Just a passing lurker who noticed your bot is a bit unpopular at the moment (!)

Do keep up the good work, someone has to do it - and soon. But, (IMHO) the instructions on the bot talk page, especially the big "you are blocked" stop sign, are very hostile and probably contributing to the drama. Shoot me if I'm wrong of course... but I changed the picture and made the text a bit more friendly.

I'm not involved in any image or other disputes, so this is just a neutral edit. Moyabrit (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that, I placed that there and phrased it that way for a reason. Please dont edit my comments. β 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to understand, Moya. BC doesn't seem to care if he's rude, unhelpful, or overbearing in his comments. He does this "for a reason", so it's all fine. You'll soon enough learn to just leave him (and especially his bot) alone. I know I have. Bellwether _C 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bellwether, I am glad to help people who have questions, I post that template at the top for a reason, it answers a lot of questions, and its phrased that way so people will read it. β 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but I've never seen you be helpful to a person who was confused by your bot's aggression, or by the bite-y "instructions" at the top of the page. It's always dismissive. Bellwether _C 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont have much time at hand here is some quick examples

β 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

While this will almost certainly trigger a check-user on the hapless (in a nice way!) Moyabrit, I note that this is the second time that this has happened in short order, and that there are now at least three editors who have either asked you to change it or othrwise indicated that they believed it was rude. Without malice, I suggest that you consider that your opinion of the appropiateness of your communication method is not the only opinion that matters. Can you, in all honesty, tell us that you think that the manner you've chosen to communicate is more effective that the two recent alternatives? I also tried to resist pointing out that something cannot be "phrased way so people will read it." They have to read it to see how it's phrased.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's better than being hapless in a nasty way ;-) but okay, my changes were not appreciated and I won't repeat them. I do think, however, that the talk page as it stands is gratuitously rude. Someone who gets an image rationale wrong is not a vandal, and treating them as such is bound to create a hostile atmosphere. Moyabrit (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Where have the open discussions gone?

Where have the open discussions gone? (They don't appear to have been placed in the archives.) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. For some reason, they've been move here: User talk:Betacommand. (I wonder why?) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

More than likely, it's easier to keep discussion in one place. SQL 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Error

Hi, your bot is tagging numerous talk pages, which are not about religion, with {{WPReligion}}. Some examples: Matthias Küntzel, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. I know I've told you this before, but please be more careful when operating your bot. I'm not willing to revert all of your errors this time.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

it was tagged because it was in Category:Antisemitism per WP:BOTREQ#Bot tagging request β 18:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism is usually not related to religion, therefore that tagging was wrong.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am astonished. You were told by 2 editors that your bot was tagging pages it shouldn't, yet you continued to run it at 18:52 UTC. Don't you get that not all articles in the categories you're tagging deserve to be tagged?--Carabinieri (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please contact John Carter concerning the recent taggings. β 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's your responsibility as a bot operator to make sure you don't harm Misplaced Pages. I hope you will be reverting the inappropriate edits. Like I said, I'm not doing it again.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to follow up on what you are tagging

Today you made this edit . This areticle has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. In fact it is about the long running British sci-fi show. How many other articles will wind up with this tag is unknown but if a human does not followup on these many articles will have been tagged needlessly. MarnetteD | Talk 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

then your article shouldnt be in Category:Reincarnation β 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my article it is wikipedia's article. Your bot is needlessly tagging many articles based solely on the categories they are in. The category may be correct that does not automatically put it within the scope of a given project and your currect program does not allow for this fact. MarnetteD | Talk 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please contact John Carter concerning the recent taggings. β 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already done so but that does not stop your bot from continuing to make mistakes. You could have thought this through a little better before setting up the program. MarnetteD | Talk 19:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Another odd tag

I'm not sure Lillibullero ought to be in the religion WP either. Coemgenus 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please contact John Carter concerning the recent taggings. β 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would I do that? I just contacted you. It's your bot, isn't it? Coemgenus 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

that is the user who requested the tagging. β 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your spamming

Concerns about your editing have been raised (yet again) at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass-spamming_by_User:John_Carter_and_User:Betacommandbot. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a count for the number of articles edited in the Wikiproject religion run? Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Give me about five hours, (Im away from my main PC) and I can get you those numbers fairly easy. β 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, If this computer had javascript enabled on it I could do it for you right now in about 30 seconds. β 18:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

3096 tags. give or take 20. β 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Hello,

I did upload an image to Misplaced Pages, how can I get it to be displayed on the article for which it was intended?

Cexycy (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

BABS again

Hi Betacommand: Me again, still trying to help work out the glitches in the Bird Articles by Size routine. We're still seeing fewer than 7000 articles—and a fair of these are things outside the remit of our project, like Foie Gras and 2007 Bernard Matthews H5N1 outbreak. Is there a way you can search the article's talk page for the presence of the BirdTalk template, and include all of the articles that have one? That should include all the articles we're looking for. Thanks again for your attempts! MeegsC | Talk 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)