| Revision as of 02:14, 18 March 2007 editBetacommand (talk | contribs)86,927 edits →Question about authority over policy← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:10, 5 December 2015 edit undoFeminist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers157,861 edits Redirecting to User talk:Δ (♐) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by Werdnabot. Any sections older than '''3''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived | |||
| |- | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Betacommand/20070{{CURRENTMONTH}}01--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| {{user_talk:betacommand/archives}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Question about authority over policy == | |||
| I had a link in my personal information page that was deleted by yourself. I understand the need for keeping articles "clean" from links that are not of a direct nature to the topic. This was a link on my personal information page that was very valid, and pointing to something that people who are interested in finding out more about the subjects to which I contribute can find out more information. | |||
| It just happens to be on a MySpace blog. | |||
| Is there somewhere to appeal policies such as this one, or do the reviewers have Carte Blanche to make the corrections without recourse because the correction made falls within "the policies"? Who reviews these policies? Like I said, I understand about not putting links to "social networking" websites in the topics, but why not on the personal information pages as well? | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| Craig | |||
| ] 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Try and add the link back, per a statement by Jimbo Blog.myspace has been blacklisted. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == can you explain your edit of ] == | |||
| It seems like you removed the specific part of an ebay link leaving an amazon link intact. I don't understand "(Removed extraneous links as per WP:EL using AWB)". I ''think'' maybe what you were doing was chopping a second link for the same thing in the ''Sherlock Holmes'' section. I originally included both because I didn't want to favor one commercial website over another. I don't see clearly the particular relevance of ] that made you edit this way. It's also a bit weird in that the way the whole page was sectionally deleted and reloaded which I don't understand (perhaps it's a side effect of using AWB?)--] 02:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''sectionally deleted'' the only thing that I removed was the link to ebay. I also made some general clean-up. EL and ] were why I removed ebay. ebay is not a good link it exist to sell products. if you can find a better link please remove amazon Commercial links are '''rarely''' a good thing. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I could have found such references from non-commercial websites I would have used them. Instead I was able to provide a balanced reference to not favor one commercial website over another. Did anyone review such issues in the policies or is there some general "remove commercial website links" thing going on?--] 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well in an ideal world there would be zero commercial links. Amazon and e-bay are both bad sites to use ''but'' if you have to use one amazon is better than e-bay. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK. But is this a matter of policy - that amazon is to be preferred over ebay?--] 10:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == = in usernames == | |||
| It appears some people think ], and that users should use the 1= notation, and that bots should be reprogrammed to understand this. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Shepseskaf== | |||
| Dear Betacommand, | |||
| I strongly believe Misplaced Pages should make an exception and allow the Touregypt web link here <nowiki></nowiki> on king ] to appear. The only other web links on this king provide minimal information on this ruler--no pictures, nothing. PS: I have posted info. on my User Id# 24.87.136.31 account but this because I forget to sign in. As far as I know, I do my best to cite academic sources for my contributions on Egyptology; and not crack pot ideas and have never vandalised any Misplaced Pages sites. Pls give consideration to my request on Shepseskaf who is very poorly known outside the small Egyptological community. With kind Regards, ] 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| On other thing: the web link which I removed but you automatically reverted on ] is truly dead. Have you tried to access it? ] 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Replacement of images == | |||
| Per your request of the image names to be replaced on IRC: | |||
| #] → ] | |||
| #] → ] | |||
| I hope you have a most wonderful day, Betacommand, and happy editing! ]<sub>]</sub> 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Concerning recent deletions == | |||
| Recently a certain user has come through and mass-deleted a certain source that the ancient Egypt wikiproject has used for quite literally years now, since some administrator on IRC raised questions about it, apparently. At the time, said site was not on the blacklist (I checked), so I put them back. Now, you restoring them is one thing. You deleting a comment ] to our wikiproject about the mass deletions is quite another! ] 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am sorry, I did not mean to remove that comment, I made a mistake when reverting the touregypt edits. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| It appears that you removed a link to */touregypt.net that supplanted references to three assertions in the text. The article is now missing part of its documentation and one of the sentences is a mess. The link in question had already been removed before and its reinsertion was discussed in | |||
| . Can you please check this out? Thanks ] 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Bot requests == | |||
| Hi! Since you're online, I'm just curious why the bot flag requests were made on ] and no mention of it was posted on ]. Regards, ] ] 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nolbot was approved but I was having connection issues I was lucky to be able to post on BN, and the shadowbot did not need a BRFA as it was a replacement. Sorry im at the Saint Petersburg office at the moment. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 06:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Both flagged. ] ] 07:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 07:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Bot approvals process == | |||
| Just in case any of you haven't seen the new bot request to track the bot approvals process, this is just a reminder to use the correct templates at {{tl|BAG Admin Tools}} so the bot can correctly identify the stage of bot approval. Also, the approved requests section has been moved to a separate page at ] for the Bureaucrats to watchlist. When approving a request, make sure you remove it from the main page and place it on that page so that a bureaucrat can flag it. Thanks. ] 16:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Assessment categories == | |||
| I just came out of a long wikibreak. I found assessment categories of some task forces of the ] have been deleted since they were part of the ] page. What is that page about and any ideas why would ] go about ? Please advise. Regards, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Never mind. I understood what happened. Regards, <font color="navy">] (])</font> 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Touegypt.net== | |||
| Dear Betacommand, | |||
| I notice today that you did not bother to respond--'''and justify'''--to your own WikiMedia blacklist discussion regarding TourEgypt.net here. You never informed your own official Misplaced Pages editors on ] such as Thanatosimi, Captmondo or Llywrich that you were about to blacklist TourEgypt.net even though they have carried the burden of wikiproofing Egyptology on Misplaced Pages. The impression I have of you is someone who doesn't value or care about archaeology or our world's ancient history like so many members of the Egyptological Misplaced Pages community do. You never commented on the fact that TourEgypt.net was contracted by the Egyptian government to run the Egyptian Department of Antiquities and Tourism web pages in the past. TourEgypt is not a spammer who uses Misplaced Pages to sell their wares when any search on Google can turn up an Egypt-related article by this firm. You just decided suddenly to ban this invaluable web site WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING OR DISCUSSION and undermine the efforts of good people like Thanataosmi, Llywrych and Captmondo whose article on king ], the founder of Egypt's New Kingdom, was so good in terms of quality, that it was featured ond day on the front pages of Misplaced Pages this January or February. When there is an attempt to remove an article on Misplaced Pages, a talk forum is first created so that contributors can weigh the pros or cons of removing a particular article ''but you did not try to do this''. | |||
| '''How can you be so crass and insensitive towards people who have worked to improve Egyptological articles on Misplaced Pages for years--especially when they are your own Misplaced Pages editors.''' Is it your goal to undermine the reliability of Misplaced Pages more than the editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica who despise us? Because if that is your goal, you are close to achieving it by angering so many people who care about Ancient Egypt and Ancient history on Misplaced Pages with your '''arbitary''' decision here. Regards, ] 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Im sorry I have more important issues today, I am currently in Saint Petersburg, Florida, at a conference with the WikiMedia board Sorry I didnt take time out today to address your complaint of blocking a spam site. I was meeting with Danny, Kat, Brion, Florence and the other Board members excluding Jimbo (he's in Japan). I was in meetings all day. touregypt is spam over half the fucking page is spam if you cant cite the article without using a tourism booking service I think you have a more important issue than I thought, you have to use a site designed to sell product as a source? this fails WP:EL WP:SPAM what else is needed to explain it? ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:10, 5 December 2015
Redirect to: