User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 11:37, 18 March 2007 editLeoboudv (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers21,173 edits →Touegypt.net ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:35, 18 March 2007 edit undoBetacommand (talk \| contribs)86,927 edits →Touegypt.net Next edit →
Line 95:		Line 95:

	The Touregypt link is clearly placed in the External links section of the article--as it should be, not hidden somewhere in the article on Shepseskaf. Basically all I'm saying is that the information on the TourEgypt site increases people's interest in Egypt's great past--on its pharaohs, pyramids, temples, mummies, etc and helps prod people to do more research and contribution into Misplaced Pages's articles on these topics. Is that wrong. '''As long as the TourEgypt articles are placed in the External links section, it should be kosher'''. I've checked the TourEgypt articles and their information is basically trustworthy unlike some articles on Misplaced Pages which I have had to competely rewrite and then give the footnotes. Can you please reconsider the ban on TourEgypt because you have just angered a lot of people with this totally out of the blue decision; the fact you refuse to admit that maybe the decision making process here contains serious flaws only aggravates the Misplaced Pages community (no pun intended!) further. Thank You. ] 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)		The Touregypt link is clearly placed in the External links section of the article--as it should be, not hidden somewhere in the article on Shepseskaf. Basically all I'm saying is that the information on the TourEgypt site increases people's interest in Egypt's great past--on its pharaohs, pyramids, temples, mummies, etc and helps prod people to do more research and contribution into Misplaced Pages's articles on these topics. Is that wrong. '''As long as the TourEgypt articles are placed in the External links section, it should be kosher'''. I've checked the TourEgypt articles and their information is basically trustworthy unlike some articles on Misplaced Pages which I have had to competely rewrite and then give the footnotes. Can you please reconsider the ban on TourEgypt because you have just angered a lot of people with this totally out of the blue decision; the fact you refuse to admit that maybe the decision making process here contains serious flaws only aggravates the Misplaced Pages community (no pun intended!) further. Thank You. ] 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

			:Please take this to ] instead of trying to fork the discussion. I am and shall always remain civil. times arise when strong language is needed to get a point across. please see XX7's comment that clearly shows the reasons. it falls under his #2. I am not dropping names, I was getting bitched at for not responding to said users complaints, I stated my reason for the lag in response time. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:35, 18 March 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Betacommand/20071201. Sections without timestamps are not archived

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 Firerescuelieut 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Try and add the link back, per a statement by Jimbo Blog.myspace has been blacklisted. Betacommand 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried and like you had said, it was blacklisted and sent me to the Spam filter page. I attempted to put this explanation on the whitelist page, but you put a reply of simply "No" without further explanation. If it is not possible, would you be so kind as to expand on the "No" with an explanation as to why? Is it a technical issue? Is it a "policy" issue?

Thanks, Firerescuelieut 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

can you explain your edit of Bahá'í Faith in fiction

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 WP:EL 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?)--Smkolins 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 WP:SPAM 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. Betacommand 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?--Smkolins 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. Betacommand 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. But is this a matter of policy - that amazon is to be preferred over ebay?--Smkolins 10:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

= in usernames

It appears some people think that ='s aren't a problem, and that users should use the 1= notation, and that bots should be reprogrammed to understand this. _InBC 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 on king Shepseskaf 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, Leoboudv 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On other thing: the web link which I removed but you automatically reverted on W. B. Emery is truly dead. Have you tried to access it? Leoboudv 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! Kyra_~(talk) 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 here to our wikiproject about the mass deletions is quite another! Thanatosimii 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. Betacommand 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Railways

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 Ekem 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 WP:BN and no mention of it was posted on Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval#Approved Requests. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 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. Betacommand 06:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Both flagged. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Betacommand 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 {{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 Misplaced Pages:Bots/Approved bot requests 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. MetsBot 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 India project have been deleted since they were part of the User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted page. What is that page about and any ideas why would User:Voice of All go about deleting the assessment categories? Please advise. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I understood what happened. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 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 Egyptology 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 Ahmose I, 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, Leoboudv 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? Betacommand 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you overruling me without discussion Betacommand. I gave careful thought to my listing the address in the whitelist and I'm sure you can see I don't take my duty lightly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, please be civil. Even when one is right, a confrontational attitude makes others angry rather than convincing them. When I don't have time to respond to a question, I simply respond the next day. I've made the mistake of name-dropping too in the past, but it's a cheesy thing to do and better to avoid it altogether. —Quarl 2007-03-18 08:03Z

Dear Betacommand, I may be angry but I never swore at anyone on the discussion site. Am I wrong or are you supposed to respect people's views here? The real problem is that you ARBITRARILY removed a site without prior discussion or made any attempt to hear the views of your own Misplaced Pages editors (or contributors) who care about ancient Egypt. I include this excerpt from the WikiMedia discussion:

"Also – where is the record of this site being nominated for blacklisting? 86.147.114.128 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC) There isn't one. Suggesting that a page may be spam is one thing, but what's really got Llywrch, Leoboudv, and myself irate is the fact that an administrator on IRC talked it over there without any realy wiki-discussion whatosever, and somehow the burden of proof falls on us to argue that it isn't spam. Thanatosimii This site seems to have been blocked for one reason - spamming wikipedia (which it wasn't), and now is not unblocked for another. THis strikes me as someone making a mistake and then not being able admit they were wrong. So much for this being a community. 86.147.114.128 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)"

What kind of a community is Misplaced Pages if you--or someone else--can basically go behind the backs of Misplaced Pages's own registered Egyptology editors and delete a major resource like TourEgypt.net. This smacks of plain elitism--the kind you expect at Brittanica, not at open Misplaced Pages where you discuss things OPENLY before making a final decision! You placed the onus on the rest of the Misplaced Pages Egyptology community to advocate for for the continued use of TourEgypt which IS just PLAIN WRONG. I'm happy that you are close to Mr. Wales and happy you are part of the Misplaced Pages board. But please don't put bans on certain web sites without consulting your own registered Misplaced Pages editors! TourEgypt has some ads but 1)they are not full or even part time spammers at all and 2) they have lots of valuable information that one cannot access anywhere else. Did you check Misplaced Pages's current article on Shepseskaf and the one by the touregypt.net linked article! The difference is night and day; TourEgypt has pictures, graphs and a clear reliabe Bibliography. Here is the link--before it was removed.

The Touregypt link is clearly placed in the External links section of the article--as it should be, not hidden somewhere in the article on Shepseskaf. Basically all I'm saying is that the information on the TourEgypt site increases people's interest in Egypt's great past--on its pharaohs, pyramids, temples, mummies, etc and helps prod people to do more research and contribution into Misplaced Pages's articles on these topics. Is that wrong. As long as the TourEgypt articles are placed in the External links section, it should be kosher. I've checked the TourEgypt articles and their information is basically trustworthy unlike some articles on Misplaced Pages which I have had to competely rewrite and then give the footnotes. Can you please reconsider the ban on TourEgypt because you have just angered a lot of people with this totally out of the blue decision; the fact you refuse to admit that maybe the decision making process here contains serious flaws only aggravates the Misplaced Pages community (no pun intended!) further. Thank You. Leoboudv 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to m:SPAM instead of trying to fork the discussion. I am and shall always remain civil. times arise when strong language is needed to get a point across. please see XX7's comment that clearly shows the reasons. it falls under his #2. I am not dropping names, I was getting bitched at for not responding to said users complaints, I stated my reason for the lag in response time. Betacommand 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)