User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 14:46, 21 August 2008 editRjd0060 (talk \| contribs)33,499 edits →Blocked: +com← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:47, 21 August 2008 edit undoRjd0060 (talk \| contribs)33,499 edits →Blocked: furtherNext edit →
Line 75:		Line 75:

	::Did you follow the link? ] (]) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)		::Did you follow the link? ] (]) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I wasn't aware that editors weren't allowed to make mistakes. I just as easily could have made the same mistake using ]. - ] (]) 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)		:::I wasn't aware that editors weren't allowed to make mistakes. I just as easily could have made the same mistake using ]. Anyhow, not all of them were reverted. The most recent ones were not. - ] (]) 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:47, 21 August 2008

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

Difficulties with user: auburnpilot

Hi,

You don't know me but myself and some other users are having problems with the administrator auburn pilot. I notice he's gotten smart with you before and I was wondering if we could have a chat. Thank you. Texhausballa (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed school articles

Hey, I was wondering if you would be able to do a bot run through this category and assess all of the articles for WP Schools that have been assessed by other Projects. Many thanks. Five Years 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gulfside United Methodist Assembly

Thank you for the editing on the Gulfside submission. I could not work on it because I developed bone cancer and have been getting treatments for thr last year. Many, many thanks.

You take care now,

Jackie Quinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.75.67 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just noticed you have done some formatting on serveral pages I watch with the edit summary "removing link to deleted article" on all of them. The summary however doesn't really tally up at all with your edits which seem to be mostly minor formatting. just a heads up. --LiamE (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Per the community sanctions linked here you are prohibited from making edits using a bot or automated tool or that look like they are being made using a bot or automated tool under any account. Your contribution history shows nearly 80 edits in 2 minutes with the same bot like edit summary. You are therefore blocked for three days. This will be posted to ANI as well. Viridae 09:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is using a simi automatic tool reason for blocking? I manually confirmed each edit. I am still allowed to use simi automatic tools. I take this as completely un-called for and the block is out of line. β 13:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

is a screenshot that clearly shows this as simi-automatic, and manual editing in nature. I have never been banned from simi-automatic work. Also that link that you provided is not an arbcom sanction. β 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Beta, that screenshot clearly shows that you are not inspecting your changes. Franamax (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

it does, there are general cleanup things that pywiki can do. IE changing ==heading== to == heading == that I dont bother to look at because I know they are correct and dont mess things up. but the actual meat of the edit is what I look at. β 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to change ==heading== to == heading ==, it just obscures what the edit actually does and provides no benefit. Haukur (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

that might be you opinion but I find spacing in headers to be very useful, I also do other very minor formatting when I make the edits to just help cleanup the page some. β 14:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How are spaces in headings useful? Just curious. Baseball Bugs 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it easier to read edit text if it has good spacing, also that is only one of several cleanup fixes. β 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. I would need to see a hypothetical example. Baseball Bugs 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, "...this as simi-automatic, and manual editing in nature"' - huh? Without commenting at all on the suitability of the block, semi-automatic is semi-automatic, and not in any way "manual editing". _Talk Islander 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You made more than a hundred edits that had to be reverted. It doesn't matter if you sat there and pushed the 'y' button every time, it still isn't manual editing. Or good editing. Haukur (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The community restrictions says "He is banned from using an automated program to make edits" which does indeed imply a fully-automated system, which this is not. Also, I'm not seeing the part about being blocked if something "looks" like an automated edit - I don't see that in the closing note (or in Sam Korns' proposal) of the community ban discussion. I find it rather damaging to be blocking users who are making legitimate and positive contributions. Sad, really, but it is good to remember who supports this kind of garbage, for future reference. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you follow the link? Haukur (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that editors weren't allowed to make mistakes. I just as easily could have made the same mistake using twinkle. Anyhow, not all of them were reverted. The most recent ones were not. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)