User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 2 February 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Betacommand/20070601. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Help

help

Hi, i need your help

One of your admin, Doc glasgow , is threatening me and blocking my account. We have a dispute in the definition on living person.

Please contact me for more information.

Thanks

Senatorto

Just a question from a curious third-party: How did that work out? (I have no interest in either party, just in how it was handled, what advice given, etc. I aspire to adminship at some point, and like to absorb dispute resolution ideas, especially with regard to policy/guideline disputes.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is called talk page spamming, this most often happens with trolls and this user was not acting in good faith as Senatorto warnings were valid. Admins get complaints from everyone over every thing. I let AN/I handle this situation. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. warnings to/against Senatorto were valid? If so, I grok with at least semi-fullness. But what is AN/I (if I may prevail upon you with more "metanewbie" questions)? I'm well aware of AWB at this point, but not of AN/I. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The warnings that were given to Senatorto that he considered threats were not in fact threats but instead valid warnings im regard to his/her behavior. AN/I is WP:AN/I or the administrator's noticeboard/ Incidents. that is where admins post regarding incidents that may require a second opinion. WP:AN is also another good place. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletedpage

Why is your bot placing all of the salted pages in the "January 2007" category (instead of applying the month and year of the earliest revision in the page's history)? —David Levy 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not running a bot and I just want to move pages to that cat witch is basicly Jan 2007 and before. I just want to get the pages moved over to that cat untill they can be sorted better manually at a later date. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it is a bot or not, please stop flooding edits with this useless effort. There is already a list of deleted pages by date, and in addition that list has the proper date. —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like your edits are breaking that list. Stop immediately. —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this list? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedPD

Not only does this serve no practical purpose (and evidently is causing harm), but it appears likely that we're going to delete all of these salted pages in favor of a new system that I've proposed. That you're doing this manually (Why?) means that you're wasting a considerable amount of time. —David Levy 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is linked directly from Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages, which is the Wikipedia page for this process and which is linked from Template:Deletedpage. In addition, there is a second, toolserver list linked from the top of Template talk:Deletedpage. In the future, please look more deeply into a system before trying to naively fix it, and for a major change such as this that requires mass edits and ultimately a new bot task, the proposal should be brought up on the talk page prior to its introduction, and objections after its partial implementation should be addressed. —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Look before you leap", Betacommand. Your intentions of course were good, but try not to break things when you fix them :-) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Betacommand, the aforementioned list remains broken as a result of your edits. This would not have happened if you'd simply added the pages to the January category. By removing them from Category:Protected deleted pages, you led Tizio's bot to believe that the pages no longer were salted and remove them from the list. When Centrx reverted the {{deletedpage}} template, all of the pages in question were re-added to the original category, leading Tizio's bot to believe that they'd been newly salted. Therefore, while they've been restored to the list, they no longer bear the correct dates.

I suggest that you apologize to Tizio for your error and inquire as to the possibility of programming DumbBOT to somehow repair the damage.

On a related note, have you apologized to anyone for this? It seems as though you simply want silent and moved on to other tasks. —David Levy 00:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to say sorry as I was just making a changeover that was requested. some admins changed the template and asked me to help convert over as far as I know I was doing the right thing as cats are better than a list. If you have an Issue with what I was doing consult the users who changed the salt template. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. "I was just blindly following instructions" is not a valid defense. I'm not looking for blood, but it would be nice to know that you don't intend to do this sort of thing in the future without first investigating the situation and verifying the appropriateness of such actions.

2. You were asked to program your bot to categorize these pages by month. Instead, you inexplicably began to manually (and pointlessly) dump all of them in the January category. This is something that any sysop could have done (but again, it was entirely pointless). —David Levy 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bot could do this as the pages are admin protected and I was simi auto doing it under my account. As far as I could tell my actions were appropriate untill you said something. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The idea was for you to run your bot via your sysop account. Otherwise, there was no point in soliciting your involvement.

2. Of course you believed that your actions were appropriate. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith. You made an honest mistake, after which you should have apologized to the community and attempted to clean up after yourself. Your decision to simply stop replying and go about your business bothers me more than your original error in judgement. —David Levy 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not stop replying I was waiting to see how the dust would settle so that my next actions would instead of being a further mistake could wait and see how the discussion finished before taking any further actions. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not criticising you for failing to immediately compile a detailed plan of action. I'm criticising you for not even acknowledging that you made a mistake, let alone apologizing. (You simply stopped posting here and moved on to unrelated tasks.) Now that the dust has settled, I'm also criticising you for your continual refusal to accept any responsibility for your actions and your lack of attempts to rectify the problem that they caused. —David Levy 04:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that there had been a mistake with transferring the salted pages and I stopped, as I have stated before I suggested that you contact the users who modified {{deletedpage}} and take up the issue with them. I have not refused to take responsibility, I know there was a issue with the new format. I haven't had that much time to dig into fixing this yet, as there is no clear solution. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, you stopped converting the salted pages (and moved on to other tasks) without even acknowledging that an error had been made (let alone providing any indication of how you intended to address this matter).

2. "I do not need to say sorry as I was just making a changeover that was requested." and "If you have an Issue with what I was doing consult the users who changed the salt template." certainly come across as refusals to take responsibility.

3. I've already recommended a course of action. What are you waiting for? —David Levy 05:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this matter to Tizio's attention. :-) —David Levy 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space warfare in fiction

I'm trying to nominate the re-creation of this page for deletion, but seem to have mucked it up. My apologies, can you fix this so it's 2nd nomination? Pete.Hurd 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first 4 words of CSD #G4. Uncle G 15:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos mejia

why did you deleted tell me a good reson NOW!

Autostereogram

Thanks for doing good community service by deleting inappropriate yahoo groups from External Reference sections of lots of articles. But please do check these groups before you delete them. Some are appropriate. The one in Autostereogram is appropriate and is the only internet forum I know of which has active discussion and autostereogram exchange (via email). The group is called "3D Single Image Stereograms (SIRDS)" which is a synonym of Autostereogram (as the article points out). I should know, because I rewrote this article and brought it to Featured Article-dom.

Notice that WP:EL has this exception concerning links to avoid: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject"

This is not a big deal. I know how painful it is to trim wikipedia of crap. Thanks for trying. Fred Hsu 01:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Perhaps I misinterpreted the 'exception'. Fred Hsu 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albinism ext. link removal

I assume that the removal of the Yahoo!Group link was because the Y!G in question was so closed that one had to register at Y! to even read posts (I hadn't actually noticed that; good catch). On that assumption, I've contacted the moderator of the Y!G, and asked her to open the group up so that reading does not require registration. If that would not satisfy you and permit re-addition to the article, without you reverting it, of a link to this Y!G, if/when the Y!G is so modified, please let me know (here, my talk page, or the article talk page). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 5	29 January 2007	About the Signpost

Foundation names advisory board, new hires	Court decisions citing Wikipedia proliferate
Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms	WikiWorld comic: "Hyperthymesia"
News and notes: Investigation board deprecated, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	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 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unprotection

I'm not sure why you unprotected my User page (nor why you did so without the courtesy of informing me); within days it was vandalised in a particularly unpleasant way. I'm happy to spend a great deal of my time removing vandalism from articles, but I'd prefer not to waste time (or see others waste their time) removing it from my User page. I've protected it again; please leave it alone this time. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pages

I have and Idea we could transfer that list of salted pages to the new format of trancludeing using the old timestamps that were in place before the attempted switch and solve all of the issues. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few different ways that we could go about completing that task. (We could use the old timestamps from the list page, the date of the earliest revision from each salted page's history, or the page's most recent deletion date from the deletion log.)

I do believe, however, that people would like to retain the old list, and I don't know what needs to be done to ensure that the bot allows the correct dates to be restored. Also, major changes will need to be made to its programming to prevent it from depopulating (and continue updating) the list when the changeover to the new system occurs. —David Levy 15:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest would be useing the timestamps on the page, But if we move to the transclustion method all we have to do is place a timestamp at the end of the line and it replaces the salt list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plan for the new system is to create a series of small lists (divided by month and occasionally by topic) that are convenient for typical users to navigate when they're referred there by the deletion notices. It would be helpful to retain one big list for the benefit of others (primarily sysops). —David Levy 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My discussion

Hi, please restore my valid discussion which you just blanked. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, thanks. Badagnani 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Request

Beta, any chance of meeting this request with your bot? I'm hitting a bit of a wall in trying to do it myself. Thanks! alphachimp 17:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can do and have done before can you copy that request to User:Betacommand/Bot Tasks that way I have all of them together? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks Beta. alphachimp 17:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Davies

Just thought I'd let you know that I nominated the article for a deletion reversal which you can weigh in on here: WP:DRV Thanks! SquatGoblin 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting my talk page :-) Myanw 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:BetacommandBot

You have new messages. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Detroit, Michigan

Does Detroit, Michigan really belong in WikiProject Lakes?[1] Ufwuct 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Category:Lakes==>> Category:Lakes by country ==>> ==>> Category:Great Lakes ==>> Category:Cities on the Great Lakes ==>> Detroit, Michigan

that was why it got tagged but I will remove Category:Cities on the Great Lakes from the tagging list thanks for the heads up Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley substituting

Can you please substitute the parserfunction that results from substituting {{smiley}}? Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, this is not a good example of productive subst'ing. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate your help, but these templates are not appropriate for substitution. Please remove them instead. Thanks! —David Levy 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you change your bot's edit summary to indicate that it's "removing" the templates. —David Levy 16:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have substed them as removing them might have caused a loss of meaning and context of the discussion and that task is already done. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that. I see that you managed to implement smart substitution of only the required code (and none of the unused code). Excellent! —David Levy 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please send the bot back over the pages from the original run to remove the unused code (using the deleted template for reference)? —David Levy 16:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look into it. This will not be easy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to hack together a patch that should fix it. Bot is running now. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —David Levy 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next person who creates a esoteric template that gets TfD'ed Im feeding to Cplot :) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smiley

Can I ask why you are deleting this out of process? The TfD is not yet over and I see plenty of keep comments there. Also, you are wheelwarring, which is inappropriate. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Template:Smiley

I see you deleted Template:Smiley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with a summary of "TfD". While I think this template should be deleted, the TfD hasn't run it's customary period and I'm not sure it qualifies for WP:CSD. It also doesn't look like this qualifies as WP:SNOW and you didn't claim that either. To show good faith to the template's supporters, perhaps you should have simply waited the week for the discussion. —Dgies^t c 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So said above. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there was another template that was almost the exact same that was TfD'ed and deleted thus per that TfD the clone was deleted. These are essentially identical to a series of templates deleted at TfD. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's old. OK, well probably qualifies as "recreation of deleted material". But while the old TfD was extremely lopsided, this one is proving more contentious so it could be interpreted as sort of a back-door WP:DRV. —Dgies^t c 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also this Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, before the new TfD debate began, I requested that Betacommandbot orphan the template in anticipation of speedy deletion under CSD G4. Had I realized that a new TfD discussion was underway, I would have closed it sooner. —David Levy 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP Approval blacklog

It seems like nobody went through the approval list since 28 Jan. Please process it if you have some time. Fireice 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked your bot

I have no idea what your bot is doing, but something's wrong with edits like this, so I blocked it. Please fix the whitespace issues and unblock your bot afterwards. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been fixed. Next time please read the userpage as all you had to do to stop it was place a note on the talk page, I have a built in safety override to shut it off when it detects new messages. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 17:29, 2 February 2007 edit Kusma (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 58,369 edits Blocked your bot ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:34, 2 February 2007 edit undo Betacommand (talk \| contribs) 86,927 edits →‎Blocked your bot Next edit →
Line 230:		Line 230:

	I have no idea what your bot is doing, but something's wrong with edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=105129601 this], so I blocked it. Please fix the whitespace issues and unblock your bot afterwards. Thank you, [[User:Kusma\|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma\|(討論)]] 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		I have no idea what your bot is doing, but something's wrong with edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=105129601 this], so I blocked it. Please fix the whitespace issues and unblock your bot afterwards. Thank you, [[User:Kusma\|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma\|(討論)]] 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
			: Issue has been fixed. Next time please read the userpage as all you had to do to stop it was place a note on the talk page, I have a built in safety override to shut it off when it detects new messages. [[User:Betacommand\|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand\|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand\|contribs]] • [[User:BetacommandBot\|Bot]])</sup> 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)