User talk:Betacommand

Carlton Players, Birkenhead

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Carlton Players, Birkenhead. The reason I declined it is because the article survived an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton Players, Birkenhead. Please be aware that pages which survived a deletion discussion may not be deleted, unless either it fails a subsequent deletion discussion, or it turns out to be a copyright violation. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorentz ether theory

I partially reverted your edit on Lorentz ether theory as it caused a referencing error due to the non-standard method used on that article. If you're doing semi-automated edits, it might be an idea to cast your eye over the page to check for errors. Leithp 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up, <references group=C /> threw me off. Ill keep an eye out for that. β^_command 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Commons ok

Template:Commons ok has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Philly jawn (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

"For those who the truth is hidden" is ungrammatical. You desperately need a "from" in there somewhere, and if you really want to be a stickler, try changing who to whom.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those for whom the truth is hidden. 89.138.117.164 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop with your semi-automated or tool assisted edits. Most of what you add is harmless but completely unnecessary (adding spaces in section headers), some of it is good (unlinking years without a date), some of it is bad (unlinking years with a date and changing ISBN formatting for no apparent reason[1], but none of it seems to be really checked. When a category has a | or a * after the category name, you should not blindly remove it, like you did on e.g. History of Mali, History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Comic strip. Please, instead of making hundreds of edits in a short time, slow down, check what you're doing, and save only then. Making occasional errors is no problem, but at your rate, it does become a problem, and you have been repeatedly warned and blocked for this. Fram (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CAT: "Using a space or asterisk after the pipe is the customary way to categorize an article in a category with the same name, indicating that the article is the main topic article for that specific category." From WP:MOSHEAD: "Spaces between the == and the heading text are optional". It is usually not advisable to change one optional setting to another without good reason, and calling it "cleanup" certainly is not advisable. You are not "cleaning" in this situation, you are changing things to your preference. Please respect our guidelines and leave things which aren't incorrect or against our guidelines alone. Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are also alphabetizing categories, which is another change that is certainly not cleanup but personal preference. There is no actual guideline onthis (as far as I could see), but the Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization does discuss this. Categories are often placed in a deliberate logical order, with the most important first: changing thisto alphabetic order is not helpful. Fram (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the first point of the MoS applies: consistency: "It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one guideline-defined style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so". Fram (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made the same error in quite a few more articles. Please see this ANI thread. Is he back? (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the reference section should come below the see also section, not above it.[2]. See the Guide to Layout for this: "Any section which concerns material outside Wikipedia (including References, Bibliography, and External links) should come after any section that concerns Wikipedia material (including See also) to help keep the distinction clear". Fram (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fram's criticism is valid, but misses the more basic point. Betacommand, good editing takes time, care, and dedication, and while I can sympathize with your desire to improve and standardize the wiki, you have earned yourself a reputation as hasty, unapproachable, and occasionally destructive. This can be changed, but you will have to make significant adjustments to your actions. You need to fundamentally change your editing behaviour to a pattern that engenders trust with the community rather than destroys it. If you would stop making mass edits without discussion (even and especially if you think you know what you are doing), give more amiable responses when questioned, and focus your improvements to single pages whose subjects you are familiar with rather than taking the shotgun approach, you would be much more successful as an editor. --erachima talk 08:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing this same basic task for many many months, and someone brought to my attention the issue with ref section placement I would have gladly addressed that. I admit im not 100% familiar with the MOS. I have taken steps to adjust the proper ref section placements. I also thought that generic year links should have been removed (per MoS), as for category sorting that was just a personal preference that I have seen used and I personally agreed with. β^_command 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For the reasons outlined above and in the ANI thread linked to above, I have blocked you for 24 hours for making automated (or seemingly automated) edits in violation of the community editing restrictions imposed on you that are logged at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Remedies. You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein 09:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested clarification at User_talk:Sandstein#Betacommand. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs a plenty, at WP:ANI#New Betacommand category sorting screwup. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock as you have clearly violated WP:BLOCK, I dont have time at the moment for a long discussion. but these tools where not automated. also please actually read the discussion as it did not contain anything about semi auto work. β^_command 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and have posted your unblock request on ANI for others to review. Sandstein 11:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont have time, you dont need edit at the moment. I suggest that you request unblock when you have time to read the related ANI thread and make a request that takes it into account. FWIW, I think you should take this one on the chin. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I find concerning is that you do little or nothing do admit your errors or mistakes and listen to the concerns of other editors. You obviously care about wikipedia and edits of your sort could be put to a very good purpose if applied correctly but you seem to make a great deal of error in doing so which potentially affects a lot of content. Your lack of willingness to join in duscussion with concerned editors shows to me you care little for other people and feel that it is acceptable to keep going on and on without sorting out problems The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, I'm fairly sure the problem with categories using spaces and asterisks as sortkeys was brought to your attention before. Would you be willing to have someone review your test edits before you go on big runs? I would like to see you keep working on scripting, but a reviewer may become the only way the community will let you keep scripting. Gimmetrow 13:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The categories may be the biggest or best known problem, but please make sure that the other issues I mentioned above are solved as well. No cleanup should be done which changes one correct (and guideline-accepted) layout or method to another: no introduction of spaces in section headers or following bullets, no more putting categories in alphabetical order. Automatically added sections should be in the guideline advised place (i.e. references always below the see also and above the external links). Years should only be delinked if they are not part of a full date (or if autoformatting gets discontinued, the full date should be delinked). Fram (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Bracketing the year delinking edits: [3] doesn't do it, but [4] does. I'm guessing that during the break in editing from 1:57 to 2:15, Beta added a regex \[\[(\d\d\d\d)]] -> $1. Gimmetrow 14:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your monobook file

I've blanked your monobook.js file and protected it. There are hundreds, even millions, of things you can do to help the project that don't involve automated or semi-automated tools. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fairly drastic and I don't think that there's really support for this. I think it can be considered a reasonable temporary measure until the three-admin committee (see User talk:Jennavecia) can work out a detailed set of editing restrictions. But if that doesn't happen, this blanking and protection is an overkill. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed you from the list of users at WP:AWB. I had forgotten about that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you revert you actions now as you have drastically changed my my user interface. failure to do so will result in me filing a ArbCom case against you for blatant abuse of admin abilities. What proof is there that my my monobook is causing problems? zero. I ask that you revert youself before I have to take further steps. β^_command 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the blanking. Maybe that'll get me added to some future ArbCom case since it was fully protected, but Angusmclellan never should have blanked it to begin with. Nobody has ever alleged that what exists in Beta's monobook is responsible for the problems currently being discussed. If Beta makes more inappropriate edits, block him. Don't blank a monobook which clearly explains the purposes of the scripts within it, especially when admitting you have no idea what any of it does (Angus). Most of the scripts listed add tabs, links, tools, etc to the user interface, and have nothing to do with automated editing. - auburnpilot talk 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so dramatic Beta, as you, though possibly not Angus McLellan know, javascript is entirely client side. If you wished, you could apply the exact same javascript that was in your monobook via, for example, a firefox extension. Therefore, ~~I will restore your monobook~~ your monobook has already been restored, though I ask you consider not using automated, or semi-automated, scripts. Please? Prodego ^talk 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further — if you use any automated script, I would recommend an indefinite block, and would consider a block for less than a week to be an insult to Wikipedians who obey restrictions imposed by the community. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just shut up. you have no room to talk and should not be an administrator. complete willful ignorance of WP:BLOCK on multiple occasions. I have not been using automated tools. I have stated that many times in the past. please dont make me repeat myself. especially because you refuse to listen to what I have to say. β^_command 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Beta, it seems like you're enthusiastic to add things to your scripts, but you occasionally miss some common false positives. Would you be open to some sort of review/mentorship situation, where someone reviews your test edits before you go on big runs? Gimmetrow 01:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always open to calm, civil, polite, discussions at any time by any one. β^_command 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second Gimmetrow. It's not civility that is the problem (or lack of it), but the fact that recent tasks have ended up causing quite a bit of damage. It's kind of got to the point where every move you make is going to be scrutinised, and every bad edit highlighted and plastered on every noticeboard imaginable. Mentorship or review sounds like a good idea, kind of how like new bot tasks have to go through scrutiny before they are run. Small test runs (10-20 edits) or steadily increasing batch runs would also work for me.

Mass edits aren't a bad thing - but I think the community feels there's a distinct lack of care or caution attached to some of your edits - some of which can be reversed by review and careful testing, rather than jumping head-on into hundreds of edits. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about not doing any big runs of anything and no mess edits either as the community has made it quite clear that you cannot be trusted to make automated edits and your use of semi-automated tools is far from universally approved. Your constant testing the edges of the restriction is now being extremely disruptive. Please consider the consequences of keeping this up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

Hello Betacommand. We've finally worked out a set of restrictions that seems to have gained consensus. I'm posting them here as official notification of what they are;

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

Best regards,

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]