User talk:Betacommand

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 Wikipedia: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

James Amann

Removing criticism from a politician's article leads one to believe there's an agenda here

Defaultsort

Your changes to the categories are causing some unusual results. Default sort does not work on the genus categories; see Category:Forpus. This is why they are not defaultsorted. STOP. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo all the species defaultsorts, as the indexing needs to be selective. We have AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) to do this sort of thing and the writers of AWB have decided not to do change everything to a defaultsort. Snowman (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are several styles to index the categories correctly. User:Hesperian has recently given one suggestion on the "Green-cheeked Conure" article which seems to minimize the text used: nevertheless, the more verbose style prior to Betacommand's edits worked too. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on this? Snowman (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the work you do for WP. I see a lot of people giving you hard time. I thought I'd pop in and say that I appreciate your work, and that I'll be careful with images if I ever upload any. Kind regards, Dan Beale-Cocks 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article

Dear editor I like to draw your attention to that specific article, Dorje Shugden, which was substantially changed by a group of three new editors, without any discussion on the talk page. Rather one of the new editor revealed: "Many of these changes were discussed between at least three of the editors." which must have happened outside of WP, because there is no discussion on the talk page or their WP-accounts. One of the new editors claimed: "You seem to be the only person who accepted this article as it was. If you check you will see that the changes made make this article more neutral and unbiased then it was before previous edits." If I check I see the article omitted different POV's, deleted verified passages, included passages from anonymous websites and turned the article to a more bias Pro-Shugden POV. I'd like to ask you to check that and to give your opinion or to collaborate if there is a need for improving the article, so that we can have an unbiased, neutral, well-informed article which fairly presents all POV's. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

This clearly isn't vandalism. Do not use such edit summaries again please, especially in the course of an edit war. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blanking long standing policy without consensus is vandalism. β^_command 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I'm not here to argue about it anyhow, please just don't do it again. If you must edit war, at least don't use automated tools. Majorly (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think that the automated "vandalism" warning could be expected to calm things down. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the absurd last warning for vandalism template that you placed on the talk page of an editor who's been around since late 2005. Come on man... Not that Locke Cole's behaviour is exemplary in the matter but you should know better. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its perfectly called for, log term users should know better than to attempt to re-write policy and force it when he knows it has no consensus, POV pushing is unacceptable especially on policy pages. β^_command 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, his conduct was not acceptable, as I just said. This does not give you the right to inflame things further with that ridiculous warning or to use this edit summary. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but I call things as they are, as for the edit summary, hes known for that behavior. β^_command 03:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious

Stupidity is contagious...the one with the guy turning off life support so he could sleep was freakin' hilarious! bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

any more refs that you find are welcome :P β^_command 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility and repeated personal attacks. False accusations of vandalism (here and here), for which you were warned (here). False accusation of trolling (here), subsequently converted into an outright personal attack (here). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} - Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, with regards to this, I was going to issue a block for 3RR, however, I see you've already been blocked in regard to this situation for other issues. Be mindful of this rule in the future. I know it's frustrating, but you've got numbers on your side. Lara❤Love 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. Upon further review, you did not break 3RR. Why are you even blocked? Lara❤Love 06:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apparently maintaining consensus and reverting vandal edits is considered a personal attack. β^_command 06:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to re-think your definition of vandal. You entered into an edit war with other users on a specific topic Wikipedia:Bot policy. The lines are not always black and white, they can be rather grey as in this case.

Edit warring is a distinct behavior characterized by a confrontational attitude. It is different in spirit than bold, revert, discuss cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is never edit-warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism.

The edits you reverted as vandalism were good faith edits, as to being appropriate edits, that is another story to be hashed out by the editors including yourself. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the block was excessive, like using a sledge hammer to build fine furniture, but you do tend to be a bit head strong especially when you think you are right. It seems that it was the only way they could see to get your attention. Not necessarily the right way.Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bit excessive, ten hours is plenty. The reverts appear to be to the stable version. Would think that someone slapping "Disputedtag" repeatedly on a policy page would invoke some sort of AGF upon the user reverting it back to the consensus version. Seems it would be more constructive if βcommand was not blocked from the discussions. Unblocked--Hu12 (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for showing higher brain functions. That was vandalism inserting changes into policy that have no consensus and reverting multiple users in an attempt to force POV. β^{_{command 2}} 15:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

He was blocked for escalating personal attacks, not revert warring (I think that should be quite clear from the template and block log). Beta, you are an experienced user, you know fine well those edits were not vandalism, however much you don't like 'em. If you resume yesterdays behaviour, I'll have no hesitation reblocking you. Sorry I missed your IRC message btw, I had apparently just gone to bed. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, just because you were unblocked does not mean you were not wrong. You need to re-read Wikipedia:VAND#What vandalism is not which says "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such."

I find it worrying that your first comment after the block was lifted was say "That was vandalism inserting changes into policy that have no consensus and reverting multiple users in an attempt to force POV." This is just not so. POV disputes are not vandalism. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowingly adding false information is vandalism. β^{_{command 2}} 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "thank you for showing higher brain functions", this sounds to me like a personal attack on the administrator who blocked you. As the block was apparently for personal attacks, this doesn't come across as a very good sign. Even if you feel wronged, please try hard to be the better person. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

I'd like a reason for my rejection. It isn't helpful if you just use a generic template without having a reason for the rejection. It doesn't help anyone in the situation to find out they were rejected, but not even have a reason for it. Aremith^{tlk | eml} 05:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When approving users for VPRF I like to see current activity. Please continue to contribute and re-apply in a month. β^_command 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here too!If possible, please do give a reason so that we know what was found inappropriate. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the same as above. β^_command 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

Hi Betacommand. I'd like to thank you for taking the time out to consider me for the application. I know it must take a fair bit of effort to wade through the hundreds of applications you must receive, and I fully appreciate the concerns regarding the power of the program. In any event, I'm happy that you considered me and hope that in the future I shall meet the standards that you as a collective have set. Cheers! --Liempt (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VP

Hope you're not too busy but I keep on getting "The username you are trying to connect with is not authourized to use VandalProof". Are you sure you authourised me? Thanks Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was inappropriately blocked while in the middle of approval. once I am unblocked I will finish up. β^_command 06:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe it was inappropriate, why not appeal it? Enigma ^message Review 06:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am. β^_command 06:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Thabks Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also getting the same message. I'll assume it's the same problem? Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 09:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. TheProf - T / C 11:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding your denial of my VandalProof application.

While I certainly respect your decision, I am curious as to the reasoning behind it. What protocol do you speak of? I have been actively editing since May 2007, I have over 700 mainspace edits, I've never been involved in an edit war, and I've never been blocked. Any clarification that you could provide would be greatly appreciated. JSpung (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalproof Application

Hi Betacommand!

I was wondering what your reason was for denying my application after a simple name change? Before the name change I was active on VandalProof, so I really don't see the issue.

I don't mean to insult you or attack you, just wondering what your reason was.

Cheers,

_(criticize)Sp.Kthepurplepixel 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had multiple re-names? β^{_{command 2}} 17:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot task 5 status

What is the status of bot task number 5? Have you completed the complete run of the images, or do you still have multiple sections to run? Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive done what I can without requiring further approval. β^_command 03:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was simply suprised to run into a few images that I would have thought would have been caught by the bot. Image:JCseal.jpg and Image:Villa Park HS logo.gif as examples. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalproof Application

Hey B, I was wondering if you could give a reason as to why I was declined, I have the proper amount of edits and I've been very active with fighting vandalism lately.

Also I think it's a bit ridiculous that you guys still say "and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power." Because I have a rejection notice from January 2007 that says the same.

Thank you, ^SyBer_WoLff 11:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging

Your repetitive image comments will be deleted. I am no longer an active editor. If you want to actually help the project perhaps you should actually correct errors and omissions instead of just tagging items for deletion. If you can't be bothered to help, you should just quit and leave the task to people who want to help. Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A robot does the actual tagging. β^_command 00:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Proof

Hello. I requested approval for vandal proof. I just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. --RyRy5 (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

missing ref tag bot

I saw you were involved in the "Unclosed ref tags" discussion and thought you might be interested in the related "Need a bot to find corrupted REFLIST outputs" discussion. What do you think of my algorithm proposal? -- Low Sea (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

Hi, you have reverted my edits here and here. Please don't do this again - I have only corrected my own username and called for whitelisting the link to ac-nancy-metz.fr. See the discussion on this page. Regards --D.H (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]