User talk:Betacommand/20080801

Excuse me
What disruptive editing are you referring to? I asked a question and asked for a bit more explanation. I wasn't rude, and I wasn't impolite. I asked for clarification. Maybe you could start off by explaining why images that I upload cannot be displayed on a page of my images. And maybe, you could actually offer a tad more good faith. You've been here a while, you know the WP:BITE stuff. Maybe use it. - Hexhand (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * how about get a clue and read the linked policy. Non-free content is not allowed in userspace. it was clearly removed TWICE under policy. your actions are clear vandalism and ignoring the non-free content policy. Further breaches will result in a block. As for BITE its a strawman argument. βcommand 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're completely correct that non-free images are not allowed in userspace, but calling Hexhand both disruptive and a vandal rather than giving a detailed explanation why not is indeed biting a newcomer. New editors don't automatically grasp every detail of image policy and when they get it wrong they need it outlined in a patient and friendly manner why. Templating them with block warnings and calling them a vandal is exactly what WP:BITE was written to discourage. Euryalus (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Im sorry if you think that is BITEing its not. WP:NFCC Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) was clearly noted in the edit summary. if you actually read why it was linked you would understand instead of blind reverting. Im sorry if you dont want to read policy its not my fault. Clearly ignoring policy is disruptive and will result in a block. I was just clearly stating it so that he would get the message since he obviously ignored the notice in the edit summary. βcommand 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? I'm not clear who you're replying to above. I do understand the policy which is why I noted you were correct in your application of it. I haven't reverted anything, blindly or otherwise. I'm also not suggesting you didn't refer him to the policy page, just noting that its sometimes helpful to give more guidance than this and draw explain why the policy says what it does. I note you don't think you were BITEing Hexhand - I disagree but am happy to leave this here now we've both had a say. Euryalus (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could take a moment and simply help me to learn, BetaCommand? I mean, if you are simply too busy to do that, then maybe you are too busy to be calling folk disruptive, etc. I pointedly asked why/how I could add the images in - noting that may other folk maintain galleries of images they uploaded. It was ignored, and then I received your nugget of good faith. So yeah, there was more than a little bit of teeth in your comment. If you want people to act in accordance to the rules when they clearly don't know them, the best advice is to help them to learn, not threaten them for not knowing them as well as you do. I am going to let it pass - everyone has a bad day, or assumes the worst sometimes - you could have handled it better, but then, maybe I could have as well.
 * Now, might I impose upon you to explain how I can keep the images in my user page gallery without breaking the rules. Pretty please? - Hexhand (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WHY DONT YOU READ WHAT I POSTED NON-FREE CONTENT IS NOT ALLOWED IN USERSPACE UNDER ANY CONDITION. WP;NFCC Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.) WHAT ELSE DO I HAVE TO DO TO GET YOU TO READ THAT? βcommand 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe adding a far calmer attitude to it? (ie, you are grown-up enough to know that using all caps is like shouting, and when folk shout at you, do you find yourself more or less likely to learn anything other than the impression that the guy yelling is making an ass of himself?)
 * I was asking how I use nowiki and nogallery to display the image (thumbnail or otherwise) without breaking the rules. I read NFC#9. I get it. I am asking you to calm down, take several deep breaths (if necessary) and respond to a request for help. If you are unprepared/unwilling/unable to render it, maybe you could suggest someone else of calmer disposition who might be able to do so. - Hexhand (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a note to Hexhand, you can link to the images (but not have them displayed) anywhere including userspace via using a preceding ":" in the link, eg Image:ExampleNonfreeImage.png is perfectly all right. --MASEM 01:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks Masem. I am now understanding that all I can do is link to the images, but bc they are nonfree, I cannot display them outside of article space. Is that an accurate assessment? - Hexhand (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I will note, however, that if that is the images' only use, they will still be targetted for deletion as non-free images need to be used in at least one mainspace article. I don't think this is a problem for yours but just a point to consider. --MASEM  01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of that I was aware. I have been reading up on NFC since BetaCommand was so very kind as to left-handedly point them out to me. NFC#8 seems to be tailor-made for disputes as to interpretation, but that might be a conversation better suited to my or your talk page. BC is apparently done shouting at me today - just kidding. ;) Seriously, BC, try to be more helpful; you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. - Hexhand (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This thread has led to a thread on WP:ANI. Just thought you should know.  Enigma  message 08:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility is not optional
Hi Betacommand,

Perhaps you could find a better link than the very terse text of WP:NFCC, to explain copyright law, fair use, and the reasons for our restrictions on using it? It seems the problem here was that the user in question didn't understand the link and wanted a more thorough explanation, and you just kept repeating yourself &mdash; with more aggression every time. That is not an acceptable way to treat any user, let alone a new one.

I see a lot of merit in calls for blocking on ANI, because you have been warned repeatedly about assuming good faith, civility, and newbie biting, but I don't see what good it will do. But your behavior is unacceptable to the community, and you need to find a way to avoid that; the rest of us have no action we can take except to block you, and that's not in anybody's interest. If nothing else works, maybe you should consider asking other users to help you explain things? -- SCZenz (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * SCZenz, you're not helping. Leave. When someone is annoyed, the last thing you do is "HEY! YOU'RE NOT BEING NICE!" Civility is not some hardass holy rule. -- Ned Scott 09:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I assumed this message came after the block, which is why it struck me as unnecessary (did you get the memo about the TPS report?). -- Ned Scott 09:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For my own part, i am sorry you were blocked over this, BetaCommand. I don't know all the history behind it (and really, I don't want to know). I am sorry you thought I was being thick or a vandal. I wasn't. - Hexhand (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me explain my actions, You have twice reverted the removals, in the edit summary a policy was clearly stated why you cannot have the images in that location. I have seen this same action many times in the past. instead of dancing around the issue, wasting time and getting into a edit war I choose to take a bold action that I knew would get your attention. once I had your attention I re-stated policy for why those images where not allowed. your response to that appeared that you did not read what I linked to, as you wanted to keep displaying the images in your userspace regardless of the fact that policy says that you cannot. The fact that you reverted the removal twice is what caused me to be as abrupt as I was, the reason for removal had been clearly stated when it was removed the previous two times. My train of thought was that if you ignored the reasoning the first two times what would prevent you from ignoring it a third time? Im sorry if you where offended that was not my intent. If you had asked someone after the first or second removal why it was being done I or Bjweeks would have gladly explained why. Im sorry if I appeared or came off in a native manor its not how I wanted to come off. I needed to take bold actions and get you attention. βcommand 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, BC. You note that you boldly called the action vandalism to get my attention? I would have to admit that you accomplished that task, but probably not in the way you would have desired. Being called a vandal in Wikipedia is pretty much right down there with being referred to as troll or sock-puppet, so perhaps calling me such was akin to swatting a fly with a nuclear weapon. As for not having asked for clarification, I did, a full eight hours before your comment.
 * But that's in the past now. I look forward to editing with you again after your block has expired. - Hexhand (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
In view of the thread above, the length of your previous blocks, the discussion on WP:ANI and Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, I have blocked you for a week. Civility is not optional for all of us, no ifs and buts.  Sandstein  09:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

More bot wars
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Equazcion •✗/C • 03:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of U.S. military decoration image on User:BetacommandBot
Hello. I am removing the image associated with an award granted to this bot by another user. The image associated with the Wikipedia award is a a decoration of the United States Air Force and should not be used in association with a Wikipedia award. I would hope that just on the principle of it you would agree and find a substitute image. There are also U.S. laws governing the use of military decoration symbols, such as. If you disagree with this removal please discuss the issue here before reverting my edit again. I will also place a notice on the talk page of the user that originally gave you the award so they may choose an alternate image. Thank you. --Pesco (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally agree with Pesco, but after receiving the following reply at Editor_assistance/Requests, I found it necessary to revert his deletion. It is an issue for either BetaCommand or the user that posted it to let it stand, or change it. Dbiel (Talk) 04:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pursuant to the conversation at the above link, I've opened up a "Request for Comment" at the |Wikipedia talk:Image use policy page. Thanks!

Typo in warning
Your bot's warning message has incorrectly used "insure" in place of "ensure" in the following: Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Please correct.--Ainlina (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to dictionary.com, either one is acceptable. 72.205.14.47 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, both spellings can mean "guarantee" 1  !=  2  16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to dictionary.com, sure...but according to WIKIPEDIA's own Wiktionary, it is listed as a "Common misspelling of ensure. (British English)". While American English also lists "To Ensure"...however, wiki's own guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English say that it should be accepted as is because as long as it's english it doesn't matter if it's american or british english (as long as the two styles don't mingle in one article).  However, I suggest that you consider the fact that more people will understand "ensure" as what it is supposed to mean than will understand "insure" as the UK and a number of other UK-English speaking countries recognise "ensure" and "insure" to mean different things.  If you want the bot to be more widely accepted, "ensure" is the way to go :-P 78.86.230.62 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Query
I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can write a bot to move pages if you need to. βcommand 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also please do not mass crosspost. if you give a little more detail I can write that up. βcommand 2 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right
I have nominated wikipedians who like the price is right for renaming to wikipedians who like the price is right. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove Repeated warnings
Can you guys make the bot not repeat itself as seen in here. Thanks. If the image doesn't qualify, just removed it for discussion, its wasting Wikipedia database. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bug reporting
This page has been tagged 2x. Once on 2/13/08 and again on 2/25/08. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Computer_Shopper_%28US_magazine%29

Sorry but I could not figure out how to add a bug report as you requested in 17 on https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/BETACOMMAND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.218 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

James Amann
Removing criticism from a politician's article leads one to believe there's an agenda here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2008 01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your absurd warning
is indeed a personal attack. I do no wish my name to be shown without my permission. I removed my name and you label it vandalism. I request you to revert yourself with apology.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * you have zero grounds for editing statistics within my userspace, a previous MfD has proven that users cannot censor those statistics, dont like it? tough. its no way a personal attack. βcommand 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no right to publish my name without my permission. I also put my name on the list of who do not want to be published. Besides, the rightful removal is NOT vandalism. You rather tainted my talk pge with false accusation. You've warned for such disruptive behavior. Well, I think this is the suitable time going around for WP:MfD.--Caspian blue (talk)
 * you might want to read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Betacommand/Edit count Ive been there done that, you have no right to censor statistics. βcommand 03:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a right to request my name not to be published. You refuse to remove my name. Besides, consensus is changing all the time, so well will see how this time goes.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No you don't caspian. As I said below, it is not private information, and is already accessible to anybody. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it is a public information, I do not want my name to be there, and Beta could've blanked it without such the rude attitude.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * just thought you might like to know that you cannot censor public data tswiki:User:Betacommand/Edit_count βcommand 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove your name. Its not a privacy issue, as you state, considering anybody can get the information.  You chose to edit Wikipedia, and release your contributions and user info (username) under a free license.  Nobody made you.  And such a simple thing such as your edit count, well, thats just okay information to have anywhere.  It's just a number.    - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to follow your interpretation on contributions here that I do not agree with. The list is nor articles or images or wikispaces that I decide to contribute to. That list is like a personal amusement.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, its public information. The last MFD resulted in a keep, and any future ones would probably result in a keep as well. Its best to just drop the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what Betacommand is up to or what point he's trying to prove, but the information itself is public. My user name is on there too. Why should I care? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ive been maintaining the list of all users with over 5,000 edits since 2:34, September 9, 2007 βcommand 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sehr gut. No harm that I can see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

updating WP:BABS. WP:FABS, WP:DABS, WP:MABS
Hey betacommand, could you run all the *ABS bots again one time as it has been a few months. I do find them very handy :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the bot is indefblocked so I guess that is that then? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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 Talk 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. βcommand 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. βcommand 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. βcommand 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. βcommand 14:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How are spaces in headings useful? Just curious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 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. βcommand 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I would need to see a hypothetical example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 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". TalkIslander' 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)
 * that was not this tool it was a fuckup by twinkle that I asked east to revert. I went to test TW's unlink function and make a single test edit. instead TW decided to mass unlink not sure what happened. Since I dont have rollback I asked East to revert for me. as for some claim that I could not view what I was doing as it takes 3 seconds to load a page I use a preloading method to load pages in the background. if this was a blind removal then why did I skip the same edit that I had been making on Boxers? I skipped it because I saw that the regular expression that I was using for removal would not work there so I left it to manual cleanup. βcommand 14:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that one of the reasons you're not allowed to use automated or semi-automated tools - you make too many mistakes that need to be reverted? --NE2 14:59, 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)


 * It's near the end of this section: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:49, 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)
 * People are allowed to make mistakes, but they are also expected to learn from them. And people using tools to do hundreds of edits at a time are expected to take care. Betacommand was placed under sanctions because he didn't seem to learn and he didn't seem to take care. And his error rate today seems to show that he still hasn't learned and still doesn't take care. Haukur (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * please note what I said above, I went to test Twinkles unlink function with one edit, but something happened and it did not do the single test edit that I was expecting. So I kindly asked east to revert, its no big deal. I then went to use a custom simi-automatic tool to properly remove the links. βcommand 15:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Pascal.Tesson please check your facts and stop putting your foot in your mouth, please also do not put words in mine that I have never said. I am abiding by the terms of the sanctions. no where has it ever been stated that I cannot use simi-automatic tools. instead of being as biased and insulting as you have been. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that my edits where not automated. shy of someone actually being in my head. I have accepted the fact that the community has a dislike for me due to my enforcing NFC policy and that because I choose that mess they have decided that they should remove my bot access, I do not agree with it, but I do abide by it. βcommand 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Beta, that's not what it's about:


 * Other restrictions:


 * Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate. — talk page notification
 * Noticeboard discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive146.

That's what's being referred to, nothing else.

Blood Red Line


 * As an uninvolved admin, I'd like to point out that the actual community decision here says nothing about semi-automatic tools and absolutely nothing about "appears to be automatic". That appears to stem from a fundamental misinterpretation (or just injecting own bias) by admin User:Daniel in this edit. The community decided Betacommand "is banned from using an automated program to make edits, either on his main account, or bot account." (direct quote from AN). Betacommand did not violate the terms (as far as I can tell) of the community ban. It looks like he violated it, but only if you are counting extra restrictions that were not approved by the community. You can't just add extra restrictions willy nilly, and you certainly can't justify this block with them. -Royalguard11 (T) 00:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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 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)

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)
 * thanks for the heads up,  threw me off. Ill keep an eye out for that. βcommand 13:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * One more thing: the reference section should come below the see also section, not above it.. 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)

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)


 * 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. βcommand 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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 Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. You may appeal this block by adding the text below.  Sandstein  09:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have requested clarification at User_talk:Sandstein. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 09:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Diffs a plenty, at WP:ANI. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 10:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. βcommand 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree and have posted your unblock request on ANI for others to review.  Sandstein   11:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Bracketing the year delinking edits: doesn't do it, but  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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. βcommand 01:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. - auburn pilot  talk  01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. βcommand 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * I am always open to calm, civil, polite, discussions at any time by any one. βcommand 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)