User talk:Betacommand/20070301

Not on the user list

1. You said that I was approved but VandalProof says I'm not on the user list. Please verify that I was added correctly. Thanks. Deco 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Hi Beta, you just accepted me on vandal proof, I can get on V131 but not V135 - it says I'm not on the user list - could you look into this for me? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   yeah I just goofed they changed that auth method in 1.3.5b without letting me (I was using an older version) Im downloading 1.3.5b as I type this and hope to have this fixed shortly. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   No probs, was just looking forward to abit of vandal fighting! Would it easier for you to readd my name to the list? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   no need to re-add Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   Hello, Also not on the list ;) I'll keep a look out and won't re-add myself :) just tested V131 and V134 and can't get on those either. All say i'm not on the list. Intinn^Talk! 08:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You have my sincere apologies! I was fully intending to come and tell you, but then I forgot >_< ... Sorry! Ale_Jrb^talk 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but it still says my names not on the user list for the latest VP, any chance you can have one last look? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

there are a few bugs with the new system give it a few days. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat the already dead horse some more.... but I was also on the approved list, and it tells me that I am not approved. No real hurry or anything, but I was wondering if you knew could check to see that I was added. Thanks. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 00:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consider my application

I had been active on Vandalpoint several months ago and made several constructive edits. I have since reapplied as the software upgrade is not allowing updates. My contributions since 2004 when I joined Wikipedia have been constructive if not 100% flawless. I would like to return to vandal fighting so that I might contribute towards keeping this website's integrity up to its expected standards. I recognize hestiation you might have however please be assured I wish to add a positive contribution once more as I have in the past. Thank you for your consideration. Netkinetic/(t/c/@) 04:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I would appreciate you considering my application and if my re-elistment with Vandal Proof is not approved than some tips on what steps to take to garner approval. Thank you. Netkinetic/(t/c/@) 02:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Law enforcement articles

A number of law enforcement articles have recently been tagged by BetacommandBot as part of WikiProject Law. May I suggest that law enforcement articles and law articles should be kept separate. I don't really think articles such as Deputy Superintendent and other police ranks are within the purview of the law project. -- Necrothesp 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi, thanks for adding me to the userlist for VP. You sent me a second message later on to tell me that you'd fixed the bug that stopped version 1.3.5 from acknowledging I was approved; but I still get the 'You are not on the user list' error message. I can log in to the earlier version okay (and have already used it a couple of times), but still not into the latest version. --Steve Farrell 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

test

OP test

OP test2

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Momento

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Momento Are you sure about this? I never agreed with Momento, but I was certain that the accusation of sockpuppetry was unfounded. I do not trust myself anymore, let alone other Wikipedia editors. Andries 18:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ill post the results of my analysis but over 75% of the socks edits were to the same page's and the rest were on like subjects. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I cant process the results into wikemarkup but please see my sandbox for what I can give at the moment. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You confirmed Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Momento... Is this based on the evidence provided, or did you run a checkuser? I would be very surprised if user:Momento has engaged in SP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to see your analysis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I received this from User:Momento via email:

---

As you know Jossi, I am not a sock puppet and never have been.

• Here's VictorO: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

• Here's Momento: 21:57, 20 January 2007 diff

Note that we are both editing at the same time. Do they think I had two computers side by side and I swap from one to the other? (Via email from User:Momento)

---

I have advised him to contest the block using the appropriate template in his talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a CU and because this case is as old as it is ~one month I dont think there are any CU data left on the servers to check this. But look at the data in /Sandbox which shows the data. Because of the data size I am unable to convert from plain text to WikiMarkup. But it clearly shows that they have very very close editing patterns. In regard to the time stamps I can do the same thing on one PC without using a proxy. From the evidence that I can see they are puppets. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I most definitively disagree. Please re-check Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Administrators. I would argue that the evidence presented is not substantive enough to assert sockpupetry and block him. As I am involved in editing that article, I cannot unblock, but I would suggest that you ask another admin to review the evidence presented by user:Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do not have checkuser privileges, you can place a request at WP:CU. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I trust your judgment if you don't believe they are socks, you know the situation better than i do, feel free to unblock if you fell that strongly. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to unblock, as being an active editor of the article, doing that could be construed as breach of my admin privileges. Please unblock, if you could. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by this reversal. I strongly urge you to reconsider your initial judgement. Jossi is, indeed, close to the issue at hand. In the opinion of myself and other users, Jossi may in fact be too close to the subject at hand, and too close to Momento to be objective. I would hope that, after a month of review, it would take more than some casual hand-waving on the part of an admin who is plainly allied with the subject of the review to reverse an unfavorable finding. Mael-Num 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be surprised. Check the evidence provided by Momento, and yes, I trust that he is not using sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento provided no real evidence, and as has been exhibited here, your trust is likely misplaced or misguided. Your continued strident defense, on a users talk page where you were unaddressed and your opinion unsolicited, only serves as further testament that you are too close to the issue to be reasonably objective. Mael-Num 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hillock65

You might want to take a look at what's happening here; User:Irpen is reverting your changes to this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

--[1]. --Irpen 18:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning?

• Can you please explain your reasoning behind your decision at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spruceforest ?? Thank you for your time. Smee 23:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

its a new user who didnt understand wiki that well and forgot to log in, please see WP:BITE he made a mistake. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, however I disagree, but I will not push this matter. Smee 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Re: VandalProof

I;m still having trouble logging into the software. I downloaded it and entered my username, but nothing happens. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Approval for Vandal Proof

What bug? RedSkunk^talk 01:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It still says I'm not on the User List. Is there any way you can add manually? RedSkunk^talk 01:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

the VP devs have changed the authentication method and there are a few problems with the new settings. until that is fixed I cannot approve for 1.3.5 Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, Beta! :D --RazorICE^talk 05:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, I was notified that I was added last week, yet I still receive a message that I'm not on the User List. Thanks for looking into this. -Seinfreak37 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note

I'm sorry to stop this bot which seems to be making useful additions of templates to US county pages, but it has been placing them at the top of "talk" pages in the last day or so, instead of in the articles. This will not be as effective in drawing attention to future viewers of the need to fill out these templates.

Please let me know if this is intentional or if you have any other comments. Thanks! DogcatcherDrew 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review that template it goes on the talk page not the article. BetacommandBot 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for talk page banners

Is there a way to get the bot to place new project banners below existing ones on a page? It's more politie. And the bot's current habit of placing a new banner at the top has bumped some notes that remind editors to discuss the article not the topic downward. Thanks, ZueJay^talk 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

that is the default method that has been operating on wiki for over six months and is used by many many bots. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because its the default does not mean it is polite, or should be continually acepted w/o question. Honestly, I don't know how bot programming works, I was just curious if it could be changed. ZueJay^talk 17:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not easily Might I make a suggestion that the warnings and such go under the templates and above the main content?. That is where they tend to go anyway Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Zipper

Why did your bot add the "Wikiproject Law" template to Talk:Zipper? It doesn't appear to have any relevance. Anonymous55 17:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted for now. Anonymous55 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

.sch as part of wikiproject law?

A wikiproject law template appears to have been put on the talk page of .sch by this bot - not sure why. Thought it best to enquire rather than just remove it. Tafkam 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Law

This bot has added wikiproject law templates to several Fair trade related articles that clearly had nothing to do with Law (such as Fairtrade Town and Fair Trade Certified Mark)

I think maybe whoever controls this should do something about it...

Thanks, Vincentl 02:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, your blocking behavior is once again being discussed. You may wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trigger-happy_blocking_by_Betacommand. Friday (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible blocking

(edit conflict) FYI, I did not care much because the user was assumed to have left although I was sure your blocks were unwarranted. Since the user returned today, I posted this to ANI and I am just letting you now about it. --Irpen 22:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, would you consider stopping the use of blocking while this is discussed? Friday (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Confused about reverts

It seems that you (Betacommandbot) added the "Infobox Needed" banner to several Nebraska county articles, but then you reverted them. What gives? Just curious /Timneu22 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

there was an error that banner should go on the talk page of the article, if you check that is where it is currently. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand

I would like to notify you that the RfC concerning some of your blocks has been reopened. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Betacommand. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yourmomownsacat

I don't mean to pile on the questions asked regarding some of the blocks you have placed, but I see that you have blocked Yourmomownsacat (talk · contribs) for username issues. Other seemingly innocent usernames you blocked around the same time seem to have had a scent of sockpuppetry, such as user:MR.GlobalWarming / User:Globalwarmingismyfriend and User:Blahblahblah 56 /User:Blahblahblah 58. Was User:Yourmomownsacat someone's sockpuppet as well? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Global warming in usernames that was a major issue in jan sometime when I have a chance Ill look up the report on AN about the Search engine Optimization spammers and this follows the same pattern that was started then, the Blahblahblah is also following a set of vandal username's that have recently been blocked. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but that was not my question. My question was: was User:Yourmomownsacat someone's sockpuppet? Does this name have a prior history in other accounts? Because I can't see anything inappropriate in the name itself. Aecis^Brievenbus 15:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Over the last week there have been several vandals/ Usernames that were quite inflammatory that follow the same User:Yourmom pattern and this appeared to be yet another case of the same person(s). Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wait, I see several other related usernames: Yourmom'svagina, Blarghyourmom, Yourmomsahoe, Yourmom5590, Your mom3.0, Your mom2.0 and Your mom. Discussion closed :) Aecis^Brievenbus 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV name dumping

If a name is batantly obvious you can block it. You know that and I think your dumping of names at WP:AIV is just to prove a point. Nobody questions blocks with penis, poop, etc etc in them. It is the more questionable ones, which may require human judgement in to know if they are innapropriate or not. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

no Please see my comment at AN/I I gave up the block button for a while. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok then,m thank you for responding. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV spamming

Betacommand, knock it off. WP:AIV is a busy and necessary area of Wikipedia to deal with vandalism, and you're deliberately disrupting it to make a point by spamming it with obvious blocks. I know that your competence to block has been questioned, but responding in this manner is not helpful. If you are not happy to block them please do not spam AIV. Dodgy user names are not vandalism. Deliberately disrupting Wikipedia will earn you a block, so please stop it right now. Proto ► 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, man, cut it out. I never did anything to you. I'm just trying to work AIV here. Kafziel ^Talk 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment above I gave up my block button, untill this issue is resolved or I would have blocked them myself. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you are not blocking them doesn't mean you have to spam WP:AIV with them instead. Proto ► 15:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Then where should I report username blocks too? policy says AIV. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs •}

Bot) 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Policy (WP:U#How_to_report_an_inappropriate_username) says you ask them on their talk page to change their name. If that doesn't work, then you list them at WP:RFC/NAME. You only report blatantly inappropriate usernames to WP:AIV. If you are unable to tell the difference between User:asdf555 and User:Fuck_Wikipedia, then perhaps you should not be involved with username blocks, at all. Proto ► 15:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there were some that should have been reported there. Others should have been taken to WP:RFCN, been contacted by you to ask about there username. We have had major dicussions about random letter patterns. asdfrewq is not horribly random as well neight is abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. Those might have been much more appropriate in another venue. There were others (im not viewing the diff right now) that should have shared a similar fate. I am not dispouting the ones that contained poop, penis, vandal etc etc and actualyl blocked several of them. The situation is not BLACK and WHITE in all cases. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I'm concerned about some of your recent deletions. Can you explain why you deleted Caitlin Murphy and James MacLurcan for no context? The content said they were actors, and what country they were from, and gave one significant role. Surely this is enough to identify the person in question? I realize they were too short to be proper articles, and if this is all the content we have they're better off with a one-sentence mention in the main article. But lack of context? I don't see it. Friday (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also wondering about Spoken (band). This is no more an advert than any other band article, from what I can see. Friday (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

the one liners were poorly written one liners at best, Ryulong ended up re-writing the one liners to make more sense and the actors in question were mentioned in other articles. In regard to the band I glanced over the article and there were some phrases that stood out that read just like a advert. Spoken frequently returns to Arkansas for concerts, even though most bands overlook it. & Arkansas maintains a large Spoken fanbase are a few. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS those stood out because they were one line paragraphs.

I see nothing poorly written in the versions [2] [3] you deleted. Maybe you're going too fast? Surely you realize that problems which can be solved by editing shouldn't be solved by deletion? Friday (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalproof

Can you please help me with downloading Vandalproof. I tried using it, but when I put my username and password, nothing happens. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Datadump/20070301

User:Betacommand/Datadump/20070301 is generating {{helpme}} requests and flooding the IRC channel. Any way you can fix this? John Reaves (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot task 3

Greetings, Betacommand! You approved HBC AIV helperbot task 3 for trials just over a week ago, so I thought I would give you a quick ping to let you know that I posted results of testing a couple of days ago, and would appreciate if you could take a look when you have a chance to see if it's good to be approved so we can get the new code pushed out to the other bots, or if there are any changes we need to make. Thanks for your time! —Krellis (Talk) 02:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for approving the task - I replied to your "PS" there, though if you want to continue the discussion as needed here or on my talk instead, that's fine with me, whatever you think appropriate. —Krellis (Talk) 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi sorry to bother you with this, but I cannot connect to VandalProof!, it says my name is not on the list. Do you know what could be causing this, or maybe I am not on the user list? --D.Kurdistani 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

there is a bug in 1.3.5 that may be causing this bug. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Irish railway stations

I noticed that you are removing the self-links that someone used to make the name of the page bold in the introduction text. This is not the usual way, but the text should be bold for the page title and you can do that by using three ' marks before and after the words you want to make bold. Cheers ww2censor 04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot service to /Log page

Looking at the way the bots are handling things when you report a bunch of users from your /Log page to AIV, I had a thought - would you be willing/able to simply remove all of the entries yourself from your page whenever you report them to AIV? That way the bots will only have to remove them from one place, instead of doing double-work. It would mean you'd have to look at the page history for AIV or rely in people specifically letting you know about any that don't get blocked, but it would help reduce the load that the bots are putting on the server quite a bit, I think, and allow them to focus their work on removing the blocked entries from AIV faster. —Krellis (Talk) 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

np Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Username reported

You recently reported User:Jesusfreak55 to WP:AIV. It appears as though this editor has good faith in mind and WP:AIV should not have been the first venue for this. The user should have been contacted, explained hwy the name was innapropriate and asked to change there name before a report was made. Thank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalproof

Why are you continually removing my name from the vandalproof request list, without even notifying me? I have enough edits, and you are approving everyone else, I feel you are personally attacking me with this. Retiono Virginian 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No actualy I think I approved you durring the last run. But due to technical errors in 1.3.5 I dont think that the approvals were logged properly. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is there anyway it can be fixed? (and by the way there is a huge backlog at the requests for Vandalproof page) Retiono Virginian 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting on the next release of VP from the devs. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Previously I couldn't connect, now I can connect but everyone seems to have problems. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching that "self-link" on the Ernest Emerson article. It was in the infobox that was part of a seperate article that was merged into this one, I must have missed it in over 100 copyedits. --Mike Searson 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Don't close unless you're an admin"

If you didn't notice, I am an admin. FCYTravis 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You approved me for vp, i downloaded it. I typed in my name and clicked login and verify and nothing happened. How do u use it? WikiMan53 (talk • contribs • count) Review Me! 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

VP Userlist

Hi,

During a test, I managed to successfully corrupt the user list :) - if you get this, and it hasn't been fixed, please have a look.

Thanks! Alex <ale_jrb> Ale_Jrb^talk 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Prodego ^talk 14:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That cool button that shows you're online

How do I put one of those cool buttons that shows whether I'm online or not on my user page? Kevin23 04:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, feel free to add that to my page, or at least tell me how. Thanks, Kevin23 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Lethaniol

Hi Betacommand,

Two things -

1. At Talk:Glyphosate Ttguy suggests that User:Benjiwolf is using a sockpuppet - dont know the in and outs of it myself but thought I would leave you a message about it.

2. My adoptee User:Bluestripe has complained to me about you deleting The Strategy Paradox again [4] - this time for being non-notable. Though I can see why this book may be on the verge of notability would it be possible to have an AFD instead of the CSD, or I could suggest to my adoptee to take it to deletion review. Cheers Lethaniol 13:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

#1 take to WP:SSP and two please take to DRV if you disagree on the deletion. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have started a 2nd case for Benjiwolf at WP:SSP. He was Sockpuppeting while blocked and admits as much on his talk page. You blocked him before and mentioned he would get a longer block if he sockpuppeted while blocked. Can you action another block on him? His sockpuppets are leaving a wake of anoyed people where ever he edits. But he now does it all anon. Can you block 83.78.*.* and 83.79.*.* and take him out. Of cource you take out all users of his ISP. What is the defence against this sort of thing? Ttguy 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Strategy Paradox. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers Lethaniol 11:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Do you stand by your deletion? Or are you merely adding to the burocracy of the Wikipedia. Serously, as an Admin, lead, follow, or get out of the way. Add value, or do not insert yourself in the process. Bluestripe 13:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

my username

What's wrong with the username ;sdbgvjew32??? I don't think it violates any of the username policies...

apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers is what I blocked it for. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to explain: he semicolon is an (admittedly dumb) math joke... it has to do with differential geometry and covariant derivatives. sdb are my initials. gv is because I'm a fan of gianni versace. jew is because i'm jewish.

but I can see how it might appear random to someone who doesn't know the reasons behind it...

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus

Hi, did you mean this edit [5] to constitute a formal unblock decline? If so, I guess there should be some reason given. I declined earlier, and stand by that, but I think it is clear he means that category together with the comment below the first unblock request to constitute a second request, which is legitimate in principle, so I thought it would be only fair to leave the cat there until a second admin actually does a review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless he places a {{unblock}} I dont take it as a unblock request. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I'm concerned about some of your recent deletions. Can you explain why you deleted Caitlin Murphy and James MacLurcan for no context? The content said they were actors, and what country they were from, and gave one significant role. Surely this is enough to identify the person in question? I realize they were too short to be proper articles, and if this is all the content we have they're better off with a one-sentence mention in the main article. But lack of context? I don't see it. Friday (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also wondering about Spoken (band). This is no more an advert than any other band article, from what I can see. Friday (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

the one liners were poorly written one liners at best, Ryulong ended up re-writing the one liners to make more sense and the actors in question were mentioned in other articles. In regard to the band I glanced over the article and there were some phrases that stood out that read just like a advert. Spoken frequently returns to Arkansas for concerts, even though most bands overlook it. & Arkansas maintains a large Spoken fanbase are a few. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS those stood out because they were one line paragraphs.

I see nothing poorly written in the versions [6] [7] you deleted. Maybe you're going too fast? Surely you realize that problems which can be solved by editing shouldn't be solved by deletion? Friday (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This was archived without any reponse, in case you didn't know. Do you plan on being more careful with deletions in the future? Friday (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

True some things can be solved by editing and others by deletion. the one line pages were bare extractions from other pages that were choped out. I felt that the other pages covered the topic better. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for pointing out the mailing list! I have an account now. Sometimes Wikipedia still says I am blocked but I don't know why. Anyway, thank you! Three in the morning 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what triggered this?

re: new cat page I was editting when it was deleted. What's the scoop? BOT? // FrankB 08:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD#C1 for why I deleted the cat. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can play link games too...

from Voice of All # Deleted in mid edit . Fifty or so for content enough for you? Using a {{Prod}} technique recommended... when is there EVER a speedy need to trim categories or templates. Mainspace, sure. Administration and support namespaces... never. Then there is that laughably ridiculous the time limit thing-- four days to a student seems a long time, to someone self-employed about to put two through college, it's an incivil frantic rush. Esp. without the courtesy of a query. Cheers! // FrankB 15:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering about the deletions, especially of WikiProject categories (i.e. Category:FA-class carnivorous plant articles). The list looks up-to-date as of 5 March, but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to go around deleting them using an automated function (AWB? I don't know what Voice of All was using). In the interim of the list being generated and the empty cats being deleted, you might find some like the example above where someone is mid-edit, or in my case where I was instructed to create the cats at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot and then go ahead with assessment. Should we propose a change to those instructions or somehow tag the WikiProject cats as not to be deleted? Has this method been discussed anywhere? Thanks! --Rkitko 17:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just generated the list and deleted a few from it none were part of the FA ect group. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PS I dont auto delete any. I did skip ones that I thought should be kept. I have been engaged with another task at the moment. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Looks like User:Voice of All used the list you generated to delete empty categories associated with WikiProjects (among others). How do you generate the list? Is there some way you could omit WikiProject assessment categories from it so they won't get deleted? Cheers, --Rkitko 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah I'll try and filter those out next time this was just a crude list that admins could look over and delete ones that met CDS#C1 and leave the others. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. --Rkitko 07:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few categories related to WikiProjects and maintenance categories were deleted - I've restored at least 4. They were zapped in good faith of course, but perhaps we need to find a way of avoiding a repeat? Perhaps a template saying "this is a maintenance category, at times it will be empty but it remains useful, please don't delete it"? --kingboyk 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now 9. --kingboyk 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a few to add to that list: Category:A-Class Texas state highway articles, Category:FA-Class Texas state highway articles, Category:GA-Class Texas state highway articles, and Category:Unassessed Texas state highway articles. If they could be restored, it would be greatly appreciated. --Holderca1 20:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just ain't fair!

category:Cities in the UTC timezone used have an explanation in the cat. Now reverted without a compleet explanation it seems to hinder the category CfD. And now they're deleting it! Frustratingly no one takes the time to explain any policy. Can you help? --CyclePat 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I deleted was because of WP:CSD#C1 Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

VP

Hi, I have had vandal proof for a while now and I have had to keep un-installing and re-installing it several times now as at first it goes really fast then after a little while when you click rollback it takes about 5 seconds, nearly always more, however when I re-install it it wipeds my vandalism counter back to zero and I display it on my userpage so I have to keep explaining about it, can you help with this to make it go fast permanently. After asking questions on a sub-page the first time the user was very helpful and informative, however when AmiDaniel and another user replied when I asked about two months later, they seemed unwilling to help. Thanks.Tellyaddict 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

aguas frescas

What part of the link guidelines say that mexicanfood.about.com is wrong to link to? And does it say those links MUST be avoided or SHOULD be avoided? And further, you do realize this is a guideline and not a policy, right? Nardman1 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

EL is one part of of the rule set. see also WP:NOT a how to guide. even if it is not policy, GuideLines are also editing behavior rules. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• • This article has been hit by you and two other editors removing links to this domain in the last day, leading me to believe you have sonme sort of list, perhaps a WikiProject, you're working off of. Please link me to the talk page you've got this list. Nardman1 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please to my knowledge there is no notice about this site on WP:WPSPAM but if there is a talk page that it would be on that is it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I removed our conversation from User talk:Mexicanfood since it might have confused people there. The link in this article has existed since 2005, and has nothing to do with user Mexicanfood (who I have no relation with). I think in your zeal for removing spam you may actually be hurting the project in some cases, this article included. I don't want to fight with so many people on this issue but I don't think you are right. Sorry if my earlier comments at WP:ANI seemed in anger, they were. I'll figure out the cookbook since I can't fight the system. Nardman1 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting Nardman1 on this. I have left him a message on his talk page drawing his attention to the bit in EL about excessive levels of adverting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Chemistry tagging Bot request

Hi, can your bot place tags on all articles within the Category:Inorganic_compound_stubs and any sub categories with the template: {{Chemistry|class=Stub|importance=}} {{Chemicals|class=stub|importance=}}. Thank you. --Parker007 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Err .. just saw this addition. There is a request waiting to get all compounds under the {{chemicals}} template, which is covering the daughter-project Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. It would of course be nice that they were correctly tagged as stubs, when they are that. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay changed template to chemicals; see above. Hope Betacommand instructs to bot to start doing to start doing it right now :) --Parker007 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Betacommand; I hope you won't mind tagging the subcategory of inorganic compund stubs i.e. Category:Alloy_stubs with {{Chemicals|class=stub|importance=}}. --Parker007 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Golden Skate links

Please stop removing links to this web site. I know we had a spam problem with the owner of the site yesterday, but that has already been addressed. The links you are removing are legitimate references to a reliable source for figure skating information, that were originally added by me and other people when writing the articles in question. Dr.frog 02:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxneeded

Why would this template ({{infoboxneeded}}) be added to a the talk page and not to the main article? It is less likely to be seen on the talk page! /Timneu22 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage For example, if an article needs to include {{Infobox stadium}}, then add the following template to the article's talk page:

Straight from Template:Infoboxneeded Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see that on the infoboxneeded page. My question is why. It seems like people wouldn't see it there. It just makes no sense to me. I think I should change the infoboxneeded page to say that it should be on the main article.. /Timneu22 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont ask me I dont design or implement templates I just run a bot Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. Your bot is great... too bad someone made you move the infoboxes to talk pages. That's not where they belong. Thanks again for your work. /Timneu22 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

might I suggest that you try having a discussion on the template talk page about having it on the page itself, Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

wikified avalanche-center.org EL

Hello, I noticed that you wikified the avalanche-center.org and snowman-jim.org links I added to User talk:4.242.3.161. The reason I made those live external links was to leave bread-crumbs that would pop up in a LinkSearch. Wikifying them hides them from LinkSearch. Maybe a good compromise would be to make the external link point to something like http://SPAM.avalanche-center.org, that way it is an obvious spam link that doesn't go anywhere and it also shows up with a wildcarded link search. What are your thoughts? (Requestion 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

we have the site on the spam watchlist see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/avalanche-center.org for our monitoring there is no need to leave live links we have a bot that auto updates the list. that is actually what triggered my edit. we leave dead links live ones just feed the spammer and help them achieve their goal. Cheers Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know about that Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/avalanche-center.org page and I'm the one that starting this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Avalanche_and_climbing_external_links report. How does it work? If a spam fighter puts avalanche-center.org into LinkSearch will they see a hit from that WikiProject_Spam page? I know what you mean about feeding the spammers and pimping their PR. I hate putting in those live external links, heck, it even violates WP:EL but its a powerful tool. (Requestion 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

if you look at the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/avalanche-center.org you will see what pages were affected by the spammer and when they were affected. BetacommandBot updates the stats when ever I can run the update script. Check also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Report and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch for currently watched domains. If you want to add one just add the site to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/List using the same format. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is really cool. Does your bot automatically collect links from the project page that are added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/List? It would be useful if Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Report listed the link search counts from both the "all" and the "(Main)" namespaces. For example; I've been watching tinyurl.com usage and keeping it clean, there are many search hits in the User and Talk spaces that I'm not allowed to change but none in the (Main) space. So a report string of something like "xyzzy.com has 456,0 links on wikipedia" would be very informative to me (the zero being the main space counts). Another thing that would be really great is if you added a live external link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/avalanche-center.org, maybe with a prefix like spam.xyzzy.com, so that a standard LinkSearch would find it. You could even add a sentence that mentions WikiProject_Spam and the significance of this LinkSearch hit. (Requestion 21:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Im working on that it should be inplace within a day or two. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to the new feature. You know, another thing that would be extremely useful is if your bot system would add the diff, user account, or article page of the spam revert that is done with the linksearch. Or maybe just log the wiki article names where the link is found. The reason is I'm watching this avalanche spammer closely and if someone else does the revert on an article that I'm not watching then I miss it. This guy is one spam away from blacklisting which is why I want to catch him in the act. (Requestion 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Still not on the user list

Hi again. I registered for VandalProof about 2 weeks ago. I said it wasn't working and you said you fixed the user list on Feb 26th, but it still isn't working, giving the "not on the user list" error. I don't know why. Please fix. Thanks. Deco 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

VP user list corrupt

Sorry if you have been given this message already, but I just got a msg in VP135 that the "user list is corrupt. Please contact a moderator to have it repaired." Is there anything you can do? Thanks in advance... Katalaveno^T_C 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it is fixed now... Katalaveno^T_C 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks!

for the vandalproof approval ;) †Bloodpack† 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for VP but help!

thanks for the approval. i am having trouble with the software. it recognizes my user name when i log in (fills the field out for me), but when i try and verify, it tells me that i am not on the user list. i am using IE/VISTA/NORTON07. thanks the_undertow ^talk 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

Why did you indef block an IP? [8] it only has one contrib [9] Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the block to three months. While the vandalism itself is not at the level that I'd normally give more than a warning, it caused an entire town in my province to freak out. I'm doing this in my attempt to woo the media and mayor of the town to encourage citizens to collaborate on the Sioux Lookout, Ontario article, and build it up as a community. -- Zanimum 13:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

can you explain your edit of Bahá'í Faith in fiction

It seems like you removed the specific part of an ebay link leaving an amazon link intact. I don't understand "(Removed extraneous links as per WP:EL using AWB)". I think maybe what you were doing was chopping a second link for the same thing in the Sherlock Holmes section. I originally included both because I didn't want to favor one commercial website over another. I don't see clearly the particular relevance of WP:EL that made you edit this way. It's also a bit weird in that the way the whole page was sectionally deleted and reloaded which I don't understand (perhaps it's a side effect of using AWB?)--Smkolins 02:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

sectionally deleted the only thing that I removed was the link to ebay. I also made some general clean-up. EL and WP:SPAM were why I removed ebay. ebay is not a good link it exist to sell products. if you can find a better link please remove amazon Commercial links are rarely a good thing. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If I could have found such references from non-commercial websites I would have used them. Instead I was able to provide a balanced reference to not favor one commercial website over another. Did anyone review such issues in the policies or is there some general "remove commercial website links" thing going on?--Smkolins 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in an ideal world there would be zero commercial links. Amazon and e-bay are both bad sites to use but if you have to use one amazon is better than e-bay. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. But is this a matter of policy - that amazon is to be preferred over ebay?--Smkolins 10:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Shepseskaf

Dear Betacommand, I strongly believe Wikipedia should make an exception and allow the Touregypt web link here [http://touregypt.net/featurestories/shepseskaf.htm] on king Shepseskaf to appear. The only other web links on this king provide minimal information on this ruler--no pictures, nothing. PS: I have posted info. on my User Id# 24.87.136.31 account but this because I forget to sign in. As far as I know, I do my best to cite academic sources for my contributions on Egyptology; and not crack pot ideas and have never vandalised any Wikipedia sites. Pls give consideration to my request on Shepseskaf who is very poorly known outside the small Egyptological community. With kind Regards, Leoboudv 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On other thing: the web link which I removed but you automatically reverted on W. B. Emery is truly dead. Have you tried to access it? Leoboudv 02:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of images

Per your request of the image names to be replaced on IRC:

1. Image:Symbol confirmed.png → Image:Symbol confirmed.svg
2. Image:Symbol information blue.png → Image:Symbol information blue.svg

I hope you have a most wonderful day, Betacommand, and happy editing! Kyra_~(talk) 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning recent deletions

Recently a certain user has come through and mass-deleted a certain source that the ancient Egypt wikiproject has used for quite literally years now, since some administrator on IRC raised questions about it, apparently. At the time, said site was not on the blacklist (I checked), so I put them back. Now, you restoring them is one thing. You deleting a comment here to our wikiproject about the mass deletions is quite another! Thanatosimii 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not mean to remove that comment, I made a mistake when reverting the touregypt edits. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Railways

It appears that you removed a link to */touregypt.net that supplanted references to three assertions in the text. The article is now missing part of its documentation and one of the sentences is a mess. The link in question had already been removed before and its reinsertion was discussed in [10]. Can you please check this out? Thanks Ekem 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot requests

Hi! Since you're online, I'm just curious why the bot flag requests were made on WP:BN and no mention of it was posted on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#Approved Requests. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nolbot was approved but I was having connection issues I was lucky to be able to post on BN, and the shadowbot did not need a BRFA as it was a replacement. Sorry im at the Saint Petersburg office at the moment. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Both flagged. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot approvals process

Just in case any of you haven't seen the new bot request to track the bot approvals process, this is just a reminder to use the correct templates at {{BAG Admin Tools}} so the bot can correctly identify the stage of bot approval. Also, the approved requests section has been moved to a separate page at Wikipedia:Bots/Approved bot requests for the Bureaucrats to watchlist. When approving a request, make sure you remove it from the main page and place it on that page so that a bureaucrat can flag it. Thanks. MetsBot 16:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment categories

I just came out of a long wikibreak. I found assessment categories of some task forces of the India project have been deleted since they were part of the User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted page. What is that page about and any ideas why would User:Voice of All go about deleting the assessment categories? Please advise. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I understood what happened. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about authority over policy

I had a link in my personal information page that was deleted by yourself. I understand the need for keeping articles "clean" from links that are not of a direct nature to the topic. This was a link on my personal information page that was very valid, and pointing to something that people who are interested in finding out more about the subjects to which I contribute can find out more information.

It just happens to be on a MySpace blog.

Is there somewhere to appeal policies such as this one, or do the reviewers have Carte Blanche to make the corrections without recourse because the correction made falls within "the policies"? Who reviews these policies? Like I said, I understand about not putting links to "social networking" websites in the topics, but why not on the personal information pages as well?

Thank you. Craig Firerescuelieut 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Try and add the link back, per a statement by Jimbo Blog.myspace has been blacklisted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried and like you had said, it was blacklisted and sent me to the Spam filter page. I attempted to put this explanation on the whitelist page, but you put a reply of simply "No" without further explanation. If it is not possible, would you be so kind as to expand on the "No" with an explanation as to why? Is it a technical issue? Is it a "policy" issue?

Thanks, Firerescuelieut 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Touegypt.net

Dear Betacommand, I notice today that you did not bother to respond--and justify--to your own WikiMedia blacklist discussion regarding TourEgypt.net here.[11] You never informed your own official Wikipedia editors on Egyptology such as Thanatosimi[12], Captmondo[13] or Llywrich that you were about to blacklist TourEgypt.net even though they have carried the burden of wikiproofing Egyptology on Wikipedia. The impression I have of you is someone who doesn't value or care about archaeology or our world's ancient history like so many members of the Egyptological Wikipedia community do. You never commented on the fact that TourEgypt.net was contracted by the Egyptian government to run the Egyptian Department of Antiquities and Tourism web pages in the past. TourEgypt is not a spammer who uses Wikipedia to sell their wares when any search on Google can turn up an Egypt-related article by this firm. You just decided suddenly to ban this invaluable web site WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING OR DISCUSSION and undermine the efforts of good people like Thanataosmi, Llywrych and Captmondo whose article on king Ahmose I, the founder of Egypt's New Kingdom, was so good in terms of quality, that it was featured ond day on the front pages of Wikipedia this January or February. When there is an attempt to remove an article on Wikipedia, a talk forum is first created so that contributors can weigh the pros or cons of removing a particular article but you did not try to do this.

How can you be so crass and insensitive towards people who have worked to improve Egyptological articles on Wikipedia for years--especially when they are your own Wikipedia editors. Is it your goal to undermine the reliability of Wikipedia more than the editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica who despise us? Because if that is your goal, you are close to achieving it by angering so many people who care about Ancient Egypt and Ancient history on Wikipedia with your arbitary decision here. Regards, Leoboudv 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry I have more important issues today, I am currently in Saint Petersburg, Florida, at a conference with the WikiMedia board Sorry I didnt take time out today to address your complaint of blocking a spam site. I was meeting with Danny, Kat, Brion, Florence and the other Board members excluding Jimbo (he's in Japan). I was in meetings all day. touregypt is spam over half the fucking page is spam if you cant cite the article without using a tourism booking service I think you have a more important issue than I thought, you have to use a site designed to sell product as a source? this fails WP:EL WP:SPAM what else is needed to explain it? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you overruling me without discussion Betacommand. I gave careful thought to my listing the address in the whitelist and I'm sure you can see I don't take my duty lightly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, please be civil. Even when one is right, a confrontational attitude makes others angry rather than convincing them. When I don't have time to respond to a question, I simply respond the next day. I've made the mistake of name-dropping too in the past, but it's a cheesy thing to do and better to avoid it altogether. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 08:03Z

Dear Betacommand, I may be angry but I never swore at anyone on the discussion site. Am I wrong or are you supposed to respect people's views here? The real problem is that you ARBITRARILY removed a site without prior discussion or made any attempt to hear the views of your own Wikipedia editors (or contributors) who care about ancient Egypt. I include this excerpt from the WikiMedia discussion[14]:

"Also – where is the record of this [TourEgypt.net] site being nominated for blacklisting? 86.147.114.128 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC) There isn't one. Suggesting that a page may be spam is one thing, but what's really got Llywrch, Leoboudv, and myself irate is the fact that an administrator on IRC talked it over there without any realy wiki-discussion whatosever, and somehow the burden of proof falls on us to argue that it isn't spam. Thanatosimii This site seems to have been blocked for one reason - spamming wikipedia (which it wasn't), and now is not unblocked for another. THis strikes me as someone making a mistake and then not being able admit they were wrong. So much for this being a community. 86.147.114.128 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)"

What kind of a community is Wikipedia if you--or someone else--can basically go behind the backs of Wikipedia's own registered Egyptology editors and delete a major resource like TourEgypt.net. This smacks of plain elitism--the kind you expect at Brittanica, not at open Wikipedia where you discuss things OPENLY before making a final decision! You placed the onus on the rest of the Wikipedia Egyptology community to advocate for for the continued use of TourEgypt which IS just PLAIN WRONG. I'm happy that you are close to Mr. Wales and happy you are part of the Wikipedia board. But please don't put bans on certain web sites without consulting your own registered Wikipedia editors! TourEgypt has some ads but 1)they are not full or even part time spammers at all and 2) they have lots of valuable information that one cannot access anywhere else. Did you check Wikipedia's current article on Shepseskaf and the one by the touregypt.net linked article! The difference is night and day; TourEgypt has pictures, graphs and a clear reliabe Bibliography. Here is the link--before it was removed.[15]

The Touregypt link is clearly placed in the External links section of the article--as it should be, not hidden somewhere in the article on Shepseskaf. Basically all I'm saying is that the information on the TourEgypt site increases people's interest in Egypt's great past--on its pharaohs, pyramids, temples, mummies, etc and helps prod people to do more research and contribution into Wikipedia's articles on these topics. Is that wrong. As long as the TourEgypt articles are placed in the External links section, it should be kosher. I've checked the TourEgypt articles and their information is basically trustworthy unlike some articles on Wikipedia which I have had to competely rewrite and then give the footnotes. Can you please reconsider the ban on TourEgypt because you have just angered a lot of people with this totally out of the blue decision; the fact you refuse to admit that maybe the decision making process here contains serious flaws only aggravates the Wikipedia community (no pun intended!) further. Thank You. Leoboudv 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to m:SPAM instead of trying to fork the discussion. I am and shall always remain civil. times arise when strong language is needed to get a point across. please see XX7's comment that clearly shows the reasons. it falls under his #2. I am not dropping names, I was getting bitched at for not responding to said users complaints, I stated my reason for the lag in response time. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot stopped

I'm typing, I'm typing... :) - I've temporarily blocked your bot because I don't think it should change the parameter code inside of templates, should it? This for example doesn't seem right at all, please investigate/clean up as soon as possible. Femto 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also template documentations such as here, I guess they're not supposed to show substed content but how the 'live' template looks like. The template space is no place for bots. Femto 20:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All template namespace issues fixed, Before blocking please note that many bots have a built in failsafe to stop with new messages. you could also leave me a note first. Also your block summary was of very little help bot stop means nothing to me. I then have to go ask around and find out what bot stop means please be more careful next time.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind unblocking? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, give me at least a few minutes to type out an explanation, I'm not a bot that does several edits per minute. I'll always err on the side of safety with bot accounts; you know the bot policy.

Looking through [16], I'm confused about the mixed edit summaries. There's both "subst:'ing", and "subst:'ing using AWB". Is BetacommandBot a strictly 'dumb' bot, or is it always human-assisted? These two types should be clearly separated. Femto 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

my bot does use AWB for some task, I start out each task manually reviewing some edits, thus you have the AWB summaries, once I see that there are no issues I set it on full auto. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So I take it the test templates were edited in auto-mode? Really, when it isn't even apparent whether or not there currently is a brain watching the account, there's really no point complaining about a lack of subtlety in the way the bot gets stopped. Femto 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

whether it's in auto or not a simple note on the bots talk page will stop it, and I have that clearly stated on the bots userpage. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot in unblocked now. --Paracit 19:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

R from shortcut subst

I just ran across your bot subst'ing {{R from shortcut}}. I'm not sure this is a good idea, as having templates on redirects is already bad enough. Subst'ing them is not a good idea. --- RockMFR 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUBST Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it... I don't know how that got in there in the first place... Oh, Omniplex added it about a year ago. Hmm... That shouldn't be there. Would you mind removing this particular one from your subst list? --- RockMFR 21:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Hello Beta, sorry that our chat was terminated by me. My computer collapse and I had have to repair it (don't work still). I query you, when I back in irc. --DaB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.245.8 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

VP

Wondered if you could find a mo to approve some more VP users? I'm just dying to get my hands on a more efficient whacking stick. --Dweller 10:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, go on, you know you really want to undertake a tedious routine administrative task that maybe 1% of beneficiaries will thank you for if you're lucky, to make your day complete. --Dweller 14:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Hello, Betacommand! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! zero » 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dave Wong

I note that you have removed a link to the main (only?) English-language fan site from Dave Wong, referring to WP:EL and WP:SPAM but without further explanation of what was wrong with the link. The external site is not a commercial one, and provides extensive lyrics and interesting biographical material, albeit unsourced. With that gone, all that is left is IMDB and a Chinese-language source. Please can you explain why the English one should be deleted. (I have no connection with the site; I'm just a fan.) - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

can you say law suite? those lyrics are copyrigted and protected, linking to a site that knowingly breaks copyright is againt policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads-up. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Canons regular

I see you have re-edited this. I undid your edit on the grounds you ALSO removed CATEGORIES and links to other WP. I am not convinced that ALL external links should be removed, but I shall leave that to you. Do you want to re-install the cats? --Richhoncho 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look I fixed that and only removed the one link. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ascari Limited

Why was this company deleted ? As far as I can see it was a valid company stub and you have HUNDREDS of those which have not been deleted. To delete without giving me ANY guidance as to why is absolutely rediculous and not in the spirit of information sharing.

See WP:CSD#A7 WP:CSD#G11 and this page has been deleted before, you seem to have posted the same content too. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So please help me out. If I look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADERANT which I used as a basis; why is that company still allowed a Wiki presense? Which items of Ascari Limited do you disagree with?

I'm really trying hard to undersand this and I'm happy with some guidance.

that company does not have an article just because their is a page doesn't meant that it passes our guidelines, all it means is that it slipped past us. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so now I feel better. However, surely the stub ict-company-stub is all about listing KEY elements of companies? If you go to that stub and see all the companies listed I would say they ALL should be deleted. But does that really make sense? Surely the ict-company-stub is about companies that exist, their history and what they do. Ok, we don't need full sales pitches, I understand that, but surely key information is fine? Surely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Devices is also the same and should be deleted or is it because they are perhaps more well known?

I believe this should be clarified as there are over 200 pages of ict companies listed !

That page clearly states notability and doesn't read like an ad. see WP:N for guidelines along with WP:SPAM Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to see the picture. I need to demonstrate that Ascari Limited is notable.

Spam removal

Hey, the link on the Clinton Radars page that you keep removing is their actual official website. Could we please do something about keeping it on there? DMighton 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of the link to humans on the Bruce Cockburn page. Please see my discussion on the talk page. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for your removal of this on Sei Whale: News report on Japanese whalers hunting Sei Whales in 2002/2003 . Please take a lighter touch. Kla'quot 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Usenet posts

This bot recently removed a relevant external link from FEAL, [17]. I think this behavior should be stopped since linking to (or even citing) Usenet posts is not explicitly disallowed, and they often provide useful information and context when written by a reputable person.

Even worse, the bot marks these edits as "minor", so they might fly below the radar of some people interested in edits made to the articles. -- intgr 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

<editcontflict error>A) I am not a bot. and B) the groups.google.com fails every policy out there and should not be linked to. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the above posts, this does not sound like an isolated incident. It seems that the removal of links has more potential to do damage than it's worth. Cases where the bot removes links that were actually providing meaningful context may go unnoticed, as the edit summary can be be false. One criteria of operating a bot on Wikipedia is that it "is harmless", per WP:BOT. -- intgr 17:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a bot, so don't quote WP:BOT and spam is not harmless. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, you are not performing these edits manually, so you are technically operating a bot, whether under your own user account or not. Usenet links are not inherently violating policy, and can even be reliable where the author is a recognized person. -- intgr 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Links to usenet groups in the articles about the groups themselves (such as you removed at Talk.origins and Alt.usenet.kooks are most definately not spam and do not run afoul of the external linking guidelines. You should also review Wikipedia:Attribution, which allows usenet posts to be cited in some circumstances. - Ehheh 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links

Please provide solid reasons (not just links to WP guidelines of questionable applicability) for deleting all these external links before continuing with this rampage. -- Rsholmes 17:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

read the policy and that should answer your questions. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(roguelike section moved down)--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Betacommand, I read the policies too but can't find the reason for your edit (which is incomplete btw). Can you please explain the removal on Peter Samson? Thanks. -Susanlesch 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not to jump on the bandwagon, but your removal of this link broke the Control-Alt-Delete page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry I am out of time and have reverted the removel that concerned me. If there is a problem with that let me know please. Thank you. -Susanlesch 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In Mission San Jose High School, you removed the link to the Academic Challenge Club's page, but not to the Interact Club or the Speech and Debate Team. I don't have a real feeling for what ELs are appropriate here (though I guess I'd tend towards inclusionism), but it seems like either extracurricular activity links are OK, or they aren't. Jordan Brown 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed some Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)`

Roguelike groups

I read the policies, all of them. I'm also an admin, and this is an official warning; you're making many highly questionable edits at bot-like speeds. Stop, and explain your edits. For example, what part of the many policies you are citing in your edit summaries justifies removing a link to the roguelike games newsgroups from the Roguelike article? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=rec.games.roguelike fails because it links to a search result and per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided section 9 and the fact that groups cannot be use as WP:RS Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a search result, a direct link to the Group, and the fact that usenet posts usually aren't a reliable source isn't relevant, since it isn't being used as a source, but as a resource. Restore, stop editiong at bot speeds, and review your other edits. Yes, all of them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If its not being used as a source the even the more reason to be removed. See WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #2 Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved down for ease of discussion for the other people using the rest of this section. It's a group, in fact a family of groups, where roguelike games are actively discussed. #2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." doesn't apply, there is no misleading involved. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note inaccurate material or unverifiable research the word or in that statement that means one or the other or both could be reasons. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it..

Please look at the external links before you remove them. Yes, every single one of them. This edit not only shows that your bot/script doesn't work all the time, it also shows that you remove completely relevant external links. I've therefore reverted that edit. --Conti|✉ 17:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

STOP!

Please STOP and adequately address the numerous concerns in your edits that people have already pointed out. You are disrupting Wikipedia, and merely throwing vague policy links as responses, where people are claiming that the removed links do not conflict with the policy. -- intgr 17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the criteria your bot uses for removing links? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop or be blocked.

I don't know how to put this another way. Stop, and respond, either here, or at WP:ANI#Emergency: Betacommand deletion at bot speeds - please review impending block. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please stop.

You've just removed a number of good links from the Lingua Franca Nova, Ido, Folkspraak and who knows how many other pages on IALs. Smaller IALs like these pretty much exist on Yahoo Groups. Mithridates 17:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You cant verify the reliability of said sources so per WP:EL WP:A remove them Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't claim to vouch for the reliability of any external links. By all means, if it's some random fan site, kill it dead, but if it is the official website of the subject of the article, it shouldn't be removed. In short, yes, 99% of the links we have to yahoo groups or such things should be killed, but not 100%, so it can't be done with a bot. --BigDT 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

that link gave no hint of being official. <fill in the blank> yahoo! groups site screams nn fan page or other non reliable source. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You aren't responding to the collateral damage complaints. What about all the lists that are now laying broken? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm finding some whole sections that were removed accidentally. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Im reviewing then due to the usnet issue. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(In response to betacommond) Well, this isn't the first time I've restored a link to an IAL site - they are nearly as a rule created by volunteers and I've very rarely seen anybody make money of an IAL so that means that most of their sites are hosted on free servers somewhere. Considering the extreme lack of content for a number of them, often the Yahoo Group will contain a large portion / most of the content available in the language. AFAIK the spirit behind the policies on spam is to counter the addition of a large number of useless links, but only the top three IALs (Esperanto, Ido, and Interlingua) have enough content that that would ever be a problem. Mithridates 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The bot policy is really the issue at hand. The editing rate, and the lack of community consensus are problem enough even if every edit is justifiable. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

this edit also removed a link to an important (seminal) usenet post, I added it back. Thanks. -- taviso 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand made an odd edit.

Hey, Betacommand made an odd edit to the RSX-11 article wherein it removed links to google groups (usenet) articles referenced in the text. I reverted. Please check out why this happened. Thanks! --BenBurch 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you use it as a source cite it instead of adding it to the EL section. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please preview better

Appreciate your attempt to cleanup external links, but it's leaving a wake behind. 4DOS diff is an example. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been covered by the past four sections of this user talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain Yourself

Why did you delete ADERANT without discussion? As the creator of the article, I am majorly pissed off! --Nélson Ricardo 19:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:N and WP:OWN and get over it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not the point. ADERANT is not unremarkable. Just as the world's largest law firms, who use it to run their businesses. Also, in what way was the article blatant advertising? Should we delete Microsoft or SAP as well? Restore the article, immediatley. You seem like a rogue all too happy to piss all over Wikepdia as seen in the discussion above. --Nélson Ricardo 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't state notability and making demands will get you no where. the company in question did not assert notability in the article. that is why it was deleted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We have procedures for this. You can't just delete articles on a whim! There's this thing called a talk page, where such issues can be discussed. --Nélson Ricardo 19:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I followed them see WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 that is all the process needs. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Plain and simple. You are inflicting your own opinions. Speedy deletion is to be used judiciously as a last resort. You are not doing so. --Nélson Ricardo 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

CSD is a common tool, and has been for a very long time. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Inflicting"? That's an ... unusual word choice in the context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you could undelete the article and I'll run it through AfD? Its been around since 2005 and I think the original speedy tag by another user was a bit misplaced. Still think it should possibly be deleted, but Afd may be the best road to go down, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

scrap that, it does meet criteria and its gone to deletion review Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ADERANT. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Thanks, Betacommand, for restoring the article. I never claimed that I was not an asshole myself.  :-) --Nélson Ricardo 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

How is a link to archived evidence of a launch date violative of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, and WP:NOT? Re: this edit. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See [18] Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding. WP:RS is one of the most contested guidelines on all of WP at this moment. I've specifically challeged the overbreadth of the line-item you are relying upon at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (short version: an error is being made here - Usenet posts are unreliable for content but are reliable for timestamps, which is what was being cited). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, WP:RS says: "This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages." -- Rsholmes 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's completely inappropriate to remove cites and links like that with a bot, and would be even if that section of RS were policy. Even the firmest policy is meant to be applied in the hands of humans, not bots. For example, the article Hessian matrix (a classical mathematics topic) is completely unsourced, so blind application of verifiability policy would say to delete the article or remove most of the assertions in it. Yet that would clearly be nuts. The RS guideline about Usenet posts (and indeed most of the RS guideline and even the verifiability/attribution policy) is to say what to do when there is an issue that someone is contesting on some type of considered grounds. E.g., Usenet posts (unless cited by reliable secondary sources, which does sometimes happen) aren't suitable for advancing contentious claims. That happens the most in areas like politics and history. In areas like mathematics, there's less contentiousness and more implicit consensus: any edit to a math article will be usually reviewed by people who know the subject, so if they leave it alone you should generally assume that it's valid by consensus, unless you have reason to think otherwise. Explaining a questioned edit as "See (policy cite)" is not enough, especially when automated edits are involved. Each edit has to be the result of considered editorial judgement or consensus, and not the mechanical application of policy. 64.160.39.153 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User behavior

Could you please stop being so abrupt with users. I have no view about whether ADERANT was speedyable or not, but your tone with Nelson Ricardo above is in my view uncivil. Likewise your automated removals of many Usenet links (some legitimate, some probably not) gave reason to believe you weren't actually looking at them. I'm glad to see you're self-reverting some of the removals. I won't get into some semantic quibble about whether VP is a bot or not but I think it would be better for everyone involved if you were to lay off these automatic tools for a while. Removing spam is certainly a good and desirable thing and all editing results in mistakes once in a while, but your accuracy with this big automated batch was so poor, that I think each removal you did that you don't revert yourself should be reviewed by someone else. I'd urge you to do any further removals in the near future by hand, with an edit summary for each one written specifically to explain the reason for that edit, not a boilerplate summary pasted from one edit to the next. 64.160.39.153 19:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur. Just to be clear, I mean that I concur with both the civility issue and with the concerns about the bot (or whatever) actions. I do think the ADERANT user you were responding to was being nasty, but there's no need to "go there" in retaliation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not going there I just point out our policies. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I, too, was very uncivil. Moreso than Betacommand. Granted, he is an admin. and is held to a higher standard. But it's unfair to blame him entirely for his reponse to me. --Nélson Ricardo 20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was reacting to the "get you no where" comment, and several others higher up the page that are even more uncivil, but don't actually relate to the ADERANT case. So, I was both off-base and yet also making a larger, on-base point. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'm not bashing Betacommand or raising some kind of "Betacommand is being a bad admin, so call out the lynch mob" alarm. Just to be clear on that. I just think that some responses here could be a little less testy is all. Not a big deal. Sorry if this sounds defensive, but I've found myself badly misinterpreted at both WP:ATT and WP:MOSNUM lately, so I'm trying to be cautious when being critical; nipping at an ankle can sometimes be mistaken for attempting to bite a leg off. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I, Chrislk02, can think of nobody better to give the resilient barnstar to you. When your actions came under fire, you went back, reverted the mistakes and stopped the actions in question. Your intentions were good, and i think many of us failed to Assume Good Faith (possibly even myself). Thank you for your hard work on this project, it is much aprpeciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not spam

Please take a look at http://www.freewebs.com/ganymedes/index.htm and stop removing it from Fabian S. Woodley. It isn't spam or an inappropriate external link. —Angr 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on the links deleted from Hendrik Van Riessen, D. H. Th. Vollenhoven, and Abraham Kuyper, which I have restored. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to the links on Ambulance Romance, His First Crush, Found in the Flood. THe site was to a good lyric site that has them written better that pretty much any other site on the web. Violask81976 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

please stop the bot removals

Wikipedia is a human-edited encyclopedia with a few functions occasionally delegated to maintenance bots. While there's a lot of crappy links and sourcing in the encyclopedia that should undoubtedly be cleaned up, each and every one of them is a matter of editorial judgement. You are doing massive amounts of editing with some kind of automated script or bot, that is apparently not applying any judgement to the individual edits. Numerous people are asking you in various ways to stop this. PLEASE STOP. I'm about to file an incident report at ANI about this. 64.160.39.153 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He has stopped. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake-- I somehow looked at an incorrect contribs page, in which it appeared as if the edits were still happening. Thanks. 64.160.39.153 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A second on this, too. He wreaked havoc on two pages that I edit. I'm new so I'm not sure how to file an incident report. Fredsmith2 08:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

VP Approval

hey betacommand, i tried to hit you up on irc. you approved me in the last batch, but the software says im not on the user list. can you look into it when you have time? tx. the_undertow ^talk 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Balls and vase problem

You removed the links to the sci.math newgroup threads in the "External links" section of Balls and vase problem. Assuming you have a valid point for doing so, you should also have rewritten the sentence preceding it, or simply removed the entire section; as it stands now, there is an incomplete sentence. On the other hand, the sentence introducing the links accurately described them as a "sampling of discussions" about the problem, and they do not (and should not) appear in the "References" section. — Loadmaster 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out the 15 previous sections. —METS501 (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Approval withdrawn

[19] —METS501 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me add to this: The bot flag for your bot has been removed and all permission to run it has been denied. Please discuss it on the various pages as appropriate or it will be blocked. I'm just alerting you, but I'm not aware of all the specifics behind the removal. -- RM 12:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Errm... that task has had 0 complaints in 2 weeks during trial. This bot is not the same thing as what beta did yesterday. I'm really starting to think this was a punitive action. I don't see what harm it is designed to prevent, the bot already had approval from tawker, and had 0 complaints in 2 weeks. Please clarify on what this is to prevent. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of AfD template

I think this was in error: [20] Pete.Hurd 01:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Review of List of backmasked messages's links

Hello, I noticed you did some work earlier on some of my Watchlist articles in removing questionable Yahoo, MSN, etc links that are contra WP:EL. Could you please look at List of backmasked messages. This user asked for a third opinion on another of my other Watchlist files (backmasking), which was unfavorable to him. He is now not working on that article but concentrated on this list. Thanks, Morenooso 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

More on ADERANT

You were fairly quick to kill links to ADERANT after you deleted the page. Wre you trying to hide how linked-to the article was? We need a policy against such chicanery. --Nélson Ricardo 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

not at all that is my default deletion behavior. I do that with pages and images both. it helps prevent re-re-recreation wars with pages. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PS if you look at my monobook you should see georgemoney's csd.js which removes links when deleteing pages

Hmm. Sounds very sketchy. You need to change your highly questionable settings. If there are red lnks all over the place for a given topic, that could indicate that it merits an article. What you are doing obfuscates the process. You are basically destroying evidence that can be used to argue for the keeping of an article. --Nélson Ricardo 16:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If its deleted then there should not be red links to it as it was deleted for a reason. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Beta, do you know where I can get that script from and how to use it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

see User:GeorgeMoney/csd.js that adds a tab and a prompt for deletion, type the CSD code in IE A7,G11,I5 ect for default summaries or s and type your personal summary. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the number of redlinks that there are does not in any way give an argument for why an article should exist. Instead please read relevant policies on what is and is not acceptable as an article. Arguments for keeping an article should be based on those policies and guidelines, not on how many redlinks there are. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it does provide some indication. Don't we have a page called most requested articles or something that counts red links? --Nélson Ricardo 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, arguments for keeping articles have always had to be based on our policies and guidelines. Otherwise I could just add a crapload of wikilinks to This Item and say that it is notable, where our policies and guidelines may state otherwise. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

George Money

You are probably busy but could you look at me User:Chrislk02/monobook.js and see if you could venture a guess as to why I cant get the csd thing to work. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A personal request

Hi. Look, User:Requestion and I have disagreed quite strongly in the past[21][22] but I must say that he is a very valued member of WT:WPSPAM and works very hard for the good of Wikipedia. His adding the spam link to the spammer's talk page is a common practice for the various reasons laid out on the Wikiproject Spam talk page. You and I may disagree on whether that's a good idea to do this, but certainly Requestion was acting in good faith and a warning tag is stigmatizing. Can I ask that you consider perhaps striking through your warning?

Thanks for your consideration. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks A. B., I appreciate that. Betacommand and I are cool with everything. The reasoning was wrong but it is starting to grow on me and I'm actually getting kind of fond of my {{uw-spam1}} tag. My thinking now is maybe a little humor will help with the angry spammers. (Requestion 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Link

Hey, curious why you deleted that link from Moria. It looked good to me. I reread the Wikipedia policy pages you linked to, and that link seems fine to me. Can you explain please? LeinadSpoon 20:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked this bot till all issues are resolved on WP:BN =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT vs WP:EL

Regarding edit to Westfield Penrith, under the summary text m (Removing external link: *.gpt.com.au -- per external link guidelines). Inline citations - especially where they are the only reference in a given article - clearly come under WP:ATT. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. Please don't remove the only inline citation that an article has under the edit comment of complying with WP:EL. I know in this case the inline citation is to the website of the co-owner of this complex, however it is still the source for the factual information contained in the article. Please don't revert my recent edit to reinstate this link and to insert additional information from the reference indicated. Thanks. Garrie 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, and if the link fails WP:RS? Don't tell me that the new policy has not merged well with existing guidelines. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Hi, Betacommand. Your 17:12, 21 March 2007 edit to the Israeli folk dancing article raised an issue or two for me that I don't think I've seen mentioned by others discussing your recent "bot removals"; I'd like to discuss them. However, being so new to WP editing, I first have a preliminary question.

I learned of your edit when I saw on my watchlist the entry for a subsequent edit (00:40, 22 March 2007 Arichnad) to that same article. Even though my watchlist is set to show all edits, I don't see an entry there for your edit. Is that because Arichnad "undid" your edit, or was your edit done in such a way that it doesn't show on my watchlist?

Thanks, --Rich Janis 08:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

Hello, why did you remove the link to the Yahoo discussion group in the article Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands? This is an essential part of the history of the entity in question. We have discussed the issue thousand times already, and now you remove the link without any consultations. I apologize, but I will restore. Vanrozenheim 09:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Group

Is a link to a yahoo group, that does NOT require registration, a violation of wikipedia policy?

There's a reason for this yahoo group link, because it's mentioned in a bunch of articles.

Please explain yourself or turn off your bot.

Fredsmith2 13:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am manually removing links to inappropriate yahoo groups. Please see Wikipedia policy and guidelines. WP:EL WP:RS WP:V links to yahoo groups should not be linked to. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are manually removing the links to inappropriate yahoo groups, why do u keep an empty heading? See: Grey-headed Parakeet for example. I certainly believe you can do a better job than this. Luffy487 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the MOS suggest having an EL section even if there are no EL's Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have browse through Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) but I can't find any section which says to keep EL even if there is no EL. Could you show me where is that section? Thanks. Luffy487 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ill see if I can find it. it as either on a MOS page or in discussions somewhere. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well never mind. Thanks. I will remove the EL myself as it don't look good on the article... Luffy487 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you could pause a bit and find that now. You've left about 50 empty "External links" headings and at least 10 empty subheaders, like Yahoogroups about Israeli folk dancing, within "External links" sections. I'm guessing the MOS doesn't suggest that. --Onorem 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow down a bit

Edits such as this one [23] where you leave an empty 'groups' section behind are making you look like a bot again. - Ehheh 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And I notice you're removing all the usaid sites - even in places there they're the offical site of the group described in an article ([24] [25], which is #1 in 'What should be linked' at WP:EL - Ehheh 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

see [26] as usaid.gov 85% spam. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

85% != 100%. If we have articles about USAID offices, then the links are appropriate in those articles. - Ehheh 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ehheh, here. If, when all is said and done, your removals turn out to be 85% useful, and 15% vandalism, you'll be considered a vandal. You can't just go around deleting useful article content and use the fact that you also delete useless content as an excuse. You really do need to be responsible for each and every one of your edits. This isn't an emergency where the encyclopedia will break down if you don't so something right now and damn the consequences. You can afford to take the time to look carefully; and, if in doubt don't delete.. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael E. Grost ( http://home.aol.com/MG4273/ ) looks like a recognized expert on the subjects of mystery films, stories, and comic books. He's contributed well written thoughtful essays to many sites. http://www.trussel.com/maig/grost.htm http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue13/pan.html His site is a recommended link by PBS and UCBerkeley. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/dillinger/filmmore/fr.html http://learn.berkeley.edu/mktg/x103.9d/resources/mat2_links.html I'd say that falls under the WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11 part of "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

where is this edit? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh [27] [28] [29] [30] ... there are probably others, but I humbly request that you look at your recent contribution history. I'm a humble mouse, not a bot myself, so it takes me considerably more time to look at your edits than it took you to make them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnonEMouse (talk • contribs) 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

By the way, I'm assuming you're watching the WP:ANI section about this. I'm afraid I've made a Proposal. It's not quite as bad as last time when I was going to block you outright, but I'm afraid it's still pretty bad. I want you to give your word that you won't do mass deletion again, without discussion beforehand, on the articles involved. Not after, like this, but before. If the urge to mass delete gets bad, you can ask a different well respected editor to publically take the responsibility beforehand. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't gotten them all. [31] [32] ... you really need to go through your contributions history. And there are others, such as [33] - surely the person who created the game is a "recognized authority" on the game. (The notability of the game as a whole is currently dubious - but if you feel that, the solution is to WP:AfD it, not to delete one link.) Also, the agreement not to do it again is really the most important thing. Please do write, in black on white, on the WP:AN/I#Proposal that you understand the problem with what you did, and promise not to do it again. No mass deletion sprees. Discuss all deletions ahead of time. Without that, I really do feel you'll just do it again in a slightly different way. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links

Hi! I see you have been removing a lot of links to newsgroups from articles. While WP:RS says that newsgroup posts shouldn't be used as sources for referencing article content, in many cases they are appropriate in an external link section, directing readers to more information about a subject, for example on computing topics like JSON. I do not believe that this is in conflict with the rule in WP:RS that says newsgroups can't be used as sources, since here it is not used as a source.

Also, I note that you are using the same edit summary for all your link removals ("removing inappropriate link per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, and WP:NOT") even in cases where those policies do not apply - e.g. links to newsgroups are not in violation of WP:SPAM. Please consider using more informative edit summaries, to specify which part of policy is applicable in each case. For example, an informative edit summary would be "removing link to commercial site", "removing this reference as ... is not considered a reliable source per WP:RS", etc.

It appears that many users have been questioning your link removals lately. Maybe you should consider stopping removing these links until all the issues raised have been settled? Gandoman 16:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That JSON removal is not a news group it is a yahoo Discussion Group that is not a news group and thus should not be linked to. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My fault on mistaking it for a news group. However, I still believe that this is a relevant link, since it offers more information on the topic, does not sell merchandise, and does not require registration to read the messages on the group. The same applies to the "Lojban word-a-day group" you removed from the Lojban article. These are not used as sources, but as links to offer more information on a topic. Please note that I agree with some of your link removals, such as in Cycle polo where you removed a dead link, but I do think that clearer edit summaries (e.g. "removing dead link") would help, instead of using the same policy listing for all cases. Gandoman 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed a link to USAID, a US govt. agency. That link is obviously NOT spam, is a reliable source, and does meet WP:EL. Please explain. – Chacor 16:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see above. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And on your part, please respond to the new thread at ANI. Cheers. – Chacor 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mate, you would be strongly advised from doing anything remotely resembling link removal at this point in time. You're showing poor judgement and provoking the community. People are now talking of a community ban, which I hope won't be needed. --kingboyk 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

to chime in re [34], it is inappropriate to remove the same links twice with the same generic edit summary after you have been reverted. Cleanup work is important, but you do seem to show poor judgement. dab (𒁳) 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to clean up after yourself...

...but at Harbor, Oregon, those mapit links still need an external links header. Please check your edits. Thanks. Katr67 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of US Aid link in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article

Hi Betacommand. Just curious why you removed the US Aid reference from the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article. I see that you referenced a lot of Wikipedia policy in your summary, but that doesn't really tell me the grounds you used for its removal. Cheers. — George Saliba ^[talk] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think the AFP is "not reliable source"?

Agence France-Presse - looks pretty reliable to me ("the oldest news agency in the world" and all that). --HanzoHattori 15:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I havent edited that page not sure what your talking about, sorry Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I rather think it's about removing a link to www.afp.com from another article. Too bad your bot didn't specify the links being removed in the edit summaries. Миша13 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive never heard of afp.com before this and I know that I havent removed links to this. I targeted a few specific sites. groups.(yahoo|msn|google).com, freewebs hometown.aol.com, and usaid.gov I do not remember any links to afp.com. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

General Property Trust

I have restored this article which was speedied by yourself earlier in the month, as I believe it is indeed a notable corporation in Australia, what was deficient here was my own ability to write about/research the topic. I have sent it straight to AfD in order that a discussion can shape consensus. The sad part is this may actually be what it takes to get the article into a form where it actually informs Wikipedia rather than sitting as a substub for a few more months. Orderinchaos78 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great job protecting User talk:Antandrus. Now Antandrus can rest more often, since vandals won't vandalize User talk:Antandrus anymore. Amos HanTalk to me./Contribs) 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

VPRF

Are there any other VPRF moderators besides you and Prodego? If so, who are they?  ~Steptrip 21:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Prodego ^talk 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal proof (again)

Hi Beta, just wondered if I'm ever going to get accepted onto VP?! The first time there was the problem with the new approval method, but I haven't been approved this time as well! I can access version 1.31 but it always logs out after a few edits, would really like to start using v1.35. Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for sorting it, vandal fighting time me thinks. If you or prod ever need help approving users I'm more than happy to help, just point me in the direction of who to do to Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

VP approval list

Was the list just totally wiped with only about half a dozen being approved? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 23:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering the same thing. I don't have a problem if I wasn't accepted, just seeing if emptying the list was intentional. All the best. -GilbertoSilvaFan 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Give be a break and some time, Im still working on the approvals, Since vp still has a few bugs and does crash on occasion i dont like doing all the approvals at once instead i approve only a few at a time and work though the list in chunks. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you mate, much appreciated! -GilbertoSilvaFan 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, every approve we do removes the top user from the list... So there are several people that need to be added back on. Prodego ^talk 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait. You need to reload the userlist. You are removing the users I approved, and readded. Prodego ^talk 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

removal of link

I would like to question why my link was removed and labeled as "spam". I created the Ultimate Jillian Barberie Club as a fan club on yahoo 6 years ago. I am the current owner of the group and the site along with the LiveJournal group has been linked on wikipedia for quite some time. I would like to please have an explanation for the removal, as I question why a fan club cannot have a link on wikipedia as it provides information about Jillian Reynolds' career such as news and a community based message board which is moderated.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Jason Vega Ultimate Jillian Barberie Club Founder/Moderator

see WP:EL under links to avoid #10 about fourms. also see WP:COI and please dont link your site again. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo groups and Live Journal

I believe that both sites pertaining to Jillian Barberie each have a "discussion forum" and I am asking why my site in particular is being singled out. I do not agree that linking a fan club of any kind is against the Wikipedia guidelines and it should certainly not be labeled as spam.

your not being singled out. any inappropriate link needs removed. see User:Shadowbot's contibs for many more links that are being "singled" out. Also as I said above please read COI you should not add links to your own site. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

VP User List

Thanks for the approval - maybe I'm doing something wrong, because it still says I'm not on the approved list. Any ideas? Philippe Beaudette 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Same Problem

Dear Betacommand, I've got the same problem. I couldn't login, when I click on verify authorization, it says you are not on the approved list? --Cyril Thomas 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You So Much

Dear Betacommand, Thank you so much for the approval by adding me to the list. Much appreciated. Best wishes, --Cyril Thomas 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks alot for approving me for Vandalproof! You have a nice day now!Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vp Approvals

Hello Beta, I think something went wrong with the (automated?) approval of VP applications, as shown by this diff. Several were removed off the list but not approved nor informed. Thanks for your time. FelisLeo^Talk! 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be a bug with the vandalproof moderation system. (Yes it is semi-automated, and has been known to have bugs). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like those below Larry_R%2E_Holmgren (including yours truly) were not approved even though the page says so. --  timc  talk   14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Thanks very much. I look forward to some constructive whacking with my new stick. --Dweller 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. VP bug

The bug you are having issues with has been fixed in the 1.36 release, as have several others. Now it's just a question of waiting for User:AmiDaniel to approve it.

You have my apologies for any difficulties it might have caused! Ale_Jrb^talk 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

I have to admit, your threat of blocking anyone for removing the notability tag was a serious provocation. In the future, please familiarize yourself with the issue before issuing such a threat and thereby risking an accusation of abuse of admin powers. The tag is frivolous and a clear attempt at edit-warring by certain editors. I'm not going to feed some kind of wheel-war by defying your threat. --Leifern 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot request

Beta, you helped me a month or so ago tag a bunch of articles for the College basketball WikiProject. Well, I have another request. Can you have your bot go through Category:National Football League and tag those pages with {{NFLproject|class=}}? Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 13:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

VP

Hey, thanks for approving me for VP, but when I get to the connect to VP screen, and have my username in, i then click authorize and it says I am not on the list. Could you help me with this please. Killswitch Engage 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag at Pallywood

Betacommand, given your involvement in the Pallywood article itself (removing the tag), I strongly recommend you retract your threat and unblock User:Jaakobu. What User:ChrisO describes as "tag-teaming" look much more like "consensus", especially since the tag itself seems deliberately disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported you on admin noticeboard

I have tried to explain to you why your threats and ultimatums are ill-advised, but you found it necessary to go ahead with the block. As a result, I have reported your conduct to the admin noticeboard [35]. As an admin, you are not above standards and guidelines at Wikipedia - in fact, you should be held to them more strictly than others. --Leifern 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, you are a hair's breadth away from being blocked (another admin might in fact disagree with me and block you for what you've done so far, so this isn't the final word). I strongly suggest that you unblock User:Jaakobou, as your block was unjustified; if you don't then I or another admin will. I also strongly suggest that you leave this article for others to deal with, as your behaviour has exacerbated rather than helped the situation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof request

Any reason I keep getting denied? And also, why haven't received notification? It was my understanding that I'd be notified either way. If I had known I was denied the first time, I wouldn't have reapplied. Sarc37 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just come back in a few weeks and re-apply. your a fairly new user I hope this doesnt offend you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)}

Block

I've blocked you from editing for an initial twenty-four hours for repeated unjustified and inadequately explained blocks (see WP:RFCN and WP:AN/I). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/Betacommand

Formal notice of arbitration action. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Betacommand. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Betacommand,
please send your real-name, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.249.129 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

in usernames

It appears some people think that ='s aren't a problem, and that users should use the 1= notation, and that bots should be reprogrammed to understand this. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of the username

A request for comments has been filed concerning the username of =SebWill= (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My VandalProof app

Hello, Betacommand. You have recently approved several users for VandalProof and I was neither accepted nor rejected. Why was this? Or was this an oversight? Please let me know as I readded my name. I will withdraw if my contribs or count does not warrant the use of VP. Just let me know, Ok? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

Abandon your account. Create a new one. You'll be able to get it to adminship in a few months; you know how to play that game, after all. Once the drama queens decide that you're Satan, you really don't have any other choice. Sorry it had to end up this way, but that's Wikipedia for you. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion, but at least wait to see how this turns out. Note that Chrislk02 doesn't want to see you desysopped (User_talk:Kelly_Martin#Betacommand), you have the support of some very respected admins, such as SlimVirgin, and Mackensen was on the edge of not taking the case at all. Don't panic, panicking would be the worst you can do. Make the best case you can. You can always make a new account, I doubt you'll be banned, everyone recognizes you're well meaning. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the emollient Kelly Martin; I wonder why she fell out of favour with so many editors and admins? Could it have been uncalled-for waspishness coupled with ludicrous over-dramatisation? No, couldn't be. Probably just a lot of drama queens branding her "Satan".

Incidentally, I was unaware that banning was being called for, only de-sysopping. Banning would clearly be an over-reaction (good job KM is on his side and not the other). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mel Etitis please follow WP:NPA I dont like my talk page being used for personal opinions between other users. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Larry Martin

Hi Betacommand,

Why did you speedy delete Larry Martin? The article clearly stated his importance or notability (curator of the Natural History Museum); he's a published paleontologist, as stated in the article, and the external links provided easy verification. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) states: "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on attributability.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. "

Please restore this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect he confused it with the article that was there and speedy deleted three days ago about a not notable guitar player.See the diff. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse is partially correct. It popped up as a new page on my watchlist, taking a quick glance at the article the only hint of notability that I saw was "curator of the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center at the University of Kansas", this doesn't show importance a college museum curator? so I when a head and re-deleted the page assuming it was the same thing I deleted before. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much for restoring. I'll work on expanding this so that there will be no question about notability. My apologies. Thanks and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted all the edits prior to your creation. sorry about the mixup. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about the history here. You removed the link again with the same explanation as before. Are you using some automated tool to do this, and not manually checking if what you're doing makes sense? A glance at the history would have been all it would take. Friday (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Its part of my monobook I have a choice to either remove links or keep them when deleting pages. I am one of many admins who use the same js code. --Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Allan Ludwig

This concerns your repeated speedy deletion of Allan Ludwig. You deleted this article as lacking an assertion of notability but the article did contain an assertion that this was an artist of national reputation and at least some references were provided. Moreover, the article was created by a new contributor only this morning. In response to the speedy nomination, the creator placed a hang-on tag, indicating that he would expand the article later today, but you deleted it again without giving him a chance to do so. You also deleted the creator's inquiry about the reason for deletion from your talkpage and responded on his page with just a one-sentence quotation from the deletion policy. I would urge that you consider restoring this article to give the creator a couple of days to finish it before making the final deletion decision. Newyorkbrad 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, on this same issue, I'm concerned about your response to the new editor who left you a message. Did you revert this on purpose? It's important that admins are responsive to feedback about their deletions. Friday (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The user sent me the exact same thing in an e-mail, to which I explained my reasoning, Before that was posted. Also another user explained on his talk page also. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for response. For future reference, if you had simply indicated "I've responded to your e-mail on this," it would have been clear you had taken the new editor's concern seriously. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I never did receive an email back. I am working on the article. I do apologize for not having lined up everything as I perhaps ought to have. A underground following is more difficult (especially among artists) to substantiate than a nationally renowned artist. Thank you for your patience. Hjghassell 15:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

username blocks

Hi, Betacommand! I recently participated at a discussion/vote(!) on WP:RFCN regarding 3 users that you blocked for violations of WP:USER. You can see the discussion here (perm link here). I'm definitely confused about your blocking reasons. I do plan on becoming an admin in a few months or so, therefore I made it a point to have a better understanding of WP policy. Could you help me clarify this? You might want to make a few comments on WP:RFCN as well. Thank you. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind those blocks were in Feb., Beta has since been more selective. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How could a user have changed that much in a month?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By being approached by other editors and taking response. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)