User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:42, 22 April 2008

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note:

There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer.
Read the policy
Check and make sure the image has a valid source
Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here)
I will not add rationales for you. As the uploader it is your responsibility, NOT mine.
I do not want to see images deleted
All images must comply with policy
A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale.
If you're here to whine and complain that But <place image name here> is just like my image and isn't tagged for deletion I will tag that image too, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

		The Original Barnstar
		Because of your repeated kindness and willingness to help others when nobody else will even know about it, I sincerely thank you. You've helped me build an army of... well, I'll just leave it there. :-D east.718 at 01:16, December 16, 2007

James Amann

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

list of wikis

Remember the list of all languages for all projects I made for you? Would you send those back to me please? I have lost they links to them :( – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 04:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ping? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got off a very busy work weekend I should have what you need within 24 hours. β^_command 01:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort

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

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

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

Vandalism?

Hi,

I feel my edits, that you threaten to be vandalism, are not such. You seem to think that you know better than everyone on the talk page and can constantly monitor Stargate (device) and revert my edits, despite the fact that I give detailed reasons to my edits on the talk page. Everyone is aware of the situation of the large use of non-free images. You do not agree on my edits, and you mention it on my talk page, and I respond. All I get is a warning to stop "vandalizing" or I'll be blocked from editing. Until they limit the exact number of images in an article per the Wikipedia:NFCC, and as long as certain images adequately add to the commentary of the article (And no free versions exist), than I can re-instate the meager two images I'd like on the article. Remember I deleted one (Specifically [[1]] towards the bottom of the article) so I'm really only raising the number of images by one.

At least, if you insist on those images being removed, could we agree on deleting the NFimageoveruse tag as long there's a good balance on the number of images?

- Thanks, Cody-7 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot re-add images in violation of the non-free content policy. Those images do not pass NFCC and thus where removed. Ive seen 98% of SG-1's ten seasons and Ive seen all of Atlantis's those two images your trying to re-add dont do anything to help the understanding of the subject. β^_command 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it in violation? As mentioned on the talk page (If you ever would look at it) and as anyone who reads the NFCC can tell - there's no direct limit on the number of non-free images. It meets nearly all of the 10 policy guideline points, except for possibly significance which is more opinion-based. And I believe it does help understanding with the subject as someone reading the articles gets a chance to see what a wormhole appears in the series. Sure, I've seen all of SG-1 and Atlantis as well but not everyone has. As a matter of fact, if you use that point of view, all the images of the DHD, gate kawoosh, Oneill's photo at the very top, could all lack signifigance. But we don't want to have an image-less article; or do we?

And since this article was tagged very recently with the NFimageoverus, and it now has far fewer images than it did before it was tagged, does the tag still need to show? Oh wait, I know the answer: You're going to tell me that it's against the guidelines to remove it. After all, with that imaginary limit on number of Non-free images in an article and all...

Have you even taken into account how long the article is? I think it'd be fairly obvious that a longer article would make it a little more acceptable to have a couple more non-free's. Cody-7 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the article does not determine the number of non-free images. WP:NFCC#8 states: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. how does the images your adding pass that? an image has to pass everyone of the 10 criteria for inclusion, the DHD, opening photo and the gate opening all provide detail that is useful and relevant. I can defend the usage of those image and prove that they pass NFCC. you cannot say the same about the color design of the wormhole that they travel in is key to understanding the ancient device, the DHD, and gate size are both very important elements, and the gate event horizon and one way travel have played key roles in several episodes so that is key to understanding those events. How is the color of the wormhole important? β^_command 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And did you decide that article length does not determine amount of non-free images? It's not in the NFCC but a large part of wikipedia is based on consensus. Right now it's just your word against mine about this. My opinion: A longer article deserves more images, even if they're non-free. I'd be willing to speculate that other people would agree.

I don't see how any of the photos help illustrate "[...] the gate event horizon and one way travel have played key roles in several episodes so that is key to understanding those events.". Showing the kawoosh, or event horizon does not add understanding on the fact it's just one-way and other roles. It just shows a pretty ripple. And my point being: That's no better reasoning or explanation than I have for wanting to show a photo of the wormhole in-use. And it's not just to show the color. It helps bring to life what the actual wormhole appears like, much better than a diagram -- and brings the point across it's a long distance traveled better than numbers in billions of miles could describe. Also, I feel, it illustrates the "rough ride" it can be going through a gate if one is not adapted.

Reguardless, since arguing isn't going to get anything done. I propose a compromise: How about the image Image:New_wormhole.jpg be re-added to the article, leaving out the other photo displaying the wormhole earlier in the series. And since I removed Image:Stargate7thchevron.jpg (As it is a poor-quality image, and isn't needed to illustrate differences), the article will retain the same number of images as before I came along. It'l be like I wasn't even here. Cody-7 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your "compromise" is violating the non-free content policy, that image fails #8. its not your word versus mine, its your word versus policy, and policy is always right. if you cannot make a solid defense for the usage of the image it cannot be used. it must also pass every one of the 10 Non-free content criteria. β^_command 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#8 certainly is subject to interpretation. Your opinion is that the images wouldn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, but it still is just your opinion. I haven't even looked at the images in question, and I certainly trust your judgment over most others on issues of fair use, but it still does come down to opinion...and it still obviously isn't vandalism, no matter how strong a hand you think you need to use. --Onorem ♠Dil 02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I've been trying to say. It's just his opinion. And I find that a bit offensive that you're going to just give him the benefit of the doubt; what happened to the encyclopedia anyone can edit? Cody-7 (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the images remain or not, it seems clear that this wasn't vandalism, and jumping to a vandal4 warning seems fairly inappropriate. I'm all for getting rid of extra fair use images, but maybe try some discussion instead of templated warnings if you want people to understand your reasoning for reverting their edits... --Onorem ♠Dil 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a polite warning, failure to follow policy requires a stronger hand. β^_command 02:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to jump in and say those 2 extra images are overuse in an article that already has a number of fairuse images. And I'm not seeing Cody discussing the images' inclusion on the talk page. MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really. I'll quote myself. Im not quite sure how you could of missed it:

"And I would just like one more image re-instated as I think it's important to show readers what a wormhole looks like in SG-1 (This one here: [[2] |Image:New_wormhole.jpg ). However, despite several of us on the talk page voicing that many of the images still belong, others are now claiming that it's still against the guidelines. Like said several times, there is no magical number on how many non-free images an article is restricted to . As long as an image meets the 10 guidelines on the NFCC page and is believed to add some importance, it can stay. And has anyone taken into account the length of the article? Sure, the article has many non-free images but it's a fairly long article."

The problem is Betacommand was the one not discussing on the talk page. And I'm trying to just get one image to be re-added to the article, not two, And since I already mentioned deleting a non-free image myself already, it wouldn't be increasing the number in the article. I do not believe one image of a wormhole in use would be violating the NFCC and It does have reason to be there. What I was typing a minute ago before it detected an edit conflict:

"I already stated why it passes #8; let me quote: "And it's not just to show the color. It helps bring to life what the actual wormhole appears like, much better than a diagram -- and brings the point across it's a long distance traveled better than numbers in billions of miles could describe. Also, I feel, it illustrates the "rough ride" it can be going through a gate if one is not adapted.". Now until someone agrees / disagrees more extensively on that, you can NOT prove it's violating the damn NFCC. Can you say anything other than that?"

I was also starting to type why the image of the kawoosh no better illustrates anything according to Betacommand's interpretation of the NFCC, and why the one image of the wormhole would contribute, by my fingers are getting a bit tired. I don't intend to sound harsh in this whole discussion, but this is starting to get on my nerves.

This is a content dispute, not vandalism. If a fair-use image doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the article it shouldn't be included. If it does it might be included depending on context (eg. how much understanding does it add? How many other fair-use images are on the same page? Can the understanding be provided with free images or in text?).

Your edit wasn't vandalism, but Betacommand is not alone in noting there are a large number of fair-use images on the page already and there may not be a need for another. Could I suggest this debate be returned to the article talk page where it started? You won't be blocked for a content dispute provided it stays civil and there's no edit warring. So feel free to keep contributing to the article. Everyone else interested in image issues (and why else would we be reading Betacommand's talk page?), feel free to comment at Talk:Stargate (device) on the image debate, and see if we can reach a consensus one way or the other. Euryalus (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template...

Why are you removing the welcome template and substituting tons of text? Did I miss something, and Template:Welcome was deleted? Doesn't look that way... please explain? ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template messages on talk pages are supposed to be substituted, so that they don't change appearance with time. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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

Substantial edits at the Dorje Shugden article

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

Edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hilarious

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

VandalProof

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

VandalProof

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

VP

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

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

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

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

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 </s>
 :I take it back. Upon further review, you did not break 3RR. Why are you even blocked? '''[[User:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#BA55D3">Lara</span>]]'''[[User:LaraLove/My heart|<span style="color:#00CED1">❤</span>]]'''[[User talk:LaraLove|<span style="font-family:Georgia;color:#FF1493">Love</span>]]''' 06:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
+:apparently maintaining consensus and reverting vandal edits is considered a personal attack. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 06:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 == VandalProof ==