Betacommand2 (talk | contribs) |
Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) →Uncivil edit summaries and comments: no, you aren't handling it well |
||
Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
Please take the step back and avoid further abuse. Thank you. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
Please take the step back and avoid further abuse. Thank you. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:what about the abuse that is directed at me? Ive sat around and observed that when users communicate with me they ignore NPA, CIVIL, AGF, and countless other policies and dont get as much as a warning for it. but when I take the slightest mis-step I get the book thrown at me. unless you are willing to enforce the policy both ways I dont want to hear it. Ive been on the recieving end of countless personal attacks, un-civil comments and other attacks for over eight months, I think I have handled myself fairly well. [[User talk:Betacommand2|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
:what about the abuse that is directed at me? Ive sat around and observed that when users communicate with me they ignore NPA, CIVIL, AGF, and countless other policies and dont get as much as a warning for it. but when I take the slightest mis-step I get the book thrown at me. unless you are willing to enforce the policy both ways I dont want to hear it. Ive been on the recieving end of countless personal attacks, un-civil comments and other attacks for over eight months, I think I have handled myself fairly well. [[User talk:Betacommand2|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::That's what we expect of administrators in particular, bot operators in particular, and editors in general, yes. |
|||
::No, you have not handled yourself well. You've previously admitted that you didn't think you were handling yourself well at all, in fact. If you were handling yourself well, I would not be here on your talk page pointing out edits of yours which are rather blatantly in violation of policy. There's no "But he made me do it!" exception to AGF, CIVIL, or NPA. They're policy. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:18, 24 February 2008
−5921 days left
![]() |
If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note:
|
- 20060127
- 20060409
- 20060508
- 20060713
- 20060906
- 20061017
- 20061117
- 20061207
- 20070101
- 20070201
- 20070301
- 20070401
- 20070501
- 20070601
- 20070701
- 20070801
- 20070901
- 20071101
- 20071201
- 20080101
- 20080201
- 20080301
- 20080401
- 20080501
- 20080601
- 20080701
- 20080801
- 20080901
- 20081001
- 20081101
- 20081201
- 20090101
- 20090201
- 20090301
- 20090401
- 20090701
- 20090801
- 20090901
- 20091001
- 20091101
- 20091201
- 20100101
- 20100201
- 20100301
- 20100401
- 20100501
- 20100601
- 20100701
![]() |
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 |
Man, you are tough!
You take all these comments, and don't get discouraged over them! I don't think I could ever deal with all this...you have quite the tough skin! Following the ways of Compwhizii...
Instructions on the bot talk page
Hi Betacommand, Just a passing lurker who noticed your bot is a bit unpopular at the moment (!)
Do keep up the good work, someone has to do it - and soon. But, (IMHO) the instructions on the bot talk page, especially the big "you are blocked" stop sign, are very hostile and probably contributing to the drama. Shoot me if I'm wrong of course... but I changed the picture and made the text a bit more friendly.
I'm not involved in any image or other disputes, so this is just a neutral edit. Moyabrit (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted that, I placed that there and phrased it that way for a reason. Please dont edit my comments. βcommand 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You have to understand, Moya. BC doesn't seem to care if he's rude, unhelpful, or overbearing in his comments. He does this "for a reason", so it's all fine. You'll soon enough learn to just leave him (and especially his bot) alone. I know I have. Bellwether BC 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bellwether, I am glad to help people who have questions, I post that template at the top for a reason, it answers a lot of questions, and its phrased that way so people will read it. βcommand 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I may have missed it, but I've never seen you be helpful to a person who was confused by your bot's aggression, or by the bite-y "instructions" at the top of the page. It's always dismissive. Bellwether BC 01:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I dont have much time at hand here is some quick examples
- βcommand 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bellwether, I am glad to help people who have questions, I post that template at the top for a reason, it answers a lot of questions, and its phrased that way so people will read it. βcommand 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
While this will almost certainly trigger a check-user on the hapless (in a nice way!) Moyabrit, I note that this is the second time that this has happened in short order, and that there are now at least three editors who have either asked you to change it or othrwise indicated that they believed it was rude. Without malice, I suggest that you consider that your opinion of the appropiateness of your communication method is not the only opinion that matters. Can you, in all honesty, tell us that you think that the manner you've chosen to communicate is more effective that the two recent alternatives? [1] [2] I also tried to resist pointing out that something cannot be "phrased [in a] way so people will read it." They have to read it to see how it's phrased.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it's better than being hapless in a nasty way ;-) but okay, my changes were not appreciated and I won't repeat them. I do think, however, that the talk page as it stands is gratuitously rude. Someone who gets an image rationale wrong is not a vandal, and treating them as such is bound to create a hostile atmosphere. Moyabrit (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Your spamming
Concerns about your editing have been raised (yet again) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass-spamming_by_User:John_Carter_and_User:Betacommandbot. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have a count for the number of articles edited in the Wikiproject religion run? Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Give me about five hours, (Im away from my main PC) and I can get you those numbers fairly easy. βcommand 18:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Picture
Hello,
I did upload an image to Wikipedia, how can I get it to be displayed on the article for which it was intended?
Cexycy (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What you do is: You copy the title at the top of the file page for your image, then go to the article where you want it to appear. Next, you click to edit the article, and when you scroll down to reach the part of the article where you want it to be, you paste the title in there. After that, insert two of these: [ to the left of the title, and two of these ], to the right of it. If you want it to be smaller than its full resolution, then after the image, put the following |(some number)px. For instance, it's a 300 by 400 pixels image. To get it significantly smaller, you might put in |200px after the title of the image. To give it a frame, and then a caption, add the following: |thumb|(Place the caption here). If you want it to the left of the page, or the center, insert |left or |center. For having the image to the right, this is not necessary, as the image will naturally appear to the right of the screen if you do not give directions on where you want it placed. This probably sounds a little confusing, but reading and following it as a step-by-step guide might help clarify it. I hope so. Happy editing!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
BABS again
Hi Betacommand: Me again, still trying to help work out the glitches in the Bird Articles by Size routine. We're still seeing fewer than 7000 articles—and a fair of these are things outside the remit of our project, like Foie Gras and 2007 Bernard Matthews H5N1 outbreak. Is there a way you can search the article's talk page for the presence of the BirdTalk template, and include all of the articles that have one? That should include all the articles we're looking for. Thanks again for your attempts! MeegsC | Talk 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can do it one of two methods, category based or template based. βcommand 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BN
And thats why I voted for its deletion and proposed a formal structure at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Bot_change (WT:BRFA is still too free-wheeling to me and associated too much with the BAG review function as opposed to an entire community discussion function). The lack of a formal layout lent itself to the rather slanted wording of issues at the onset, which quickly drove the issue from a broad range of ideas to a rather narrow, range. I would've rather seen many users put forward separate "proposals" that could be discussed in an RfC style, but that's impossible now in that form. Hopefully March 23 will get here quickly. MBisanz talk 00:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment on main page deletion incident
As you made an edit to the incident listed in the Administrators notice board, it is requested that you confirm the details of the incident here (section 1.1.2)
This is as the incident is used as the basis of an argument and needs to be confirm by persons familar with the event
Regards --User:Mitrebox talk 2008-02-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.244.78 (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
VandalProof
When you have a couple minutes would you mind heading over to vandalproof approval. I see that you tend to be the only approver over there. I looked at the other admin that work on it and it seems non have been around that much recently. Thank you in advance GtstrickyTalk or C 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk page notice
Can it be programmed to delete the talk page notice it leaves behind when an image is deleted? It's a pretty useless notice to have once the deal is done.--165.21.154.94 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Link changes in stub templates — problem
Hi, Betacommand. Earlier on I was viewing a sports-related stub article. I clicked on the "...help Wikipedia by expanding it" link in the stub footer, and got an odd "Wiki does not exist" error message. Investigating, I discovered the problem was this edit, which replaced a portable linking format with one which relies on the server being set up to use "/w/index.php" as the wiki address. This doesn't work from the secure server because it's set up differently. So I restored it to use a nice simple, portable linking format, {{fullurl}}.
There was no problem, until I noticed you had made the same change to a several other stub templates. I was about to fix them, no problem, but then I noticed that you've actually decided to change the links on about three and a half thousand other templates as well.
I don't want to seem like I'm complaining, but the problem you see, is that as a result, each and every last one of these is now broken, on all the articles where they are used, when using the secure server. E.g., see Template:Sport-stub, before I fixed it.
It's beyond me to fix them. Since you have the skills and know-how, and a robot, would you perhaps be amenable to changing them all back? The optimum format to use is {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|action=edit}} (least I think so). Not wanting to be a nuisance, but they cannot stay as they are – they don't work properly and the "/w/index.php?title=" format is messy. • Anakin (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Hi Betacommand: Just making sure you're aware that there's another thread on you over at ANI. I have no opinion on the content thereof, just notifying you. - Philippe | Talk 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Uncivil edit summaries and comments
Hello... Your responses and comments here from a couple of days ago, and here and here were uncivil, failed to assume good faith (explicitly), and were personal attacks.
You have in the past been warned not to be so abrasive and hostile in responding and defending your bot actions, and you've agreed that you tend to go too far at times. This has been one of those time, again.
This needs to stop. You are needlessly aggrivating the bad feelings raised by the bot activities by your hostile counterattacks on critics. Even if the bot actions are 100% correct, you are under an obligation to maintain civil and polite responses to critics.
Please calm down and tone it down. If you're angry at a particular point, don't respond to critics until that passes.
If you keep abusing people, in violation of policy and these warnings, then someone's going to eventually take you up to Arbcom or block you for the abuses. That doesn't serve the project well or do you any good.
Please take the step back and avoid further abuse. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- what about the abuse that is directed at me? Ive sat around and observed that when users communicate with me they ignore NPA, CIVIL, AGF, and countless other policies and dont get as much as a warning for it. but when I take the slightest mis-step I get the book thrown at me. unless you are willing to enforce the policy both ways I dont want to hear it. Ive been on the recieving end of countless personal attacks, un-civil comments and other attacks for over eight months, I think I have handled myself fairly well. βcommand 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's what we expect of administrators in particular, bot operators in particular, and editors in general, yes.
- No, you have not handled yourself well. You've previously admitted that you didn't think you were handling yourself well at all, in fact. If you were handling yourself well, I would not be here on your talk page pointing out edits of yours which are rather blatantly in violation of policy. There's no "But he made me do it!" exception to AGF, CIVIL, or NPA. They're policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)