User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:23, 29 December 2007 editShadowbot3 (talk \| contribs)51,520 editsm Automated archival of 3 sections to User talk:Betacommand/20071201 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:11, 29 December 2007 edit undoGeorgewilliamherbert (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users16,680 edits →AWB: Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid#Community and website feature references says that this is OK self-referenceNext edit →
Line 113:		Line 113:
	::I don't think it is uncontroversial as the ease of maintenance reasoning does not apply to avoid self-references in article space so I don't see a consensus to not have them in stub templates. In fact, ] seems to show a consensus that it ''is'' acceptable in stub templates but I, personally, do not have a significant objection to removing the links from stub templates. ] (] 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)		::I don't think it is uncontroversial as the ease of maintenance reasoning does not apply to avoid self-references in article space so I don't see a consensus to not have them in stub templates. In fact, ] seems to show a consensus that it ''is'' acceptable in stub templates but I, personally, do not have a significant objection to removing the links from stub templates. ] (] 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	<span id="63323617030" />		<span id="63323617030" />
			:::Seconded - ] pretty explicitly says that stubs will have self-edit links and that this is ok and normal. Betacommand, please stop and reverse yourself on this. Get consensus to change the guideline before proceeding again. Thank you. ] (]) 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Thanks! ==		== Thanks! ==

Revision as of 04:11, 29 December 2007

−6135 days left

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 Misplaced Pages: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.

I Don't Understand

My image that i uploaded, ]], is apparently not in compliance with the policy for non-free content or whatever, and i dont understand the policy all that well. i dont know what a rationale is or anything. i'm only a teenager who made a page for an album that wasnt yet posted on Misplaced Pages. i would like to be told what is wrong with my image in terms that i can understand. please lemme know!

Thanks!

		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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot tagging disambiguation articles as uncategorized

BetacommandBot has been marking articles as uncategorized when they have a category. Disambiguation articles such as Chasers (disambiguation) and ZJ were tagged with {{uncategorized}}, but they were already in a category. When articles are tagged with {{disambig}}, it automatically puts them in Category:Disambiguation. This is an appropriate way to categorize disambiguation pages. Please modify BetacommandBot to ignore disambiguation pages when checking for a category. Thank you. --Mysdaao 13:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

Hey, when are you going to get to approving the people on the waiting list for VandalProof? The list gets bigger and bigger every day. Thanks, Redmarkviolinist 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Paramilitary-org-stub

Why did you remove the edit action in this edit to Template:Paramilitary-org-stub, and with no edit summary? All the other stub templates use that syntax. If you do not explain your edit, I will revert it. Thanks, — Swpb 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One Please do not be aggressive. Second, I am removing them from the templates as I am trying to clean-up our mainspace and the self links in it. We should not have links to wikipedia in our mainspace unless we are talking about wikipedia. β 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend any aggression in my tone. If I don't see a good reason for an edit I don't understand, and I don't get one from the editor, I revert it—that's not a threat, it's letting you know where I'm coming from. However, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your explanation a bit. How are stub templates different from cleanup templates that link to non-mainspace pages? Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid indicates that self-refs in stub messages do not need to be deleted. Also, have you talked with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting about these changes? — Swpb 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I the other templates you are talking about dont use external links. I am attempting to clean up the mainspace and remove external links to wikipedia that should be internal, or be removed. the use of external links in templates is not a good practice and is normally avoided along with the fact that when ever you use one of these templates with external links it just makes it all that harder to work with improper links. β 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB

Is there any consensus for the changes you are making? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia should not link to itself, especially in templates. β 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop and get consensus for your changes. WP:AWB says to keep your AWB edits uncontroversial. As evidenced above, there is evident controversy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That was not an AWB edit, and there was no controversy. there is a consensus that wikipedia should avoid self links. β 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Where? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid β 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why remove links in stub templates to "edit this page"? Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid#In the Template and Category namespaces seems to say this is acceptable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It creates a lot of un-needed external links that make it very very difficult to work with the real links that are on wikipedia. Ive seen a lot of pages that use external links, but should be using internal, and others that are reference problems. with the mass addition of these links in templates it makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to address the serious issue of improper use of those links. β 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is uncontroversial as the ease of maintenance reasoning does not apply to avoid self-references in article space so I don't see a consensus to not have them in stub templates. In fact, Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid seems to show a consensus that it is acceptable in stub templates but I, personally, do not have a significant objection to removing the links from stub templates. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - Misplaced Pages:Self-references to avoid#Community and website feature references pretty explicitly says that stubs will have self-edit links and that this is ok and normal. Betacommand, please stop and reverse yourself on this. Get consensus to change the guideline before proceeding again. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up my orphaned fair use uploads, BetaCommandBot! You are an efficient and effective artificial life form. —Burn Down Babylon 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot problem?

Not sure if this is a problem - but the bot just posted a message on Talk:Pura Cup regarding fair-use of Image:Pura Cup logo.jpg. The image description page already has a fair use rationale on it? If this isn't a bot problem please let me know on my talk page incase I miss the conversation otherwise. -- Chuq (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Eagle 101/SpamInDabs

Why was the unlinking done in this edit? --Geniac (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

that was me, there was an issue with the IE, I was removing extra links to wikipedia. Im trying to clean up our article space self links and that page was adding thousands of un-needed links. β 16:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)