User talk:Betacommand - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betacommand (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 26 March 2007 (3.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:12, 26 March 2007 by Betacommand (talk | contribs) (3.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Betacommand/20070101. Sections without timestamps are not archived

= 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. _InBC 18:00, 12 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 Han 03:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

VPRF

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

Yes. Prodego 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) 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 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 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait. You need to reload the userlist. You are removing the users I approved, and readded. Prodego 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 . As an admin, you are not above standards and guidelines at Misplaced Pages - 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

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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Betacommand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Im attempting to have a discussion at ANI over this and the RFCN is over a month old

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Im attempting to have a discussion at ANI over this and the RFCN is over a month old |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Im attempting to have a discussion at ANI over this and the RFCN is over a month old |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Im attempting to have a discussion at ANI over this and the RFCN is over a month old |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Category:

Requests for unblock