User talk:Betacommand/20080901#Editing restrictions

Hello Betacommand. We've finally worked out a set of restrictions that seems to have gained consensus. I'm posting them here as official notification of what they are;

:* Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

:* Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

:* Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

:* Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

Best regards,

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: :Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg and :Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka2.jpg

Could you upload the cropped version (without captions)--Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg--to Wikipedia; I replied in the image page re: that image; and could you check the other one too? Thanks very much for your assistance. --NYScholar (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wikipedia_Accountcreators.pngSomeone, probably you, requested access to the account creation tool. For security purposes could you please confirm that it was you who made the request so we can approve you, thanks. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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) 20:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Why Linux will not displace Windows" link on your userpage is broken. I have found the following links whaich may or may not be what you intended to link to:

• [http://education.zdnet.com/?p=908 A blog entry on ZDNet] discussing the adoption of Linux by the general public and by educational institutions
• [http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12355-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31199&messageID=579074&start=-9605 A comment] on the same blog entry, accusing Linux of piracy
• [http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12355-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31199&messageID=579806&start=43 Another comment] by the same user, stating that it is technically impossible for Linux to replace Windows as an operating system
• [http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12355-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31199&messageID=579066&start=-9605 Yet another comment] by the same user , again making accusations of piracy
• (There is also [http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12355-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31199&messageID=579070&start=-9605 yet still another comment] from the same user, praising Vista and not mentioning Linux at all.)
• [http://formerpundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/linux-will-never-beat-microsoft.html A different blog entry] discussing user-friendliness and pre-installed operating systems
• [http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=651067 A forum post] from a frustrated Ubuntu user
• [http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp465138.html&sid=1648a874e11abab396649d81e769a51e#465138 Another forum post] concerning the user-friendliness of Linux

I hope one of these is what you were had intended to link. - SigmaEpsilon → Σ[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=SigmaEpsilon&site=en.wikipedia.org Ε] 04:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Botwait requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"I figured [the bug which causes a different reason to be used for RFCs than the one specified] out. When you have two RFC's on the same page the bot takes the summary from the first one. I wonder if this bug can be fixed? Or at least mentioned on the bot page? Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)"

::When I get a chance Ill fix this, its not something I thought about before, its should not be a complex fix. β^_command 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Er ... I can't see anything about expiration dates in Wikipedia:Requests for comment. And you'll notice entries marked August and even February, so clearly they haven't "expired". If there is such a thing as an Rfc expiration date, can you write as much in the instructions? --GRuban (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)"

::many times RfCs get archived without being properly closed. Most RfCs dont last more than about 30 days, so that was why that number was decided upon. β^_command 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"It seems like the bot is throwing an insane number of errors Special:Contributions/RFC_bot. MBisanz talk 12:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)"

::Ill take a look at why its flagging more errors as I know I just upgraded the code. β^_command 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, people don't seem to be content with the expiration dates being listed instead of the date of listing. --harej 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

::should be an easy fix, Ill fix that shortly. see rev 4.1.1 β^_command 17:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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) 05:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've spent many sleepless hours over these past few weeks reflecting upon [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&diff=236564185&oldid=233361690 what I've done], and how it must have made you and your loved ones feel. You did not deserve to be treated that way. Your inanimate bot sure doesn't deserve to be treated that way. I daresay no Wikipedian deserves the abuse to which I've thoughtlessly subjected you. Please forgive me, and please don't have me blocked. If my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThe_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back block log] gets any portlier (we have something in common), my chances of being elected Arbitrator this December will be all but destroyed. Your friend always, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)