| Revision as of 16:12, 10 December 2008 editApoc2400 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,023 edits →December 2008: Ok, sounds good.← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:26, 10 December 2008 edit undoPascal.Tesson (talk | contribs)25,698 edits →Blocked: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| :::::::::If you notice Im not targeting those situations. I am targeting the cases where there needs to be a solid rationale for each usage, besides the obvious inclusion. ] 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | :::::::::If you notice Im not targeting those situations. I am targeting the cases where there needs to be a solid rationale for each usage, besides the obvious inclusion. ] 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::Ok, sounds good. --] (]) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | ::::::::::Ok, sounds good. --] (]) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Blocked == | |||
| Hi Beta. I have blocked you for 24 hours for not respecting the terms of the community-imposed restrictions, specifically: | |||
| :''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 ] 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.'' | |||
| The mass-removal of images on ] articles clearly violates this restriction. ] (]) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:26, 10 December 2008
- 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
Re: NOtice
Beta, I have a watchlist, I can see your edit to ANI. You don't think they won't look at your bad-faith edits here, on WVNS-TV (a page I monitor and have edited) and on the NFCC talk page. Your personal attacks above will come into question too. I might be on probation at the moment, but you got more to loose than I do. For now, you can talk to yourself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:57
image rename keeps failing
He Betacommand, commons:Image:EL-1994-00102.jpeg keeps failing to be renamed. Multiple people have tried to initiate the rename and failed. It also seems to be the only image that keeps failing. I figured you might want to figure out why BCBot cannot handle the case, before we do the move by hand. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- the simple issue is that the file extensions where not the same, see what I fixed to correct that. when renaming the file extensions cannot be changed. β 03:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Duh. lol --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom voting
Please maintain reasonable standards of civility on the ArbCom voting pages. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I archived my talk page
So, you're going to vote for me now, right? Yours always, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for violation of civility parole.
Betacommand, I have blocked you for a violation of your civility parole, detailed here. The edit which lead me to block you can be seen here, in The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's ArbCom election poll. You have been told time and time again to remain civil, and time and time again you have failed to do so. You have had three recent civility-related blocks at 24 hours each, therefore I am blocking you for 48 hours. Please think carefully about your behaviour, and refrain from making any comment anywhere whatsoever before you have thought carefully about how others will view that comment. TalkIslander 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
Please do not remove fair use rationales from image pages such as Image:Beatles yellowsubmarine.ogg. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will remove useless text that does not meet the requirements of a non-free usage rationale. β 08:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- When the use of an image is clearly within policy but the rationale is missing or not good enough, then please help write the rationale instead of deleting the image. When the image is overused or shouldn't be used at all, then remove it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- please review the non-free content policy. the person wishing to include non-free content policy must make a case for inclusion. β 14:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project though. Noone has any duties. When the image use is clearly allowed, why not help out instead of enforcing the more bureaucratic details of policy? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I knew the subject(s) better I would be in a position to write a rationale. but because I dont know the subject writing a proper rationale would take about an hour or more of research. (as a proper rationale is not a template). β 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes it is that difficult. Sometimes it's a simple standard case. I was actually more referring to images you removed recently, rather than the sound clip above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- NFC should not be used on multiple times across multiple pages see WP:NFCC#3. also if it has no rationale for a usage it does get removed from usages without rationales. β 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant, there are standard allowed use cases. For example a logo in the infobox in the article about a company. That usually doesn't require much consideration, just a standard rationale. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you notice Im not targeting those situations. I am targeting the cases where there needs to be a solid rationale for each usage, besides the obvious inclusion. β 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you notice Im not targeting those situations. I am targeting the cases where there needs to be a solid rationale for each usage, besides the obvious inclusion. β 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant, there are standard allowed use cases. For example a logo in the infobox in the article about a company. That usually doesn't require much consideration, just a standard rationale. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- NFC should not be used on multiple times across multiple pages see WP:NFCC#3. also if it has no rationale for a usage it does get removed from usages without rationales. β 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes it is that difficult. Sometimes it's a simple standard case. I was actually more referring to images you removed recently, rather than the sound clip above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I knew the subject(s) better I would be in a position to write a rationale. but because I dont know the subject writing a proper rationale would take about an hour or more of research. (as a proper rationale is not a template). β 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative project though. Noone has any duties. When the image use is clearly allowed, why not help out instead of enforcing the more bureaucratic details of policy? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- please review the non-free content policy. the person wishing to include non-free content policy must make a case for inclusion. β 14:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- When the use of an image is clearly within policy but the rationale is missing or not good enough, then please help write the rationale instead of deleting the image. When the image is overused or shouldn't be used at all, then remove it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
Hi Beta. I have blocked you for 24 hours for not respecting the terms of the community-imposed restrictions, specifically:
- 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.
The mass-removal of images on Ohio State Buckeyes football team articles clearly violates this restriction. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)