User talk:Betacommand

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 Wikipedia: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.

		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

James Amann

Removing criticism from a politician's article leads one to believe there's an agenda here

User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval

Hi there :), I was wondering being that you removed the backlog notice from the page, if you could approve me and some of the other users that are currently awaiting approval to use VP :). Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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) 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Beach pictures

Hey Betacommand! I would like to ask you about the reason why you deleted all the pictures I uploaded for Sunset Beach List of Sunset Beach characters. They were all screenshots, each of them had a fair-use rationale for both the actor and the article. So, please, if you find time, before my pics get erased, can you explain what was the reason you deleted it?

I fixed the links in all of those pictures, if that was the problem. Can I return the pictures to the article now? Dmarex (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC Images in list are not allowed. β^_command 12:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the page was titled "Sunset Beach minor characters," could the pictures be featured then there? Dmarex (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its still a list of.. page regardless of the exact title. β^_command 12:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about One Life to Live minor characters? I just want things to be fair. Dmarex (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has been addressed. β^_command 12:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess it's only fair for me to report the site that I created and wrote too: List of Santa Barbara cast and characters. I guess I should speedy delete all of those numerous pictures. And thanks for letting me know about the rules, nobody did for almost a year. Dmarex (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the group picture at the top is good, but the excessive pictures of each character violate the non-free content policy. β^_command 12:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Ooops, you deleted all the character airdates on the List of Sunset Beach characters? And sorry if I'm bothering you. Dmarex (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry Im always happy to explain. I went ahead and fixed that, I miss read the source text and thought it was part of the image caption. β^_command 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torchwood monsters and aliens

I'm at a loss to understand these image deletions; as User:Islander pointed out in his edit summary "if each monster had their own article there wouldn't be a problem", and whereas he may be wrong, I have spent considerable time (which has not been applied to getting other articles to GA status) sorting out the FUR's. Would you mind explaining in detail which part of WP:NFCC any or all of these images breaches, preferably on the article talk page so that others can examine the particular parts of that policy you have in mind, because being familiar with that policy, I just don't see it. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there have been numerious previous discussions about the same issue, except for one or two group pictures, non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 12:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked for clarification on the article talk page. But we really cannot have policy, if it is, in fact, policy, addressed to us without some reference other than WP:NFCC; that doesn't help. Any links? I know you understand these things but other editors are entitled to know exactly why their work has been removed. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 12:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to e-mail you a copy of User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation (it has been deleted) Im attempting to have it un-deleted. but until I can recover the history of the page I cant post this on wiki yet. (it would be a GDFL violation). this should answer most of your questions. β^_command 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Received and digested. Meanwhile it would help if you stopped edit-warring on that page when not the policy itself, but the particular application of that policy, is being discussed. Editors may need educating, but threatening blocks isn't helpful in the circumstances. It's clearly a grey area and I don't rule out seeking further clarification. --Rodhull andemu 14:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this issue has been talked to death already. except for group shots non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 14:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it hasn't been discussed enough, 'cause if it had, the policy would be a lot clearer by now. What you've cited above is an essay, showing one interpretation of the NFCC policy (the very fact that the policy is open to interpretation shows that there are flaws with it). What you, as of yet, have failed to do, is state where in current policy it is stated that all uses of images in list articles consistute overuse. I definitely don't believe that in this Torchwood case there is overuse of free images. You state that my reversions (and Rodhullandemu's) will lead to our blocking - for what, exactly? You, on the other hand, are close to a 3RR blocking (though I'll admit that in my latest summary for the Torchwood article I miscounted your reverts - you're on two, not three). _Talk Islander 14:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show me where it says "except for group shots non-free content is not allowed in lists" please. Dr. Stantz (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh

See article's talk page Cbsite (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use OK, the policy is not stated specifically, one, and two, there is some discussion about images for each episode; however, the images here are random screen shots not tied to any specific episode.Cbsite (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment above, I sent you a copy also. β^_command 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

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:

there is no valid grounds for the block. the blocking admin has a very very clear COI and I have violated zero policies. β^_command 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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=there is no valid grounds for the block. the blocking admin has a very very clear COI and I have violated zero policies. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |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=there is no valid grounds for the block. the blocking admin has a very very clear COI and I have violated zero policies. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |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=there is no valid grounds for the block. the blocking admin has a very very clear COI and I have violated zero policies. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note - while I agree that the blocking admin does indeed have a clear COI, Betacommand has violated 3RR, in my opinion (by refusing to discuss and revert regardless of ongoing discussions. The exemption for NFCC removal is not valid here, as at least two editors agree that there is no vioaltion. This is neither an endorsement or opposition to the block. _Talk Islander 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then why did I get the block message as I went to leave a comment on said talk page? β^_command 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What message are you talking about in particular? _Talk Islander 23:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki:Blocked text. the message you get when attempting to edit a page and are blocked. I was starting to leave a note on the talk page when I found out I was blocked. β^_command 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, because you are blocked. Whether you were just about to leave a note or not, we'll never know. Like I said, I neither endorse nor oppose said block because, like Rodhullandemu, I too have a bit of a COI here. I personally have a clear idea as to whether or not you deserve this block, but having the COI, it's not my place to state this. _Talk Islander 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's conditional support for an unblock on AN/I at the moment, pending your agreement to stop reverting as well as stop removing these images from list articles. A discussion needs to take place to clarify the issue, and I'd be happy to unblock if you agree to these conditions. - auburnpilot talk 00:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not stop enforcing policy, non-free content in list of.. pages has been discussed countless times in the past, see the history of WT:NFCC. previous discussions have clearly supported my position. If you care to look into the archives you can clearly see that my position is supported. I dont want to be a broken record again. Also this block is against policy so I should be unblocked without conditions. β^_command 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rescinded my support for your unblock; see you in 31. - auburnpilot talk 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in List of characters in Daria

I've read the policy on the use of non-free images, and almost none of them violate the non-free content criteria. I won't say anything about the image of Helen Morgendorffer, because I didn't know about it, didn't upload it, don't know how the user who did upload it got the image, and I'd certainly agree that it needs a fair-use rationale tag, but the other images are undeserving of deletion. ----DanTD (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:NFCC non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is when "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This is the case here. Also, "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." I can't see how this does anything to the contrary. "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." With the exception of the Helen Morgendorffer image, all images meet that standard. They were on the former MTV website, which no longer uses them. If I knew where the Helen Morgendorffer image originally came from, I'd either agree or disagree. ----DanTD (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:NFCC #3 and #8 it is not allowed in lists. β^_command 23:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Just what significant information do you expect as an alternative? ----DanTD (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To further that, neither NFCC #3 or #8 prohibit the use of non-free content in lists. _Talk Islander 23:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there have been countless previous discussions where non-free content is not allowed in lists. β^_command 23:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of which have resulted in rampant deletions of articles and non-free content that is allowed. ----DanTD (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BC: If there have, as you say, been countless discussions, why on Earth has it not yet made it into the policy? Your argument doesn't add up/ _Talk Islander 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. that is one example there are about 20 AN/ANI threads that support the fact that NFCC dont meet the guidelines of WP:NFCC. β^_command 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(untab) That's a signpost article, it's not policy. Policy is what we go by, and if there is consensus otherwise, it should be changed, but it is the policy that we go by, not other discussions. _Talk Islander 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go with Islander with reference to this and this ; this does not appear to be policy. Cbsite (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in List of ReBoot characters

Look I already read the policy plenty of times, and if my reasoning for the reasoning I gave isn't good enough for you, then I wouldn't be surprised if all articles that have images with similar reasoning/licensing are removed by you.

For example, the List of Beast Wars characters should be devoid of all images, since the reasoning/licensing is no different then what I gave.

Oh and the ReBoot images were up since last October and nobody else had a problem with them. Cloud S (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency

You know, when I ran my RfA, I ran it totally above board. Everything on-wiki and visible and open to criticism, despite some bizarre interventions. Nothing to hide. That's why I took your block to WP:ANI. OK, maybe not a great block, but that's the way we operate here; we are not perfect, which is, perhaps why we should listen. Which is why this email from you:

Just a heads up if you do not immediately reverse your block and apologize, and resign as an admn I will be filing an ArbCom case in regard to your complete lack of the ability to understand and follow policy.

is unacceptable, bordering on harrassment. I don't respond to threats. No way. Absolutely not. They are unseemly and unbecoming of an experienced contributor here. Please feel free to file an ArbCom case, I see they're used to you by now. --Rodhull andemu 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill see you there for your complete lack of the ability to follow policy that all admins are required to follow. you fucked up and make a very bad block against policy. I ask that you rescind the block since you cannot follow WP:BLOCK. and that you resign as an admin since you obviously cannot follow core policies. you might want to review yet another policy that you ignore Wikipedia:PRIVACY#Private correspondence β^_command

No offense, but you can't make threats like that in an email and expect them to be kept private. Wikipedia emails are for constuctive discussion, not blackmail. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont make blackmail statements. it was a request that the incompetent admin resign since he cannot follow policy. β^_command 00:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the email was. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just making a statement regarding my future plans, and his ability to avoid a mess if he chose to. β^_command 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One lapse in judgement =/= requirement to resign. Regardless, I have to agree with Ryan - you cannot possibly make threats like that in an email, and expect them to remain private. _Talk Islander 00:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a complete violation of BLOCK and ignoring core policies is grounds for desysoping. the fact that he abused admin tools in an edit dispute, and indef blocked a long standing editor without any comments is a wrong. β^_command 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, your opinion is as valid as mine. Still, why did you have to resort to threats via email? _Talk Islander 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it was not a threat it was a request that would avoid an arbcom case. Since he did not want to take a quiet resolution to the issue its going to go to arbcom. β^_command 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a suprise. Can I ask one more question? Why does it take a block for you to talk? You're discussing issues now that your blocked, and though I don't agree with you, it's good to hear your point of view. When it comes to issues of non-free images, and your own personal interpretation of NFCC, you brick-wall, which leads to frustration, which leads to edit warring, which leads to (justified or not) blocks. Had you taken the time to discuss in the first place, rather than bulldoze your point of view across, I reckon the whole of this could have been avoided. _Talk Islander 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to when I found out I was blocked. I do communicate, the issue is I have repeated the exact same thing 500 times. please take a look at the archives of WT:NFCC which validate my position. β^_command 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying a bit late, then. WT:NFCC is not policy - WP:NFCC is. You cannot use WT:NFCC as an excuse to blind-revert or edit-war. _Talk Islander 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would have preferred it if Rodhullandemu had forwarded it to arbcom had he felt harassed by it, posting e-mails on wiki should ring alarm bells, GDonato (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]