User talk:Betacommand/20060409

You might want to check this out.

¡Hola! Thanks for the link to WP:AIV. I thought you might want to check out the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Vandalism in progress. You might've seen these, but I thought I'd leave a note anyway. Hasta luego. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your vandalism reversion tool (popups)

Hi,

Sometimes the vandalism reversion tool you use doesn't quite work right, especially if the same vandal does a couple of edits in a row... it only reverts one edit rather than the vandal's entire set of edits. See for instance the history of Sudan, Tony Blair, Money, List of billionaires (2005), etc. -- Curps 20:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tok'ra redirects on your watch list

The following articles have recently been merged into one article and the original aritcles are now redirects:

"Anise (Stargate)"
"Egeria (Stargate)"
"Jolinar"
"Lantash"
"Martouf"
"Selmak"

Your watch list is the last to be linked to these articles, the rest of the links have been cleared.

The new article is: "Known Tok'ra".

The links were not included in this so that they will not show up on the "What links here" page.

Lady Aleena 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Auteur Theory to Auteur theory

Why did you undo my redirect/merge from Auteur Theory (created 2/12/06) to Auteur theory (longstanding elaborated article)?--NYArtsnWords 05:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please familiarize yourself with a subject or ...

... at least who might be the experts regarding it (like User:Hillman) before you act on who is vandalizing it. you totally missed the boat on it regarding Gravitomagnetism. r b-j 07:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i reverted your mistake on the redirect of Gravitomagnetism. i had to wait until 17:55 (UTC) to avoid violation of 3RR. please leave this alone. Nixer is no expert, is not familiar with the English lit (he is Russian, i believe). this is the English Wikipedia, not the Russian Wikipedia. If he wants to title the artile "Gravitomagnetism" in the Russian WP, that's fine, but he is basically vandalizing this one by insisting on his semantics rather than the sematics used by physicsists (that are actually cited even in his version which is identical in salient content to Gravitoelectromagnetism) in the published literature.

again, please stay out of this. r b-j 18:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your monobook

Your monobook is currently appearing in the CSD category, although it does not appear you want it deleted. Please review any changes you have made recently to prevent a sysop from deleting it as user-requested. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School's IP talk page

¡Hola!. I copyedited your message on User talk:156.63.190.132 (diff). Didn't think you'd mind. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 07:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betacommand/monobook.js

Hi, you might want to do something about the {{delete}} in the JavaScript code because it's adding your js file to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Perhaps split it up and concatenate the strings instead. enochlau (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Reasons

When nominating an article for speedy delete, could you please use the {{db|Reason}} template to give a reason for nominating the article. Tagging an article with {{delete}} can be confusing, as what might be obvious to you, might not be to someone else. Plus, if someone disagres with the speedy, they can't answer your objection if you never give it! Cheers. MartinRe 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken Cleanup?

Why are you reverting my cleanups? Betacommand 00:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them, just ones that remove red links to articles that will be created sometime.--Cúchullain t / c 02:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting cleanups too. Please stop removing red links wholesale; red links are there for a reason most of the time, they link to articles that haven't been written yet but will be someday. Only remove links to things that you genuinely don't think warrant articles on Wikipedia. Bryan 01:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the cleanup and your other contributions to Wikipedia. They are appreciated very much.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-27 07:27Z

¡Hola!

I decided to try my hand at this AWB thingy. :·) I put my name on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, so I'll probably be given permission. yay. What were those other tools you were telling me about? Sounded kinda nifty ... --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 03:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¿¡Qué pasa, mi amigo!? I happened to notice that you've been editing via AWB many pages on my watchlist ... pages I don't expect you to peruse normally. So I was just wondering, like, what do you use to make lists for the AWB? Random categories? Hasta luego. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green and Tom Noe

Hi, I think I figured out where all of this Tom Noe stuff stems from. See the Talk:Bowling Green, Ohio page. ClarkBHM 00:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Baptiste Sipido

Hi, I took a look at this New Page that you nominated for speedy deletion. I don't think this is a clear-cut speedy. This is a historical, if rather minor, figure who is verifiable through Google. Please take another look and see what you think. By the way, it would be really helpful if you included a reason with your speedy nominations, as mentioned further up your talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 00:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked (on my talk page) about tagging speedies. {{delete|importance}} inserts the default delete message which doesn't include your reason text - in this case "importance". I usually use {{db-reason|importance}} instead which does embed your reason into the message. This gives other editors a better understanding of your nomination. I hope this is useful. Best, Gwernol 15:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Please note that the AWB tool improperly removes the self-referencing link to Date Articles. Date articles are an exception to the self-referencing rule because we want the date to appear in the user-specified format. The new wiki software version simply turns these links into bold, so there's no real harm done. Rklawton 16:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA request

I note that you have put up a request to be nommed for RfA. I have looked at your contributions, which show that you have made an outstanding start to your wiki-career, but if you look at the archive of past admin applications, it would appear that it would be extremely likely to fail. The reasons are : lack of communication (apart from dishing out vandal signs, there appears to be no consultation type communication), only been here two months, the edit count is a bit low - 2000 seems to be a bare bones minimum for consideration, and people will cite that your edits are using AWB - that you are using a computer prompt rather than any human initiative. If you would like to discuss the RfA further, feel free to comment on my talk page. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZyXoas

You reverted a redirect I created while not logged in. I didn't want it moved since I didn't mind breaking the edit history. Please "un-revert" the page. I can't do it myself for the same reason I sometimes accidentally get logged out - editting Wikipedia on a mobile phone is rather difficult. If you go to User:Zyxoas/User Talk ZyXoas you'll understand why I had to create a new account. Please respond on my (new) talk page. Zyxoas 08:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of User:ZyXoas

It's Okay. I just wonder how you CVU guys manage to track down cases of vandalism on such a busy Wiki! I'm sure you don't use Recent Changes, right? Anyway - enjoy your weekend. User:Zyxoas 10:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury Schweppes

Hi. I don't think listing this page for deletion was the right thing to do. Yes, the edit before yours was a blatant copyvio but the version previous to that was fine. It would have been easy to simply revert the copyvio. I've posted that non-copyvio version at the temp page so that it can be used to re-establish the article once the deletion process is carried out. Regards Mark83 11:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry, as I understood it, once the copvio notice was placed it was important not to edit the page "Please do not edit this page for the moment.. if you want to work on this article meanwhile, write a new article at the temporary subpage.." Then whatever has been added at the /temp page can be utilised by the deleting admin post-deletion. Mark83 22:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the copyvio notice. The Cadbury Schweppes article was first developed on 2 June 2002, since creation, the article has been edited nearly three hundred times. The immediate past version of the article and the page quoted do not look anything like each other. If there are sections of material copied, then they need to be removed, or attributed with quotation. --A Y Arktos\^talk 00:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page! :) Hbackman 04:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]