User talk:Betacommand/200701001

Image:I See Red.jpg and Image:I See Red 1989.jpg

Hey BC, the bot just flagged these two images I uploaded, despite both having adequate rationales in place. --linca ^linca 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, those are not valid rationales. see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jageren Æger.jpg

Hi. I think the problem your bot had with my fair use rationale for this image was that I by mistake had made the rationale point to a disambiguation page when I uploaded it. I have now fixed this so the rationale points directly to the article in which the image is used. Is everything going to be ok with regards to Image:Jageren Æger.jpg now? Is there anything more I have to do? Manxruler 09:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly erroneous A7

Kathy Wemyss. Assertion in first sentence. It needs refs, but she is in fact pretty important and worth an article - David Gerard 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on Ahmet Vardar - the tr: link (which was in the version you tagged) should give you an idea of his notability - David Gerard 16:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me no comprende

Look, I had a shot at putting a template on to Image:Stephenprofile.jpg but I get the bot tagging it again. Can you help clarify what continues to be lacking? --PaulWicks 15:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, it was looking for the article name. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is posting multiple notices

There's something odd going on with the bot, it looks like it is posting multiple duplicate notices on user talk pages. Crypticfirefly 16:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an example of one of these? β^_command 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say

Thank you, and you're a very helpful bot.

138.23.196.234 00:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Talk to the hand

For some reason, I don't find this implications of this graphic very civil or welcoming:

200px

Maybe you could replace it with an image of open arms or something. Or make it smaller.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well its that way for a reason, I use it to get peoples attention. β^_command 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a graphic of the finger would also get people's attention. The question is whether it's insulting, which I believe the "talk to the hand" graphic is.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it offends you, you get offended too easy. It is used in a manner to get ones attention and provide information. Before I placed that there I was getting users who kept repeating the same questions, without bothering to read other comments. Since placing that there I have noticed a marked decrease in the number of broken record questions. β^_command 23:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

βcommand, your Bot (and by default, you) are simply rude. I appreciate the necessity for this kind of work, but the indiscriminate and totally unhelpful nature of your approach is so highly discouraging that I have decided to end my contributions. Talk to my hand! MuteJoe 13:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 10c taggings for album covers and logos

Hi Betacommand, could you make your bot skip album cover and logo images when you are doing your tagging for NFCC 10C, at least for now? Almost all of these images are used correctly and in a way that complies with policy. (As in, even if they don't name the article they're in, it's almost always the article the logo/cover goes with.) Especially when we are about to change the entire format for 10c for album covers, logos, books, and art--which will require us to go back through each one of these images again anyways--it seems like a waste to go through and change all of them around now. If the proposal takes too long, you could always go back to tag these images after all other 10c non-compliant ones are tagged. Thanks, Calliopejen1 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that delaying these a couple weeks for the proposal to play out would be a nice thing to do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, is it possible that the bot could remove the image without the rationale from the article? Images are a pain to get and remove, but orphanbot seems to have a method for doing it... CO₂ 23:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#10c

I realise that your Bot is being used to tag all images that do not specify the name of the article in which fairuse is claimed. But isnt there any way you can program your bot to add the name of each article to the present FUR, instead of using it to tag them for deletion? I have uploaded hundreds of screenshots over the years in good faith, and their fairuse rationales were considered perfectly fine before this enforcement of WP:NFCC#10c. Now i'm getting loads of image warnings on a daily basis, and the only thing missing from my rationales is "10c". This wont be an issue for those who have only uplaoded a few images, but for users like me it is a daily chore, and it is beginning to feel like i'm being reprimanded for making image contributions. It would be much more helpful for prolific image uploaders, if you or the Bot could include this information on the image page. It would also be advantageous for Wikipedia, as less valid images would be deleted. Gung adin ♦ 13:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no way for a bot to do this because the use/rationale may not be valid. β^_command 22:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over orphanizing image: Taleofwhiteserpent.gif

I think your bot is over tagging images that are in-use as orphan. You can see image is clearly in use. And it was tagged by the bot with {{di-orphaned fair use|date=September 25 2007}}. I have deleted that tag for now. If it orphanizes something in use again, I think you will need to really check the code on the bot. Benjwong 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the timestamps the image was tagged at 00:57, September 25, 2007 (EDT) and you changed the image displayed on The Tale of the White Serpent at 01:04, September 25, 2007 I hope that clears things up. It was an orphan when it was tagged. β^_command 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Layout07-1-.jpg

Thanks for checking up on the Image:Layout07-1-.jpg I have slightly modified the fair use rationale for the image, please inform me if this is still up to the expected standard and why.

much thanks, --Wiggstar69 12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thats still an invalid rationale, you need to add where the rationale is for, and why that image is needed on that article. β^_command 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HRLcrest.PNG

I do not understand what is wrong with the existing fair use rationale. Could you please tell me as a number of these images are being flagged and the rationales look okay to me.GordyB 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to add what article the image is being included in. Put a title like "FUR for iinclusion in Halifax RLFC"Gung adin ♦ 14:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disputed fair use rationale of James Marcus

Fair use rationale:

Official Capcom Cutscene Artwork, used to show the detail and look of the Character.

Picture important for Article of same name.

Low-resolution image is used; not the original resolution for the image and cover artwork.

No free use substitute for the artwork is available.

Reasons for using this...

Official Capcom artwork.
Important for the article of the same name
the origonal resulution would be far bigger than the saved picture as the official could be depending on the size of the Computer/TV screen.
It is copyrighted work by Capcom and so no free image would be available unless a perso made it themselfOsirisV 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

I just don't understand what you meant about the Image: Stars. If you could please make it better that I could understand. Thanks! CRBR 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding an image

Regarding this image Image:HDS3.jpg...i think tghe license that i gave it is okay i dont know why is being challenged!it's the image of one of the HDS albums...Please explain whats the matter here!thanks..EdwinCasadoBaez 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Fair Use Over Uploaded Images

I do not understand the problem with the images I have uploaded such as this one for example: [1]. I have listed the summary, licensing, and why the image is subject to fair use and yet I still don't understand why your bot tags the image as invalid rationale. TrackFan 22:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 23:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Voldemort image

After seeing the notification on the article page, I added a new rationale. Is the one I added sufficient to resolve the issue? If I could trouble you to let me know either on my User Talk page or the article page, I would really appreciate it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

"Notifying" is spelled with a "y"

(cur) (last) 03:51, 1 October 2007 BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (4,770 bytes) (notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE) (undo)

(cur) (last) 05:06, 29 September 2007 BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (3,642 bytes) (notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE) (undo)

(cur) (last) 23:29, 13 September 2007 BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (2,529 bytes) (notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE) (undo)

Cmdr Spock 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borrow a bot?

Hi Betacommand, would you be willing to use BetacommandBot to build a list of WikiProject Chicago articles by size the way you have for WikiProject Dinosaurs? Even if you could run it only once for us that would be great. Thanks, Speciate 23:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just need a list of categories to include/exclude β^_command 23:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty big list; Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Bot Category List. I can't imagine it would need to be run more than once a month. I could trim it down if need be, I removed the image categories temporarily. Thanks! Speciate 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the list of articles is about 12,000 items and wiki wont let me save the page. β^_command 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll make a shortlist of important categories. Where should I put the list? Speciate 22:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betacommand/Bot Tasks β^_command 22:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going to all this trouble. I eliminated the "stub" and "people from" categories, and most categories of places outside Chicago. Speciate 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the list over to our WikiProject page, thanks again. Speciate 06:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you want I can have BCBot update that daily. β^_command 13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily, weekly, or monthly is a-okay with me. Speciate 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale of GPL2-tagged image

See Image:Expander.png. EdC 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to respond? EdC 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to figure out what caused this. Im thinking that someone changed a template somewhere. β^_command 00:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cheers. EdC 21:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCBot task request

I'm hoping to get the metadata for free images organized - I'd like to start with the {{PD-self}} images, since this is the most common and has the most unambiguous source/copyright claim. This is what I have in mind...

If the image page does not already have the {{Information}} template on the page, add it.
Grab any free text on the page and place it into the "Description" field.
If there is only one uploader in the history, place "user-made" in the "Source" field and the uploader's username in the "Author" field.

What do you think - is this doable? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill look into this, not sure how viable it is yet. β^_command 13:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago List

Thanks for getting around to setting up our project list by size. Will it regularly update?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please see [2] as that is where the discussion is. β^_command 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. No first edition.jpg

This should never have gone and was an oversight that your request for "fair use ratinoale" was overlooked. Can this image be retrieved for such a key cover image. So that we can respond properly to the requirement. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage

Would you mind adding the deprecated template {{PD}} to the above bot run? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

Thanks Betacommand for your work keeping "The Free Encyclopedia" free. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 06:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can your bot please stop giving me the same repeat message. Find a way to give a list of images not the same mundane spam message every time thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I thought images in lists of character pages were allowable. They illustrate the character discussed in the text, and all of the characters on the page do not have their own individual page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images in list of... type pages is not allowed. β^_command 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but I thought it was just for lists of episodes and the like. Because the page in question is more of an article than a list, it just has a bunch of sections. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It covers the same topic NFCC in lists. β^_command 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC doesn't specifically say that fair use images aren't allowed in lists of characters. Could you point me to a policy that does? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use and there are other discussions. β^_command 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That also does not mention character pages, and it's not a policy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interpertation of MFCC#8. and thus is an extension of policy. It covers List of... pages. β^_command 23:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not character pages. It's an article that just happens to have "List of" in front. Are you saying that the page would be fine if the "List of" were removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions covered the topic of NFCC images and their use in list type articles, wether or not 'List' is in the title its the same type of use of NFCC. and use in that manor is not allowed. β^_command 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree to a compromise? Something along the lines of removing all of the images except 5-10? I've seen several non-list pages with at list 5 fair use images. If that would be agreeable, I would do my best to implement that to all of the Simpsons character lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<de-indent> if you could get 1-3 group images then that would be a ok. β^_command 00:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, please quit edit warring. You are free to examine each fairuse rationale individually, challenge whatever you see questionable and IfD images to check for the community opinion whether they qualify under the current policies to be used in a particular article. Edit warring is not the method to solve any disputes. You should know better. --Irpen 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Notifying inactive users

Hi Betacommand, I'm noticing that your betacommandbot is placing notices on the pages of users who are listed in [3]. An example is the large number of notices on the user page User_talk:Marudubshinki. This would appear to be counterproductive, since in fact this is equivalent to not delivering a notification at all. Perhaps there is a workaround? AKAF 09:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot doesnt know whether or not a user is active. it just notifies the uploader. β^_command 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Complaint

Just a question. How do I delete a picture that I accidentily uploaded twice. Is there a way to do that or should I just leave it and it will be deleted by a bot? Austenlennon 10:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)austenlennon[reply]

Austen, just put {{db-redundantimage|OtherImageName.ext}} on one of the images, but use the name of the other image for "OtherImageName.ext". – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled...

I am puzzled. This bot notified me that Image:OHRRPGCEScreenShot.png was non-free, but I explicitly labeled it as free using the free screenshot template. How does this bot make its guess as to whether or not an image is okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the Hamster (talk • contribs) 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you note it was tagged {{nolicense}} β^_command 23:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

out-of-control bot

This bot is totally out of control, tagging images that don't even need to be deleted and have explanations and follow the guidelines. It needs to be shut down before it continues to delete every single image in Wikipedia!! Ncmvocalist 13:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about which images have been incorrectly tagged? This will help people to determine if the bot is, indeed, "totally out of control" as you say. - Mark 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your recent contributions, you mean images like this one. That image is "orphaned fair use"; we do not keep fair use images around if they are not used in an article. This image, which you also uploaded, is the same as the above, is smaller and is used on the article for the film. It still has a problem with its fair use rationale that may see you receive more comments from the bot: the fair use rationale doesn't specify the article the rationale is for. You simply need to add Happy Days (2007 film) to the title of the Fair Use Rationale. I hope this has been a help. - Mark 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User stats

Hi, I refer to this discussion. Any chance you could run the tool against my user details to hive off a list of all new articles I have created since my wiki debut? If you could post the list to my Talk page that would be much appreciated. Cheers Dick G 04:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the stats. Cheers. Dick G 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben10

Um why did you remove the images from the Ben10 villains page? I read WP:FUC and don't see any reason for you to remove them.--Marhawkman 22:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there was a discussion earlier this year, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use the report in the signpost, per NFCC #8 such use of images in list are no longer allowed. β^_command 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reads* actually no. That discussion was regarding episode lists. It had nothing to do with character lists.--Marhawkman 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of that discussion was about NFC in List of... type pages. The principle of that discussion are the same. β^_command 23:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was about "decorative use". That is including the image simply because it's related to the subject even thought there's no need for it. The uses in the Ben10 page are different since they're used to improve the article by depicting the characters in question.--Marhawkman 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is The Problem about Images?

Hi,

Have a look those

What can I do?

Thanks BetacommandBot

I know you are robot. I have lots of robot friend in Live Messenger.

Anyway. If you understand... Take care of yourself. Hehehehehehe :D

kızılsungur 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you changed the license tag on those images to {{Non-free promotional}}. As the name of the tag says, that is not a free license, and thus such images can only be used on Wikipedia under special circumstances. In any case, that tag is completely inappropriate for images you've drawn or photographed yourself. To fix the problem, just revert the image pages back to the versions with free license tags. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	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 09:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot

Hi, your bot tagged Image:Freud, After Cézanne.jpg and Image:Freud, The painter's room.jpg as orphaned fair use images. I've checked the Lucien Freud article and neither image is orphaned so I've removed the tags. Strangely though, "What links here" doesn't flag the Freud article up, but the article is listed on the "File links" section at the bottom of the image pages. Possibly some sort of technical glitch in the Mediawiki software?

I'm assuming your bot is programmed to check only "What links here". If so, could I suggest you modify it to also check "File links" to avoid such false positives in the future. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at the timestamps BCBot saw this revision of the article which due to vandalism removed those images. So for a short time those images were in fact orphaned. β^_command 14:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Durin

Knock it off. Durin posted a very long message to Husnock/OberRanks, who is not a banned user, and he is entitled to respond. If Durin wants to remove it, he can do so himself. Neil ☎ 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Can you help

There is a user who keeps challenging every fair use image I upload, and to counter, she directs me to digenerate free images that are really awful and have no business on wiki.

I would imagine that a good administrator should help users in trying to keep certain images rather than just trying to get rid of them

Is determining wether or not images should remain really a matter of opinion? Im, of course, not speaking of orphaned images......

-Mrlopez2681 22:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking through you uploads Image:JapaneseBoxCover.jpg is not free, You might have created the photo, but the cover of the book is still copyrighted. Also Image:Don Quixote -Bolshoi -Zakharova.jpg can be replaced with a free image. As for orphaned Images I see that you have gotten a few notices from my bot. Non-free images MUST be used, if a non-free image is orphaned and not used I has to be deleted, see WP:NFCC#7. Free images are always better than Non-free images. β^_command 23:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy Robot

On 6 July 2007 BetacommandBot left a notice on Talk:Return Merchandise Authorization about Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg. The problem is the article and talk pages have never referenced this image (nor any image). Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bot made no error, on July 6, 2007 Template:Econ-stub displayed that image see here. β^_command 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation Twisted Metal 2 images

I don't understand this edit. I have added a fair use rationale to these images and I feel your threat to block is unnecessary. I didn't simply revert your removal of the images; I read the fair use rationale thoroughly, took the time to add the rationales to the images, and then replaced the pictures. Kindly explain to me what the problem seems to be. I would greatly prefer a respectful dialogue to a revert and a threat. Thank you. · Tygrrr^·talk· 03:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove them because of their rationales. The reason i removed them is because of non-free image over user. β^_command 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means--"non-free image over user".· Tygrrr^·talk· 13:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation β^_command 13:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in your script?

Hey, it looks like there's something funny going on with your templated rationale-required user messages. In diff you can see what I mean—the 'Image' namespace tag is prepended to the file name twice. I don't know if it's a template or a usage issue, and I don't know if you're using a script to do this, but heads up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo β^_command 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those bot requests

Did anything ever come from these two bot requests? Wikipedia:Bot requests#Tracking use of magic words and Wikipedia:Bot requests#General biographical sort key clean up? Carcharoth 18:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im working on a list of special characters and ill continue from there. β^_command 03:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File a report here (its a new project tracker for the toolserver). β^_command 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jungahalb.jpg

See Image_talk:Jungahalb.jpg. Terry Carroll 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily-orphaned images (again)

Continuing this thread I opened a few weeks ago, which seems to have been left out of the archives, (and I'll apologize here for not getting back to you earlier - I have watchlist trouble, and didn't know you had responded)…

I understand that non-free images are for mainspace only. That is exactly why I brought this up: it is a rare case of an image which is currently in userspace but which, assuming reinstatement of the deleted page, will soon be in mainspace. The thrust of my argument is that I think the purpose of having bots run by humans is that humans can provide case-by-case adjustments to the bot's behavior, and that I don't see BetacommandBot being subject to this sort of oversight.

Likewise with the idea of linking the fair use template in your warning template: Of course it is possible to find the fair use template, but editors who do not know it's out there to be found are not given any guidance by BetacommandBot. Speaking as someone who did a lot of searching before I found it, I think that providing a direct link would significantly cut down on the frustration BetacommandBot causes (as judged by this talk page and its archives).

Beyond that, I am alarmed to see your passive-agressive attack on my reading abilities, and am also alarmed to see "how about you try reading?"-type answers to other editors' posts. If this persists it will be reported; remember that we (or at least most of us) are annoyed with the bot, not you. — eitc h 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the issue is pages linger in userspace indefinitely. If at some point it is mainspace, just ask an admin to undelete. The reasons that I dont link to the template are simple, if users read our non-free policy WP:NFC which is linked, that gives all the detailed reasons that are needed. If I just link to a template people will not know why or how to properly fill in that template. I am not making attacks just pointing out that the information that you want is already available in the links that I provide. (if you had read the messages you would have seen that. it has nothing to do with your skills, just what you skim over versus read.) β^_command 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Seriously? I happen to know that I did the reading.) I see where you're coming from now, but I still think that only good can come from saying something like "Please add a non-free use rationale template, as found [[Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline|here]], so that you're in compliance with our [[wp:nfc|policy]]." Currently the warned editor has to think "I bet I can find the template from the policy," read through several screens of link-dense policy, and think "I bet that this link in 10.c. to the 'non-free use rationale guideline' has a template that would help me," and I think it's clear from some of the angry messages people have left you that no one's going to happen upon that solution. — eitc h 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PD-100 IMAGES

Hello - I was wondering if you could plase give me a couple more days with which to proprly tag all of the PD-100 images.

--Mrlopez2681 03:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that deadline was just there to get you motivated, Since I see your trying to address the issue dont worry about it. β^_command 04:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation?

I noticed that you taken off all the images from the List of characters in Camp Lazlo article. I assume that most of them aren't violating any copyright since they have rationales and possibly sufficient information. They even have scources indicating where they came from. Please let them stay. 124.106.226.127 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source and rationale dont mean that an image is not violating copyright. Its violating our WP:NFC policy, which is in turn a copyright violation. β^_command 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use in sandboxes

Hi there, I've just received a message about invalid fair-use rationale for Image:Sabre wulf box.jpg due to it not having fair-use for every article it's used in. However, it is only used in one actual article, the other place it's currently used is my sandbox. Is a seperate fair-use rationale actually required for this? I can't find mention anywhere of fair-use images in sandboxes, and it seems a little silly if it is necessary. Can you shed some light on this for me? Cheers, Miremare 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images are not allowed in sandboxes, WP:NFCC#9 as for the article where its used that rationale is not valid either. β^_command 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Akradecki

I think that a little more patience in replying tho these things would help prevent situations from escalating. Yes, it's annoying when someone blocks the bot when it isn't actually malfunctioning. But the best way to prevent that from happening again is to be calm in explaining why the block was misguided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a clear example of your bot malfunctioning...the image is clearly tagged with a free license, and yet the bot tagged it as non-free. Now, how many more such images did the bot just tag? Are you gonna shut it down and go check? Please respond right away, or I will block again. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was a system lag. when BCBot found the image it was tagged as non-free. β^_command 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't fixed the error, and are you personally checking each of the other bot edits? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed that. its a very very rare error. That kind of error is not fixable and happens in less than 1 in every 100000 edits. β^_command 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be rare, but isn't it your responsibility to catch such errors? And for someone who got on my case for not saying "oops, I'm sorry", shouldn't you be doing that? And are you gonna revert the warning messages on the affected article pages? I have no problems with the presence of bots, but bots are like dogs...when they make a mess, it's the owner's responsibillity to clean up after them. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its been fixed. and that is not a mess. one error out of many thousands? lets see a human do better. β^_command 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do better, but that's irrelevent. The lawn in front of my house may get pooped on by a dog only once every 100,000 days, but I still expect the dog owner to pick it up. I noticed that you didn't remove the warning notices on the article pages until after I asked you to. And have you gone through all the edits that your bot made to make sure there wasn't another problem? I fully expect you to do so. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect to be shown some respect, you dont do that. Im not going to look though BCBots edits. I know that problems, if on the extremely rare change that they happen they will be fixed by the users who find them or are brought to my attention. Im not going to spend countless ours reviewing BCBots 462,000 edits. β^_command 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You rant on my talk page in your very first communication with me and then ask for respect? You demand apologies from me when I err, but don't give them when your bot errs? Wow. If you want some respect, show some, and don't expect others to expend the time and effort to clean up the problems your bot has caused. Since you are stating that you won't review the bot's edits that have taken place after a malfunction, and that fixing the bot's errors are the responsiblity of others, there's absolutely no way I'm going to do as you've asked and talk first and block later if there's a suspected malfuction. That's the kind of uncaring, irresponsible attitude that leads me to block first and then see if there's a problem, because I can't count on you to be thorough and careful and review the recent edits to make sure no other similar problem has occurred. In such a situation, the sooner the bot's stopped, the less work that there will be for the others that have to clean up, since you're unwilling to do it yourself. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was an issue other than slight timing of the image discription page (it was changed from the first time the bot sees it to when it edits something like an edit conflict) that rarely happens less than .01% of all images. I would have stopped the bot and done futher investigaion. I do care about the bot and its operation. This issue has been brought up before, at that time I did a full investgation and found no other edits like that. If this was an unknow issue I would have done more. yeah I ranted because you blocked a bot that was operating without error and not understanding the policy that it is enforcing. β^_command 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

I received a message from you that i had been approved and yet when i run the exe file, all i get is "No privileges found" in the privileges box. I click the verify authorization button but nothing happens. Any suggestions. thanks for your time. Woodym555 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

Hi. :) Your bot placed a tag on an image I uploaded, and I can't quite figure out what's wrong with it. It might be obvious to someone experienced with images, but my image experience is limited to album covers for album articles. I'd be very grateful if you could find time to take a look at it here (it is the cover of the Duke Ellington album The Blanton–Webster Band) and tell me what I've done wrong. Since I've uploaded quite a few album covers by this point, I obviously want to be sure I haven't misunderstood something. :) I'll be watching your page for a reply in case you have opportunity and inclination to help me out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article has a real en dash "–" in it but the fair use rationale has the html entity –. Betacommand can us tell whether that is enough to make the bot not notice the article title. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! That article being created with an en dash has been a bit of a headache for me. :/ (It was still listed on missing articles, and I wrote the whole thing before realizing that it was already there, just not linked.) I'm a pretty straightforward typist and a bit clueless about formatting. If that is the issue, do you know if copying & pasting the title into the rationale would create a real en dash? Or is there some other way I could do that? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting should work to get a real en dash into the rationale template. The "keyboard" of special symbols below the edit box also has an en dash in it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah BCBot doenst convert HTML. "–" is not the same as "-" . β^_command 19:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, I've fixed it using the en dash in the keyboard section. (I can't believe I never noticed that. All the time I've wasted typing it out in html!) Thanks for the help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot

Hi you rbot does a good task in looking to ensure all non free images have a rationale but I am kind of finding it frustrating having a message for images like Image:Sabse Bada Rupaiya1976.jpg. Now why does this not meet the criteria? PLease let me know which key words the bot is after to save it tagging images with afull rationale again. If you could kindly respond to this message thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for butting in but isn't it simply a case of the fair use rationale having to have a wikilink directly to the article, not a disambiguation page etc. I think Sir Blofeld's final edit (to incorporate the year of the film in the wikilink so as not to point at a dab page) made the rationale correct. But please correct me if I'm wrong, I like to learn about these things!! The Rambling Man 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it seems odd to me. Everything seems right about it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for butting in, you are correct links to DAB pages are not valid, because your not using the image on the DAB page. β^_command 20:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Your final edit placed the "(1976)" etc in the wikilink - I'm guessing this is what the bot wants to see. Otherwise, strictly (bot-wise and litigation-wise) you're trying to justify fair use for the image for the disambiguation page only. That's my take on it... The Rambling Man 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah OK thanks I'll note this. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little help...

Your bot helpfully pointed out that I hadn't done the fair use rationale thingamajig for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prinzhorn_dance_school_cover.jpg. So I went back, reuploaded a lower resolution image and added a better rationale for it's use. Erm... what now? Does someone manually come look at it and remove the speedy deletion tags if it's okay, or what? Cheers for any help Plum743 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, But for future references if you fix the problem, feel free to remove the template. β^_command 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

temp shutdown...bot tagging compliant non-free use images

Shutting down the bot...it's tagging images that clearly conform to policy.

wrong. the bot will not shut down. Its not tagging images that meet policy. β^_command 16:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem resolved, unblocked. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a malfuction right here. Image is clearly tagged as free, yet it was hit by your bot. I posted to your page, you didn't respond, the bot made at least 50 more edits since I posted. This is why I block before talking...now I expect you to personally check each subsequent to make sure that they aren't victims as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can your bot please stop hitting for every damn image I posted.Ridernyc 20:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix you images, and you will not see BCBot. β^_command 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot bug?

Have a look [4]. Bot originally tagged the image yesterday, so I revised the fair use rationale to make it specific to the article the image appears in. But the bot retagged it again today. Am I doing something wrong? Nobody of consequence 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive fixed it, Super-TV is not the same as SuperTV. β^_command 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Nobody of consequence 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It tagged mine [5] too, even though I included a fair use rationale with it. Perhaps you would like to recheck your bot in order to ensure that it's working properly and not hitting images that are clearly comforming to policy.

Thanks, Happyface162 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a malformed Rationale, Rascal Flatts is not the same as Rascal Flatts (album) β^_command 22:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM 70s logo

I don't understand. It's a logo. Following this logic means erasing all the other logos. Cristibur 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of characters in Camp Lazlo‎

Hi. I was wondering: does this article violate the fair use policies. I think it's overloaded with unnecessary, crappy images. The Prince 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images have been readded. The Prince 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again. The Prince 20:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP not letting me log in

You approved me for VP, but I get an error message indicating that "The username you are attempting to connect with has not been authorized for use with VandalProof." Is this a bug or something I am missing? I am running 1.36. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 03:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am now running the latest version on Windows XP SP2 Home Edition in an Administrator account with the same result. Toubleshooting did not work. Did you add me to the approved list? You left a message saying that you had approved me. Just want to make sure. Thanks, FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP is being stubborn I should have it fixed by late Saturday UTC. β^_command 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sallah.jpg

Your bot has stated that Image:Sallah.jpg is non-free content. I had uploaded it from another Wikipedia several months ago and there has been no dispute over it until now. --PiMaster3 ^talk 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please see #5 in the template above. β^_command 13:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betacommand/Commons#current_request

If you can approve me here that would be great. Thanks, Timeshift 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the software. β^_command 22:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy request

User_talk:David.Monniaux#Disputed_fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Windows_Live_Messenger_Window.png: I'm not the original uploader, I just edited the image in order to remove some unsavory text that appeared in it (and had apparently gone unnoticed).

When there are multiple uploaders under the same image name, which one should be warned? There is a rationale for warning the first one only, because in most cases subsequent uploads are mere cosmetic edits. But, in other occasions, people upload truly different images... I suspect that people should not reuse the same name for really different images. David.Monniaux 08:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the bot plays it safe and notifies all users who have uploaded the image. β^_command 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altetico Nacional (Panama) Logo

Hey, I was jsut wondering how does this image violate fair use? its a logo so it hold be free no? If its because it does not have a better quality, well it is because that site is the ONLY site which has the logo, if you've read the article you would notice that team doesn't exist anymore, and due to the poor administration of the league there is no other record of the logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burilu (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged me!

Betacommand, your bot just snagged an image I uploaded in Jan '07 for lack of article reference. I fixed it of course but does this mean you're extending the 1/1/07 cutoff? Are you lighting a fire under us to get the image thing done soon? Feel free to answer on my page or TALK:NONFREE if you don't want to discuss here. I promise, no confrontation this time. Just curious to know. Take care, Wikidemo 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its still the same cut off images uploaded prior to 1/1/07 are ignored, for now. that was just near the date not before. β^_command 10:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy do I feel stupid. Yes, AFTER 1/1/07 bad, BEFORE 1/1/07 good. Sorry for the dense-headedness on my part. Wikidemo 15:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RTBM-07-08-24.jpg - updated and bot errors

1. The FUR is now updated to include the article title, and original broadcast date

2. Instructions should be clearer in the bot's automatic User Talk page warning:

The text: and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use.

should be: and complete all required template fields per policy.

3. BetaCommandBot generated a MISLEADING DESCRIPTION of the problem in the Image page warning template:

The text: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.

Should be: incomplete rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.

--Lexein 13:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose University College

Sorry if this has already been addressed. I added an article to fair use rationale of the logo for Ambrose University College (thanks, and good point about the generic tag, which originally didn't include the article specification...), but it claims the article doesn't exist. Any explanation for this? I'm confused, obviously, because there is a working link and the article definitely does exist. Thanks for the heads-up on the rationale, BTW. Aepoutre 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nevermind. I just realised it's because I made the article a wikilink. Aepoutre 14:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AnnaKarenina Leigh.jpeg

On Talk:Anna Karenina (1948 film) you write:
...there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use

How is the first rationale at Image:AnnaKarenina Leigh.jpeg (...is being used to illustrate the article on Anna Karenina (film)) not sufficient in this regard? Michael Bednarek 15:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its fixed now, you had an improper article title, its not Anna Karenina (film) instead its Anna Karenina (1948 film) β^_command 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing to do with the image or the article; I just couldn't help noticing your recent flurry of tags and the objections to them. Is it now official policy that FURs have to be written such that insentient bots can understand them?

Also, I suspect that U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.'s Barn Star below might be ironic, as none of the referred images seem to me to be orphaned as your tag claims. Michael Bednarek 23:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at the time of tagging those Images were orphaned, and yes policy requires a valid Non-free rationale that includes the page name for where the rationale applies. β^_command 00:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:The Matches - Decomposer.jpg

What do I need to do to keep it from getting deleted? The licensing window clearly says that a low resolution image of the cover can be used to illustrate the album in question. What more is there to do??? -- ZookPS3 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive fixed it see this β^_command

Go ahead and delete the fucking image. I've had enough with this idiocy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macgreco (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that Betacommand can't technicially delete the image. Only admin.s can.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For tirelessly insuring that all images have a fair use rational, which helps to ensure that Wikipedia is not put in legal jeopardy[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16].U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Another barnstar that I can't seem to format. Sorry.)~~ fixed thanks to Dorftrottel

WFT

The images do all have fair use rationals for each usage. Learn to read what's on the page and stop tagging them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.231.206 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your wrong. β^_command 01:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My wrong what? Your sentence is missing a verb and an object noun. Please explain. --24.235.231.206 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Maybe if you were kind enough to demonstrate where this is so, we could help. Asenine 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant you're wrong. There are several mistakes made like this, such as the tagging the bot does, there's spelling mistakes. There shouldn't be, but is; several mistakes made by the bot etc.. Please state which situation you are talking about, 24.235.231.206. — jacĸrм (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this bot looking for?

I've noticed a couple images that this bot tagged that already had fair use rationals, albeit very crude ones. What exactly is this bot looking for when it decides that an image does not have a rational? Does it have to be worded a certain way? Does it have to use a particular template? Do the articles have to be wikilinked? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already is a Justification for Image:Attrocity1.jpg

The bot linked to this page: Image:Attrocity1.jpg Its crown copyright. There is no revenue denial as a consequence. This is an image of a massacre. Only police took photos of the seen and it was quickly cleaned up. Its a notable historical event. It does not violate any of the 10 conditons listed here Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I have though provided more information. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see that rationale, It is used in the history of Zimbabwe article. but the image is used on a different article. β^_command 23:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Image:DSC--Majlis5323.JPG

Just wish to let you know that some minutes ago I sent an e-mail to mellat@majlis.ir (the contact address of a department of Iran's Parliament - "mellat" meaning "people"), requesting them to have a look into the above-mentioned photograph and take appropriate action: either upload a new photograph or modify the present copyright statement. I did this without having been responsible for the uploading of the photograph at issue. --BF 17:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.) If this photograph is being discussed somewhere on Wikipedia, perhaps you may wish to bring the above-mentioned request to the attention of the relevant people. Kind regards, --BF 17:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Fair Use Rationale

I ask the the editor please chack and see if my written description for fair use rationale is sufficient for Image:Seal-solid-black.gif, so that the image will not be deleted. If there is more work/ explanation the needs to be written for the image, please let me know. Hochstetler51 22:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

File:Unity-game-engine-logo-wordmark-big.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please bear in mind the 3-Revert Rule whilst contributing to Image:Unity-game-engine-logo-wordmark-big.png - you have made three reverts ([17], [18], [19]) in a 24-hour period, as well as one additional revert out with this period. As I'm sure you're aware, blocks can still be issued for this type of behaviour, on the basis of disruptive editing, even if no technical 3RR violation has been committed.

Now, I'm not going to insult your intelligence - you're an experienced Wikipedian, a former Administrator and I've no doubt that you know how an editor is supposed to approach an editing dispute: please - if, after one revert (or, even better, without taking this first revert), the editor proceeds to revert you back, go to their user talk page (or the talk page of the article or, in this case, image) and discuss the changes you wish to implement, or at least explain why you have reverted them. Edit warring helps nobody, and hinders the encyclopedia.

If you need to get in touch with me, or you wish to object to this warning, check out my talk page, or see this page.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do object, the Non-free tag was removed without fixing the issue which was clearly stated. such removal is a copyright vio β^_command 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, please understand what it is I'm trying to say: this is not a 3RR warning - it's a note that your approach to issues such as this could be improved; I'm asking you to go that little bit further, and simply put a civil note on the user's talk page, asking them to agree to discuss any future edits to that image. Sometimes, that's all it takes to diffuse a situation. Anthøny 13:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unintelligent intervention

I don't know whether you are editing Image:1931 Act ed.jpg mechanically, but the use of this image is permitted under Crown Copyright Rules of the United Kingdom. This is clearly stated and I would be grateful therefore if you would discontinue with this intervention. Salisian 13:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be allowed but it still needs to comply with WP:NFCC and WP:NFURG. β^_command 13:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop interfering and go and do something useful Albatross2147 13:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Allhallows Opening.JPG

This poster having been published in cMay 1932, the copyright on it expired in 2002 in accordance with Section 12(3)(b) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The author of the work, other than Southern Railway, is not indicated. In the event that you are asserting that copyright still rests with the defunct Southern Railway company, the permitted fair use reproduction of the Southern Railway posters here: [20] is far more than what I am asking for with Allhallows. Please can you therefore lift your sentence of death or, at least, let me know the reason for the proposed deletion. Thanks. Ravenseft 17:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot and NFCC#10c

I suspect that BetacommandBot has incorrectly tagged Image:Camber of culdi first.jpg for its use in the article Camber of Culdi (novel) for violating WP:NFCC#10c which states "each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed." However, the rationale clearly links to the article in question. I can pose two possible reasons that the bot may have tagged this article in error:

The rationale was added, with a link to the article in the Purpose of Use section of Template:Non-free media rationale on 26 September 2007. The template used was subsequently updated on 27 September, 2007 to include an "article" attribute. If the bot is only checking the article attribute, it may incorrectly determine that an article is not linked when in fact it may be, especially if the rationale was added before the the template was updated.
I note that the image has also been linked to a second article, Deryni novels by a user other than myself and indeed the image may not qualify for fair use in that article. Since I am not the one who placed the image in that article, I don't fee qualified to claim fair use for it. Despite this, the note left on my talk page mentions that the image itself will be deleted, not just the links from articles where it is inappropriate. Additionally, the talk page of the article for which there is a linked rationale also has a note left by the bot.

Thank you for looking into this. --Rtrace 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem... That file is also being used at Deryni novels. There needs to be a fair use rationale for each article that the image is being used on. S_QL^{Query me!} 18:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help on #2, but #1 appears to be a redirection/disamb problem with Camber of Culdi which may be a surprise as it does not link to the novel but to a character, it seems. The short term fix of the image is to make sure that you list "Camber of Culdi (novel)" explicitly to avoid the 10C issue, but you probably want to take a look at that redirect (BCB will follow redirects, it cannot follow through disamb pages, however). --MASEM 18:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. I think the redirect is ok, just my mistake for linking to the wrong article. I'll fix it and go ahead and use the new template parameter while I'm at it. I assume that I should leave the disputed rationale notice up in relation to #2. As I noted, I don't feel qualified to speak to its use in the second article.--Rtrace 18:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove it from the second page and state that the image needs a rationale for that use. after its removed please remove the dispute tag. Cheers β^_command 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ArenalogoG4.png

Your bot is after another one of my images, again the licensing clearly states that a low resolution may be used to depict the show's logo. I'm going to edit and remove the tag and do what you did w/ my last picture it didn't like, is there a reason it's getting really strict all of a sudden? -- ZookPS3 18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the resolution. It cites 10c as being the issue: that is, you don't provide the exact article name that the image is being used on. Supply that, and you'll be fine. --MASEM 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Delany Neveryon-Series.jpg

How do I edit the rationale for this image? Clearly, it is a composite (by me, by the way) of four scans (ditto) of book covers. Fair use is completely applicable here, so I don't see what the problem is. I will be more than happy to make any changes necessary to explain that. However, no link I've followed shows me how to edit the rationale or exactly HOW to upload a template or exactly WHAT that template should look like. I've found lots of talk and gone around in several circles, but there is no clear and concise instruction in this regard.

Try WP:NFURG, that should hopefully explain everything. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 19:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

From the multiplicity of complaints on this Discussion page, it appears that your bot is not properly directed to material that infringes Wikipedia policy. It is immensely discouraging to put time and effort into an entirely legitimate article only to have it subject to thoughtless and inaccurate interventions. Please stop it. Salisian 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see many complaints based in a lack of understanding, can you show an example of where the bot has acted incorrectly? 1 != 2 19:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's look at the cause of the complaints as they are made rather than your understanding of them and what appears, if you will forgive the observation, to be a rush to judgment. Try looking at Image talk:1931 Act ed.jpg and, as I now see, at the very ample and patient justification given by Plasmon. I also look at the well reasoned argument put forward by Jheald 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC). Criticism of this kind cannot be faulted. Salisian 19:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, as presently constituted at least, WP policy does currently require a declaration as to why this image's presence in the article "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Jheald 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC) explains it perfectly our policy requires a rationale, something that is NOT present. β^_command 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the bot cannot determine legality of a work; it can identify when the work is not being cited as to what exact page it is being used on (#10c). That part is easy to fix. --MASEM 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Image talk:1931 Act ed.jpg was tagged it did not have a valid rational. The bot is doing fine, the complaints are due to people not understanding policy. I agree the bot could be more clear as to what part of the rational is invalid though. 1 != 2 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the bot is NOT doing fine. <personal attacks redacted> Album covers are used for promotional purposes in many areas of the media without having to explain a rationale, yet <personal attacks redacted> seem to think album covers need a rationale. So, no, the bot is not doing fine. It, and this <personal attacks redacted> user, drives a lot of editors from Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's copyrighted material, therefore in order for us to use it we need to follow US fair use laws. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 19:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please muzzle your bot. It does not make Wikipedia better or safer. All it does is waste the time of people who actually want to make Wikipedia better. If images are truly infringing, actual human beings will find and mark the images. I have put album cover images up to help identify a specific album on a page about a specific album. Stop it! K8 fan 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aphrodite-1971-08-06_Echoes.ogg

I hope the fair use rationale I've provided meets the necessary criteria. Please let me know if I need to do anything more. Goldenband 19:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to crop it to less than 30 seconds long, per WP:NFC. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it can't be cropped without destroying the whole purpose of having the clip. Besides, it seems pretty clear that the 30 second thing is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast-rule -- see Wikipedia:Music samples (as well as your link) which says that "Samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter" (emphasis mine). Though it's over 30 seconds, it's well under 10% -- under 5%, actually -- so I really think we should be fine. Goldenband 19:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think sock puppets may be here.Salisian 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is evil

Just kidding. But a suggestion / request. As you can see a lot of people are confused and sometimes angry or perplexed by the image tags they're getting. I've explained this to several people today who were utterly baffled, and hadn't figured out their image got tagged because it didn't state the article name, or that the article name they added is incorrect. I think a lot of people miss it when they read the message. Is there any way to make it a little more obvious to people? Maybe simplify the template or add something at the top or bottom that says "This image was tagged because xxxx." The current one sentence explanation in the middle of other sentences is easy to miss I guess. Wikidemo 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

71.206.188.198

Says it all? Salisian 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, it doesn't. Please explain. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Can-pol w.jpg

Bots -are not- users, and thus cannot dispute, because they can be wrong. Use IFD. J 05:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, bots can dispute images, IfD is inappropriate for this. β^_command 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. J 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rinaldi.jpg

Bot appears to be misfunctioning. Londo06 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DavidMills.jpg Bot still needs looking at. Londo06 14:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NFCC and WP:NFURG. those images do not have rationales. β^_command 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DCU Fencing Club.jpg

Your 'bot' is proposing the deletion of Image:DCU Fencing Club.jpg, which is covered under fair use rationale.

The bot has issues but your image has no rationale whatsoever; read the rules at WP:NFCC and implement the template {{Non-free use rationale}}. — TAnthony^Talk 17:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euro coins

Please stop placing tags on Euro coin images. It has previously been determined that these images fall within the fair-use guidelines of Wikipedia.--Theeuro 09:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they still need to comply with our policy β^_command 12:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use tag and article section

I have just had to go through and add a heap of "article=whatever article it is used on" tags to images that were uploaded well before the current template was changed to need this variable included.

This bot has tagged valid fair use images for deletion because of this. If an uploader happens to be away when their image is tagged there is a good chance it will be deleted.

This is not acceptable.

There are two solutions to solve this, as far as i can see.

For images missing the "article=" variable only images tagged after the template was changed are able to be tagged by this bot.
If the image is only used on one article add the "Article=<the only article the image is used on>" code to the template.

Even the US constitution has a section in it preventing previously legal acts being declared illegal and then punishment being enacted retroactively - this is effectively what this bot is doing. Fosnez 12:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this policy has been in place since June of 2006, The change in the template was made to make compliance with the new process simpler. β^_command 12:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCC Logo

Ok, I've added a rationale to Image:Escu-c.jpg. KeNNy 13:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-Use flaw?

Bot is proposing deletion for an album cover which was already covered under the fair-use rationale template. Bot needs to be looked at. Definitely flawed (judging from past complaints). tosh²^(talk) 15:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it was templated by the bot[21], it did not have a fair use rational. The album cover template is not a fair use rational and itself says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."

I think the bot is working very well, and it is the humans who are in error. hehe 1 != 2 15:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. But it just seems as if people aren't exactly "pleased" with the bot thus far. But, thanks for clarifying my error. tosh²^(talk) 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, some people hate it when they have to follow our rules regarding fair use. 1 != 2 16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Biohazard-Nyx.png

It is Official Capcom Artwork.
Artwork created to show Looks & detail of Creature.
Low Resolution used, Official High resoution would be too large to upload.
Lisenced work, no free substitute available.

Logic dictates that this image has no fair-use problem.OsirisV 16:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It requires a link to the article that is being claimed as fair use. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3D Nature logo.png

The bot keeps tagging this image, even though the rationale looks just fine to me. Can you please explain what more is needed? Thanks, El on ka 16:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need a rationale for each page the image is used on with a link to the page, and it should follow WP:NFURG. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 16:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Those making complaints should read this too

I think this bot is getting a lot of flak lately because the edit sumary is incorrect/misleading/vague. The bot has recentlt tagged images for failure to fulfill WP:NFCC#10c, basically that each article which uses the image must be listed, and designated with its own rationale. Though this is noted in the template left on the image, the edit summary reads "tagging as invalid rationale per WP:NONFREE". I believe this misleads editors into thinking you are challenging the wording of the rationale itself, and they then fail to notice the 10c note in the template. The result is, many (most?) editors simply revert your tags rather than implement a necessary change. I would suggest rewording the edit summary to clear this up. — TAnthony^Talk 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucracy

It occurs to me that fixing things on wiki is as simple as pointing out that they are wrong...unlike the real world where it is much easier to point out flaws and mistakes than it is to fix them. Perhaps we should stop exalting the latter rather than the former. Well, whatever....delete whatever you want! This bot disgusts me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprockhill (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot really can't fix it, since it's a robot, you see. If you followed policy, then it wouldn't be deleting your images. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Attack from Atlantis 1st Edition Dust Jacket.jpg

Not sure why this image keeps getting flagged. It has both a copyright notice and a fair use rationale. Your bot doesn't seem to explain what about the image is objectionable. Please explain. FusionKnight 17:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not used on Attack from Atlantis, and is used on your userpage. Fair use images may not be used on userpages. The bot's response to this probably should be reviewed by betacommand, but I'll go clean up this case now. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Rationale on Denzel Crocker.jpg

I just finished improving the Fair Use Rationale on it. Hope it's up to snuff now. Thanks for the heads-up. If it needs any more work, let me know. Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 17:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, though the image may be a little large. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 19:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

From the multiplicity of complaints on your (human) Discussion page, it appears that your bot is not properly directed to material that infringes Wikipedia policy. It is immensely discouraging to put time and effort into an entirely legitimate article only to have it subject to thoughtless and inaccurate interventions. Please stop it. Salisian 18:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see many complaints based in a lack of understanding, can you show an example of where the bot has acted incorrectly? 1 != 2 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is normally correct, although it's a perfectionist! People don't understand what the bot wants, such as an article name or a perfect rationale. — jacĸrм (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could be more specific, but it is not looking for a "perfect" rational, just one that meets the minimum standards. While it does mention the criteria that it is not meeting it could be more clear in saying "The article name is not mentioned". 1 != 2 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72_aunt_jemima.gif

Fair use rationale has been provided. I do not see how this image violates WP:NFCC#10c. Can someone explain? nut-meg 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale needs to have a link to the article it is intended to be used on. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 19:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it doesn't need the link (it can't hurt, however, to have one), but it does need to state the full name of the page it is being used on somewhere in the rationale, including any disamb text. --MASEM 13:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ireland tagging

Sorry for being so slow in replying, but see my belated response at WP:BOTREQ#Tagging_for_WikiProject_Ireland. Thanks again for your offer of help. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Another System Definition Facility

Hi Betacommadn,

it seems you deleted Another System Definition Facility and provided a very informative commit message that said "(d)". Please provide your explanation now. --MarSch 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also inform you that this subject is notable according to the software guidelines, being included in multiple GNU/Linux distributions, directly or indirectly. --MarSch 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please,kill that bot!

Hi. Your bot marked an image,namely Image:Cliff Hanger.png,as disputed,but yet it is fair use and I added a rationale to it. I am sorely tempted to tell an admin about your bot,who is making perfectly fair images as disputed. Kill the damned thing,for God's sake. And,don't start naming policies. It won't help you. The bot is obviously corrupted.--Xt e r r a1 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is not corrupt, that image has no rational. 1 != 2 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rational has no 'e'. I won't quote any policies because you don't want to see policies quoted, but you used an image copyright tag. Tags aren't rationales. You need a rationale in addition. Take a look at WP:NFCC, Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, Template:Non-free use rationale, or just review some other tv screen shots to see how it's done. Wikidemo 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

creating a bot

hi,can you help me desing a bot?The "Creating a bot"article was not very helpful to me.IslaamMaged126 13:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please TUNE YOUR BOT

You're bot needs some fine-tuning. It's just posted an orphan warning on my user talk page despite the fact that I've placed a db-author on it before orphaning it myself. Is it really necessary to post a warning on a page that is set to terminate?

perfectblue 13:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yo,

hi,I dont know how to fill in the template!leave me message on how to. IslaamMaged126 14:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insomniatic

The problem is, is that the picture is being used in the Insomniatic page, but some stupid person put a singles box after the extra cover, so the extra cover won't show up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insomniatic&action=edit . But I have no clue how to get the picture to show up. Tcatron565 15:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval

Hey, Would you mind clearing the list up at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 13:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]