User talk:Betacommand/20071101

bot deleted public domain image

I'm curious about the circumstances around the deletion of the image Felix1.jpg and CT1.jpg as these are both public domain images. I will be submitting all further images under public domain as I was unsure as to what category this might fall under given the very convoluted guidelines for tagging and fair use. I suggest the problems with complex guidelines be taken up by parties responsible as well as problems of robotic enforcement, in a bad sense of the term "robotic". These "fair use images" have been tagged and even when an updated specific rational explaining the reason for use, still deleted them. It should be noted that the images although rationale was corrected tags were not removed out of timid nature. If this is the underlying reason then I suggest that auto-messages explain this reason to remove tags. I suggest that when images are deleted that systemic notifications indicate reasons for such deletion. Was rationale not good enough. Will correct existing images to public domain and let this incident slide. But if public domain images of what is a traditionally repressed subject of left wing groups continues to be deleted it must be considered it a malice attack of red-baiting and take it up at higher levels being a potential political matter. --J. D. Pfaff 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Image

It's not clear why this image (Image:Songsofthecolonies.jpg) was removed after a fair-use rationale was provided. Can you shed some light on the situation? -- Chironomia 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over Oboro image

I've come here to dispute removal of the image of Oboro on the Oboro (Basilisk) article. The image doesn't reveal or spoil any aspect of the Basilisk anime's storyline or the ultimate fate of the character. It is a primary means of visual identification of the Oboro (Basilisk) character thus the original copyrighted work as a whole is not affected. I intend to add these arguments to a fair use section of the picture's Image page and would greatly appreciate it if you did not remove the image from the article and canceled the template you have put there before the image is removed on Saturday November 3rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin6401 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the new comments in Talk:List of Wild Arms 2 characters. - Gilgamesh 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, you weren't the one who put the article under protection. - Gilgamesh 16:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstand. I want to help resolve the dispute that caused the page to be protected in the first place. We already have discussed some ideas in consideration of the rules that have been addressed. - Gilgamesh 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Just delete all my images that I've uploaded, most were just album covers anyways (I don't understand why we have to bend over backwards for a fair rationale on 'em anyhow)... Also I don't care to be reminded (on my userpage) that you (the bot) will be deleting them. Restecp 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restecp (talk • contribs)

Not worth the effort

Your bot tagged a number of images I had uploaded for the Batmobile article. I looked at the fair use rationale page and it is just too confusing to be worth the effort. I am sorry for the users of Wikipedia that the images will be deleted but I don't have the time, energy or interest to fix problems that don't seem like problems to me. Blackhawk66 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

What do you mean by "Shadowbot moved it to my talkpage and I have adjusted the bot." Shadowbot moved it to your talkpage? Huh? Was it not already on your talk page? Shadbowbot removed the comment; it didn't add it. нмŵוτнτ 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot moved the comment here. I fixed the code so that your issue should be fixed. β^_command 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, I didn't know. I thought it was just archiving into some random archive page somewhere. How embarassing... I apologize, Betacommand. Have a great day! нмŵוτнτ 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:DCARead.jpg

The fair-use rationale for Image:DCARead.jpg does include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. --DieWeisseRose 08:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the exact name of the article needs to be included in the rationale, and not just liked to? I'm not sure. ➪HiDrNick! 08:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point: if one renames a wikilink (as was done on that page), is BCB going to find it (is the bot reading raw source or as-presented text? Also, the article name was included with HTML entities for the parens around "book", and that might have thrown BCB off. Noting these here so that BetaCommand can check to confirm. --MASEM 12:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging for WikiProject Ireland

Hi, just wondered if you had spottted my rather belated reply at WP:BOTREQ#Tagging_for_WikiProject_Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Belarus

You included in wikiproject Belarus a lot of articles about localities in Romania (see bellow). Please correct

1. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Vişeu de Sus‎; 05:04 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
2. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Vişeu de Jos‎; 05:04 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
3. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Urziceni, Satu Mare‎; 05:02 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
4. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Ulmeni, Maramureş‎; 05:01 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
5. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Tăşnad‎; 05:01 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
6. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Târgu Lăpuş‎; 05:01 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
7. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Săpânţa‎; 05:00 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
8. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Sântana‎; 05:00 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
9. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Seini‎; 04:56 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
10. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Satulung‎; 04:55 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
11. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Satu Mare Swabians‎; 04:55 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
12. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Satu Mare County‎; 04:55 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
13. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Poienile de sub Munte‎; 04:51 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
14. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Petrova, Maramureş‎; 04:51 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
15. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Ocna Şugatag‎; 04:48 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
16. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Negreşti-Oaş‎; 04:47 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
17. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Moisei‎; 04:39 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
18. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Maramureş County‎; 04:37 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
19. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Livada, Satu Mare‎; 04:36 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
20. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Leordina‎; 04:35 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
21. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Cǎpleni, Satu Mare‎; 04:20 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
22. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Călineşti, Maramureş‎; 04:20 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
23. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Câmpulung la Tisa‎; 04:20 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
24. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Cavnic‎; 04:18 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
25. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Carei‎; 04:17 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
26. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Băiţa de sub Codru‎; 04:17 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
27. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Băseşti‎; 04:17 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
28. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Băiuţ‎; 04:17 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
29. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Bârsana‎; 04:17 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
30. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Budeşti, Maramureş‎; 04:17 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
31. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Botiza‎; 04:16 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
32. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Borşa‎; 04:16 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
33. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Bogdan Vodă‎; 04:16 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
34. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Bocicoiu Mare‎; 04:16 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
35. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Bistra, Maramureş‎; 04:16 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
36. (diff) (hist) . . mb Talk:Baia Sprie‎; 04:10 . . (+24) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
37. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Asuaju de Sus‎; 04:09 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
38. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Ardusat‎; 04:09 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)
39. (diff) (hist) . . Nmb Talk:Ardud‎; 04:09 . . (+23) . . BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) (tagging)

--R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  06:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any more questions about this specific tagging should be directed at my talk page, since he was making edits on my behalf. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Heads up & question

Thanks, will remember that for future!

As for the general fixes, i'll go over them tommorow and give you a list of everything they do. No chance of remembering off the top of my head - Be a good idea/time to update the AWB pages as to what "general fixes" it actually does do....

Reedy Boy 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the general list:

• Fix Brackets
• Fix Header Errors
• Set Default Sort
• Fix Categories
• Fix Images
• Fix Syntax
• Fix Temperatures
• Fix Main Article
• Fix Reference Tags
• Fix Empty Links and Templates
• Fix Links
• Bullet External Links
• Sort MetaData
• Embolden Titles
• Format Sticky Links

If you need/want to know in more detail what any of the things do, let me know, and i'll look into them in further detail

Reedy Boy 20:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on talk pages, it will substitute a large list of templates if found. Reedy Boy 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I want all the dirty details, Im attempting to port them into m:Pywikipedia β^_command 01:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot

Betacommand,on Betacommandbot's user page,I have asked 3 times on how to fill in the template on [Image:Default.JPG]and never gotten a reply.instead,the bot removed my comment without a reply.Why?Can you tell me how to fill in the template?IslaamMaged126 11:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

see the template documentation for the specific template. β^_command 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Copyvio abuse"

[1] Please try not to create collateral damage when making petty edits such as this. Thanks.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images cannot be used in infoboxes, userboxes, or other templates. That wasn't a petty edit, that's required for WP to maintain a lawful position on non-free images. --MASEM 13:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Irish Army Logos

Hi. I see that you have seen fault with my uploading of these batallion and corps flashes form the irish army. I had gotten them from www.bailerweb.com. since they are logos of government bodies i would assume that they are public domain, but if you wish you could look it up in an attempt to find the correct licensing for them, thus helping me rectify the problem. Your friend ~r —Preceding comment was added at 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing tallies

Betacommand, thanks again for setting up User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage‎ and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage‎. A couple things: 1) "Usage" is the correct spelling -- maybe it should be transcluded when you have a free moment. 2) I wonder if there exists the capability to set this up into a spreadsheet, so we can begin to develop trend lines. 3) This has helped immensely in getting WP ready for March 2008 -- really nice work.

One more thing as well. When you have a chance, please have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria/Proposal and Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria/Proposal. This will affect your point #9 at the top of your talk page, as it involves standardizing rationales for several standard categories. It will leave the option open for a custom hand-typed rationale in special cases, but it will not be required since the rationales will be standard boilerplate for those images. Take care for now, and thanks. ... Kenosis 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

VP Resubmission

Per your suggestion, I've waited 2 weeks and am resubmitting my name for consideration for VP. Thanks. Mbisanz 02:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sort key and non-diacritics (again)

Hi there. Any progress on the sort key diacritics issue? I was reminded of it again because this AN thread involves a user whose does a lot of this sort of stuff. If it will take a while, just say and I won't bug you again for a while. Carcharoth 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Im hoping to get this doing soon see my request above about AWB's functions. β^_command 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorted - requested analogues for WP:DABS

Sorry betacommand - I'm not good at this bot stuff yet - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size,

• This should include everything in Category:Birds and subcategories.

Lets take apart the subcats, (this branches into stuff that is not relevant). Please separate User:BetacommandBot/Sandbox 3 into 2 parts (categories that you want and ones that you dont want) β^_command 06:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

hahaha - hadn't seen some of those. No to:

• Category:Brand name poultry
• Category:Fast-food poultry restaurants,
• Category:Fictional birds
• Category:Fictional birds of prey
• Category:Fictional chickens
• Category:Fictional ducks
• Category:Fictional flightless birds
• Category:Fictional geese
• Category:Fictional parrots
• Category:Fictional passerine birds
• Category:Fictional seabirds
• Category:Pigeon sport
• Category:Poultry diseases
• Category:Poultry farming

- all others (including generic poultry) are fine to be included. Do I just delete them off the sandbox page? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets do this again, I used those categories and went one level deeper. β^_command 17:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the only extra one to add to the 13 cats above is:

• Category:Films about penguins

shall I edit the sandbox3? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

and lets try this again (went down another level) β^_command 02:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, getting esoteric now: remove -

• Category:ConAgra Foods

that's all I could find extra. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok Ill attempt to run these. β^_command 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great, cool....umm...so what happens now? Anything else I need to do? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break between birds and fungi

and a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fungi/fungus_articles_by_size

• This should include everything in Category:Fungi and subcategories.

I've just looked at the subcats and I can't see any that need to be excluded (fairly esoteric field really). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

and a Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size - I know, an afterthought this one.

• This should include everything in Category:Mammals and subcategories, except subcat Category:Fictional mammals.

speedy deletion

IS UNACCEPTABLE. if policies change, let users fix the page. dont speedy delete it. this goes against productive efforts. UNACCEPTABLE. Obrez 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

your wrong, you have 7 days (its not that speedy) to fix the image. and THAT is policy. β^_command 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

there was no explanation given to what was going against the policy. that is very unproductive. Obrez 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

it says exactly what is wrong if you read the template on the image. β^_command 03:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

Your bot has marked images that are not tagged with a fair use tag as "orphaned fair use", for example, [2]. --Carnildo 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That image IS tagged with a non-free template, {{Non-free media}} which is what I use for finding non-free images. β^_command 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is tagged with a "no source" template. Adding an "orphaned fairuse" template is very confusing to new users. --Carnildo 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BCBot must not tag without also performing notification

As you know, BetacommandBot is mass-tagging images with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. It is also leaving the original uploaders a {{di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} and a message on article's talk pages. However, it is not following the directions of the tag because it is failing to add {{deletable image-caption}} to the captions of these images. This is a problem because for a large number of images, the original uploader is absentee and article talk pages get far fewer page views than the articles themselves. These images then go ignored for seven days at which point an administrator either is lazy and deletes an otherwise valid instance of fair use which lacks correct tagging, or else scarce admin time is used to correctly tag an image that could have been tagged by any user had the caption indicated there was a problem.

I'm not asking you to shut off your bot, just make it leave the notifications recommended by {{Deletable image}} so people have a chance to fix the tags. Please reply on my talk, because yours too busy to watchlist. Thanks. —dgies^t_c 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

its not possible to have the bot add that template. Due to some templates breaking if that is used. I instead follow a method that is safe, and notify all uploaders and leave a note on the talkpage. β^_command 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shut this stupid thing down!!

I AM giving a decent fair use rationale for the Bob Goen picture! Freakin' let it go already! >:( --JoBrLa 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Misleading tagging by BetacommandBot

See this diff, where BetacommandBot tagged the image with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} even though the image in question did not have a fair use rationale, or any claim of fair use at all. The correct tag in this case would've been {{no source}} or {{no copyright holder}}... except that the image already had that tag (and nothing else), courtesy of a previous visit by OrphanBot. This certainly looks like a bug in BetacommandBot to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no easy method to see if there is a rationale, it just checks for NFCC#10c β^_command 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Still, couldn't you do some checks? In this case, the page was blank except for a {{no copyright holder}} tag (which, it seems, for some reason categorizes the image as non-free; this seems like a related bug in the template). At the very least you could have the bot check if the words "fair use" or "rationale" are present and, if not, tag the image with {{di-no fair use rationale}} instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

SHUT UP BETACOMMANDBOT!

WHY WONT HE SHUT UP?NEARLY EVERY ARTICLE HE SPOILS EVERYTHING!THE BIKERS IMAGE HAS A FAIR USE!STOP IT ALREADY.--Someguyudontknow 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Misstagged

Your bot seemed to mistag Image:CM abraham lincoln.jpg, as the rationale is clearly stated in plain text. How did it miss the rationale? --Knulclunk 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, it might be missing the article name that the image is used in. This information needs to be in the summary now, as part of the rationale. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that image see what I did. β^_command 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bellissima poster.jpg

Your bot tagged this picture as having no fair use rationale. It appears a complete rationale was present at the time of tagging.- AKeen 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have repaired it, it was not correct, the rationale was for Bellissima, while the file was on Bellissima (1951 film). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos

Logos are painfully obvious, IMHO (hell, you could probably make a template specifically for logo rationales if that gives you a warm fuzzy). But really, this bot should not be tagging logos for speedy deletion. It would be far more constructive to actually have the bot put in a generic logo template when it comes across logos lacking rationales. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A bot cannot create a fair use rational as it lacks the intelligence, one needs to be written by a person. The tag gives several days for the images to be fixed. There is a terrible backlog of such images and we need to get through them. 1 != 2 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos, and trademarks in general, have pretty much cookie cutter fair use rationales. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for a bot to go and tag all the fair-use logos on the site with something generic that explains why it's okay for us to use a fair-use image of a logo. I have no sympathy for people who try to push their agenda via a bot or otherwise when with a little more work they could solve the problem outright. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you feel that way. You've been shown the policy, instructed how to make a fair use rationale, and for a sixth time in ten days insist on not providing one, removing the warning template in the process. You should not be surprised at the results. This policy not up for debate. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy item #4 which explicitly states that fair use images must have a rationale. The image has repeatedly been tagged appropriately. You are committing vandalism, pure and simple. If, beyond any possibility of hope, you manage to get policy changed so that images do not have to have rationales (as you keep on revert warring in an attempt to make happen on this image), we can leave the image untagged for deletion without a rationale. Until such time as that happens, this image has been appropriately tagged as missing a fair use rationale. --Durin 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The default on all of these things is "manual". The bot, luckily, helps on some. Its creator has decided he does not wish to attempt to code for the other. That may be a job that it could do, or a job it can't. The point is, it doesn't. So those templates must be added the old way. If it's easy then I'm not sure why it can't be done manually. It is the bot owners choice what he writes (or feels appropriate to codify) and what he believes he is unable to let a bot he codes, take responsibility for. The consensus is one way or another, all nonfree images must have suitable rationale in the communally agreed manner. A bot programmer establishing a bot for one task and leaving other related or similar categories of task as still needing manual work, is not an "agenda". The issue is not sympathy, but compliance with agreed norms. If the bot can't or won't do it, then humans (ie, the uploader) will have to, as is the default. I don't see a difficulty with that, if its "generic". Apologies, but what is the real concern? My $0.02 FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I am sure Betacommand is not 'pushing an agenda' here. Instead his bot is very busy trying to repair a big problem in Wikipedia. WP:BOTREQ is down the hall, second door on the left.

Logo's are not very easy, the bot has to recognise them (how to recognise a logo from another image?), and then has to decide on which page it has fair-use rationale (I guess that logos are sometimes also used on pages of which it is not the logo of the subject itself). Not something that can be caught easily by a bot, instead a warned human editor can do it within a minute and actually solve the problem. And that is what this bot does, notify the user. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bots cannot write rationales, its not possible. β^_command

2002 Logo (AGAIN)

There, I added this template to [3]: {{Non-free use rationale |Description= 2002 Logo |Source=http://www.2002music.com/movies.html|http://www.2002music.com/movies.html] |Article=2002 (band) |Portion=All |Low_resolution=Yes |Purpose=Logo of Band for Infobox |Replaceability=Because there is only 1 logo. }} Is this clear enough?!!!! How much more info do I need to add before this bot will stop marking it, and most of all, stop posting message after message on my talk page?!!!

Of all things, the "replacability" annoys me the most. Why can't a "free" image replace the 2002 Logo? Maybe there's only 1 logo!

--Mooshykris 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

good, prior to doing this the image had no rationale. β^_command 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee Poster.jpg

The bot keeps on trying to delete Image:Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee Poster.jpg but there is nothing wrong with the fair use rational. Please can you help me and turn this bot off for this image? -- UKPhoenix79 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

you had an incorrect article name, the one that you had was for a book. The Image was used on a page about the film. β^_command 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot misidentified source of protected image

There is a message in my talk from Betacommandbot which begins:

Thanks for uploading Image:UCI letters.png.

The image in question is an interlinked "UCI" (University of California, Irvine, perhaps?) in gold on a medium blue background. I did not upload this to Wikipedia. In fact, I have yet to upload an image of any kind to the site. Could you check your bot and the image to see if you can find out who did upload this?

Marketstel 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot keeps tagging non-orpaned images as orphaned

This bot doesn't recognize the "not orphan" tag and keeps tagging images as orphans when, obviously, they are not. This needs to be fixed. --Sable232 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

example please. β^_command 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Marquis ornament.jpg. It's linked to in the text of the article to show the car's emblem (logo), but there's not really a good place to put an image in. --Sable232 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

{{not orphan}} says Warning This free file is linked to from some pages, Please note that not orphan is used for FREE images. β^_command 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Can I have a second opinion about a question on my talk page in the "image question" section User talk:Wiki alf#Image question please. Your thoughts would be appreciated as to what to do next with this, if anything.--Alf ^melmac 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, good sir.--Alf ^melmac 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuing on from this image conversation started over on Alf's talkpage. Could you take a look at Image:Mustaine052007.jpg. The uploader doesn't have a very good track record for understanding WP:FAIR and seems to be shading the rules a little on his latest upload. The image he is trying to replace is a free-use image from Commons and is a bit grainy... but still a freebee. I think he may be a fan who is trying to push a better quality image into a hero page at any costs. I will google around and see if I can find the true source. 156.34.142.110 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The image in question is probably not a free image. If you take a look at the bottom right hand corner of the image, you will see a watermark image, showing that the user who uploaded it has probably taken it from another site. For him to release it free, he would have to be the copyright owner, which looks extremely suspicious in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keen eye!. A quick Google search shows all sorts of poses taken from relatively the same angle... NOT our exact shot in question... but pretty close. Enough to indicate that a deeper search will likely reveal a web source somewhere. 156.34.142.110 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lorezjacket.jpg

Hi, sorry to bother you, I don't have much experience of Images and their licensing, especially the fair use policy, your bot recently tagged this image {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=November 6 2007}}

So I added this template: {{ subst:Book rationale | Article name goes here | website goes here | person or company owning the intellectual property goes here }} however, I'm not sure if its right... please get back to me on my talk page cheers PhilB ~ ^T/_C 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nvm A friend sorted it PhilB ~ ^T/_C 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussionbot.py and taking up too much RAM

Betacommand, I've been told that the Discussionbot.py script is taking up way too much RAM. Could you look into why that is? MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ill take a look. β^_command 21:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Star images

I would like to discuss this tagging [4] at Talk:Shadow Star - Because there are multiple characters discussed to this article, and the fact that these images in no way harms the ability for Shadow Star comics or TV media to be sold, this should be compliant with Wikimedia image policies. If you contest the amount of images, please also discuss at the Village Pump. WhisperToMe 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Im not taking this to the VP. it has been discussed usage of NFC in list is not allowed. β^_command 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the discussion. I would like to see the exact context and the rationale. If I find a page that is inconclusive, I will start a Village Pump discussion to attract more people to see if there is an agreement. WhisperToMe 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on AN and ANI (about 6 months ago). the result, NFC in list are not allowed. β^_command 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I want an exact link to the discussion. Since you cite the AN and ANI discussions, please provide a link so that I understand which discussions you are referring to and how they define this. WhisperToMe 05:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Look them up, Im not a broken record. β^_command 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See, I believe that it is the responsibility of the person making the assertion to link to the policy decision. I will look for them anyway, but next time it is a good idea to have links on hand to the discussions themselves so that other participants will easily follow decisions. Now, I will state that images showing several characters at once exist. Maybe it may be good to use one of those pictures to represent some characters and then keep individual images for characters not in the pictures. WhisperToMe 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• EDIT: I do not know where to begin with the Administrator's noticeboard - Is the discussion you describe in the administrator archive? Incident archive? 3RR? WhisperToMe 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please use the preview option, repeated quick editing of a discussion page is a disruption. If you can get one or two group images you might be able to make a case for that. But what you want to do is not allowed. As for the discussions it was on WP:AN and WP:ANI there was even a Signpost article. β^_command 05:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the Signpost was easy to search. Are you referring to this? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use ? WhisperToMe 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that was part of the discussion. β^_command 05:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cool :) - I posted my opinion about the difference between gallery images of episodes and gallery images of characters on the talk page. What I will do later is upload a gallery image of the main characters of Narutaru, which will eliminate the need for the individual pictures of some of the main characters. There is also a large composite with minor characters which could be used for some of them. I would still have to find a composite for the anime versions of the characters. WhisperToMe 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

see also User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation β^_command 05:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to that :) WhisperToMe 05:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Australis_Dino Crisis 3.png

I already explained that the fair use was ok. why was it deleted??? I mean everything in the Fair Use Rationale was correct anyway so what was the point in bots deleting it over a dispute over a correct fair use ratione that makes little senceOsirisV 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only find File:Dino Crisis 3 Australis.png, I guess that this is the image you meant. You stated:

Fair use rationale:

Official Capcom Artwork, used to show the detail and look of the creature. Artwork to show users Detail. Low-resolution image is used; not the original resolution for the image and cover artwork.

No free use substitute for the artwork is available.

It does not say on which page this rationale is valid, etc. Hence it did not have a valid fair use rationale, resulting in tagging and subsequent deletion (the deletion is not performed by a bot, that is done by a human editor who evaluates both the tag and the rationale (in case it did get repaired). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Home Alone

I think I have addressed the fair use rationale problem of the Home Alone image, can the template on the page be removed? mickyfitz13 ^Talk 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

tag removed. β^_command 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging, three times on the same article.

Please see Talk:Through the Looking Glass (Lost), which has three posts by bcb saying that some images fail NFCC... after the article's promotion to FA. Both had FURs too, and although it wasn't a template rationale, text rationales are allowed under WP:FURG. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct they are allowed, and the rationale for Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG was 95% correct the issue was at the Through the Looking Glass article on the English Wikipedia, the name of the article was not specific it should have been at the Through the Looking Glass (Lost) article on the English Wikipedia, please note the exact name of the title of the article. β^_command 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though to be honest, that's not the fault of the original uploader. Will ^(talk) 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Aargh! Slow down on my talk page!

It would be nice if this damn thing at least gave me a chance to fix the FUR on the first image it messaged me about before dumping another two messages on my talk. How about a autodelay so it only dumps one template every 5 or 10 mins on a user talk, giving them a chance to fix the image before it notifies them about the next? Exxolon 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Case in point - it's dumped 2 more in the it took to type the above message. Exxolon 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 5 messages in 5 minutes - nowhere near enough time to deal with each issue. Slow it down! Exxolon 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have seven days to fix it. that is all the time you need. β^_command 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is that your bot comes off as overly aggressive when it dumps multiple messages on a user talk page in that short a timescale. Understandably any reasonable user is going to feel victimized and or harassed by such a slew of messages - each of which boils down to "YOU DID IT WRONG! FIX IT OR I'LL DELETE IT!". I know it aggravates the hell out of me. Exxolon 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry you feel that way, But the bot needs to check 320,000 images attempting to place throttles on talkpage notifications just increases the risk of the bot crashing and then no-one getting a message about that image. Also neither I or the bot can delete images. The tag is placed there to let users know that they need to fix their images, they have seven days to fix it, and if the user ignores the issues they know that the image will be deleted.

Also if you dont want to get these messages from the bot fix your images before BCBot tells you to fix them. β^_command 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

About the image of Mr. and Mrs. McCormick.

I'm sorry; I don't actually know it's designation down-pat. I hope that you, despite being a robot, can understand which image I mean. Since you say it needs to be deleted without a source and license provided, and since the user who uploaded it doesn't seem to want to bother with it; I propose that either you or ImageRemovalBot delete it. I know a site which has an image just like it; I can pick it up from there and upload it again, with the proper information (I think!). Wilhelmina Will 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Regardless of your pleading innocent, I think you (providing there is a human subject behind this "bot") are simply a busybody. Granted, Wikipedia is a free-for-all. But it is also a cooperative work, and the tone of all editors should be constructive. By this, you are not helping the image of Wikipedia, and in fact, may be encouraging competition to this service. I know that I am on the lookout for some alternatives to this nonsense. Think about it, if you have a conscience, which I gravely doubt.!Mike 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If I might put my two-bits in; I think you're wrong about this user. A user would not likely have the word "bot" in their name unless they actually were a robot, would they? Wilhelmina Will 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:JourneyBegins1.jpg

It's a screenshot from a freeware videogame used in that videogame article (Neophyte (series), so I don't think it should be deleted. This also aplies for the two other images used in the article for the two other videogames in the Neophyte series. I'll add the non-free use templates to all three, and will be very grateful if you (or your bot) don't delete them. --ŴôôDéļf 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Timing

Betacommand, I'm sure at some point down the road I'll be here railing about some image I want to keep that isn't permitted, but until then, thanks for upholding a reasonable policy. How long after a non-compliant image is posted does it take for your bot to label it? Just a fact I'm looking to keep in the back of my mind for when I begin uploading more images. Mbisanz 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

it all depends. sometimes its a matter of minutes other times its months. Just take care and make sure that the rationales that you upload are solid and you will not have any issues. β^_command 05:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there someway to "submit" an image to the bot to be checked for compliance?Mbisanz 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Added fair use rationale

I added a fair use rationale tag to this picture Image:John madden football.jpg (cover art) -Bonus Onus 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed issues with the image. Suva Чего? 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Masque of the Red Death (screenshot).jpg

I have clarified the fair use rationale. --victor falk 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:NBB Album Cover.jpg

I have added fair use rational to this image. I hope it is okay now! Thanks! Josborne2382 11:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Northern bank logo.png

I have added a fair use rationale as required to Image:Northern bank logo.png. Hope it's OK now - please don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Love letter

Right, Betacommandbot, or whomever has unleashed this on the world. What's the deal with this image?
image:Ble-goude.gif
You tag it for review, but the human behind you never bothers to show up with any reasons. More specificity is added to the rationale, the tag is removed, and a week later, here we are again!
Stated reason this time:
c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
Bloody christ, what do you call the link at the bottom of the page?
Look, I understand your desire to make wikipedia as small and nonspecific as possible. Heck, I might even admire it in another time and another place. But if you feel the need to auto delete images from wikipedia, please tell your creator that she/he has to actually visit and look at the images in question, and come up with some human readable demands which can be addressed by other humans.
Otherwise, your existance, dear Betacommandbot, is a massive pain in everyone's collective ass.
XOXO T L Miles 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article name is supposed to be in the summary section. This bot got me on a few of those too until I figured it out. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The File Links section is not part of the image description page. File Links is auto created to show where the image is used. Non-free rationales need to be specific for each use, and thus must contain the article name in the rationale. β^_command 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is why having an automated bot leave cryptic messages results only in confusion and unneeded deletions of useable images. I'm sure you created this for the best possibe reasons, but the net effect is incredible annoyance for everyone involved. Please either do this manually or don't do it at all. T L Miles 14:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot is tagging images with 10c when articles are disambiguated

As far as I can tell, the bot is tagging image pages that don't have a link to the pages that they are used in. This is causing problems when articles are moved to a different name because of disambiguation, or when a better name is found for an article. I don't know much about bots, but it seems like you could have it check if the article's name has been changed from "foo" to "foo (bar)" and then check the dates of the image and the original "foo" page. If the dates check out, then the bot could update the article name field, leave the article alone, or add it to some category where editors can change the name. Not sure what should be done when an article is renamed. I don't know what kind of info WP's database can give you to resolve that issue, but maybe you could search for "fair use for foo" and update the image page if "foo" has been changed. Another problem I've found is that one can do a bullet proof FU rational for some page (page A), and then an inexperienced user can come along and add the image to another page (page B) and the image is then tagged for deletion. Maybe you could check dates, and instead of deleting the image, if it met our requirements for page A, then remove it from page B. Obviously these are difficult things to script. The thing I worry about is that well chosen images with well made image pages are going to be deleted and replaced with poor images and image pages. We need a system where if you do it right, it sticks. That way we can slowly get reid of all the bad images (and descriptions) until only good ones are left. I know I've had images caught up in these sweeps where I took a lot of time to select the correct image and have created extremely detailed image description pages, then had to fix trivial disambiguations so the image isn't deleted. I frequently take wikibreaks, so it's a little unreasonable to expect editors to constantly defend well made image pages. Anyways, probably nothing you haven't heard before, but I think these are issues that should be dealt with. - Peregrine Fisher 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes BCBot tags images that link to DAB pages, per policy you need to include the exact title. BCBot does follow redirects, but it cannot follow DAB pages. there just is not a valid method to do this. As for your other concern. BCBot looks at an image, gets where its used, and then checks the image text for at least one of them. If you add the image to page A and have a good rationale for page A, it will not get tagged for deletion if another user adds it to page B. right now if the image has at least one valid rationale its skipped by the bot. β^_command 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

but it cannot follow DAB pages. there just is not a valid method to do this. Further reason you need to kill this thing. It really appears you are emotionally invested in tagging images with a bot instead of manually. But its equally clear that doing this automatically simply does not work. You can't assess a rationale that way, and when you find an actual problem, you can't comunicate to the human uploader in a way s/he can understand. All that happens is that lots of well intentioned uploaders get frustrated and acceptable fair use images get deleted. Please stop this! T L Miles 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the messages are quite clear and this bot will not stop. I have been proven Time and again correct. DAB pages fail WP:NFCC Number 10 part C. if you dont like policy file and ArbCom case so that I can be proven correct again. β^_command 15:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not "dab" pages that are in question. It's redirect pages. Since a redirect page points unambiguously to a unique page, this is fully compliant with 10(c).

A way needs to be figured out for the 'bot to take redirects into account. Jheald 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jheald, BCBot sees and understands redirects. BCBot does not follow disambiguation (DAB) pages, which is the issue raised here. BCBot has been understanding redirect pages for a while now. β^_command 15:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the bot cannot determine which link on a disambig page is the correct one, and that a human needs to do it. But that is why the bot puts a tag up that gives humans a week to do so. Such images do need to have their link corrected to meet our criteria. The bot seems to be doing well. As for following redirects, it should be doing that now. If there is an example of when it has not followed a redirect, a diff would be helpful. 1 != 2 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's probably some problem that I'm not thinking of, but why can't it check if "foo" is the page mentioned in the FU rational when the page the image is used on is "foo (bar)"? Basically just try ignoring what's in parenthesis and see if that matches? - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to DAB's dont meet WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Bot

Once again, I hate your bot. I have no idea what it wants me to do to make my images fair use, again despite the fact that they are all already fair use under Wikipedia guidelines AND have valid fair-use rationales. What can't your bot just tell me specifically what's wrong, or better yet, fix it. -- jackturner3 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very specific please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 14:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GramParsonsLive1973.jpg

I see nothing missing in the fair use rationale for this image as it now stands. I have not attempted to change anything yet. Backspace 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

see |this someone else fixed it already. β^_command 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It looks like someone fixed it already[5]. I think one of the problems was that the rational did not mention the article it was for, which is needed. Also the new rational states who owns the copyright, which is also required. Thanks. 1 != 2 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article taggin

I see the new article tagging rule for fair use rationales...what do you do if the same image is used in multiple articles though? Douglasnicol 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

you need separate rationales for each use. β^_command 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NFCC 10(c) and backlinks

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Is a backlink required by NFCC 10(c)? regarding what seems to be a discrepancy between the current wording of WP:NFCC and BetacommandBot's interpretation of it. Your opinion on the matter would be most welcome. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot misfiring

Once again, shut it off with the automated messages. Londo06 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

where is the bot making errors? β^_command 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Netscape-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Netscape-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please, please get your bot to just notify you when it flags something it thinks I've uploaded as unsourced or whatnot. I never, ever upload images other than to improve the compression and thus never know where the image came from, or anything about it other than the pre-compression filter and what it looks like. I suggest, as always, to actually notify the uploader of this, I feel it is terribly unfair to just delete images without notifying the actual uploader. --Tene 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The original uploader was also notified. The bot cannot tell the significance of your involvement, and even if it could it would not know your level of interest. I am not sure how the bot decides who to notify, but the first upload seems to always be amongst them. 1 != 2 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What will satisfy you ???????

BetacommandBot keeps telling me that there is a problem with the images that I supply. That "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid". I've done my best within the Wiki guidelines, I believe, to provide justification for their use, but I do not think that the program has even considered them. Is this a serious use of a program or is it simply a means of being a pest? If so well done, but a joke's a joke.--Marktreut 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NFURG β^_command 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Operation Neptune Title Screen

[6]

Is this a correct tag? --Mooshykris 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah β^_command 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so have I finally got the correct format on how to cite my images? (If so, I will add this to all of my image uploads.) --Mooshykris 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that looks right β^_command 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair-Use for Image:Mrs. Load.jpg

I recently added a fair-use tag for Image:Mrs. Load.jpg. I also added one for Image:Lizzie McGuire Xmas.jpg. ----DanTD 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the rationales are set up properly. β^_command 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any way to consolidate messages?

I note that on both his user page and talk page, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE has indicated his recent discouragement and that he may have left permanently. I think the fact that you right now have 37 messages for him on his talk page might conceivably have been a factor. In cases like these, would there be any way to revise your specs such that you maybe left editors who contribute so many images only, say, one message a day, listing all the images contested? I think that would probably be a lot less, dare I say annoying, to editors who contribute so many images as that party. Just a suggestion, anyway. John Carter 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rational Added for Image:Floreelogo.gif

Hello. I have added a rationale for Image:Floreelogo.gif. Please let me know if it is or is not sufficient. Thank you for your diligence! -RobbyPrather (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

looks ok β^_command 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mitre Peak.jpg)

Hi - you wrote:

Thanks for uploading Image:Mitre Peak.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.

If you check what that image pafge actually contains, you will see that I simply added the non-free tag to that page. The original image on the page, which I did upload, is now at Image:MitrePeakNZ.jpg. Another user replaced my original image with a new picture without changing the details on it, making it look like I had taken the photograph and was releasing it as gfdl-self. Since I did not take the photograph and could not, therefore, claim that licence, I removed the description and the licence tag I had originally placed on the page. I also replaced all the uses of that unsourced image with my original picture. Unfortunately, the problems run deeper than that, since the unsourced image has also been transwikied to Commons. I placed an unsourced template on it there as well,m so hopefully someone will be able to do something about it there, too... Grutness...wha? 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break for a while will you

See User talk:Blofeld of SPECTRE for reason, he is not the only significant contributor to give up Wikipedia. King of the North East (T/C) 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NLE-NYM-Logo.png (FYI COPY)

Image:NLE-NYM-Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_numbers_retired_from_two_or_more_teams"

ßcommand, Your bot tagged an image on a baseball list that I authored, however the images that I used were "borrowed" from the pages of the various baseball teams that the players I wrote about were playing for. In looking, the image, as with litereally dozens of other baseball images has the following written in it's comments: "It's a logo. That's why we have the logo template. Logos are fair use under Wikipedia's policy, and anyone can tell that this is, in fact, a logo of a sports team, as already stated on this page. That being said, the logo is of fairly small resolution, and, while copyrighted by the team, is being used for educational purposes, with no personal or monetary gain. As logos are inherently copyrighted, there is no free equivalent, and it is not replacable."

All of the images in question were uploaded by a user calling himself: Silent Wind of Doom and from looking at his comments, there are a lot of warnings such as the one above on his talk page. Given the scope of his comtributions to many different baseball articles, I would like to have your suggestions as what is acceptible to your bot as many of these images relate to some significant and high profile baseball articles. I would also like to get folks from the baseball WikiProject involved so that all of these images are made to be compliant if possible.

If you would be so kind to leave comments on my talk page at your leisure I would most appreciate whatever support you can offer. I will also make a copy of this on the Baseball WikiProject page so that editors will be aware of the issue and can seek to remedy it. Thank you in advance for your assistance. RobHoitt 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

wrongful removal

this bot removed a school logo that i had uploaded. 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously

Stop spamming my talk page. Deleting images because the fair use rationales don't link to the articles they're used in is excessive, bureaucratic nonsense. And giving only seven days to fix such a minor problem is unfair (not everyone logs in every day). Your pointless bot has done nothing but damage this site. --YellowTapedR 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it up on the policy pages, the bot did not make these rules up. It is policy that fair use images that do not have a rational linking to each article should be deleted after giving 7 days to fix. If you don't like it then try to change policy, but don't bitch at the guy who runs the bot. 1 != 2 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the bot was approved to tag images that lack fair use rationales, not to pester users who, in good faith, forgot to include a link in the rationales to the articles in which they're used. Some 15-year-old sitting at his computer shouldn't wield so much power. --YellowTapedR 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks, and I am not a child. the rationales that you use are not valid and that is why they were tagged. β^_command 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "...forgot to include a link..." = lack of fair use rationale. Simple. Sorry if you're annoyed but it's policy, not Betacommandbot power tripping... And please refrain from the ageism, very patronising. The Rambling Man 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. To have a bot tag images lacking fair use rationales is one thing, but spamming people's pages because they didn't provide a link in the rationale, which hasn't always been a requirement, is another. There is only one way you can describe Betacommandbot's actions: trolling. --YellowTapedR 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and not resort to baseless acusations. The requirement for a link is there now, and it is not a disservice to let people know the image is in need of attention. I really don't see how you have been slighted here, you can just ignore the message if you like. 1 != 2 03:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a pain, that's why. You upload an image to improve an article just to have it deleted with hardly any warning -- again, most people don't log on everyday -- because of a minor rule that the bot might be able to fix itself. Calling the bots actions "trolling" isn't a baseless accusation; it's an observation. Think about it: Why else would someone want to run a bot that gets practically nothing but complaints. --YellowTapedR 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sterile edit warring on Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg

Re these two edits: [7] and [8] - We had a discussion here about rationale tagging a bit ago, in which I asked you to make sure that you spent reasonable effort on anything you did manually, though the explanation that the specific issue I had an objection to was fully automated (tagging due to lack of specific article reference) took the discussion sort of sideways.

On this specific edit series, however, you (not the bot) reverted to the bot version of the page with warning twice without once taking the effort to either explain on the article talk page or in an edit summary what the problem was with the rationale. Unlike automated bot tagging, those reverts without explanation were your manual responsibility and fault.

This is unacceptable behavior. Failing to explain what was wrong with the rationale, and blind reverting, was clearly not good process on your part there. That was sterile edit warring rather than discussion to explain and show consensus. Sterile edit warring, even in the name of improving the encyclopedia, is not vaguely OK.

If someone removes the tag out of ignorance you bear the responsibility to explain if you're going to put it back manually. Our fair-use rationale policy is obtuse and difficult for even many experienced editors to understand. Enforcing it in a sterile and arbitrary manner is destructive to the encyclopedia. The automated tagging is one thing - when someone has indicated by editing that they are paying attention to something and are merely ignorant, you have to do the right thing and put in reasonable effort.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

its not the fact that they are ignorant, the issue is they are not reading the notice. Ive tried to leave comments people dont listen. β^_command 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming bad faith. If you make no effort to communicate with them, it's your fault. If they don't respond to one or two explanations, that's one thing, but failing to make the first effort to communicate with them is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume nothing. Its proven fact, I repeatedly say things users ignore it and revert. (this has happened MANY times). After numerous users repeatedly ignoring my comments and not fixing when its pointed out (All they do is undo or revert) I have given up attempting to talk with a box of rocks. β^_command 00:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You made no good faith first attempt with User:The sunder king that I can find.

If you're unwilling to make good faith first attempts to communicate with people, then with all due respect to your long and extremely valuable contributions to Wikipedia, it's time for you to take a break. It's never been ok to abuse people like that. A lot of the time admins have looked the other way, but it's becoming increasingly disruptive and abusive.

I would prefer that you both continue your valuable contributions and take the time to try communicating with people. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me follow this up a bit. I understand if you don't feel like engaging in extended discussions with people over topics like that all the time. If I ended up doing a lot of them, it would drive me nuts, too.

But you run the bot. And a lot of people are confused by the bot's output, or react badly to it. You know that. Everyone knows that by now. It's part of the deal with running it.

Part of the community responsibility of running a bot, and a high-visibility one in particular, is being able and willing to deal with the kickback that happens from it.

I think that it's reasonable for you not to have to deal with the kickback all the time. But when you run one of these rationale tag runs, I think it's reasonable to ask that you do so when you have some time and energy available to help people understand and discuss with them. Timing a bot rationale tag run for a period of time when you're unwilling to put the effort into communicating with people and properly discussing objections is not good stewardship of the encyclopedia's best interests.

If you really are too tired of dealing with it, ask for some help with other admins who have some bandwidth and can follow along making the necessary followup. If you posted to WP:AN asking for volunteers to help with the followups on any of your bot runs, you're highly likely to get the help that's required to make such followup entirely discussion and communications happy.

Working yourself into a corner where you feel that sterile reverts like that are the only way out is just bad. It's bad for you, it's bad for the project, it creates drama and stress where we didn't really have to have any. It's entirely preventable.

Please either ask for help on the followups thing, or run it when you have the energy to do followups right. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly discuss things with users who are willing to discuss, As for the AN post I am almost constantly running BCBot and will continue to run it. Ive been doing this for several months now, People help with discussion here. We should apply the same issue to them, I show people the same respect they give me. If user post a question on my talkpage Ill gladly help them β^_command 02:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't address the specific problem I noted, where you double-reverted someone without having informed them anywhere or explaining in an edit summary. That you discuss constructively here doesn't help if you silently revert out there... You have to proactively communicate whenever you take an affirmative action. Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop Your Bot

It's wonderful that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia; however, blindly editing pages using a bot isn't contributing. I would be happy if you used your bot to find images that might not have sufficient rationale information and the like so that you could personally review them and act upon what you see; but, you don't seem to have any personal involvement with what your bot finds.

Please stop and think about the net effect your bahaviour is having on the wider community. You only have to read the posts on this page to see that your net effect is negative.

I have spent several 10s of hours reading and re-reading the image usage guidelines and discussion pages, then editing the images I've uploaded to ensure compliance; however, it doesn't matter what I do your bot always wants to delete my images. Please either get personally involved or find another outlet for your desire to contribute. Christopher Rath 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here here! It's time some administration gets involved in this.T L Miles 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is doing its job. It is policy that images be properly licensed. The net effect on the community is positive; that bot helps get rid of thousands of improperly license images. Maxim 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxim, read what Georgewilliamherbert wrote above. It makes a lot of sense. I (very occassionally) spot the odd query here and deal with it before Betacommand can get to it. We should all do that more. But we all need to be polite about it and not wave policy in people's faces and say this is just a small part of thousands of images being dealt with. That can alienate people who will think that you aren't paying attention to what they are saying. Christopher Rath made some good points. It would be better to respond to what he wrote than to respond to what T. L. Miles wrote (no offence to Miles). Carcharoth 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

La Mariage Anglais

As a novice user I guess I don't get to call your warnings spam. Could you possibly clarify, in simple terms, whether there is any easy way of putting a picture on the page in question? I have looked again at the criteria for use of unfree images - 10 is a nice round number, easy to remember, but I'm still not sure I actually understand them. How do I find, construct or request a justification and from whom? In simple terms: "is trying to load an album cover really worth the effort?" Thanks. Martinevans123 12:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A simple and effective method of writing a rationale is to use {{non-free media rationale}} and make sure that you include the article name where your using the image, and why you need the image. If you do that you shouldnt have any problems. β^_command 12:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and positive response - I'll try again. But since I mistakenly used the feminine pro-noun in the name I gave it, it might be convenient if this image was deleted anyway (maybe there is a gender bot for pages Francaises?)! Martinevans123 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added link to article - is this better/sufficient? Martinevans123 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to have a rationale, please see WP:NFURG and {{non-free media rationale}}. β^_command 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a rationale as per the template - is this now ok? Martinevans123 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot is destroying Wikipedia

I'm all for having free images and stuff, but of course some images just simply cannot be free. Ever. So we have to use fair use images, which once again I agree with having provided they are properly licensed and within the policies of Wikipedia.

The problem? Your bot is going about this the wrong way. It's going around blindly tagging images and beginning the process of deletion. I have had several of my images that this bot has claimed has no fair use rationale at all when it clearly DOES. Maybe there is a problem with the information I have provided, maybe it wants me to include or change something. Your bot does not tell me that, it just keeps telling me that I have included nothing. Several times. It's like it's trying to pound into submission that I am wrong when I am not. This bot can detect that something is wrong, so why not WHAT IS wrong? I simply cannot help correct my mistakes if you do not help me know what exactly is the problem. I actually left Wikipedia for a short while, because I had hordes of images deleted for wrong reasons or reasons that were not specified (Actual users also left me some messages about images and WHAT the problem exactly was, but these were images I chose not to keep and let them get deleted) and it drove me insane. I'm sorry, I don't believe in removing something that, save for one thing, can otherwise be perfectly on Wikipedia without making an effort to try and fix what is wrong with it. Going around removing everything you can find is destroying Wikipedia and is in no way contributing to it. Many articles have been disrupted and many of us do not know what to do. We read these policy pages but still, we are wrong according to this bot. Many of images were perfecty acceptable in the past, now it's suddenly like they are poisonous to Wikipedia. Rather than telling me, or indeed anyone, that we are wrong, how about telling us what EXACTLY is wrong? What EXACTLY is our mistake? That is the biggest flaw of betacommandbot. Fix your bot, and fast. .:Alex:. 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

the bot does tell you whats wrong, if you can give me an example of that you think it miss-tagged Ill gladly show you whats wrong with it, why, and how to fix the issue. β^_command 17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break

At the risk of repeating myself, (my last message was archived within minutes) could you give it a break please. One of our most productive and reliable editors has recently quit Wikipedia and I don't think coming back to see this awful backlog (just over 1 days worth) will encourage him that the great image purge is over. FYI he is not the only significant contributor to give up Wikipedia recently. Please find another important task for your bot for the next day or two, after all, driving people away from Wikipedia is not the objective here, is it? Could you please respond to this, my talk page or here would be fine. King of the North East (T/C) 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ill add BioField to the bots talkpage skip. β^_command 17:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

add my username to your "bots" talkpage skip, don't want that garbage on my talk page. // laughing man 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No β^_command 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

yes // laughing man 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make it very clear here that I will take any further "warnings" from your "bot" as harassment. // laughing man 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

and you would be wrong, the bots messages are in no way harassment. β^_command 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment." from the link I gave above sums it up. Thank you and have a good night, I've had enough of your nonsense and don't have any more time to waste on you. // laughing man 02:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The notices are neither false nor questionable. If you upload non-free images without a rational, then you can expect a mention of it when it is time to delete or fix the image. 1 != 2 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Until. You have to understand that Betacommandbot is a bot, not a Wikipedian. It's just a bot doing what it does best — tagging images with invalid fair use rationale. You must also understand that, for any fair use rationale to be deemed as "valid", it must link to the article using the image. You can't just put "Fair Use Rationale" and think that everything's fine...because it isn't. I've had my fair share of problems with Betacommandbot before. All I did, as an example, was this, and everything's fine now! Betacommandbot does not harrass; it just notifies! If the loss of a Wikipedian is due to a bot, then that is an invalid excuse! A Wikipedian, a true Wikipedian, won't quit just because he's being hit by friendly fire; it'll take something like H's case for that to happen! -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughtful question

Hey there; as much as your bot annoys me (LOL) it's doing good work. I am curious about the specifics of what the bot is looking for in its WP:NFCC runs. It's obviously looking for image description pages not citing articles the image is used in, etc., but is it also looking for certain fair use templates or parameters? How is it determining the presence or validity of the actual "purpose" portion of the rationale? Some sort of general explanation of the bot's scope posted somewhere on its page might help people get it.— TAnthony^Talk 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bots cannot read rationales or check the validity of them, what the bot can do is look for WP:NFCC#10c the article name where the image is used, and see if it passes that part of a rationale. (that is what BCBot does). β^_command 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the BcB code been released? or is there a narrative of how it analyzes each image? The guidliness on NFCC are good, but sometimes knowing exactly how it applies them might help people accept it. Mbisanz 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The code has not and will not be publicly released. What BCBot looks for is simple WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats reasonable basis. Anyway to change the photo uploader like the AFD creator to "teach" the user how to fill in the summary variables? Mbisanz 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What? β^_command 03:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I thought it looked for more than that. I know the message left on the images references WP:NFCC#10c, but you can save yourself a lot of grief by dumbing it down a little and saying "Missing article name(s)" or something — all the complainers seem to think the bot is questioning their purpose. And the messages on user pages don't note 10c at all. Seriously, the typical user is going to lose all comprehension after a sentence or two, you'd do well to just spell it out.

Mbisanz, a movement to have the upload page help the user fill in the necessary FU info at that stage is part of this proposal. — TAnthony^Talk 04:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When a user creates an AFD, it can preload part of the debate in, and the user just has to fill in the variables. It gives this above the edit box.

Remaining steps to list Mississauga City Council for deletion:

1. Replace "cat=U" in the box below with an appropriate category for the article being deleted:

 cat=M Media and music 

cat=O Organisation, corporation, or product ...

2. Replace "Reason" in the below text box with your reason for nominating this article. Do not modify the other text. Your signature has been added automatically.

3. Edit today's AfD log and copy the following line to the top of the list on that page:

4. Use the below line as your edit summary:

5. Save this page.

If the image uploader could do the same thing, that might encourage people to give proper rationales. Mbisanz 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

see {{non-free media rationale}} β^_command 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Headsup on bot issues

I've addressed some concerns to your bot talk page. I'm giving you this heads up, so you won't over look it. If you remember, I've expressed concerns before about your bot running unsupervised, so that you're not around if something goes wrong. You got offended at my blocking the bot for misbehaving before, but what else is a person to do when you're not here to mind the bot and answer concerns? AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:JemtalentsearchVHS.JPG - how can I keep image to stay?

I created this file, scanned it off from my own video tape collection, and would like the image used on the Jem (TV series) listing on Wikipedia's website regarding the show's old VHS releases from the 1980s, just to illustrate an image to one of the VHS videos. How can I fix the image copyright dispute to properly leave the image on Wikipedia permanently? I give Wikipedia full permission to use this image. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

(talk) 02:04, 9 November 2007 User:Queen of Swords

The image was missing a fair use rationale. I've added one to the image, and it should be OK to stay now. You can use a similar rationale for any other images that you upload. Love the '80s fashion on the cover! (Hope you don't mind Betacommand.) Bláthnaid 11:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot bug report

Betacommandbot tagged this Image:Kyama.JPG as orphaned although it is used in one articale [9] Af648 10:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no fair use rationale on the image article. Simple as that. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 12:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment about User talk:BetacommandBot#Hello visitors

Just a friendly reminder that if the bot didn't remind you, you'd wonder why your image just vanished without any sort of warning. Also, you're still required to be civil here. The bot may not have feelings (though I betcha Betacommand is working on that...) but the creator sure does. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Very civil that posts here just vanish without any sort of warning, while this message doesn't. // laughing man 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

they dont vanish they are moved to my talkpage. β^_command 02:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does it state it that here? ....... I guess in this thread but I would imagine that it will vanish when it gets "moved". // laughing man 02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

if you look at the page history its clear, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BetacommandBot&action=history BetacommandBot 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear now, until this message will get erased. // laughing man 02:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Auto assessment

When the bot is doing this task, it adds a single space after the class parameter. Example:
{{albums|class= Stub|auto=yes|importance}}

Just pointing that out.--Tasc0 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

An image i uploaded

You ( with reason) claimed that the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nell_tu_gamuza.jpg was ot properly racionalized. I have racionalized it acording to the template presented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline . Will it still be deleted, if so tell because i will have to find an alternet solution for the article mentioned on the image template.--Tosta mista 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Images renaming

So is the image renaming a go?--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Two issues with auto assessment

You might want to reconsider what the bot calls a stub. WP:STUB defines a stub as a very short article with only a few sentences. So why is the bot tagging an article with 4 paragraphs and over 20 sentences a stub? See Neel E. Kearby.

Secondly, please take a look at Talk:Neel E. Kearby...see how the tag that the bot adds messes up the project banner nesting? For another example, see [[10]]. If fully expect that you will either fix this in all the articles that have now been affected, or roll them back until you find a fix. That needs to be addressed. Please respond to let me know that you've seen this and are addressing it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Asmund has no problems. as for the auto=yes issue, it was caused by human error Ill write up a patch for that. As for the actual rating that the bot gives, if you look those pages were already rated at the same level by another wikiproject. β^_command 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Oh and as far as I can tell the double nested auto=yes does not affect how the template is displayed β^_command 13:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this bot run - or at least stop making the bot leave a note under a new heading for every page it "assesses". Those useless project templates take up enough space without bots leaving extra notes on them. Haukur 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop it now or I will block it. Haukur 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. We have a consensus to have wikiproject templates, and they are very helpful to some projects. If they take up too much room you can nest them - you could even make a template nesting bot. I don't know how necessary the message is but on low traffic pages there isn't much clutter anyway. On busy pages the bot's note will get archived eventually.Wikidemo 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is making useless clutter. Of course we can live with it but there's just no need to. If what the bot's doing is uncontroversial then it doesn't need to leave a note. If it's controversial then it shouldn't be done by a bot. Haukur 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Per above. Haukur 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

According to User:BetacommandBot the above was supposed to stop the bot. Didn't seem to work so I blocked it. I think I'll make a note over at WP:ANI. Haukur 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do leave such a note, I would like this decision reviewed. 1 != 2 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now done so. I see the bot has started up again after the 15 minute block. I'll apply an indefinite block, then. Haukur 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Image:Grand Theft Jimbo.jpg issue...

There's no need for a orphaned fair-use warning, Betacommand (I think...) This is a Jimmy Wales parody image... Thanks anyway for notifying me... God Bless and have a nice day... Blake Gripling 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

...eh, look at the license tag you used. That called for a detailed fair use rationale. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And since the image was only used as part of a joke page set up by Jimbo, I have deleted the image under CSD, Images and media, Point 5. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

...that's quick. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I watch the talk page and deal with some issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Should no rationale be reported as disputed rationale?

Is BetacommandBot supposed to distinguish the complete absence of a fair use rationale from an invalid rationale? The copied warning above suggests it does, but it didn't here. (The image then had a logo copyright tag (which I suspect is frequently mistaken for a rationale), but nothing else. I fixed it myself as the original uploader has a busy tag on their talk page.)--QuantumEngineer 12:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's the proper way to add a rationale. Most users forget to link to the article that the image is used...or they don't know what a rationale looks like. I don't think it matters if there is no rationale or the rationale doesn't link to the article; in both cases, it is invalid, isn't it? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures I Have Uploaded

Its the Johnny and the Sprites picture along with a picture of Macavity. Can you please just leave them alone and stop spamming my pages with these warnings? Really, this has gotten annoying. The Quidam 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you don't have a fair use rationale in that image article! That's why BetacommandBot's breathing down your neck! -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup request

I request that you add a cleanup feature to your bot allowing users (or the bot itself) to automatically remove its boiler plate when they are no longer applicable.

For example, the other day I received a mass orphaned file notice. I was able resolve the orphan problem itself in about 4 clicks. However It takes far longer to go to each individual file that your bot has boiler plated and then to delete the boilerplate warnings that it has placed. It's time consuming and a real disruption as I have to go around undoing your bots edits on each individual image even though the issue has been resolved on an entirely separate page.

A simple detag button supplied with the user-page template would do the trick nicely. You could link it to a piece of code that would scan the named page and remove orphaned file tag (it should, however, scan to ensure that the image actually in use first).

while I'm at it, could you also add a link to the user-page template that allows the user to place a db-author request on tagged images. It would be so much simpler than a user having to go to the image itself, particularly if the user is a new-user who is not aware of how to perform a db-author.

- perfectblue 11:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

perfectblue 11:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to press 'edit', do an edit, fill in an edit summary, and press 'save'? I do that all the time, when I prepare images for deletion. Thanks, Maxim 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a bot in trial that will remove orphaned tags on images when they are no longer orphaned. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageBacklogBot. Rettetast 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JDSAEFADHDTLV; AAAAARGH

I am sick and tired of this bot coming onto the Shadow Star characters page, deleting all of the images, and claiming there is no fair use rationale. It's happened so many times that I have to come onto the bot's very talk page to get somebody to notice the issue! I edited that required information into every single image that has been uploaded for that article, but no explanation is good enough for this bot! This "fair use rationale" is so tedious and not even needed, I am beyond pissed off. Does this bot's owner even look over the fair use rationale provided for ONE SECOND?! It's going back over and over again, complaining about all of the images used in the aforementioned article. I know that complaints about this bot's moderation of fair use are not supposed to be here, but I have edited all of the information the bots and Wiki rules have told me to, yet I still get these messages and now the images have been removed from their parent article. LOOK AT THE IMAGES. THE FAIR USE RATIONALE IS ALL RIGHT IN THE IMAGE DESCRIPTION. --Selo12394 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the images have use rationales, some of them do not. As you may know, a copyright tag is not a use rationale. You need a separate use rationale per WP:FURG and WP:NONFREE. Betacommand removed all of the images from the article by hand, not by bot. Presumably he did it because there were too many of them. If you look at WP:NONFREE there is a requirement to minimize the use of non-free images. There is also an explicit prohibition on using them in lists and galleries, which is what was happening in the article. There was some edit warring. Removing them is a fair decision that most editors would agree with under the current image policies. While they were removed from the article the bot tagged them as orphans because they are not being used in any article. Hope that helps.Wikidemo 22:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Two points: (1) The article Shadow Star characters may have contained many images, but it is neither a "gallery" as Wikipedia uses the term, neither is it a list. Every character pictured is described in some detail. And indeed, this is the way we want people to set up articles about minor characters in books, film, and television shows., otherwise there would be thousands of stub articles everywhere that have no hope of expansion into anything more. (2) If any of the images had rationales, it is difficult to understand why thos particular images would be removed. I will further comment that I have never heard of Shadow Star and am not particularly interested in it. But I am interested in encouraging people to get the tags right rather than annoying the daylights out of them. Crypticfirefly 03:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You must realise that in order for a fair use rationale to be valid, the section header must link to the article that it is used! -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not realize that. Where in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is it stated that the fair use rationale must contain a link to the article in which the image is used? It merely says that the article must be named. Crypticfirefly 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this might help. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, did you see this section? In the examples, the fair use rationale must link back to the article that the picture's being used in. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to see this. All the images listed have fair use rationales which link back to the article they are used in. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are examples of templates that can be used, but there is no requirement that they be used. The requirements are stated under "Necessary components," and a link to the article is not included in the necessary components. Similarly, if you look at Wikipedia:Non-free content under policy #10, there is no requirement for a link, only the name of the article. You are of course welcome to add links for the convenience of others, but lack of a link does not make the rationale invalid. Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 05:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In your case, Cryptic, it seems that a majority of the images you uploaded have no fair use rationale whatsoever. If you want to stop the bot from nagging, add a fair use rationale for every article that the images are used in. Here's an example. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't spared too, you know. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Crypticfirefly is right that is doesn't need to link back per WP:NFCC#10c, but the rationale does need the exact name of the article is it being used in (including necessary disambiguations). Mind you, a link is always a good thing, and the Non-free rationale template, and the examples w/o the template, provide the link. Eg Image:Wiki Jyun.PNG fails because there is no text that states "Shadow Star characters", the article its used in.

However, regardless if these are marked correctly or not, Shadow Star characters is a list, and using that many non-free images violates WP policy on non-free image use via WP:NFCC#8, even if the pictures are serving to identify character. Remember that WP's job is not to provide a detailed description of fictional works, including large descriptions of characters, and the addition of non-free images does not several to better the readers' understanding of the notability of the main work. --MASEM 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way Altiris, I didn't upload those images as you suggest. I went back through and fixed the rationales for the original uploader because he/she appeared to be getting rather frustrated and appeared not to understand what the problem was. Crypticfirefly 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, you need to add a fair use rationale for each use; if you don't link back to the articles the image is used in, how can anyone tell which rationale applies to which article? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

...sorry, edit conflict.
I see. Maybe you could try to explain to the original uploader what all this madness is then. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 05:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) I'm uninterested in taking this further, it's not my article. However, WP:NFCC#8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Apparently it is a matter of opinion whether providing a picture of a given character significantly increases the reader's understanding. I'll let you take that up with the folks actually working on the article. Further, WP:NFCC#2 requires "Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary." If it is necessary to illustrate a character or twenty characters, then that number of illustrations is going to be "necessary." As to Altiris' comment about linking, it makes no sense-- if the fair use rationale names the article to which it applies, then it will be obvious, link or no link. Amusingly, Masem objects to the rationale provided for Image:Wiki Jyun.PNG even though it links to Shadow Star characters but says in the text only that the fair use rationale applies only to the "article about charcters in the Shadow Star (Narutaru) anime/comic book." But let me ask you, Masem, given the way wiki-markup works, if there is a link to the article, how is the name of the article not contained in the description in a very real sense? Personally, I think you guys should be focusing your energies on the images without any rationale at all before you start going after the images where any idiot can see what article the rationale goes to. As for the original uploader, I hope if he/she sees this, he/she will be able to figure it out. Anyway, have fun! Crypticfirefly 05:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I'm pretty sure (but only BetaCommand can answer for sure how the bot does it) that while providing the wikilink back to the article is good and all, the 10c requirement says the article name has to be given, and not obfuscated by the wikilink. --MASEM 05:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It says that the image description page must contain "the name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item." It does not say anything one way or the other about it not being "obsfucated" by the wikilink. That said, the bot apparently checks for the name, not the link. Nevertheless, it is my belief that it would be incorrect to delete an image with an adequate rationale merely because the name of the relevent article is hidden in the link. Crypticfirefly 06:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am posing this question at WP:NFCC because it is not clear. This image tagging and the like for non-free images is part of a legal requirement set by the WP foundation, so there's a hard rule here somewhere, and that's where we'll find it. --MASEM 06:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The concenssus there seems to say that renamed backlinks to the article are sufficient to meet 10c, and as noted and my mistake, the image in question was never questioned for meeting 10c. There's still the issue of using images on list pages, however. --MASEM 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand said that he was deliberately removing the images. He uses the following as his rationale: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use and User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation WhisperToMe 02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:BetacommandBot

I would like to clone this bot, as it might go offline if you are not using it, or not currently using it, and it would get all of it done faster. With a clone, it would get all of it done. If you will allow me to clone it, I would prefer you to comment on it on my talk page. Dreamy ^§ 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

if I wanted to I could do it in less than a week, Its the human factor that needs to be factored in and why its taking as long as it is. For security and stability issues I will not release the code for BCBot (Not to mention that I am re-writing some of the back-end code) β^_command 22:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free media (Image:TraneingIn.jpg)

You wrote: Thanks for uploading Image:TraneingIn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So it seems the image is used in an article, namely Traneing In. I don't know, however, if the message was a bug from the bug or if the image was delinked for a while. Karol 11:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How about fixing the issues instead of deleting important images?

If you've got the time to go through pages and post automated complaints on it, how about fixing them instead? Doesn't take more time and is actually a contribution. Unlike what you're doing, that's just copyright trolling. --84.178.118.242 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird edit from bot

Noticed this on my watchlist, only seems to have done it the once, so just wanted to point it out to you, [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dureo (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord Strathcona Elementary School pictures

I recently got a message saying that I copied pictures off the Internet. I've never done that with any of the pictures I uploaded. I really makes me mad. Annoyomous24 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add a cleanup function

Your bot is at it again. I've just had 8 orphan notices placed on my user page after mass page blanking by a rogue user. I have to visiteach and every one of these images to remove your tags, this is the third time that this has happened to me in the last couple of days PLEASE ADD A CLEANUP FUNCTION. A simple "Problem sorted, remove tag" link would do. It shouldn't be up to me to do this, your bot should scan its own tags and remove them if they are no longer required. - perfectblue 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Book cover images

I made a picture with a camera of a book cover Image:HoldOnToYourKids.jpg. Do I have the copyright to this picture, and so can I release it to the public? In general, is a book cover in the public domain since it is sold in book stores? The book cover picture is used with the article describing the book content. Is this not allowed, the same way we can use the book title. The book title could be argued to be copyright material as well, couldn't it? So my question is: Is it allowed to make a picture of a book cover and upload the image with an article about the book itself, or not? If that is allowed, what tag should I use? Ervinn 05:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A book cover is copyrighted, and confusingly, the copyright may be held by a different person than the rest of the book. By photographing it, you have created a derivative work of the book cover. Using the image in an article on the book, or in an article that has extensive discussion of the book, is perfectly fine: the correct tag is {{Non-free book cover}}. --Carnildo 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Need your assistance

Looking over a few of the articles related to Fender Guitar products I am findong quite a few of them contain copyvio images lifted directly from the Fender website. The articles contain a very thin fair-use rationale. But, like most "white background" pro-shots of guitars... the release for use has not been granted by the manufacturer. Take note of the uploads of this one particular user on April 14/15 of this year.[12] His image sources are correct and, like I said, there is a FUR on each one... but it is thin. Free-use images of these guitar models are obtainable. They aren't particularly rare guitars... in most cases. Fender Guitars are certainly not the only guitar models to contain these sorts of "white background" pro-shots. These types of copyvio images are easily accessed either via manufacturer websites or online sales vendors like musiciansfriend.com. It just so happen in this situation that a large number of uploads came from one editor so they were easy to track. Thanks! 156.34.213.204 10:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag them as replaceable {{rfu}}β^_command 12:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mobile phone culture

The category you depopulated as "POV" (Category:Mobile phone culture) has been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 12 - I'd be grateful if you could comment there. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BABS

Hi Betacommand, is there anything else I need to do with this or do you have enough information for it to go now? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic!! Looks great, though I hadn't counted on quite so many lists....never mind as folks are working their way getting them featured as well.

PS: WP:FABS will be alot easier as there are no exlusionary subcats. Let me know if you need any more info for that. WWP:MABS might be as tricky or trickier than this one.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

this wasnt hard at all, just took time I did not have :) β^_command 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Up to" stub class

What does "up to" mean in your phrase "up to stub class" mean, on edits such as this one? For that matter, what exactly does the whole phrase mean? Gene Nygaard 13:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In particular, what are you coming "up" from, to get to the very bottom of the scale? Gene Nygaard 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A further question

Why should an assesment with regard to one WikiProject be taken as applying to other WikiProjects in the first place? Is there good reason for that? Is it documented in a discussion anywhere? Gene Nygaard 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ill answer both questions with one response, the phrase up to means that prior to the bot the article was rated as unassessed by that particular wikiproject. and the bot is upgrading the rating. As for sharing the wikiproject rating not all ratings are the same, there are really only three classes that are universal, stub, start, and FA. stub and start classes are very basic levels, and the properties of both are almost universally the same across the projects, FA is an official process which is also not dependent on a wikiproject. as for the other ratings there are too many variations there for a bot to do that work. β^_command 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If a project asks for this, fine, but I wonder if it's really that helpful to assign "unassessed" articles a "stub" assessment? Any article is presumably at least a stub, especially if it's tagged by two or more projects. Also, the assessment duplicated from another template may be old and no longer apply to the article.

I would think a somewhat inverse task might be more helpful: generate a list of articles assessed as "stub" but which lack a "stub" template in the article. This might be a way to identify articles which are likely expanded and need a review. Given the approaching target date for images, I suspect the bot has more urgent work to do than this, though. Cheers. Gimmetrow 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

if I could get a list of stub templates this would be very simple. β^_command 00:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A list of all stub templates would be huge. I suspect the "easy" way to check for a stub template would be to check for any template on the article page ending with "-stub". If you feel like toying with this, you could test with the WP:HV project, which has ~1200 articles marked as stub, and only uses two stub templates, {{heraldry-stub}} and {{flag-stub}}. Basically, generate a list of every article with talk page in Category:Stub-Class heraldry and vexillology articles but article not in the linkshere for either stub template. When all done, put the list on a subpage somewhere, or (if it's not too large) paste it to my user-talk page. This should pick up articles like Coat of arms of Finland which are well past stub class. Do you want to try this out? Gimmetrow 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I've looked through the category a bit now, and many stubs don't have the stub template. Gimmetrow 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fauna Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		to Betacommand for a great asset to Wikiproject Birds. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Orphaned non-free media (Image:CompactFluorescentLightBulb.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:CompactFluorescentLightBulb.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The original uploader of the image was JabberWok, so he should be notified instead. I just converted it to PNG. --Fibonacci 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Infobox VG run

Bug report - The recent run to replace "Infobox CVG" with "Infobox VG" did not properly check for transclusion, see [13]. This should be looked into before any future template replacing runs are done. User:Krator (t c) 09:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More copyvio guitar images that are also being added to Commons

84.96.69.79 (talk · contribs) (who also edits under the name VigierX (talk · contribs)) is adding several copyvio images to the Vigier Guitars article that have been lifted from www.vigierguitars.com. Adding to the problem is that the same user is also adding these images to the Commons library... under the name PatriceJ (see Commons Uploads). As with most other guitar images taken from manufacturer websites they are copyright and not to be used without permission. 156.34.142.110 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked

See User talk:BetacommandBot#Blocked and the thread on WP:AN/I. --Carnildo 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello visitors

Just a friendly reminder that if the bot didn't remind you, you'd wonder why your image just vanished without any sort of warning. Also, you're still required to be civil here. The bot may not have feelings (though I betcha Betacommand is working on that...) but the creator sure does. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

And if your comment vanishes without warning, check Betacommand's talk page. He likes hiding them there. --Carnildo 02:55, 10 November 2007, (UTC)

Why did the bot tag the image?

Usually, BetacommandBot tags images for not having a Fair use rationale or not having a complete one. All you need to do is add a rationale to the image description or if it already has one, you probably need to add the article it is being used in to the rationale by adding article=article name. If it is used in more than one article, a seperate fair use rationale must be used for each one. As long as you follow this policy for each of your images, you will not receive these messages in future! -- Jack 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot falsely tagging "Images" as orphans

Image:Michael McGee federal criminal complaint.pdf is a PDF file being (mis?)used as a source in Michael McGee, Jr.. The link there is in the form [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Michael_McGee_federal_criminal_complaint.pdf]. This is a use, not an orphan page. Please fix the bot to recognize this pattern of call as a use instead of repeatedly and wrongly claiming the page to be an orphan. [14] [15]. GRBerry 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no way of making that type of link checkable using mediawiki, Also Im removing that PDF from the article as failing WP:RS, wikipedia is not a reliable source. β^_command 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked BetacommandBot for applying the {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag to images that are not claimed as "fair use", such as [16]. Please fix this problem. --Carnildo 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC states "For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. " So any image that is not tagged as a free image is considered a nonfree image. We don't have an extra set of tags for 'images that have no license'. In this case, the images does appear to be orphaned and has no free license tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Under a strict reading of policy, this is correct. It is also incredibly unhelpful -- experienced users know the "orphaned fairuse" tagging is nonsense, and ignore it, while new users get confused, ask the wrong questions about image usage, and consequently get the wrong answers, leading to the deletion of otherwise-usable images.

It also causes images to be deleted too quickly: an unsourced image can only be deleted after seven days, while an orphaned fairuse image can be deleted after two. --Carnildo 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the bot is not really malfunctioning, just using a different way of selecting nonfree images than you would. The way that it is selecting nonfree images seems to agree with policy. So rather than blocking it, contacting Betacommand to ask about having it changed would be appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried. He ignored me. --Carnildo 21:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see. I will see if I can contact him about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We have several tags that mark an image for WP:CSD#I4 and "images that have no license". They include {{nsd}}, {{no source}}, {{nld}}, {{no license}}, {{untagged}} and {{no copyright holder}}. All six of those tags will mark an image for deletion under WP:CSD#I4. They are often properly applied by other bots. It is just plain worthless for this bot to add incorrect tags when one of those tags is already on the image. GRBerry 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

the bot only tags images that transclude {{non-free media}} if there is a error in the useage of that template its not my fault. β^_command 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, since July {{no source}}, {{no license}} and {{no copyright holder}} have themselves all transcluded {{non-free media}}. It was added to them by Cyde, who stated that it "belongs on all templates dealing with non-free media". So now, whenever anyone tags an image as lacking a source or a license, BetacommandBot will come and tag it as having a disputed fair use rationale as well. I'd say at most one of you or Cyde is right about what {{non-free media}} is really supposed to mean. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please switch to multiple bots

This bot does some tasks well, and some have consistently been done poorly. Could you split each approved task into separate bots so that when the coding gets fouled up (as led to the latest block), we can block only the fouled up portions. GRBerry 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the fact that doing such a thing would complicate my code by over 500% (currently it shares common libraries) β^_command 02:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How does having separate bot accounts for separate tasks complicate the code? --Carnildo 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

making each bot use separate accounts instead of sharing a standard login. β^_command 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can easily see how that could be. BC, if I was any good at py, I'd at least offer to help you with it. Maybe a different idea... What about something like... User:BetacommandBot/NFCC10.run and whatnot, one for each task, set it to "go" to allow that task to run, and "pause" to pause the task? I know, some might abuse it, but, heck, look at BcBot's block log.... SQL^{Query me!} 04:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my images you...

So annoying, I spent ages uploading images to make wikipedia look better. fine it was tagged, so I added a lengthy and accurate fair use rationale to each which took even longer, but lo and behold, they were both deleted anyway. I dont think I can retrieve them now. thanks for making wikipedia less attractive and wasting my time you pos. Do you realise how many album covers don't have any fair use rationale whatsoever? Yeah, so lets delete 80% of album art, what a bright idea. So anyway, aince I added fair use rationale and they were deleted wrongly, it's up to you to retrieve and upload them. Hurry now, run along! Now there's a good boy. Feudonym 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

talk to the deleting admin, I did not delete that image. β^_command 02:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored both of them. "WP:NFCC#10c" is an excessively obscure way of saying "the image description page does not contain the name of the article this will be used in". --Carnildo 02:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

im bored aka i would like to hear from you

Hey BetacommandBot, I'm bored. Could you please tag some of my images for lacking source, lacking a fair-use rationale, for being an orphaned, fair-use image, or something like that? Oh, and please be sure to leave me message(s) about it on my talk page! Hope to hear from you soon, Jecowa 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit picking on HeadwoundcityEP's image

Crazy bots and their gogo gadget deletioning ways... Image:HeadwoundcityEP.JPG is an album cover and has every right to be on wikipedia, if your bot wants to remove album covers from wikipedia, then that is just silly. Word to the above comment. Tubeyes 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Onorem fixed my fair use issues, sorry bot! *squirts oil* Tubeyes 12:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploader

Hello. Image:Fearcats.jpg was deleted. I am not the uploader and I read that you say only the uploader should provide Fair-Use Rationale. How is it possible to identify the uploader so as to get him/her to provide a rationale? 69.69.80.77 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll

anyone can add a rationale. β^_command 23:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ignoring exclude?

Looking at the history of Image:Lyriki.png, it appears the bot isn't paying any attention when I place the exclusion comment. --MindlessXD 03:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Change the license to GFDL and then the bots won't be so mean. It worked for me; it can work for you too! Call 1-800-die-bots (1-800-343-2687) for more info. Jecowa 17:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

please see WP:NFCC#9 Non-free content cannot be used on userpages. β^_command 23:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that the exclusion only works for Subst'ing templates. If this bot has subst'ed a Template that per WP:SUBST should be subst'ed but you have it saved on a page for reference, please just add (this will not appear on the page but will be in the code) to the page to prevent any further substitutions on that page from this bot thanks User:Betacommand 14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC) β^_command 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag of Panama.gif

There is already an image (Image:Flag of Panama.svg) that is being used on the article: Panama. Image:Flag of Panama.gif is a douplicate image and so must be deleted.OsirisV 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam in my inbox:

This bot will not stop sending the same damn messages to my inbox, make it stop! I beg of you! --∑ssarege∑ 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Send some of those messages my way please.. thanks. Jecowa 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these messages are annoying, and I dislike your bot thoroughly... Its existence basically condemns images, as it may do an inhuman amount of repetitive work, but I don't think there are that many people who log in regularly enough to save their images... so it's bad... - Imperator ^Talk 13:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got my watch page set as my browser's home page, so I'll get message notifications everytime I open a new window. Jecowa 13:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Option B, is to use a proper Fair-use rationale, and, follow WP:NFCC.... SQL^{Query me!} 05:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Images are being used

Your bot added a note on my userpage and on the image Image:3village-Wikify.png . this is incorrest as the image is infact being used on pages. Compwhiz II 02:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot told you that this image is not being used on any Wikipedia articles, which is correct. This image is, as of this posting, only being used on five talk pages, a user page, and a template. It needs to be used in at least one Wikipedia article to be allowed on Wikipedia under the fair use claim. Jecowa 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't.jpg

I just received a message saying this is an orphaned photo, though clearly it is not. --Thankyoubaby 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that someone removed the image from the article[17], the bot placed the tag, then the image was put back[18]. Just timing. 1 != 2 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

an idea for user-friendliness

I still think a direct link to the fair-use template would be a very nice thing to have in the warnings your bot puts on users' talk pages, but you clearly don't want that (those of you who didn't read the discussion we had about this will have to believe me — ten minutes of rooting around in archives hasn't turned up anything) so what about this: Could the bot stick the blank template on the images it flags? Then the alert on the image could read something like "this image won't be compliant until the template below is filled out or an equivalent rationale is given," and the talk page message could say "your image isn't compliant. please go write a rationale - I've supplied a blank template in case you'd like to use that." — eitch 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Very bad idea, I dont link to it directly for a reason, I dont want people just filling in the blanks, I want to teach them how to fix. as the saying goes, give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for life. β^_command 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

People are clearly struggling with this. Placing a template would give them the opportunity to learn by doing. Your whole approach to this thing has been stupidly unhelpful. It wouldn't kill you to take the suggestion and see if it helps instead of spouting idiotic platitudes. Wiggy! 11:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiggy, you might want to review WP:CIVIL, and, WP:NPA, please. Calling other editors names, is not helpful. SQL^{Query me!} 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware thanks. BC has been insufferable through this thing and has ignored pleas from users regardless of how they are framed. You might do better to help bring him around to some core of civility than remind me of my manners. Combining the spirit of the place with the rules might serve us all better. Wiggy! 02:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Teaching a man to hunt for food so he doesn't starve to death is very different than having someone figure out for himself how to find the fair-use template. Stop pretending what you're doing is important. There are only a handful of hardlining users who support you. --YellowTapedR 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Wikiproject

From observing entries at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive Index that you may be able to answer the many questions which have arisen. The Canadian province of Saskatchewan has a wikiproject that has some automated program queries that have arisen and are stated in the November Newsletter. Do you have any advice from your experience in helping a multitude of wikiprojects? Kind Regards, SriMesh | talk 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I can send out newsletters via bot. (I just need to know who and what).
2. Wikiproject banners on Saskatchewan categorized articles

   I can do that too

3. Periodic To Do List

I need a little more info and more details.

I can help with other tasks, just let me know what you want done. β^_command 03:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A Message By the El-Dude-O'

El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the bot in mainspace

Please keep the bot in mainspace when doing WP:MOS changes to avoid things like this. —METS501 (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your bot is despicable.

Your efforts are consistently making Wikipedia a lower quality encyclopedia, and driving away not only good content but good contributors. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm not joking, nor am I exaggerating. Your bot is a severe blight on Wikipedia. BTfromLA 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, complying with the rules, and helping to protect the project?!?! What horrid goals. SQL^{Query me!} 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is conceivable that those are the bot-maker's goals, but the actual work of the bot is very different. It is destructive (and extremely rude) to do as the bot does: insisting that image files that are well-chosen, absolutely legal and properly labelled with an appropriate template (as of the time of uploading) are inappropriate must be removed, many months after they were uploaded. Some things should not be done by a bot. That bot is grossly and indiscrimately destructive, and an enemy of all who work to provide high-quality content in Wikipedia articles. BTfromLA 23:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! A civil message! I knew you had it in ya! :) You mean, high-quality content, like copyrighted pictures of 50 Cent copied off of his website, with absolutely no source / rationale at all listed? Or, scanned copyrighted CD / DVD covers, with none of the above, too? You have a point, however. A bot may not be needed to later remind us to remove these sort of images. I think, that the upload form should probably force you to enter a correct rationale (via a form), if you select a non-free license, and, not accept non-free content w/o this information. SQL^{Query me!} 05:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll use my own examples that the bot tagged. Both of these were labelled with the approropriate templates at the time they were issued: Image:Aspen3.jpg and Image:Nancydetail.jpg. I actually capitulated and wrote the (totally redundant) fair-use rationale section for the latter: the bot responded by threatening the image again. There was no problem with either oif these images--the only issue was an ex-post-facto change in bureaucratic requirements. I will not upload images to Wikipedia in the future, because of the actions of this poisonous bot. BTfromLA 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the bot is a pain in the ass. It drives away alot of users that actually want to add things to wikipedia, of course there are still the many many users that purely go around taking parts out of articles and ruining peoples work.I hate wikipedia sometimes. But then again it is the source of all knowledge. (86.159.136.163 (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Suggestion

Hello, I would like to suggest something for your bot.

No, it is not to put it where the sun don't shine (though I have had that thought...)

I have encountered several images, logos specifically, that were properly cited with a fair use rationale that was solely in text form instead of using the {{logo fur}}. Your bot tagged these as not having a proper fair use tag, driving the uploaders to contemplate violence against you, the bot or both.

So here is my suggestion: When the bot tags an image and notifies the uploader, could you please have it point out where to find the fair use template the bot looks for? Mayhaps you could possibly add a disclaimer or something to the effect of If this image has been properly cited using a plain text fair use reasoning, please consider upgrading it to the appropriate template. then put a small list of said templates.

That would be helpful in teaching editors to "fish".

Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

BCBot does not look for any templates, what it does look for is WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 12:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why does it ignore that when placed in plain text? - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Do you have a diff? Rettetast 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example from my experience. // laughing man 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

that was caused by special characters that have since been fixed. β^_command 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"I do not want to see images deleted"

So why is your bot designed to get just about as many images deleted as possible? --71.157.174.18 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex (comic strip)

Your bot appears to be posting redundant copies of the same message on Talk:Alex (comic strip). Please have a look at it and consider rectifying its behaviour. Thank you. --82.13.146.160 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Gwm-logo.jpg

It looks like the bot screwed up on this message. The page already had a non-free use rationale. --teb728 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot Exclude not working

Hi, I used the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command (with the angled brackets) in order to prevent your program from questioning the legitimacy of my using images in certain articles, when I had put in almost all the justifications I could think of. However, it has done it again: it has gone to all these images, claimed that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid" and threatened to remove it. May I have an explanation, please, in order to put an end to this. Thank you,--Marktreut (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have had to remove this bot's deletion tags about five times now for images that clearly have proper fair usage information. This bot should stop making changes that annoy people unless it's going to do them correctly. --Apavlo (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Without a link to the actual image, it is hard to tell what went wrong. I do ask though, does your rational name the article it is rationalizing? 1 != 2 15:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume, based on Marktreut's contributions over the last day, it's images like Image:Hergé (aka Georges Rémi) cartoon 018 - Colonel Sponsz as Esponja.jpg - which Marktreut has fixed properly to include the right #10c name after BCB's warning, but do have <!-- BetacommandBot Exclude -->. However, I was not aware BCB had exclusion properties for images (and given the Project's goal by April 2008, I would expect it not to have such) and looking at it's userpage, this only prevents the bot from expanding out subst'd templates, not from checking FURs (though if that's changed, then I'm mistaken). --MASEM 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The image does not have a proper rationale (it does have a rationale). The rationale should state for which page it is actually valid. I also don't think that BetacommandBot has exclusion code, that would result in images not being tagged while they do not comply with the copyright laws. IMHO, that would not be a good thing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the exclusion code is just for subst'ing and is not used on other tasks. β^_command 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

What am I missing? I cannot see what the bot is seeing when it claims the image is violating WP:NFCC#10c.

The source, article name and a copy right tag are all included. I did edit it to make it less verbose, but it still contains the same information that was there before my edit. So why did the bot tag it as not being WP:NFCC#10c?

-Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

The rationale does not say for which page the rationale is valid (that is, for each page the image is shown on there should be a separate rationale). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, it's being used in McDonald's Deluxe line which you don't have a rationale for specifically.--MASEM 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it was unclear what I was supposed to be looking for. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

WikiProject newsletter delivery bot

from Wikipedia:Bot requests

I need a bot script written for me. I need a script for a bot that can deliver a a community newsletter. It would be operated in one trip every Sunday (to deliver the newsletter). If I could get the script for that, I'd appriciate it really much. Thanks! The Chronic 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess Betacommand can help you with this. See #Newsletter bot. --Erwin85 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

if you give me what you want delivered and to who Ill set the bot up to do it. β^_command 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot Exclude not working

Hi, I used the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command (with the angled brackets) in order to prevent your program from questioning the legitimacy of my using images in certain articles even after I had put in almost all the justifications I could think of. However, it has done it again: it has gone to all these images, claimed that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid" and threatened to remove them. Nothing seems to satisfy it. Could you please inform us what kind of justification would satisfy your program, and why the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command is not working. Thank you,--Marktreut (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for example Image:Hergé (aka Georges Rémi) cartoon 018 - Colonel Sponsz as Esponja.jpg, you have indeed provided a rationale, but the rationale does not say on which page it is valid. The rationale shold be provided for ever single page that uses the image.

I am not sure, but I guess that the Exclude command would result in you not being notified of such errors, resulting in images getting deleted without the uploader being notified. That would for me be a good reason to ignore that tag for these runs. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Beta explained just above: the Exclude direction is only used in other aspects of BCB to prevent templates that are normally substituted from being substituted. The directive has absolutely no bearing on images, so you will be warned if you have an invalid rationale regardless if you have it there. --MASEM 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Free image tagged with invalid rationale

The bot has tagged Image:Mbta-logo.svg as having an invalid rationale for the second time, despite the fact that the image is in public domain. It was tagged first on November 9 and again on November 19. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But according to {{Fairusereview}} the image is labeled non-free. β^_command 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you plan to do about this? Clearly, tagging it as "invalid rationale" is the wrong thing to do. --Carnildo (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is to find out why its tagged that way in the first place. β^_command 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not the question. The question is "The bot is malfunctioning. What are you going to do to stop the malfunction?" --Carnildo (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

the bot is not malfunctioning, that image is labeled as non-free, the question is why. β^_command 02:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Marking the image with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} is clearly the wrong thing to do. What are you going to do to prevent it from happening again? --Carnildo (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gwm-logo.jpg

Can you explain this edit? [19]

My suspicion is that your bot is looking at the pre-expand wikitext when checking for links to the article in which it is used, which would cause it to overlook the link in the template. However, this template does appear to satisfy the NFCC#10; the bot should be changed to look at the expanded wikitext, or to look for this specific template.—Random832 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive fixed that issue. β^_command 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Article tagging gone mad

Hello BetacommandBot, I have noticed that you have been adding the {{WPUKroads}} tag rather indiscriminately. For instance The List (magazine) and Edinburgh Castle are now listed as within the scope of the UK roads project, which I'm not sure should be the case. It's because these (and other) articles are in Category:Royal Mile, which is a UK road. It may be worth investigating what other non-road articles are in street categories like this, meanwhile I have notified the project and will start de-tagging Royal Mile articles. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As well as the Category:Royal Mile articles mentioned above there appear to be a few other errors like Stone of Scone which the bot tagged as a road despite it being a ceremonial rock, and Royal Regiment of Scotland which is of course a military unit.

Of course, most of the tagging is correct. I'll go through and revert any more obvious errors I find but it might be worth looking at why these crept in and whether the bot's search criteria need tweaking. Euryalus (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the bot just goes by category. If an article is miscategorized, that is hardly the bot's mistake. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the problem. The Stone of Scone is categorised as a throne, a stone, British royalty, Scottish royalty, politics and history and Edinburgh Castle. None of these immediately suggests "roads" to me. By the way please note I am not criticising the Bot or its owner. Most of the tagging is correct. A small amount is wrong. It would be worth seeing if the incorrect results can be minimised for future runs. Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) It appears from this that the Bot was tagging a list of articles given it by a WPUKroads member. The errors were in the list it was given. The Bot simply carried out the requested function. Euryalus (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Edinburgh Castle and Category:Scottish Parliament are subcategories of Category:Royal Mile, which is what's causing many of the problems here. --Carnildo (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks. I've gone through and removed tags from non-road articles in these subcategories and Jonathan Oldenbuck appears to have done the same for the Royal Mile. So - hopefully this is resolved. As previously stated, the problem here was not the Bot but the list. Euryalus (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

MakkankosoppoPiccolo.JPG

The bot repeatidly tags MakkankosoppoPiccolo.JPG even though the image has a sufficent summary for its use. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You where linking to the Piccolo article, not Piccolo (Dragon Ball) where the image is used, so the bot just see that the rationale doesn't mention the article the image is used in, easily fixed though. --Sherool (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

132 days left

Hello Betacommand,

I was curious about this edit. Could you please tell me about this?

Thank you! Jecowa (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

it is the deadline for wikipedia to be NFC compliant. β^_command 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoroughbred horse racing Images

Would you kindly let me know when you are done targeting the images I have uploaded. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked

I've blocked the bot pending resolution of this problem. There's a related thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BetacommandBot blocked yet again --Carnildo (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Subdividing

Is there a way to track which articles in a category BCB has tagged as being non-compliant? Specifically, I'd like to take a category like Category:All non-free Logos and see all the non-compliant articles BCB has tagged (I'd ideally like to see all non-compliant images, but don't know how to write a bot to do it.) Mbisanz (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that would kinda be useless, as the bot tags images for deletion. Looking over at Category:Disputed non-free images would be more effective, IMHO. --Maxim 02:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Those stupid messages

The messages that your bot leaves on talk pages about images that need FU rationale are really annoying. As it is, it's a big block of text that seriously clutters up talk pages, especially when there are multiples. It's even more annoying when they messages are still around even after the FU has been added or the image deleted. Please either shorten the message it leaves or incorpate some sort of auto-message removal for after the issue is resolved.--SeizureDog (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The messages are based on Templates. The templates are established policy. If you disagree, then go to WP:FURG and link to those templates, and contest from their talk pages. -- Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs @99, i.e. 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's really not that tough to remove a notice from the talkpage of an article after the concern is dealt with. It's much less tedious than the constant repetitive queries on this talkpage. Maxim 02:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify cryptic #10c concern

I answer questions at WP:MCQ, and too many people come there who are totally mystified by the disputed fair use rationale concern of “invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.” I suggest that you modify the concern to say something like “no non-free use rationale for use on <<article>>. See WP:NFCC#10c.” Thanks, teb728 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, isn't that what I am saying. Tell them what you are saying and tell them where to get the information? - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

doesnt (c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use. cover that? β^_command 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The contents of WP:NFCC may be clear, but the messages you are leaving aren't. --Carnildo (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Experienced users like you and me can figure the message out well enough. But for image newbies it is mystifying. See for example here and here. --teb728 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another example of a user mystified by your #10c message. It is from today; so I see you have not yet fixed the problem. --teb728 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. It was an old warning—just a new question. Sorry. If (as may be the case) you are looking into the problem, perhaps you should have said so here. Your last post seemed to dismiss the problem. --teb728 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

you would have noticed it the next time the bot ran. β^_command 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Moonbuggy.jpg

This image got deleted from the Space 1999 moon buggy page. I'm pretty sure that I put in a fair use rationale after the warning was put in. If you look at my past history you'll see that I've been pretty good at doing so when I didn't initially put it in, and when acquainted with the process I have now done so. I do not remove the warning templates afterwards as I'm sure it's removed by yourself. Douglasnicol (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. The deleting admin made a mistake. Rettetast (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

Based on my understanding that you're discussing or have discussed the issue, Betacommand, I'm unblocking this bot. I suggest that you review policy to ensure that the bot is following it correctly, and if it is not, work to correct it. Carnildo, if you read this here: Please remember that blocks are intended to be a last-resort to prevent further damage. In fact, I'd suggest that any admin with problems with this bot bring the issue to betacommand's attention, politely, and he will be able to work to resolve it. A block is a last resort, and is not a way to revoke a bot's approval. That should instead be done through the bureaucrats, who approve them in the first place. Blocks are preventative, and unless there is a critical issue with a bot and the operator is not available, the bot should not be blocked. Blocking BetacommandBot is becoming more of a rite of passage than the solemn duty it should be. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, 'crats flag bots, they do not approve them. Bot approvals/approval revocations are done by WP:BAG at WP:RFBOT. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(I know, I'm in BAG, I was making the point that approvals are delegated to BAG by crats, and that crats are really the ones with the power) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 17:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Something must be done about Betacommandbot.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Something must be done about Betacommandbot, we are perennially told. So here I am doing something about it, namely awarding you this barnstar for putting up with the endless tide of crap that comes with defending Wikipedia from copyright hell. If ever the masses realise that "I found it on the web somewhere" != "public domain", you will have played a major part in the process. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Guy! -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. Maxim 01:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fourthed... --MASEM 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fifthed!:) SQL^{Query me!} 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sixthed! You and the BetacommandBot don't get enough praise and recognition for your work, and it's nice to see you both awarded like this! :) Acalamari 03:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Seventhed! We love your bot! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Eighthed. Will ^(talk) 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

All the cool people were here before me :( I can only agree with the barnstar. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Pff .. nothing has to be done about BetacommandBot! What is this all about. The bot is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. 99.9% correct, and of the 0.1% which is not 'correct' surely in 99% of the cases there is something else wrong with the image, and the tagging is correct. I award you The da Vinci Barnstar for the technological wonder that is called BetacommandBot! Dirk Beetstra T C 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		And for whatever others say or have said, I know the bot is 'learning' from its mistakes. I hope it will, resilient as ever, go on tagging wrongly-tagged or un-tagged non-free images! Dirk Beetstra T C 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ninthed. I've done my best to help those who need to be helped. Keep up the good work BCBot...... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

VP

Hi I was recently approved by you for vandalproof however it is saying that i am not approved please fix this ASAP Alexfusco5 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

try it now, I was fight a few errors. β^_command 17:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

still not working my name isn't on the approved list either Alexfusco5 18:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

that was one of the know VP bugs, it should be fixed now. β^_command 18:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it is working now Alexfusco5 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

VP Not Approved

Hi, I had applied for VP and been turned down once for not having enough edit experience. I re-applied after waiting and getting more experience like we discussed, but now I see I was rejected again [20]. What am I missing here? Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

/me scratches head :Im not sure why you got rejected. Ill go add you to the list. β^_command 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not transwikiing a good image

Why did your bot reject this image: [21]. It certainly looks to me like it has a category. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

please note my following edit. β^_command 19:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It didn't seem to have a problem with that on other images: [22]. I'm not sure that was the problem (and if it was, it might be a good feature add). The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternative music articles by size?

I've just taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size, and was wondering if you could do the same for Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music? (No problem if you don't feel like doing so.) Category:WikiProject Alternative music articles would be the category in question. 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

give me a ~8 hours, I dont have access to my SSH key for the toolserver at the moment. β^_command 22:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done β^_command 13:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Much appreciated. CloudNine (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You say "I do not want to see images deleted"...

Yet your bot is designed to get just about as many images deleted as possible? You never replied to this the last time it was posted, and it deserves a response. Even if the response is to take that quote out of your intro, as it quite blatantly brands you as a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.223.55 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the bot is designed to assure that on March 23, 2008 as many images as possible don't get deleted, but that the uploaders can first do something about those which are not properly tagged. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the bot does not delete any images. It simply tags them for deletion - if after a week no human attempts to fix them and a human reviewing the image for deletion cannot fix it without work, then the image is deleted. There's review in the process. --MASEM 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is designed to help fix images. it tags then in hope that someone will fix the image. β^_command 13:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: My talk page, Snakehead british cover

Is it OK now?

The Helpful One (Talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for updating the bot, providing a much better commentary as to why images are tagged for FUR violations, Much more helpful. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Welcome back.. I'm following the bot to help out... perhaps it's like banging my (our) head against a brick wall...?! Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Bot

...has tagged the same image on the WAJR (AM) page twice now for not having an FU-R, when it does...on the page....added by me. Please fix this. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't complete. It...is...now. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is going on? The bot is tagging images with perfectly valid fair use rationales. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

the image in question did not have the exact title of the page where the image is used β^_command 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you honestly saying that your bot can't tell that the image is being used for that page (the WAJR-AM image is being used only on the WAJR (AM) page) and that page only? It has to have "the exact title of the page where the image is used"? Ya think ya might be able to change that so it can recognize that? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no issue with the bot - it's just following policy. JPG-GR (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think numerous admins and editors (and about 25 blocks so far) would disagree with you. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot discussion

I replied but just a heads up here. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot suggestion

Hi there. I have had a thought for one way that you might reduce the number of complaints (and blocks) about BCB: on the user page, the tasks are currently linked as a log search to the approval pages, which are pretty messy to look at. If you took a few minutes to make a subpage, e.g. User:BetacommandBot/Tasks, where you list exactly what the bot does, in a form explaining triggers and actions clearly, then at the very least when people make a complaint anyone can compare it to the task description, and only take action when there is a difference.

For example, at the moment there's an issue where the bot is apparently not following redirects in FURs, despite a comment that it's supposed to. If, under "Task: check fair use rationales", it included the line "Bot will check whether rationale includes link to article, or link to redirect to article", then everyone would be clear on what was supposed to happen. Just a thought. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging by bot

• I am pretty sure that the bot's tagging of Image:The Amityville Curse 1990 DVD Cover.JPG was incorrect in terms of wikipedia policy or the guideline at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. While the template for fair use rationale had not been used, the rationale had been provided although without the link to the movie, the movie was implicitly mentioned ("In the article about this movie") and the image name contained the movie title plus it is all over the image - any human could have seen that and the intent of the guideline had been clearly met.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 22:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Don't understand why an image I uploaded violates fair-use policies. It is this pic: Image:Uwlathletics.gif. What is the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosscountrycpjon (talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop immediately

You're adding user tags to article pages. Gimmetrow 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah I just realized that, there was an error in the BOTREQ, Im having that fixed now. β^_command 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is going on?

The bot is tagging images that have a fair use rationale. For example Image:Virtual_Qumran.jpg. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has a fair-use rationale, but not a correct one. The fair-use rationale has to be provided for every page it is used on, but now it links to another page. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Bachelors Greatest Hits.jpg

I loaded this up thinking it was OK as "cover art" being an album cover, if I am wrong please remove immediately. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to explain on which page(s) the fair-use rationale is valid. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thought you might want to know

Your link to WP:NONFREE in edit summaries is going directly to the edit link instead of the page itself, thus it is showing as red in the edit summaries. IvoShandor (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you caught it before I commented. IvoShandor (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirects. Again.

Didn't you get in trouble for not recognizing redirects about 5 months or so ago? Well, your bot is ignoring backlink redirects in fair use rationale again. Due to page moves and merges and the like, this is not tenable. Please stop your bot until you fix the problem. SnowFire (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

BCBot does now see redirects and follows them, comment from 17 September 2007. Could Betacommand please clear this up quickly or I may block the bot. Haukur (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tuff.jpg

This image was not found in any web site. It was taken from an offline, burned DVD. Please do not remove the image at any costs. Thank you. Jonghyunchung (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But the fair-use rationale is not for the correct page, you might want to repair that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tnp-logo.png

Could anyone help me to put a right fair use template to this image?... Image:Tnp-logo.png I don't understand a thing, and I'd really like to have this problem solved. It would be sad to have this pic removed... Help, please! Klow (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to tell for each use why you think that the use is 'fair use' (per WP:NFCC. You can find the instructions on that page. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging missed redirect

The bot just tagged Image:Shriners.png for not having the article name. However, the FUR did contain a valid redirect to the article name. Should it be checking for this case?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Amityville Curse 1990 DVD Cover.JPG

Image:The Amityville Curse 1990 DVD Cover.JPG wrongly tagged it would seem by your bot? The DVD cover had the appropriate licensing tag and was only linked to one page? I will check for a link to the article name but was unaware that that was mandatory. What have I missed?--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the fair use rationale using the template but ALL that information had already been included in the summary with, in my view, an adequate and unambiguoius form of words. --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rabbi Prinz1.jpg

Please explain what I need to do to prove this. The photo is the property of the American Jewish Congress, where I was employed as Director of Communications. I had and have authorization to use the picture on for the Internet and Wikipedia. Please tell me what is needed here, I will get it for Wiki. Thank you

Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Useless bot

Can't it follow redirects or is it just fucking stupid? —Pengo 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion here. Haukur (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot follow the discussion. Has it been fixed or not? —Pengo 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Disputed fair use rationale"

Please do not use the word "disputed". People "dispute". Bots tag. There is no dispute, just an over zealous bot. —Pengo 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree with this. If this bot needs to tag images which don't have links back to the article in which is used, and no existing image tag/category is suitable, perhaps a new tag and category should be created, e.g. Category:Non-free images without proper article name. DHowell (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What the beeswax is going on?

The following images have been challenged: Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg, Image:Phoenix (static).jpg, Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg and Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg are all challenged under fair use. What does it take to have them qulaify since three of them are screen shots and the other is an organization's logo. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Images used in articles which are renamed/moved

Please update your bot to recognize when an article is renamed or moved. The image Image:KNUJ.png used in KNUJ (AM) was tagged for deletion, apparently because the article had the name KNUJ when the rationale was added. The article was renamed and the redirect was replaced with a disambiguation page, which is why, if your bot is checking for redirects, this check would have failed. If your bot could check the edit history of the article (either the one in which it is used, or the one which is named in the use rationale) to determine if a rename occurred, and either leave the image alone or fix the article names in the image description, this would be a million times appreciated. Thank you. DHowell (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relevant discussion King of the NorthEast 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

DeliveryBot

Okay. Here: the newsletter is located right here. It goes out to everybody on the project's members list except for those in the no-spam list. The Chronic 05:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

that no-spam list does not have any members. β^_command 13:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I fixed the link to the no-spam list. That work? The Chronic 15:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

the bot will subst Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Outreach/Newsletter/Current I created that page so that it would have a stable page to read from and I would not have to change anything. Should I send out the current version, and how often should it run? β^_command 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, never mind now. The newsletter has already been delivered by another bot. However, that would be good in the case that I would ask you to deliver it next time. Thanks though! The Chronic 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question: If I set up an alternate account exclusively to deliver the newsletter (likely using AWB), but assisting it doing so, would that considered an assisted bot? If so, do I need bot approval to use it? The Chronic 03:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

just poke me, all I have to do is type a single command and the bot will deliver the newsletter. β^_command 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly contesting images

Is this bot going to repeatedly contest images? Image:The Normal Heart.jpg is a poster that is used on the play's page, as well as the author of the play's page. This is inherently fair use, yet this bot has tagged this as disputed twice. What is the issue here? --David Shankbone 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFURG β^_command 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, in plain English, it needs a link or other mention of The Normal Heart in its fair-use rationale, and it needs a link or other mention of Larry Kramer in a fair-use rationale for that article (there's no mention of why it's fair use in the author's article). --Carnildo (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:STB-tvchannel-logo.jpg

What is wrong whith that image? Cannot be it used as a logo? K r i s t o f ^talk 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can. You just have to adapt the fair-use rationale to tell for which page the rationale is valid. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use Image:Renegades-logo.GIF

This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law.

Logo is of a 501c not-for-profit organization. Also no free equivalent of this image can exist. Use of this image on Wikipedia does not restrict its use by the copyright holder. It illustrates the organization or a component or an aspect of the organization in question.Werecowmoo (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You just have to add that the rationale is valid for the page it is shown on. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rena-udeba1.jpg

You're bot says this image infringes WP:NFCC#10c, but there's a clear fair use rationale for each article the image is used in, with all the information required by that criterion. Therefore, I'm removing the tag. If you still have a concern, feel free to discuss it on the image's talk page. EDIT: I realized the link to the relevant article provided in the fair use rationale was a redirect. Maybe that was the cause of the wrong tagging? Kazu-kun (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The redirects were indeed detected wrongly, I believe that problem has been solved now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Supertux.png

What's wrong with the rational for this picture? It keeps rejecting it, so I went all the way and copied the use agreement from the game, and it still doesn't like it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin boy93 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a screenshot of GFDL software, and has no non-GFDL elements, shouldn't it use a GFDL image licensing tag? Gimmetrow 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to include the name of each page the image is shown on, the rationale is per-page. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

non-Free Use Rationale

Your bot tagged Image:Powers_of_ten.jpg But I believe that it is in fair-use.

it was tagged because it did not have a rationale β^_command 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Category renaming/merging

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 27#Category:Non-free Logos. --- RockMFR 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:SanBernardinoValley-1907-loc.jpg

I suspect that you know more about this stuff than I do. So can you take a look at it please. It was uploaded with such obvious bullshit by a user that has uploaded several copyrighted images. I left a comment at Image talk:SanBernardinoValley-1907-loc.jpg. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio guitar images

Just came across quite a few copyvio guitar images that are lifted from guitarcenter.com, musiciansfriend.com and other onlone vendor sites. The uploads come from Stratovarious (talk · contribs). Some are tagged as permission granted... some are already tagged for lack of proper licensing. All are copyright violations. 156.34.230.187 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your bot can't read.

I can't figure out how it is that your bot has enough AI to think that it can judge fair use claims, like here... kmccoy (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The image does not state for which image that fair use rationale is valid though. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that doesn't explain. A) it's a sound file, not an image, and B) it states that the fair use claim is for articles about Reinhardt Heydrich. kmccoy (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

it was an issue with redirects, which has now been fixed. β^_command 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:RTHK-logo.svg

Your bot Betacommandbot just tagged a FUR tag on the image above (the title). I do not see any problem with my fur. If you see any problem, please talk to me in my talk page. --Jackl 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

off the bat I'd say its that the article its listed as being used in is RTHK and the file link says its used in Radio Television Hong Kong. You could put the full URL of the source displayed instead of just linked, but I don't think BCB has a problem with that. Also, I've seen longer Purposes used, but again, I don't think that's what BCB was looking at. Mbisanz (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is fine, BC and his bot just screwed up.[23] Haukur (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Now now Haukurth, you know what they say, if you have nothing nice to say.... By the way, Mbisanz was right, it was because article specified was a redirect, not the precise name of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to inform. And they did screw up as explained in the diff I cited. Haukur (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you keep pointing out, it didn't follow the redirect. But nobody died, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's your standard for evaluating BetacommandBot's work? Whether anyone dies from it? Haukur (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In any event, the user wasn't even looking here for an answer "please talk to me in my talk page". I've replied there summarizing it all. Mbisanz (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, obviously that would be silly, but really I think there's a lot of huff and puff going into moaning about the Bot when just modifying the FU would take seconds. It's a better idea to educate people how to do it right and why they're getting messages (even if their FU were right in the first place, but it does beg the question, if the page has been changed into a disambiguation page, it wouldn't be right for BCbot to follow ther redirect would it?) rather than taking the stance thate BCBot should be terminated. Ultimately it's doing the "right thing", just not in an optimal fashion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not some raving luddite - I'm a software engineer. I don't want to kill bots, I want them to work properly. I don't know why you're bringing disambiguation pages into this, I don't see any relevance. You talk about the need "to educate people how to do it right and why they're getting messages" and I'm saying that they need more helpful and specific messages to begin with. Every day there are a dozen confused people at this page asking questions - I am certain that you could cut this confusion by half by providing more helpful messages to begin with. Why you are still defending BCB's failure to follow redirects yesterday when even BC himself has stated that it was an error is beyond me. If you look at User:Carnildo and his OrphanBot you'll see someone who's doing similar things in a much more competent way. Haukur (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Software engineer? Me too, dull life isn't it? I'd rather be out in the forest... The dab page was just a thought that crossed my mind, a situation where just following the redirect would be a bad thing. Anyway, you're right about the confused people, most of them never even read the templates they blindly add to pages. Their fault. I'm not defending anyone, I agreed with you, BC said the Bot should follow redirects, you've pointed it out a few times already, the Bot doesn't do it right now. Point made, many times. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we agree on the forest part :) Haukur (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I need a lawyer

Your BetacommandBot is a reaper. It is inserting {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} at screenshots images. Since they already have {{Non-free software screenshot}} labels, what's the problem. Please write a standard text to show me what will satisfy you. Regards Necessary Evil (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you direct me to an example? The fair use template alone is not enough. You must add a rationale and specify which article the fair use rationale applies to. Let me see which one you have a specific problem with... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; Image:PPT1.jpg - Image:Wmppalm12.gif - Image:Word Pro.jpg - Image:Word97pinball.jpg - etc.

What should be written to avoid the threat of deletion? regards Necessary Evil (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

those images need a Rationale β^_command 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you reprogramme BetacommandBot to insert {{Non-free use rationale}} when it deals with screenshot images? Few contributors want to chew through boring guidelines, so many valuable screenshots will be lost. The line "Replaceability" should be pre-infilled as it's identical for all screenshots. Necessary Evil (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see #5 #6 #9 above. Bots cannot write rationales. β^_command 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time Necessary Evil (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi BC, just wondered, now you've fixed the redirect issue, what happens if a page is modified to become a disambiguation page? Can the bot spot that or are those pages just going to be doomed? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah the redirect issue was fixed about 20 minutes after I got home from work. As for DaB pages there is no good method for bots to check those that would be nice on the servers. β^_command 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just thought I'd ask! I'll keep my eyes peeled for any erroneous dabs... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Denied for VP?

Hey, I was wondering why I was denied for VP, according to this diff? --Nn123645 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cerebus 110 23 bc.jpg

Having scrutinized the rules reg. non-free images, I see that uploading the image in question was a bit of a bad idea. I'll certainly give it more thought next time. Thanks for enlightening me. Tchernobog (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot tagged image for deletion incorrectly

This so called "BOT" has been doing a lot of this. How do we stop this person. They are removing photos with fair use rationale, then removing comments from here about it.Wikibones (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Image:Wake county logo.jpg. The bot tagged the image as lacking a fair use rationale; however the image descruption page DOES contain such rationale, and as far as I can tell, the rationale is being used correctly. Please manually double check this, and see that it is fixed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The link in the title of the image is to a redirect page, not to the page the image is located on. If I am correct, Betacommand repaired this in the bot, I did the image. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good catch Dirk. Thank you for handling that. I appreciate it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:PhilTrust_banner_408x71.gif

hi, please check, i found the (hopefully) right logo rationale template, thanks a LOT!

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, except that the section header for the rationale should contain a wikilink to the article. If you repair that, all should be fine! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot msgs are misstating policy

This point has been made before. The bot's fair use msgs still say images "lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded", but policy says one week after notification. Fix it please. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

actually they can be deleted within 48 hours. I extend that to 168 hours. β^_command 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Yoshi2-title.png

STOP SPAMMING MY TALK PAGE. Your bot is out of order. I DO NOT UPLOAD ORIGINAL IMAGES. I just OPTIMISE them. Either fix your bot or write an exception for my uploads. --Tene (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL β^_command 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My solution to this for OrphanBot is that, if an upload summary contains any of the words or word fragments "optimis", "optimiz", "adjust", "tweak", "scale", "crop", "change", or "resize", that person is not considered the original uploader of the image, and is not notified unless they're the only person in the upload history for that image. OrphanBot and ImageTaggingBot also maintain lists of people to never notify. --Carnildo (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use for Image:Takemitsu litany excerpt.ogg and others in the Takemitsu article

There IS a fair use rational on these pages that lists the EXACT publishing details of the original recordings etc. Unless you do not JUSTIFY your 'claims' in plain english you will simply destroy a good, featured article candidate that uses music samples LEGALLY. Matt.kaner (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What the bot means is that it wants you to say "Tōru Takemitsu" rather than "Toru Takemitsu". Didn't see that one coming, did ya? Haukur (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't sign in?

Why can't I sign in to VandalProof? (please reply on my talk page) Chetblong^{talk to me} 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)