![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your bot has a mild issue of tagging images that contain fair use rationale that mention past article names. It recently tagged Image:Maylee-p.jpg which explained its rationale for use in May Lee, the old article space that May Lee (The King of Fighters) was at.-- SeizureDog 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know there's a spelling error in your bot's message: notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE – it should say "notifying". -- Canley 05:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
what the fuck is your bots problem with the fair use rational of this image? i asked you the same thing regarding another of my images a week ago which you ignored, an actual response this time would be most appreciated!-- Dan027 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand,
Your bot has done a great job of spotting dodgy fair use, but we're now up to an 11 day backlog at CSD, trying to deal with all the tagged articles! Would it be possible to wait for a few days to let us catch up? Also, the following cases seem to occur quite frequently:
Thanks for your hard work, as ever! Papa November 10:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some issues with your bot as it keeps on tagging images I have uploaded as having "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" when this is obviously not the case (and yes, I have gone to that particular criteria and read it in depth).
As I have probably uploaded hundreds of fair-use film poster images over the past year or so, I would appreciate if you would get this issue fixed as I am rather tired of having my talk page spammed with your notifications. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Here and Here are just two of the many images that have been tagged by your bot for no apparent reason. WP:NFCC#10c states: "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." This passage obviously does not apply as the article name and fair-use rationale is included in this, and every single other poster image I have uploaded.
As I said before, I am being spammed with multiple messages from your bot nearly every day now, and as it is only likely to get worse given the sheer number of images I have uploaded. Please fix this issue as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious the bot is not smart enough to tell if the rationale is proper or not. Stop it ASAP. Grue 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, the Bot incorrectly tagged Image:Lenin 1887.jpg as subject to Delete per WP:NONFREE for "lack of Fair Use rationale". However, the image in question is PD, not Fair Use. As the image seems to be correctly categorized, why did the Bot misconstrue it as Nonfree? JGHowes talk - 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
When you leave the bot running for too long, do you revert all the edits made after the time you meant to switch it off? If you did that, it would show respect for people's concerns that too many images have been tagged to deal with in the available time. Carcharoth 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
WIth regard to your ridicolus charges of using the Italian Military Coat of Arms in violation of some imaginative copyright, I have the honour to inform you that the only copyright that I am violating is the copyright on anglo-american stupid and absurd obsession for copyrights. Do you seriously believe that there is a copyright on this sybol? Are you kidding? You admins of wikipedia have deleted many of my contribs with this absurd obsession. I'm sick of this stupid rules! What do you expect from me, that I phone to Mr. Arturo Parisi (our Minister of Defence) and I ask him for a oath asserting that Italian Military Coat of Arms are not protected by a copyright????????????? Symbols of italian institutions are not of private property (as all things in your country) so there are not copyright over symbols that belong to all the Italians. It is clear? Or do you want to talk to Mr. Prodi? So I will delete my account, cause wikipedia is really pastering. Auguri di cuore per la vostra enciclopedia delle cavolate. Quando voi americani imaparerete a liberarvi dalla vostra ossessione per la proprietà privata sarà sempre troppo tardi, non potrete mai essere liberi come noi europei. Goodbye.
-- Conte di Cavour 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your rules are simply ridiculous. It is not possible to work in order to improve wikipedia under similar conditions. Goodevening. -- Conte di Cavour 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering if the new fair use rationale meets your approval. Thanks! Taric25 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: [2]
I am looking for some details on how to create a bot, thought you might be able to help me out on where to get the details, could you? :-) NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 11:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed above in User talk:Betacommand/20081201#.3F.3F.3F, User_talk:Betacommand#Regarding_an_image and User_talk:Betacommand#Disputed_Fair_Use_Over_Uploaded_Images, someone has a question about your bot and you only respond with "Please see WP:NFCC#10c". Many of the people asking are probably new and don't know too much about WP:NFCC. Also, because the 10c text is at the bottom of the WP:NFCC page, when you click on a link to WP:NFCC#10c, rule 10c isn't aligned at the top of the page, making it unclear which part of the policy is violated. IMO, it would be much better to say something like "You need to include a link to the articles the image is used on in the rationale (see WP:NFCC#10c", as that would be understood by both new and experienced users, causing less frustrations and probably less people asking questions on your talk page as they can see the previous answers and understand the problem.
Also, when the bot tags an image that fails NFCC#10c, maybe you could program it to write as rationale "the fair-use rationale does not specify which articles the image is to be used in (see WP:NFCC#10c", as that would allow anyone seeing the tag to immediately know what the problem is and fix it. This would probably also cause less questions to your talk page and make the bot seem more friendly.
I know that you get a lot of flak over your bot, much of it undeserved, but I think the problem for many is that its tag messages are often very terse and difficult to understand unless you know Wikipedia policy very well. Adding a better explanation might make the messages seem more friendly and understandable, which might get your bot a bit more good-will. 129.240.250.48 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I changed your edit, I think I did that two years ago and you scolded me then too, but it was two years ago.
Could you RE-DO your UserCompare tool with the full 27 account names? I have added the remaining ones to:
so you can see all of them.
Thanks. IP4240207xx 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up! This article already went the Afd route and the result was keep. The listing needs to be adjusted to start a new Afd, I guess. (not my expertise). Cheers! -- Stormbay 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |||||||||||||
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
Unforatuntely, I cannot provide an example, as the user that pointed this out has not responded for my request for one, but:
In the video games project, we've got a subst: template that would put a FUR in the image with some appropriate responses typical for video games; the FUR did not include (until 2 days ago) the new Article field, but it did place it in an h2- type header right above the FUR. [3] is an example of what came out of that field (note the missing article header, and "Pong" above in a title line).
Now, I know from what I've seen BCB would not tag that one since "pong" is used a couple different places, but I have been told that "hundreds" of similar images have been tagged that previously had used this Template:Vgrationale subst'd template and now were failing. My question is: would BCB be catching the page link for the FUR in there, and if not, should it be catching (either is that a bug or a case that has to be determined by a human?) -- Masem 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Your bot tagged the above image as failing NFCC #10, but the article title is actually included in the rationale. It's probably some complication of the fact that it's a piped link to a redirect, but I believe the rationale (though not particularly well written) does meet at least criterion 10. Thanks for all the work you do on images. ( ESkog)( Talk) 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have spent many hours uploading lots of album covers for use in album articles in Wikipedia. As we all know, album covers can be used under fair use. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images. I have uploaded about 600 of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one. All the images I upload already specify the source and the fact that it is an album cover. I'm just letting you know that it will be a great loss to Wikipedia if you let this continue. Weatherman90 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked your bot. After all the complaints generated by this latest unapproved task after myriad issues just like this one, I looked into things and found that you let your bot run for over 9 hours after you started receiving complaints that it was mis-tagging images or tagging too many too fast. Furthermore, this task was never approved. This has been an ongoing problem with your bot and with you. Mango juice talk 04:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If so, have a look here, particularly the bit at the end. Is there a page that clearly exlpains to people what is going on, so they don't get all upset and leave due to a simple misunderstanding? I think in that case it is manual, but have you had lots of feedback from the bot-initiated transfers? Carcharoth 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Expander.png. Please fix or shut down. EdC 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly I'm sick of being drilled 50kb bot message when I have spent many hours uploading lots of film or tv posters/ screenshots such as Image:LateLamentedPartner.jpg for use in articles in Wikipedia. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images even when I have added a full detailed 10 point rationa;e and met all the requirements of non-free media. I have uploaded about hundreds of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one either. All the images I upload already specify the source and have the rationale. Tagging images in such a way which have already had much work in adding a full rationale when they are being used for encycloepdic images is unacceptable as is unloading a 50kb message onto my talk page. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand why your bot (read YOU) have a problem with the image I uploaded to show the Leonard Cohen film cover, and I don't understand what you want me to do. I put a clear fair-use reason when I uploaded the image, and there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of images uploaded for the same reason. Alan 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand, Your comment here, makes me think you have a useful tool, but when I go to the link you provided, nothing happens. Is it broken at your end, my end, or you don't know? You've piqued my curiousity. -- barneca ( talk) 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Betacommand. With regards to this [5], sorry to sound dumb but what is it? I see that the sections below appear to count the number of times each user has edited a particular topic, but I'm just curious as to what the numbers in the first section mean. Thanks, Phonemonkey 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the link you gave here is broken. — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that this tag was definitely invalid: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Image:Chocolat_%28soundtrack%29.jpg&direction=next&oldid=135416410
Hello, your comments would be welcome at the RedirectCleanupBot RFA [6] Uncle uncle uncle 04:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you care to explain your odd comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot? — METS501 ( talk) 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Porcupine (
prickle me! ·
contribs ·
status)
12:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was recently approved by you to use VandalProof. However, once I downloaded the 136 zip file and VP137.exe file, I cannot log in. The program can locate my username and password, however, it says: "No priviliges found." Also, I clicked on the button Verify Authorisation, yet it still didn't work. Can you please help? Thanks. σмgн gσмg 09:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message to my talk page re: Vandal Proof. I appreciate that one cannot approve everyone who requests it, and your advice that I apply, perhaps, at a later time is hopeful to say the least.
However, it would definitely be more advantageous if I had a firm idea what you were looking for in a user, especially as I would hate to go through this process again, only to be turned-down again. Would you please give me an honest critique of your rationale, so that I may be aware of any(perceived) shortcomings on my part? If you would prefer to send me an e-mail, I have no objection.
Please, before you object to this request, consider that, in my case, I never gave a failing grade to a student without giving him a sound reason, and the steps he could take to better himself. I would hope that I would receive no less. Thank you for your time.-- Lyricmac 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume I don't get to reapply in 30 days too? Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but can you fix my copyright symbols. They are my drawings and photos.
Thanks again.
Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at my talk page, and the messages your bot left all over it. All 3 oggs are linked to from where they were used (to great effect I might add) on WP:RD/C and its archive. Take the tag off and review your code -- froth t 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The images that you've tagged(mostly of mine), for deletion were attached to articles, that were unjustly redirected. I've been trying to save them possibly to be sent to a proposed Even Stevens Wiki.. However, if I can't get one going, I'm going to undo the redirections and they'll belong to articles once again. Therefore I'm requesting that you not tag them for deletion so quickly. ---- DanTD 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Fix your stupid bot so it stops tagging images that are obivously not orphaned as orphaned, please. Jtrainor 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Will you please stop it. It is harassment ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have put many of the orphaned images up for deletion where they ar enot needed and I keep getting repeat tags for orphaning. Aaaaaaaah ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your bot is a joke. It has done some great work but it is really pissing me off tonight ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Its given me repeat messages I have already bothered to address by putting up for deletion. Its not fair to unleash it like this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please change your bot to check for {{ not orphan}} . Thank you. Ibjoe 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You tagged this image as orphaned. It is linked from the Elton John article and not contained in-line. It would serve no purpose as a thumbnail and is more a reference. I have removed the orphaned template, assuming you have no objections. Thanks, Oldak Quill 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, your bot doesn't understand the {{notorphan}} template [7].
You notified me two times about the orphaned image but it's fine. My very question is why did you post the notification on my page where in fact [8], the original uploader is not me. Please do clear this thing. Thanks Bet. BritandBeyonce ( talk• contribs) 07:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Your bot marked it as "orphaned". The reason it's orphaned is due to a slash-and-burn of some 300 "trivia" sections, fomented by one editor and aided-and-abetted by an admin currently under arbcom scrutiny for his actions. [9] Until that issue is resolved, the trivia sections (such as this picture's place, in Palatine uvula) are going to have to stay out, to prevent further edit warring. Kindly leave that picture alone until the issue is settled. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not orphaned. Someone has decided that the fair use image should be converted to SVG and has relicensed it to GFDL. Not much I can do about this. Your bot is wrong though. It's most definitely not orphaned. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Can u delete the pictures Image:Pleasure.jpg and Image:Amanda Perez.jpg. I dont need them anymore. ii LUV MY MYSPACE FAM!! MiiZ SPECTAC (hii!) 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Vanhalenrulesforever created a better version. BUT he states he created it and owns the copyright. Yet the Badge was made in the 1400s and there is no cennection between John Freeston, the founder, and Vanhalenrulesforever, who i already know is not a relative. Meaning the fair use in HIS is incorrect along with the copyright logo. OsirisV 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
...eh? You removed the external link? How come? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this bot could be fixed to understand the "not orphan" tag, ie. images which are not orphans even though they appear not to be in any page. Richard W.M. Jones 08:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the 100 PD images - what possible source could I provide if there images are owned by me?
-- Mrlopez2681 02:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
---ebay, Russia, New York. Many places. Some that I own I actually have seen in books nad have sanned, so maybe Ill just put whichever book has them as the source. Anyway, so what do I do - put ebay as a source (PS - I fixed the message below to separate the two....)
BTW - could you direct to a template that I can put on the image page where I can add all of the required info such as source, etc? Thank you.
-- Mrlopez2681 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been approved to use Vandalproof but when i try to login, it says i have not been aproved to use it. What sould i do? Eddie6705 10:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[11] I've reverted this, since the template says "no rationale". The rationale is not only there, it is <u>underlined</u>.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's just picking one me. That soundtrack image, for example - every album article has a cover, why should that ONE that I uploaded be any different?-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You could have the decency to apologise for posting useless crap on my talkpage, about images I had never touched.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I quote, "An image you uploaded". I didn't, therefore it had no meaning to me. You hold a position of responsibility here, and refusing to apologise for a really rather silly mistake is pretty naughty.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No? Oh, well, you certainly don't deserve the small amount of respect that you had, in that case.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BC. I was wondering if there's any progress on the script for automating the list you generated here ? If I remember correctly, you had said you'd put it in BCBot's userspace. Is it on a separate subpage? Thanks BC. ... Kenosis 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you processed the VandalProof list and that I was rejected. I thought I had met all of the requirements to use VP. Could you let me know where I am lacking so I can improve for the future? Mbisanz 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I deleted the image as non-free orphaned. I linked to a copy of the image on another website. -- Oldak Quill 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello I propose to totally rework this image with english into this picto-gramme due to its importance for green hous gas emissions Kyoto etc...
To my knowledge this should satisfy all parties.
Regards, J A
I love you, Mr. Bot. -- 69.139.45.173 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please fix your bot to NOT incorrectly mark images for deletion. This is the second time it has done so for image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazrac.jpg . This image is tagged with {{[[Template:not orphan{{|}}T-Mek|not orphan{{|}}T-Mek]]}}
(not orphan|T-Mek). This is also the second time that I have reported to you your bot's INCORRECT behavior. It is not checking for the "not orphan" tag. Please shut it down until it is fixed! Thank you
Ibjoe
06:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have proceeded to delete messages on my talk page regarding image deletions. Please note I am not opposed to this act because I understand that Wikipedia must protect itself from copyright violations; also, I'm not an expert on copyright laws so I cannot discuss this topic properly. However I feel that the posts themselves (with their showy warning signs) are annoying, especially the ones made by Bots and not people. Therefore I'm removing them for easy of reading of the page. I include this explanation here to note I'm not doing it out of spite. Anyone who wants to read those messages can do so by checking the page's history. Also, please refrain in the future from giving me any more warnings regarding image deletions. Just go ahead and remove them if you feel they are improper. (Bot messages will also be removed immediately.) Thank you. - Wilfredo Martinez 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This table on the Medicine portal page inspired me to do something about a few "unassessed quality" pages the other day. What I'd really like is to be able to click on the numbers in the table and get a list of pages which are BOTH "unassessed" AND "mid" importance. I did the unassessed/high importance ones by hand (although the table hasn't updated since then), but clicking through 679 pages to find the 18 unassessed ones is beyond the limits of my joints.
NCurse thought that you would likely know how to do things like this, or that you might know someone who did. Can you tell me if this would be a relatively easy upgrade? (I'll watch this page for the next week, so you can reply here if you prefer.) Thanks for considering this idea, WhatamIdoing 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey I just had a quick question about VandalProof. I currently use
WP:TWINKLE and was wondering what the difference between the two is, does VandalProof do everything that TWINKLE does and if I get VandalProof will I have to drop TWINKLE? Thanks for the help. Good luck editing!
Gonzo fan2007
talk ♦
contribs
04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I have installed VP. When I run it I get an error after I have clicked Verify Authorization saying "The username you are trying to connect with is not approved to use VandalProof" even though you approved me the other day. How can I fix this? Thanks Doyley Talk 10:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me but did you say nonsense? I am not understanding what I am doing wrong when I clearly have shown a list of reasons for fair use. Do I have to use a template instead? Please clarify this. TrackFan 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the "bot generated" comment at [Talk:Common_menus_in_Microsoft_Windows| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_menus_in_Microsoft_Windows], "Rationales must be provided for each use of an image". A rational WAS provided on the image. I referred anyone who cares to my comments on the Talk page on the image. Now the image is deleted, the rational is deleted, and comments are deleted. So I guess using a bot for things that need discussion isn't such a good idea? (Or perhaps this is a real person and not a bot?) Please consider undeleting the relevant image, image page, image talk page, and deletion log. Thanks. - Libertas 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see that the warhawk box art is about to be deleted, my question is why isn't every other game article out there with their box design being deleted? For example Halo 3. If I have the wrong page to take this question up, I appologize and would you know where to ask this question? Thanks. -- Vdub49 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
would it be possible to make a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size. Ask user:Betacommand nicely for a bot that will automatically add bird articles to the page, rank them by size, and add an icon to the articles that are GA or FA, just as you have done for WP:DABS....and do one for WP Fungi, substituting the word "fungi" for "bird". cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Beta :) I know you're a programming whiz, and figured that you'd be the person to ask a small question to regarding Python programming. I'm designing a bot using the Pywiki framework that adds generic fair use rationales to images tagged with non-free templates, and then notifies the original author of the page. This is what I've come up with so far, and any tips would be appreciated (hopefully you can read my version of an elegant programming language =D).
__version__ = '$Id: basic.py 3998 2007-08-07 20:28:27Z wikipedian $' import wikipedia import pagegenerators import sys import os,glob # This is required for the text that is shown when you run this script # with the parameter -help. docuReplacements = { '¶ms;': pagegenerators.parameterHelp } class FURbot: mysite = wikipedia.getSite() if mysite.loggedInAs(): wikipedia.output(u"You are logged in on %s as %s." % (repr(mysite), mysite.loggedInAs())) else: wikipedia.output(u"You are not logged in on %s." % repr(mysite)) # Edit summary message that should be used. # NOTE: Put a good description here, and add translations, if possible! msg = { 'en': u'Adding generic [[WP:FU|fair use rationale]] to image (BOT)', } def __init__(self, generator, debug): """ Constructor. Parameters: * generator - The page generator that determines on which pages to work on. * debug - If True, doesn't do any real changes, but only shows what would have been changed. """ self.generator = generator self.debug = debug def run(self): # Set the edit summary message wikipedia.setAction(wikipedia.translate(wikipedia.getSite(), self.msg)) for page in self.generator: self.treat(page) def imgsize (self, page): a=glob.glob('c:\\*')[0] if a >= '25000 bytes': lres= Yes else: lres= No def treat (self, page): """ Loads the given page, does some changes, and saves it. """ try: # Load the page text = page.get() except wikipedia.NoPage: wikipedia.output(u"Page %s does not exist; skipping." % page.aslink()) return except wikipedia.IsRedirectPage: wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is a redirect; skipping." % page.aslink()) return except wikipedia.LockedPage: wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is locked; skipping." % page.aslink()) return # If you find out that you do not want to edit this page, just return. # Adds generic rationale to image page text = '{{Fair use rationale|Article= |Description= text|Source= INSERT IMAGE SOURCE|Portion= All of the logo is used.|Low_resolution= lres|Purpose= To represent the organization/company in the article|Replaceability= No free equivalent}}' # only save if something was changed if text != page.get(): # Show the title of the page we're working on. # Highlight the title in purple. wikipedia.output(u"\n\n>>> \03{lightpurple}%s\03{default} <<<" % page.title()) # show what was changed wikipedia.showDiff(page.get(), text) if not self.debug: choice = wikipedia.inputChoice(u'Do you want to accept these changes?', ['Yes', 'No'], ['y', 'N'], 'N') if choice == 'y': try: # Save the page page.put(text) except wikipedia.EditConflict: wikipedia.output(u'Skipping %s because of edit conflict' % (page.title())) except wikipedia.SpamfilterError, error: wikipedia.output(u'Cannot change %s because of spam blacklist entry %s' % (page.title(), error.url)) def notify (self, page): """ Notifies user on their user talk page about the addition of a fair use rationale to one of their images. """ try: text= text + "page.get('Revision history of %s')" except wikipedia.LockedPage: wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is locked; skipping." % page.aslink()) return msg= u'Notifying user about addition of partial [[WP:FU|fair use]] rationale added to their image (BOT)' text = '{{User:FURbot/Notify}}' # only save if something was changed if text != page.get(): # Show the title of the page we're working on. # Highlight the title in purple. wikipedia.output(u"\n\n>>> \03{lightpurple}%s\03{default} <<<" % page.title()) # show what was changed wikipedia.showDiff(page.get(), text) if not self.debug: choice = wikipedia.inputChoice(u'Do you want to accept these changes?', ['Yes', 'No'], ['y', 'N'], 'N') if choice == 'y': try: # Save the page page.put(text) except wikipedia.EditConflict: wikipedia.output(u'Skipping %s because of edit conflict' % (page.title())) except wikipedia.SpamfilterError, error: wikipedia.output(u'Cannot change %s because of spam blacklist entry %s' % (page.title(), error.url)) def main(): # This factory is responsible for processing command line arguments # that are also used by other scripts and that determine on which pages # to work on. genFactory = pagegenerators.GeneratorFactory() # The generator gives the pages that should be worked upon. gen = "linkedpages('Template:Non-free logo')" # This temporary array is used to read the page title if one single # page to work on is specified by the arguments. pageTitleParts = [] # If debug is True, doesn't do any real changes, but only show # what would have been changed. debug = False # Parse command line arguments for arg in wikipedia.handleArgs(): if arg.startswith("-debug"): debug = True else: # check if a standard argument like # -start:XYZ or -ref:Asdf was given. generator = genFactory.handleArg(arg) if generator: gen = generator else: pageTitleParts.append(arg) if arg.startswith("-pt"): pt= 15 if arg.startswith("-transcludes"): page='Image: %s' if pageTitleParts != []: # We will only work on a single page. pageTitle = ' '.join(pageTitleParts) page = wikipedia.Page(wikipedia.getSite(), pageTitle) gen = iter([page]) if gen: # The preloading generator is responsible for downloading multiple # pages from the wiki simultaneously. gen = pagegenerators.PreloadingGenerator(gen) bot = FURbot(gen, debug) bot.run() else: wikipedia.showHelp() if __name__ == "__main__": try: main() finally: wikipedia.stopme()
Cheers, ( ar ky ) 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Betacommand,
I am confused in why I have images of album covers and posters continually tagged for unfair use when I try to use the same fair use rationale as articles that have been given “Featured articles” status by Wikipedia. Please explain what is I am not making clear in my “fair use” that warrants me to continually revisit these images and add more and more reasons. Like your own BetacommandBot comments state, I do use the templates and give vaild reasons, however I fail to see what I’m not making clear in my images that every other album cover and movie poster is. paulisdead 13:24 (UTC+10, K), 26 October 2007
This is the third time you tagged my non-orphan image. Each time I reported to you please fix your bot to check for non-orphan tag. Great, you apparently changed your bot to delete non-orphan tag too. So I changed the linking article to load a thumb instead of just the link. But I hate to think of how many other valid non-orphan images your dysfunctional bot is deleting. Please please please fix your dysfunctional bot to not delete non-orphan images! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibjoe ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up in message. ...is an easy way to insure that your image is...' Incorrect use of the word insure (relates to insurance). It should be ensure (to be make sure, certain, safe). Thanks. ♫ Cricket02 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the new template on Image:Disguise2.jpg should suffice. Please tell me -what- is missing if it is still not sufficient. -- Eptin 03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:RisciLogo.jpg is used on the page Rizal National Science High School as its school logo. WarGaleon 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As per this, please familiarize yourself with WP:VAND before ever accusing other editors in "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Unsubstantiated accusations of editors in vandalism is a serious personal attack (please review WP:PA while at it), especially of editors who, unlike yourself, actually write this encyclopedia. Your rude threats have the effect exactly the opposite of constructive and, unless aggravation is your intention, they serve no good purpose and will be reverted on sight. Your further conduct along these lines will be promptly reported. WP:ANI saw already enough Betacommand threads where your conduct received the criticism it deserved and you should have taken it as a food for thought long time ago.
As for the image dispute, whenever the image whose fairuse compliance you dispute has already a rationale that you are going to question, you have to explain at talk what exactly the problem with the existing rational is, since unlike the images with no rationale provided (the problem is evident) other editors need to understand what exactly is the problem that you see. Happy edits, -- Irpen 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't accuse editors of vandalism when their edits do not fall directly under WP:VAND. In particular, avoid posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Happy edits, -- Irpen 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Was there a question? I saw an accusation of vandalism accompanied by a block threat in the form of self-righteous templating, then a second accusation of vandalism despite a clear reminder of its impropriety, and then revert warring over reinserting of your rude comments that I removed. If you have some questions please ask them without rudeness, threats and other nonsense.
I also have a question. Do you think the message on top of your talk page is exactly helpful in encouraging users, especially the newbies, to cooperate with your concerns? -- Irpen 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You stated that the image seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:4Storyboard.jpg being used in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5/4_(Gorillaz_song) has an "invalid fair use rationale". Yet, I do not see anything wrong with the rationale given. It does not violate the policy in any way and I see no reason for why it is being "disputed", can you please explain? If it truly does violate something somehow then I will try to fix it, but I see no reason for why its current fair use rationale is not valid. Can you please explain why?-- Jarvisganon 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have looked through WP:NFCC#10c a few times now, and still fail to realize the conflict the image is having with it. The fair use rationale is filled out and does not seem to break any part of the rules. Can you be specific as to what part of the image's rationale is conflicting with the non-free content criteria.-- Jarvisganon 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how :-
"Source - http://namco-ch.net/ps2_soulcalibur3/character/img/abelia_b.jpg
Copyrighted Promotional image used solely to illustrate character in question under fair use criteria. No free alternative available."
isn't a fair use rationale. Exxolon 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have spent many hours uploading lots of album covers for use in album articles in Wikipedia. As we all know, album covers can be used under fair use. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images. I have uploaded about 600 of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one. All the images I upload already specify the source and the fact that it is an album cover. I'm just letting you know that it will be a great loss to Wikipedia if you let this continue. Weatherman90 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Stick to the rules or let them get deleted. Easy does it. - Pilotguy contact tower 04:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey again. I contacted you a few weeks ago when your bot kept on tagging images I had uploaded as failing fair-use based on "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" when this was clearly not the case. Whatever you did seemed to fix the problem temporarily, but within the past couple of days it has apparently started up again. As far as I can tell, any image which has a faulty title link (e.g. linking to a disambiguation page rather than to the film page itself) is tagged by your bot this way.
As it is rather annoying having to save images from deletion based on such a minor point, not to mention having my talk page spammed almost hourly with these messages, I would very much appreciate it if you would fix this issue as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've updated 2 images tagged by this bot as missing links to a specified article, however it is now saying the article does not exist or has been deleted - despite the fact that the article DOES exist and AS NOT been deleted. The article is Independent State of Aramoana. -- Gene_poole 07:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's great that you bother us all with this tedious bullshit. - Diceman 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
My talk page is now 250kb long full of hundreds of images. Do you honestly think I have time to do all of them? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Look I don't mind getting a few images at a time which is managable but I just don't need the stress of having to sort out over 100 kb of messages and spend alot of time fixing it. It is demoralising adding correcting already signifcant rationales to satisfy a bot. While I do agree the uploader has a responsibility to add a full rationale and comply with "the rules" if the bot can be so clever in its duties I'm certain it could help out with some corrections where a rationale is given and only the title need fixing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I know it's frustrating to be dealt these automated messages but you really must treat the fair use images carefully, mishandling of said will compromise the whole of Wikipedia. So, in almost ALL cases, it's just a case of stating, with each Fair Use criteria, exactly which articles the fair use criteria applies to. That way, no bot messages, no hassle, no problem. The bot, while annoying, is doing the right thing. Sorry, but you've got to take responsibility for the images you upload, particularly if you're claiming fair use. The Rambling Man 16:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's all very well to use the templates, but perhaps it's worth reading them, for example, the latest disputed image for Daniel Hu, the template says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." - I don't see this anywhere. The Rambling Man 16:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, but this bot has failed to pick up my written-out rationales. I believe that in principle the idea of the bot's activity is a good one —certainly just because people don't complain doesn't necessarily mean all images are in fair use compliance— but as far as I can tell it's only satisfied by something like the non-free use rationale template. As explained in that article, the information doesn't have to be in a template. Does BetacommandBot know this? — eitc h 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not very well-schooled in wikipedia policies, and your bot tagged one of the images I uploaded. Anyways, I posted a lovely little reply to the bot on my own talk page to avoid a ping-pong conversation, before I realized that it was, in fact, a bot...
Anyways, I was using
this image for
my signature, is that ok? Over at
Uncyclopedia it's something we do, just let me know if using images for personal stuff is a no-no here. Also, the image is
from uncyc as well, I just copied it into MS Paint and uploaded it here as a png, so I assume there aren't any licensing issues. Please let me know what's up. Thanks. -
The Led Balloon (
Tick Tock) (
Contribs) 03:52, Oct 28
{{ helpme}} Dear sir i need help in the regard of uploading news paper cuttings actuall three of my uploaded images of news paer cuttings have been placed under orphan images kindly help me in this regard how do i link these images to the article secondly how do i upload news p[aer scans what tags do i have to add i am in a bit of confusion. kindly help me to resove the problem
Image:INDIANEXPRESSNEWSDATED07-07-2000.JPG
Image:Spiritualism promotes religious Harmony.JPG
regards Pingali 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
How can I stop a deletion? Thank you -- Art4em 08:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
On October 17, your bot tagged the image I uploaded illustrating a screenshot of Dan Lewis' first newscast with KOMO. I don't understand why my image was tagged, and after reviewing the criteria set forth in Non-Free Content Criteria guidelines, the tag supplied there is identical to the one I used when I uploaded.
I don't want to start a flame war over useless edits, but this has to stop. Personally, I'm *thisclose* to leaving Wikipedia altogether because of useless bureaucratic nonsense like the "Non-Free Content Guidelines" and the constant "Disputed Fair-Use rationale" tags I get on my talk page all the time.
I personally think the image I uploaded should stay, and does a fine job of adding value to the Dan Lewis article itself. Srosenow 98 08:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have recently Asked you how to fill in the template for Image:Default JPG.Because Coolgirly's page was redirected to mine(I lost my password as coolgirly88),Am I responsible for the image? Also,you deleted my comment about the template on your talk page before you answered.Please answer this comment on my talk page or yours.Please show/tell me how to fill in the template. Thank you. IslaamMaged126 10:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably overlooking something basic, but as far as I can tell the image fits the fair use guidelines. "Attribution of the source of the material" is provided, extensively in fact. The image is the cover of the book which is the subject of the article. The licensing section of the image's page appears to provide the necessary justification for the image. What is missing or wrong? Thanks. Tadiew 08:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[ [17]] This image was flagged, even though it has a fair use rationale. I was told here that it needed an article link. It has an article link at the bottom. I don't know what else to do about it. PLease advise. nut-meg 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. -- Ral315
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 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand, I noticed that your bot is malfunctioning. Without any explanation it's re tagging images (except the WP:NFC#10, that you're mentioning in the talk page). I also noticed, you are engaging in dispute about images with other editors. Further Dispute will lead you to AN/I. Thanks-- NAH ID 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The bot placed a deletion notice because there wasn't a link to the article where the image was used under [ [18]]. I made a link, provided a specific rationale and removed the notice. The same notice has now been replaced (I have removed it again). Tyrenius 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I posted a message regarding on your recent tagging ( User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Dispute on image).-- NAH ID 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This bot keeps sending me messages that the images I download aren't fair use even though they are. It's especially bad with articles pertaining to Wheel of Fortune. -- JoBrLa 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, what was wrong with this Image ( [19])? I think I fixed the "problem." But it seems every single Image I upload has a copyright problem -_-. -- Mooshykris 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I also agree, my images are being tagged unnecessarily, something needs to change Crimson 05 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:XXX. Blah, blah, blah. BetacommandBot 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</nowiki>
It'd be much easier to read and distinguish the message if it were formatted like:
==Earlier section== Blah, blah, blah. <span id="63318668225" ></span> == Disputed fair use rationale for Image:XXX == Thanks for uploading Image:XXX. Blah, blah, blah. [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that Twinkle does it. Thank you for your time, нмŵוτн τ 22:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please make your bot honor <!--BetacommandBot Exclude--> or some other string for its nonfree image warnings on user talk pages? I spent some time reverting a prolific image vandal some months ago, and I've been repaid ever since by dozens of warnings that the images (which I didn't upload and have no interest in) are quite correctly about to be deleted. Even if I were in the habit of uploading nonfree images with improper rationales, I'm quite capable of noticing any problems with them via my watchlist, and so should be able to opt out of the redundant, newbie-"friendly" talk page warning. — Cryptic 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say that, whilst I have added a fair use rationale and, assuming this to be adequate, have removed the template, I feel (and I can see from your talk page that I am not alone in feeling this), with all due respect to you, as I am sure you believe what you (or to be more accurate, your "bot") are doing is beneficial, that this bureaucratic rubbish that seems to be polluting Wikipedia is going to drive it to the dogs. I'm sorry to have to say that, but it's what most people seem to be feeling. Best wishes, Back and Forth 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Turn off your shit bot. It's causing nothing but trouble. The H-Man2 22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I just want to raise the general problem of #10(c) and page moves. When a page is moved the page given in the fair use rationale is no longer the only page linked to from the image. I want to know if there is a way we can have a smarter form of detection about this... such as, check the page move history of the page given in any rationale and then see if it has been moved to where the image is currently linked. My example was Image:Arzoo 1965 film poster.jpg where the rationale was for Arzoo but the page had been moved to Arzoo (1965 film). I think if there is one rationale and it's still only linked to from one page then further investigation is needed. I also think that a deletion template is far too strong for #10(c) incidents because often times there is a proper fair use rationale for one place where the image is linked but some new/anonymous/not-so-savvy-editor adds it to another page and because of this the image can be deleted after 10 days? Just some comments. gren グレン 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The Fair Use Raionale is correct. Fair use rationale: It is written...
and explained...
- OV 11:29 (UTC)
Will this bot please stop tagging the euro coins and euro notes? They are Fair use, the copyright is clearly given and they comply with ECB reproduction rules. Thanking you! Snappy56 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You have placed a notice regarding use of this bookcover.
This book cover, with permission from the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo Prior to uploading the image, I contacted Mr. Jebwab, curator of the Zoo and represents the Shulov family interests. and he sees no reason why the cover should not be displayed as either an enlightening illustration of Professor Shulov, and/or the Biblical Zoo.
The book cover has been added to the page of Aharon Shulov to illustrate the publications written by the Professor; Publications that were not only scientific (see references to his studies of birds and snake venom), but also historical.
The book cover also illustrates the basic reason for the founding of the zoo, itself, with the biblical phrase, it emphasizes the attachment of Professor Shulov to the history of Jerusalem, the nation, and to the animals that were mentioned in the scriptures.
As Professor Shulov is so closely linked to the Zoo and the City of Jerusalem, display of the book cover, having the appropriate okay from Zoo itself, should be adequate enough reason to maintain the illustration.
If there is smoething more I swhould do or write in order to provide rational for use of this image on WP, please let me know. User SZAgassi:SZAgassi 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The bot has incorrectly flagged the image "Image:Cyborg4firsted.jpg" as lacking fair use rationale. There is nothing to add to what is already there, and there is plenty. I am therefore reverting this particular tag and also notifying the Novels Wikiproject. 23skidoo 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The image, Image:AbominableFirebug.jpg is Copyrighted by me. I uploaded the image and I did not tag it as 'fair use'. I will change it back. LymanSchool 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagging Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG as having had an invalid fair-use justification was technically correct, but the fair use justifications are self-evident and obvious from the topic's historical relevance. Current Wikipedia policy is no justification for you avoiding spending a minute or three to fill out a proper detailed fair-use justification there if you determine that the images' current justification was inadequate.
What you do to a million Pokemon images that fail to meet policy is immaterial; if you tag important historical images in this lazy manner and they get deleted, you move into "damaging the encyclopedia" territory in short order. Both board and community agree that image policy enforcement must not be used to damage the encyclopedia.
Please use your common sense. I know you do a lot of good work with the bot, but the reason you're controversial and the Bot's loathed is that you take enough badly aimed shots like that one with it. Please slow down and think a bit more about it for legitimate historically important images, or anything else that anyone's going to obviously agree is important to have.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this, but this bot is incredibly badly thought out. I have just had a load of warnings about the fair use rationales of Image:BBFC A 1913-1970.png, Image:BBFC H 1932-1951.png, Image:BBFC U 1913-1970.png and Image:BBFC X 1951-1970.png posted on my talk page. When I uploaded the images, I used Template:Non-free use rationale, as recommended on the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline page. I filled in all of the fields. Since then, the template has been updated to include an article field. Obviously, as my images were uploaded before this requirement existed, these images do not include the article field. Now, they are threatened with deletion by this bot basically because I cannot predict the future!
Surely it is not sensible for this bot to go through every one of the thousands of fair use images uploaded before the article requirement existed and potentially delete the lot? Wouldn't it be more sensible for it to simply look at the image's page, which lists where the images are used, and adjust the rationale appropriately? - Green Tentacle 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the image warning messages! I'm so glad I get to spend the next hour updating 50 image pages! After all, I have nothing better to do with my time! Weatherman90 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Preceding comment moved from user page to talk page by — jacĸrм ( talk) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, and if I'd actually read the full username, I would've realized that, too! I'm so used to seeing it with "bot" that I (apparently) don't look much past the "Betacom" part anymore. In any case, thanks for fixing it. - Bbik ★ 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Making "fair use" a moving target does not help anyone. What was an OK rationale yesterday suddenly doesn't meet the standard today. If you really cared, you would try to improve content, not destroy it. But, obviously, you don't care. -- GentlemanGhost 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your bot has a mild issue of tagging images that contain fair use rationale that mention past article names. It recently tagged Image:Maylee-p.jpg which explained its rationale for use in May Lee, the old article space that May Lee (The King of Fighters) was at.-- SeizureDog 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know there's a spelling error in your bot's message: notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE – it should say "notifying". -- Canley 05:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
what the fuck is your bots problem with the fair use rational of this image? i asked you the same thing regarding another of my images a week ago which you ignored, an actual response this time would be most appreciated!-- Dan027 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand,
Your bot has done a great job of spotting dodgy fair use, but we're now up to an 11 day backlog at CSD, trying to deal with all the tagged articles! Would it be possible to wait for a few days to let us catch up? Also, the following cases seem to occur quite frequently:
Thanks for your hard work, as ever! Papa November 10:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some issues with your bot as it keeps on tagging images I have uploaded as having "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" when this is obviously not the case (and yes, I have gone to that particular criteria and read it in depth).
As I have probably uploaded hundreds of fair-use film poster images over the past year or so, I would appreciate if you would get this issue fixed as I am rather tired of having my talk page spammed with your notifications. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Here and Here are just two of the many images that have been tagged by your bot for no apparent reason. WP:NFCC#10c states: "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." This passage obviously does not apply as the article name and fair-use rationale is included in this, and every single other poster image I have uploaded.
As I said before, I am being spammed with multiple messages from your bot nearly every day now, and as it is only likely to get worse given the sheer number of images I have uploaded. Please fix this issue as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious the bot is not smart enough to tell if the rationale is proper or not. Stop it ASAP. Grue 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, the Bot incorrectly tagged Image:Lenin 1887.jpg as subject to Delete per WP:NONFREE for "lack of Fair Use rationale". However, the image in question is PD, not Fair Use. As the image seems to be correctly categorized, why did the Bot misconstrue it as Nonfree? JGHowes talk - 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
When you leave the bot running for too long, do you revert all the edits made after the time you meant to switch it off? If you did that, it would show respect for people's concerns that too many images have been tagged to deal with in the available time. Carcharoth 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
WIth regard to your ridicolus charges of using the Italian Military Coat of Arms in violation of some imaginative copyright, I have the honour to inform you that the only copyright that I am violating is the copyright on anglo-american stupid and absurd obsession for copyrights. Do you seriously believe that there is a copyright on this sybol? Are you kidding? You admins of wikipedia have deleted many of my contribs with this absurd obsession. I'm sick of this stupid rules! What do you expect from me, that I phone to Mr. Arturo Parisi (our Minister of Defence) and I ask him for a oath asserting that Italian Military Coat of Arms are not protected by a copyright????????????? Symbols of italian institutions are not of private property (as all things in your country) so there are not copyright over symbols that belong to all the Italians. It is clear? Or do you want to talk to Mr. Prodi? So I will delete my account, cause wikipedia is really pastering. Auguri di cuore per la vostra enciclopedia delle cavolate. Quando voi americani imaparerete a liberarvi dalla vostra ossessione per la proprietà privata sarà sempre troppo tardi, non potrete mai essere liberi come noi europei. Goodbye.
-- Conte di Cavour 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Your rules are simply ridiculous. It is not possible to work in order to improve wikipedia under similar conditions. Goodevening. -- Conte di Cavour 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering if the new fair use rationale meets your approval. Thanks! Taric25 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: [2]
I am looking for some details on how to create a bot, thought you might be able to help me out on where to get the details, could you? :-) NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 11:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed above in User talk:Betacommand/20081201#.3F.3F.3F, User_talk:Betacommand#Regarding_an_image and User_talk:Betacommand#Disputed_Fair_Use_Over_Uploaded_Images, someone has a question about your bot and you only respond with "Please see WP:NFCC#10c". Many of the people asking are probably new and don't know too much about WP:NFCC. Also, because the 10c text is at the bottom of the WP:NFCC page, when you click on a link to WP:NFCC#10c, rule 10c isn't aligned at the top of the page, making it unclear which part of the policy is violated. IMO, it would be much better to say something like "You need to include a link to the articles the image is used on in the rationale (see WP:NFCC#10c", as that would be understood by both new and experienced users, causing less frustrations and probably less people asking questions on your talk page as they can see the previous answers and understand the problem.
Also, when the bot tags an image that fails NFCC#10c, maybe you could program it to write as rationale "the fair-use rationale does not specify which articles the image is to be used in (see WP:NFCC#10c", as that would allow anyone seeing the tag to immediately know what the problem is and fix it. This would probably also cause less questions to your talk page and make the bot seem more friendly.
I know that you get a lot of flak over your bot, much of it undeserved, but I think the problem for many is that its tag messages are often very terse and difficult to understand unless you know Wikipedia policy very well. Adding a better explanation might make the messages seem more friendly and understandable, which might get your bot a bit more good-will. 129.240.250.48 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I changed your edit, I think I did that two years ago and you scolded me then too, but it was two years ago.
Could you RE-DO your UserCompare tool with the full 27 account names? I have added the remaining ones to:
so you can see all of them.
Thanks. IP4240207xx 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up! This article already went the Afd route and the result was keep. The listing needs to be adjusted to start a new Afd, I guess. (not my expertise). Cheers! -- Stormbay 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |||||||||||||
Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
Unforatuntely, I cannot provide an example, as the user that pointed this out has not responded for my request for one, but:
In the video games project, we've got a subst: template that would put a FUR in the image with some appropriate responses typical for video games; the FUR did not include (until 2 days ago) the new Article field, but it did place it in an h2- type header right above the FUR. [3] is an example of what came out of that field (note the missing article header, and "Pong" above in a title line).
Now, I know from what I've seen BCB would not tag that one since "pong" is used a couple different places, but I have been told that "hundreds" of similar images have been tagged that previously had used this Template:Vgrationale subst'd template and now were failing. My question is: would BCB be catching the page link for the FUR in there, and if not, should it be catching (either is that a bug or a case that has to be determined by a human?) -- Masem 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Your bot tagged the above image as failing NFCC #10, but the article title is actually included in the rationale. It's probably some complication of the fact that it's a piped link to a redirect, but I believe the rationale (though not particularly well written) does meet at least criterion 10. Thanks for all the work you do on images. ( ESkog)( Talk) 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have spent many hours uploading lots of album covers for use in album articles in Wikipedia. As we all know, album covers can be used under fair use. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images. I have uploaded about 600 of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one. All the images I upload already specify the source and the fact that it is an album cover. I'm just letting you know that it will be a great loss to Wikipedia if you let this continue. Weatherman90 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked your bot. After all the complaints generated by this latest unapproved task after myriad issues just like this one, I looked into things and found that you let your bot run for over 9 hours after you started receiving complaints that it was mis-tagging images or tagging too many too fast. Furthermore, this task was never approved. This has been an ongoing problem with your bot and with you. Mango juice talk 04:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If so, have a look here, particularly the bit at the end. Is there a page that clearly exlpains to people what is going on, so they don't get all upset and leave due to a simple misunderstanding? I think in that case it is manual, but have you had lots of feedback from the bot-initiated transfers? Carcharoth 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Expander.png. Please fix or shut down. EdC 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly I'm sick of being drilled 50kb bot message when I have spent many hours uploading lots of film or tv posters/ screenshots such as Image:LateLamentedPartner.jpg for use in articles in Wikipedia. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images even when I have added a full detailed 10 point rationa;e and met all the requirements of non-free media. I have uploaded about hundreds of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one either. All the images I upload already specify the source and have the rationale. Tagging images in such a way which have already had much work in adding a full rationale when they are being used for encycloepdic images is unacceptable as is unloading a 50kb message onto my talk page. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand why your bot (read YOU) have a problem with the image I uploaded to show the Leonard Cohen film cover, and I don't understand what you want me to do. I put a clear fair-use reason when I uploaded the image, and there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of images uploaded for the same reason. Alan 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand, Your comment here, makes me think you have a useful tool, but when I go to the link you provided, nothing happens. Is it broken at your end, my end, or you don't know? You've piqued my curiousity. -- barneca ( talk) 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Betacommand. With regards to this [5], sorry to sound dumb but what is it? I see that the sections below appear to count the number of times each user has edited a particular topic, but I'm just curious as to what the numbers in the first section mean. Thanks, Phonemonkey 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the link you gave here is broken. — Wknight94 ( talk) 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that this tag was definitely invalid: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Image:Chocolat_%28soundtrack%29.jpg&direction=next&oldid=135416410
Hello, your comments would be welcome at the RedirectCleanupBot RFA [6] Uncle uncle uncle 04:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you care to explain your odd comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot? — METS501 ( talk) 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Porcupine (
prickle me! ·
contribs ·
status)
12:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was recently approved by you to use VandalProof. However, once I downloaded the 136 zip file and VP137.exe file, I cannot log in. The program can locate my username and password, however, it says: "No priviliges found." Also, I clicked on the button Verify Authorisation, yet it still didn't work. Can you please help? Thanks. σмgн gσмg 09:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your message to my talk page re: Vandal Proof. I appreciate that one cannot approve everyone who requests it, and your advice that I apply, perhaps, at a later time is hopeful to say the least.
However, it would definitely be more advantageous if I had a firm idea what you were looking for in a user, especially as I would hate to go through this process again, only to be turned-down again. Would you please give me an honest critique of your rationale, so that I may be aware of any(perceived) shortcomings on my part? If you would prefer to send me an e-mail, I have no objection.
Please, before you object to this request, consider that, in my case, I never gave a failing grade to a student without giving him a sound reason, and the steps he could take to better himself. I would hope that I would receive no less. Thank you for your time.-- Lyricmac 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume I don't get to reapply in 30 days too? Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks but can you fix my copyright symbols. They are my drawings and photos.
Thanks again.
Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at my talk page, and the messages your bot left all over it. All 3 oggs are linked to from where they were used (to great effect I might add) on WP:RD/C and its archive. Take the tag off and review your code -- froth t 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The images that you've tagged(mostly of mine), for deletion were attached to articles, that were unjustly redirected. I've been trying to save them possibly to be sent to a proposed Even Stevens Wiki.. However, if I can't get one going, I'm going to undo the redirections and they'll belong to articles once again. Therefore I'm requesting that you not tag them for deletion so quickly. ---- DanTD 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Fix your stupid bot so it stops tagging images that are obivously not orphaned as orphaned, please. Jtrainor 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Will you please stop it. It is harassment ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have put many of the orphaned images up for deletion where they ar enot needed and I keep getting repeat tags for orphaning. Aaaaaaaah ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your bot is a joke. It has done some great work but it is really pissing me off tonight ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Its given me repeat messages I have already bothered to address by putting up for deletion. Its not fair to unleash it like this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please change your bot to check for {{ not orphan}} . Thank you. Ibjoe 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You tagged this image as orphaned. It is linked from the Elton John article and not contained in-line. It would serve no purpose as a thumbnail and is more a reference. I have removed the orphaned template, assuming you have no objections. Thanks, Oldak Quill 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, your bot doesn't understand the {{notorphan}} template [7].
You notified me two times about the orphaned image but it's fine. My very question is why did you post the notification on my page where in fact [8], the original uploader is not me. Please do clear this thing. Thanks Bet. BritandBeyonce ( talk• contribs) 07:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Your bot marked it as "orphaned". The reason it's orphaned is due to a slash-and-burn of some 300 "trivia" sections, fomented by one editor and aided-and-abetted by an admin currently under arbcom scrutiny for his actions. [9] Until that issue is resolved, the trivia sections (such as this picture's place, in Palatine uvula) are going to have to stay out, to prevent further edit warring. Kindly leave that picture alone until the issue is settled. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not orphaned. Someone has decided that the fair use image should be converted to SVG and has relicensed it to GFDL. Not much I can do about this. Your bot is wrong though. It's most definitely not orphaned. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Can u delete the pictures Image:Pleasure.jpg and Image:Amanda Perez.jpg. I dont need them anymore. ii LUV MY MYSPACE FAM!! MiiZ SPECTAC (hii!) 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Vanhalenrulesforever created a better version. BUT he states he created it and owns the copyright. Yet the Badge was made in the 1400s and there is no cennection between John Freeston, the founder, and Vanhalenrulesforever, who i already know is not a relative. Meaning the fair use in HIS is incorrect along with the copyright logo. OsirisV 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
...eh? You removed the external link? How come? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this bot could be fixed to understand the "not orphan" tag, ie. images which are not orphans even though they appear not to be in any page. Richard W.M. Jones 08:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the 100 PD images - what possible source could I provide if there images are owned by me?
-- Mrlopez2681 02:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
---ebay, Russia, New York. Many places. Some that I own I actually have seen in books nad have sanned, so maybe Ill just put whichever book has them as the source. Anyway, so what do I do - put ebay as a source (PS - I fixed the message below to separate the two....)
BTW - could you direct to a template that I can put on the image page where I can add all of the required info such as source, etc? Thank you.
-- Mrlopez2681 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been approved to use Vandalproof but when i try to login, it says i have not been aproved to use it. What sould i do? Eddie6705 10:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
[11] I've reverted this, since the template says "no rationale". The rationale is not only there, it is <u>underlined</u>.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's just picking one me. That soundtrack image, for example - every album article has a cover, why should that ONE that I uploaded be any different?-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You could have the decency to apologise for posting useless crap on my talkpage, about images I had never touched.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I quote, "An image you uploaded". I didn't, therefore it had no meaning to me. You hold a position of responsibility here, and refusing to apologise for a really rather silly mistake is pretty naughty.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No? Oh, well, you certainly don't deserve the small amount of respect that you had, in that case.-- Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BC. I was wondering if there's any progress on the script for automating the list you generated here ? If I remember correctly, you had said you'd put it in BCBot's userspace. Is it on a separate subpage? Thanks BC. ... Kenosis 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you processed the VandalProof list and that I was rejected. I thought I had met all of the requirements to use VP. Could you let me know where I am lacking so I can improve for the future? Mbisanz 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I deleted the image as non-free orphaned. I linked to a copy of the image on another website. -- Oldak Quill 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello I propose to totally rework this image with english into this picto-gramme due to its importance for green hous gas emissions Kyoto etc...
To my knowledge this should satisfy all parties.
Regards, J A
I love you, Mr. Bot. -- 69.139.45.173 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please fix your bot to NOT incorrectly mark images for deletion. This is the second time it has done so for image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazrac.jpg . This image is tagged with {{[[Template:not orphan{{|}}T-Mek|not orphan{{|}}T-Mek]]}}
(not orphan|T-Mek). This is also the second time that I have reported to you your bot's INCORRECT behavior. It is not checking for the "not orphan" tag. Please shut it down until it is fixed! Thank you
Ibjoe
06:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have proceeded to delete messages on my talk page regarding image deletions. Please note I am not opposed to this act because I understand that Wikipedia must protect itself from copyright violations; also, I'm not an expert on copyright laws so I cannot discuss this topic properly. However I feel that the posts themselves (with their showy warning signs) are annoying, especially the ones made by Bots and not people. Therefore I'm removing them for easy of reading of the page. I include this explanation here to note I'm not doing it out of spite. Anyone who wants to read those messages can do so by checking the page's history. Also, please refrain in the future from giving me any more warnings regarding image deletions. Just go ahead and remove them if you feel they are improper. (Bot messages will also be removed immediately.) Thank you. - Wilfredo Martinez 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This table on the Medicine portal page inspired me to do something about a few "unassessed quality" pages the other day. What I'd really like is to be able to click on the numbers in the table and get a list of pages which are BOTH "unassessed" AND "mid" importance. I did the unassessed/high importance ones by hand (although the table hasn't updated since then), but clicking through 679 pages to find the 18 unassessed ones is beyond the limits of my joints.
NCurse thought that you would likely know how to do things like this, or that you might know someone who did. Can you tell me if this would be a relatively easy upgrade? (I'll watch this page for the next week, so you can reply here if you prefer.) Thanks for considering this idea, WhatamIdoing 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey I just had a quick question about VandalProof. I currently use
WP:TWINKLE and was wondering what the difference between the two is, does VandalProof do everything that TWINKLE does and if I get VandalProof will I have to drop TWINKLE? Thanks for the help. Good luck editing!
Gonzo fan2007
talk ♦
contribs
04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I have installed VP. When I run it I get an error after I have clicked Verify Authorization saying "The username you are trying to connect with is not approved to use VandalProof" even though you approved me the other day. How can I fix this? Thanks Doyley Talk 10:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me but did you say nonsense? I am not understanding what I am doing wrong when I clearly have shown a list of reasons for fair use. Do I have to use a template instead? Please clarify this. TrackFan 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the "bot generated" comment at [Talk:Common_menus_in_Microsoft_Windows| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_menus_in_Microsoft_Windows], "Rationales must be provided for each use of an image". A rational WAS provided on the image. I referred anyone who cares to my comments on the Talk page on the image. Now the image is deleted, the rational is deleted, and comments are deleted. So I guess using a bot for things that need discussion isn't such a good idea? (Or perhaps this is a real person and not a bot?) Please consider undeleting the relevant image, image page, image talk page, and deletion log. Thanks. - Libertas 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see that the warhawk box art is about to be deleted, my question is why isn't every other game article out there with their box design being deleted? For example Halo 3. If I have the wrong page to take this question up, I appologize and would you know where to ask this question? Thanks. -- Vdub49 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
would it be possible to make a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size. Ask user:Betacommand nicely for a bot that will automatically add bird articles to the page, rank them by size, and add an icon to the articles that are GA or FA, just as you have done for WP:DABS....and do one for WP Fungi, substituting the word "fungi" for "bird". cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Beta :) I know you're a programming whiz, and figured that you'd be the person to ask a small question to regarding Python programming. I'm designing a bot using the Pywiki framework that adds generic fair use rationales to images tagged with non-free templates, and then notifies the original author of the page. This is what I've come up with so far, and any tips would be appreciated (hopefully you can read my version of an elegant programming language =D).
__version__ = '$Id: basic.py 3998 2007-08-07 20:28:27Z wikipedian $' import wikipedia import pagegenerators import sys import os,glob # This is required for the text that is shown when you run this script # with the parameter -help. docuReplacements = { '¶ms;': pagegenerators.parameterHelp } class FURbot: mysite = wikipedia.getSite() if mysite.loggedInAs(): wikipedia.output(u"You are logged in on %s as %s." % (repr(mysite), mysite.loggedInAs())) else: wikipedia.output(u"You are not logged in on %s." % repr(mysite)) # Edit summary message that should be used. # NOTE: Put a good description here, and add translations, if possible! msg = { 'en': u'Adding generic [[WP:FU|fair use rationale]] to image (BOT)', } def __init__(self, generator, debug): """ Constructor. Parameters: * generator - The page generator that determines on which pages to work on. * debug - If True, doesn't do any real changes, but only shows what would have been changed. """ self.generator = generator self.debug = debug def run(self): # Set the edit summary message wikipedia.setAction(wikipedia.translate(wikipedia.getSite(), self.msg)) for page in self.generator: self.treat(page) def imgsize (self, page): a=glob.glob('c:\\*')[0] if a >= '25000 bytes': lres= Yes else: lres= No def treat (self, page): """ Loads the given page, does some changes, and saves it. """ try: # Load the page text = page.get() except wikipedia.NoPage: wikipedia.output(u"Page %s does not exist; skipping." % page.aslink()) return except wikipedia.IsRedirectPage: wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is a redirect; skipping." % page.aslink()) return except wikipedia.LockedPage: wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is locked; skipping." % page.aslink()) return # If you find out that you do not want to edit this page, just return. # Adds generic rationale to image page text = '{{Fair use rationale|Article= |Description= text|Source= INSERT IMAGE SOURCE|Portion= All of the logo is used.|Low_resolution= lres|Purpose= To represent the organization/company in the article|Replaceability= No free equivalent}}' # only save if something was changed if text != page.get(): # Show the title of the page we're working on. # Highlight the title in purple. wikipedia.output(u"\n\n>>> \03{lightpurple}%s\03{default} <<<" % page.title()) # show what was changed wikipedia.showDiff(page.get(), text) if not self.debug: choice = wikipedia.inputChoice(u'Do you want to accept these changes?', ['Yes', 'No'], ['y', 'N'], 'N') if choice == 'y': try: # Save the page page.put(text) except wikipedia.EditConflict: wikipedia.output(u'Skipping %s because of edit conflict' % (page.title())) except wikipedia.SpamfilterError, error: wikipedia.output(u'Cannot change %s because of spam blacklist entry %s' % (page.title(), error.url)) def notify (self, page): """ Notifies user on their user talk page about the addition of a fair use rationale to one of their images. """ try: text= text + "page.get('Revision history of %s')" except wikipedia.LockedPage: wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is locked; skipping." % page.aslink()) return msg= u'Notifying user about addition of partial [[WP:FU|fair use]] rationale added to their image (BOT)' text = '{{User:FURbot/Notify}}' # only save if something was changed if text != page.get(): # Show the title of the page we're working on. # Highlight the title in purple. wikipedia.output(u"\n\n>>> \03{lightpurple}%s\03{default} <<<" % page.title()) # show what was changed wikipedia.showDiff(page.get(), text) if not self.debug: choice = wikipedia.inputChoice(u'Do you want to accept these changes?', ['Yes', 'No'], ['y', 'N'], 'N') if choice == 'y': try: # Save the page page.put(text) except wikipedia.EditConflict: wikipedia.output(u'Skipping %s because of edit conflict' % (page.title())) except wikipedia.SpamfilterError, error: wikipedia.output(u'Cannot change %s because of spam blacklist entry %s' % (page.title(), error.url)) def main(): # This factory is responsible for processing command line arguments # that are also used by other scripts and that determine on which pages # to work on. genFactory = pagegenerators.GeneratorFactory() # The generator gives the pages that should be worked upon. gen = "linkedpages('Template:Non-free logo')" # This temporary array is used to read the page title if one single # page to work on is specified by the arguments. pageTitleParts = [] # If debug is True, doesn't do any real changes, but only show # what would have been changed. debug = False # Parse command line arguments for arg in wikipedia.handleArgs(): if arg.startswith("-debug"): debug = True else: # check if a standard argument like # -start:XYZ or -ref:Asdf was given. generator = genFactory.handleArg(arg) if generator: gen = generator else: pageTitleParts.append(arg) if arg.startswith("-pt"): pt= 15 if arg.startswith("-transcludes"): page='Image: %s' if pageTitleParts != []: # We will only work on a single page. pageTitle = ' '.join(pageTitleParts) page = wikipedia.Page(wikipedia.getSite(), pageTitle) gen = iter([page]) if gen: # The preloading generator is responsible for downloading multiple # pages from the wiki simultaneously. gen = pagegenerators.PreloadingGenerator(gen) bot = FURbot(gen, debug) bot.run() else: wikipedia.showHelp() if __name__ == "__main__": try: main() finally: wikipedia.stopme()
Cheers, ( ar ky ) 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Betacommand,
I am confused in why I have images of album covers and posters continually tagged for unfair use when I try to use the same fair use rationale as articles that have been given “Featured articles” status by Wikipedia. Please explain what is I am not making clear in my “fair use” that warrants me to continually revisit these images and add more and more reasons. Like your own BetacommandBot comments state, I do use the templates and give vaild reasons, however I fail to see what I’m not making clear in my images that every other album cover and movie poster is. paulisdead 13:24 (UTC+10, K), 26 October 2007
This is the third time you tagged my non-orphan image. Each time I reported to you please fix your bot to check for non-orphan tag. Great, you apparently changed your bot to delete non-orphan tag too. So I changed the linking article to load a thumb instead of just the link. But I hate to think of how many other valid non-orphan images your dysfunctional bot is deleting. Please please please fix your dysfunctional bot to not delete non-orphan images! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibjoe ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up in message. ...is an easy way to insure that your image is...' Incorrect use of the word insure (relates to insurance). It should be ensure (to be make sure, certain, safe). Thanks. ♫ Cricket02 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the new template on Image:Disguise2.jpg should suffice. Please tell me -what- is missing if it is still not sufficient. -- Eptin 03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:RisciLogo.jpg is used on the page Rizal National Science High School as its school logo. WarGaleon 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As per this, please familiarize yourself with WP:VAND before ever accusing other editors in "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Unsubstantiated accusations of editors in vandalism is a serious personal attack (please review WP:PA while at it), especially of editors who, unlike yourself, actually write this encyclopedia. Your rude threats have the effect exactly the opposite of constructive and, unless aggravation is your intention, they serve no good purpose and will be reverted on sight. Your further conduct along these lines will be promptly reported. WP:ANI saw already enough Betacommand threads where your conduct received the criticism it deserved and you should have taken it as a food for thought long time ago.
As for the image dispute, whenever the image whose fairuse compliance you dispute has already a rationale that you are going to question, you have to explain at talk what exactly the problem with the existing rational is, since unlike the images with no rationale provided (the problem is evident) other editors need to understand what exactly is the problem that you see. Happy edits, -- Irpen 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't accuse editors of vandalism when their edits do not fall directly under WP:VAND. In particular, avoid posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Happy edits, -- Irpen 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Was there a question? I saw an accusation of vandalism accompanied by a block threat in the form of self-righteous templating, then a second accusation of vandalism despite a clear reminder of its impropriety, and then revert warring over reinserting of your rude comments that I removed. If you have some questions please ask them without rudeness, threats and other nonsense.
I also have a question. Do you think the message on top of your talk page is exactly helpful in encouraging users, especially the newbies, to cooperate with your concerns? -- Irpen 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You stated that the image seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:4Storyboard.jpg being used in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5/4_(Gorillaz_song) has an "invalid fair use rationale". Yet, I do not see anything wrong with the rationale given. It does not violate the policy in any way and I see no reason for why it is being "disputed", can you please explain? If it truly does violate something somehow then I will try to fix it, but I see no reason for why its current fair use rationale is not valid. Can you please explain why?-- Jarvisganon 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have looked through WP:NFCC#10c a few times now, and still fail to realize the conflict the image is having with it. The fair use rationale is filled out and does not seem to break any part of the rules. Can you be specific as to what part of the image's rationale is conflicting with the non-free content criteria.-- Jarvisganon 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how :-
"Source - http://namco-ch.net/ps2_soulcalibur3/character/img/abelia_b.jpg
Copyrighted Promotional image used solely to illustrate character in question under fair use criteria. No free alternative available."
isn't a fair use rationale. Exxolon 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have spent many hours uploading lots of album covers for use in album articles in Wikipedia. As we all know, album covers can be used under fair use. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images. I have uploaded about 600 of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one. All the images I upload already specify the source and the fact that it is an album cover. I'm just letting you know that it will be a great loss to Wikipedia if you let this continue. Weatherman90 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Stick to the rules or let them get deleted. Easy does it. - Pilotguy contact tower 04:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey again. I contacted you a few weeks ago when your bot kept on tagging images I had uploaded as failing fair-use based on "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" when this was clearly not the case. Whatever you did seemed to fix the problem temporarily, but within the past couple of days it has apparently started up again. As far as I can tell, any image which has a faulty title link (e.g. linking to a disambiguation page rather than to the film page itself) is tagged by your bot this way.
As it is rather annoying having to save images from deletion based on such a minor point, not to mention having my talk page spammed almost hourly with these messages, I would very much appreciate it if you would fix this issue as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've updated 2 images tagged by this bot as missing links to a specified article, however it is now saying the article does not exist or has been deleted - despite the fact that the article DOES exist and AS NOT been deleted. The article is Independent State of Aramoana. -- Gene_poole 07:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It's great that you bother us all with this tedious bullshit. - Diceman 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
My talk page is now 250kb long full of hundreds of images. Do you honestly think I have time to do all of them? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Look I don't mind getting a few images at a time which is managable but I just don't need the stress of having to sort out over 100 kb of messages and spend alot of time fixing it. It is demoralising adding correcting already signifcant rationales to satisfy a bot. While I do agree the uploader has a responsibility to add a full rationale and comply with "the rules" if the bot can be so clever in its duties I'm certain it could help out with some corrections where a rationale is given and only the title need fixing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I know it's frustrating to be dealt these automated messages but you really must treat the fair use images carefully, mishandling of said will compromise the whole of Wikipedia. So, in almost ALL cases, it's just a case of stating, with each Fair Use criteria, exactly which articles the fair use criteria applies to. That way, no bot messages, no hassle, no problem. The bot, while annoying, is doing the right thing. Sorry, but you've got to take responsibility for the images you upload, particularly if you're claiming fair use. The Rambling Man 16:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's all very well to use the templates, but perhaps it's worth reading them, for example, the latest disputed image for Daniel Hu, the template says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." - I don't see this anywhere. The Rambling Man 16:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, but this bot has failed to pick up my written-out rationales. I believe that in principle the idea of the bot's activity is a good one —certainly just because people don't complain doesn't necessarily mean all images are in fair use compliance— but as far as I can tell it's only satisfied by something like the non-free use rationale template. As explained in that article, the information doesn't have to be in a template. Does BetacommandBot know this? — eitc h 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not very well-schooled in wikipedia policies, and your bot tagged one of the images I uploaded. Anyways, I posted a lovely little reply to the bot on my own talk page to avoid a ping-pong conversation, before I realized that it was, in fact, a bot...
Anyways, I was using
this image for
my signature, is that ok? Over at
Uncyclopedia it's something we do, just let me know if using images for personal stuff is a no-no here. Also, the image is
from uncyc as well, I just copied it into MS Paint and uploaded it here as a png, so I assume there aren't any licensing issues. Please let me know what's up. Thanks. -
The Led Balloon (
Tick Tock) (
Contribs) 03:52, Oct 28
{{ helpme}} Dear sir i need help in the regard of uploading news paper cuttings actuall three of my uploaded images of news paer cuttings have been placed under orphan images kindly help me in this regard how do i link these images to the article secondly how do i upload news p[aer scans what tags do i have to add i am in a bit of confusion. kindly help me to resove the problem
Image:INDIANEXPRESSNEWSDATED07-07-2000.JPG
Image:Spiritualism promotes religious Harmony.JPG
regards Pingali 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
How can I stop a deletion? Thank you -- Art4em 08:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
On October 17, your bot tagged the image I uploaded illustrating a screenshot of Dan Lewis' first newscast with KOMO. I don't understand why my image was tagged, and after reviewing the criteria set forth in Non-Free Content Criteria guidelines, the tag supplied there is identical to the one I used when I uploaded.
I don't want to start a flame war over useless edits, but this has to stop. Personally, I'm *thisclose* to leaving Wikipedia altogether because of useless bureaucratic nonsense like the "Non-Free Content Guidelines" and the constant "Disputed Fair-Use rationale" tags I get on my talk page all the time.
I personally think the image I uploaded should stay, and does a fine job of adding value to the Dan Lewis article itself. Srosenow 98 08:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have recently Asked you how to fill in the template for Image:Default JPG.Because Coolgirly's page was redirected to mine(I lost my password as coolgirly88),Am I responsible for the image? Also,you deleted my comment about the template on your talk page before you answered.Please answer this comment on my talk page or yours.Please show/tell me how to fill in the template. Thank you. IslaamMaged126 10:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably overlooking something basic, but as far as I can tell the image fits the fair use guidelines. "Attribution of the source of the material" is provided, extensively in fact. The image is the cover of the book which is the subject of the article. The licensing section of the image's page appears to provide the necessary justification for the image. What is missing or wrong? Thanks. Tadiew 08:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[ [17]] This image was flagged, even though it has a fair use rationale. I was told here that it needed an article link. It has an article link at the bottom. I don't know what else to do about it. PLease advise. nut-meg 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. -- Ral315
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 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand, I noticed that your bot is malfunctioning. Without any explanation it's re tagging images (except the WP:NFC#10, that you're mentioning in the talk page). I also noticed, you are engaging in dispute about images with other editors. Further Dispute will lead you to AN/I. Thanks-- NAH ID 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The bot placed a deletion notice because there wasn't a link to the article where the image was used under [ [18]]. I made a link, provided a specific rationale and removed the notice. The same notice has now been replaced (I have removed it again). Tyrenius 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I posted a message regarding on your recent tagging ( User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Dispute on image).-- NAH ID 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This bot keeps sending me messages that the images I download aren't fair use even though they are. It's especially bad with articles pertaining to Wheel of Fortune. -- JoBrLa 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, what was wrong with this Image ( [19])? I think I fixed the "problem." But it seems every single Image I upload has a copyright problem -_-. -- Mooshykris 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I also agree, my images are being tagged unnecessarily, something needs to change Crimson 05 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:XXX. Blah, blah, blah. BetacommandBot 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</nowiki>
It'd be much easier to read and distinguish the message if it were formatted like:
==Earlier section== Blah, blah, blah. <span id="63318668225" ></span> == Disputed fair use rationale for Image:XXX == Thanks for uploading Image:XXX. Blah, blah, blah. [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that Twinkle does it. Thank you for your time, нмŵוτн τ 22:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please make your bot honor <!--BetacommandBot Exclude--> or some other string for its nonfree image warnings on user talk pages? I spent some time reverting a prolific image vandal some months ago, and I've been repaid ever since by dozens of warnings that the images (which I didn't upload and have no interest in) are quite correctly about to be deleted. Even if I were in the habit of uploading nonfree images with improper rationales, I'm quite capable of noticing any problems with them via my watchlist, and so should be able to opt out of the redundant, newbie-"friendly" talk page warning. — Cryptic 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I just say that, whilst I have added a fair use rationale and, assuming this to be adequate, have removed the template, I feel (and I can see from your talk page that I am not alone in feeling this), with all due respect to you, as I am sure you believe what you (or to be more accurate, your "bot") are doing is beneficial, that this bureaucratic rubbish that seems to be polluting Wikipedia is going to drive it to the dogs. I'm sorry to have to say that, but it's what most people seem to be feeling. Best wishes, Back and Forth 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Turn off your shit bot. It's causing nothing but trouble. The H-Man2 22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I just want to raise the general problem of #10(c) and page moves. When a page is moved the page given in the fair use rationale is no longer the only page linked to from the image. I want to know if there is a way we can have a smarter form of detection about this... such as, check the page move history of the page given in any rationale and then see if it has been moved to where the image is currently linked. My example was Image:Arzoo 1965 film poster.jpg where the rationale was for Arzoo but the page had been moved to Arzoo (1965 film). I think if there is one rationale and it's still only linked to from one page then further investigation is needed. I also think that a deletion template is far too strong for #10(c) incidents because often times there is a proper fair use rationale for one place where the image is linked but some new/anonymous/not-so-savvy-editor adds it to another page and because of this the image can be deleted after 10 days? Just some comments. gren グレン 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The Fair Use Raionale is correct. Fair use rationale: It is written...
and explained...
- OV 11:29 (UTC)
Will this bot please stop tagging the euro coins and euro notes? They are Fair use, the copyright is clearly given and they comply with ECB reproduction rules. Thanking you! Snappy56 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You have placed a notice regarding use of this bookcover.
This book cover, with permission from the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo Prior to uploading the image, I contacted Mr. Jebwab, curator of the Zoo and represents the Shulov family interests. and he sees no reason why the cover should not be displayed as either an enlightening illustration of Professor Shulov, and/or the Biblical Zoo.
The book cover has been added to the page of Aharon Shulov to illustrate the publications written by the Professor; Publications that were not only scientific (see references to his studies of birds and snake venom), but also historical.
The book cover also illustrates the basic reason for the founding of the zoo, itself, with the biblical phrase, it emphasizes the attachment of Professor Shulov to the history of Jerusalem, the nation, and to the animals that were mentioned in the scriptures.
As Professor Shulov is so closely linked to the Zoo and the City of Jerusalem, display of the book cover, having the appropriate okay from Zoo itself, should be adequate enough reason to maintain the illustration.
If there is smoething more I swhould do or write in order to provide rational for use of this image on WP, please let me know. User SZAgassi:SZAgassi 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The bot has incorrectly flagged the image "Image:Cyborg4firsted.jpg" as lacking fair use rationale. There is nothing to add to what is already there, and there is plenty. I am therefore reverting this particular tag and also notifying the Novels Wikiproject. 23skidoo 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The image, Image:AbominableFirebug.jpg is Copyrighted by me. I uploaded the image and I did not tag it as 'fair use'. I will change it back. LymanSchool 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagging Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG as having had an invalid fair-use justification was technically correct, but the fair use justifications are self-evident and obvious from the topic's historical relevance. Current Wikipedia policy is no justification for you avoiding spending a minute or three to fill out a proper detailed fair-use justification there if you determine that the images' current justification was inadequate.
What you do to a million Pokemon images that fail to meet policy is immaterial; if you tag important historical images in this lazy manner and they get deleted, you move into "damaging the encyclopedia" territory in short order. Both board and community agree that image policy enforcement must not be used to damage the encyclopedia.
Please use your common sense. I know you do a lot of good work with the bot, but the reason you're controversial and the Bot's loathed is that you take enough badly aimed shots like that one with it. Please slow down and think a bit more about it for legitimate historically important images, or anything else that anyone's going to obviously agree is important to have.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this, but this bot is incredibly badly thought out. I have just had a load of warnings about the fair use rationales of Image:BBFC A 1913-1970.png, Image:BBFC H 1932-1951.png, Image:BBFC U 1913-1970.png and Image:BBFC X 1951-1970.png posted on my talk page. When I uploaded the images, I used Template:Non-free use rationale, as recommended on the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline page. I filled in all of the fields. Since then, the template has been updated to include an article field. Obviously, as my images were uploaded before this requirement existed, these images do not include the article field. Now, they are threatened with deletion by this bot basically because I cannot predict the future!
Surely it is not sensible for this bot to go through every one of the thousands of fair use images uploaded before the article requirement existed and potentially delete the lot? Wouldn't it be more sensible for it to simply look at the image's page, which lists where the images are used, and adjust the rationale appropriately? - Green Tentacle 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the image warning messages! I'm so glad I get to spend the next hour updating 50 image pages! After all, I have nothing better to do with my time! Weatherman90 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Preceding comment moved from user page to talk page by — jacĸrм ( talk) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, and if I'd actually read the full username, I would've realized that, too! I'm so used to seeing it with "bot" that I (apparently) don't look much past the "Betacom" part anymore. In any case, thanks for fixing it. - Bbik ★ 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Making "fair use" a moving target does not help anyone. What was an OK rationale yesterday suddenly doesn't meet the standard today. If you really cared, you would try to improve content, not destroy it. But, obviously, you don't care. -- GentlemanGhost 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)