![]() | 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. |
I'm curious about the circumstances around the deletion of the image Felix1.jpg and CT1.jpg as these are both public domain images. I will be submitting all further images under public domain as I was unsure as to what category this might fall under given the very convoluted guidelines for tagging and fair use. I suggest the problems with complex guidelines be taken up by parties responsible as well as problems of robotic enforcement, in a bad sense of the term "robotic". These "fair use images" have been tagged and even when an updated specific rational explaining the reason for use, still deleted them. It should be noted that the images although rationale was corrected tags were not removed out of timid nature. If this is the underlying reason then I suggest that auto-messages explain this reason to remove tags. I suggest that when images are deleted that systemic notifications indicate reasons for such deletion. Was rationale not good enough. Will correct existing images to public domain and let this incident slide. But if public domain images of what is a traditionally repressed subject of left wing groups continues to be deleted it must be considered it a malice attack of red-baiting and take it up at higher levels being a potential political matter. -- J. D. Pfaff 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear why this image (Image:Songsofthecolonies.jpg) was removed after a fair-use rationale was provided. Can you shed some light on the situation? -- Chironomia 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've come here to dispute removal of the image of Oboro on the Oboro (Basilisk) article. The image doesn't reveal or spoil any aspect of the Basilisk anime's storyline or the ultimate fate of the character. It is a primary means of visual identification of the Oboro (Basilisk) character thus the original copyrighted work as a whole is not affected. I intend to add these arguments to a fair use section of the picture's Image page and would greatly appreciate it if you did not remove the image from the article and canceled the template you have put there before the image is removed on Saturday November 3rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin6401 ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the new comments in Talk:List of Wild Arms 2 characters. - Gilgamesh 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Just delete all my images that I've uploaded, most were just album covers anyways (I don't understand why we have to bend over backwards for a fair rationale on 'em anyhow)... Also I don't care to be reminded (on my userpage) that you (the bot) will be deleting them. Restecp 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restecp ( talk • contribs)
Your bot tagged a number of images I had uploaded for the Batmobile article. I looked at the fair use rationale page and it is just too confusing to be worth the effort. I am sorry for the users of Wikipedia that the images will be deleted but I don't have the time, energy or interest to fix problems that don't seem like problems to me. Blackhawk66 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Shadowbot moved it to my talkpage and I have adjusted the bot." Shadowbot moved it to your talkpage? Huh? Was it not already on your talk page? Shadbowbot removed the comment; it didn't add it. нмŵוτн τ 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The fair-use rationale for Image:DCARead.jpg does include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. -- DieWeisseRose 08:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just wondered if you had spottted my rather belated reply at WP:BOTREQ#Tagging_for_WikiProject_Ireland. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You included in wikiproject Belarus a lot of articles about localities in Romania (see bellow). Please correct
-- R O A M A T A A | msg 06:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, will remember that for future!
As for the general fixes, i'll go over them tommorow and give you a list of everything they do. No chance of remembering off the top of my head - Be a good idea/time to update the AWB pages as to what "general fixes" it actually does do....
Reedy Boy 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If you need/want to know in more detail what any of the things do, let me know, and i'll look into them in further detail
Reedy Boy 20:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand,on Betacommandbot's user page,I have asked 3 times on how to fill in the template on [Image:Default.JPG]and never gotten a reply.instead,the bot removed my comment without a reply.Why?Can you tell me how to fill in the template? IslaamMaged126 11:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] Please try not to create collateral damage when making petty edits such as this. Thanks.-- Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you have seen fault with my uploading of these batallion and corps flashes form the irish army. I had gotten them from www.bailerweb.com. since they are logos of government bodies i would assume that they are public domain, but if you wish you could look it up in an attempt to find the correct licensing for them, thus helping me rectify the problem. Your friend ~r —Preceding comment was added at 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand, thanks again for setting up User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage. A couple things: 1) "Usage" is the correct spelling -- maybe it should be transcluded when you have a free moment. 2) I wonder if there exists the capability to set this up into a spreadsheet, so we can begin to develop trend lines. 3) This has helped immensely in getting WP ready for March 2008 -- really nice work.
One more thing as well. When you have a chance, please have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria/Proposal and Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria/Proposal. This will affect your point #9 at the top of your talk page, as it involves standardizing rationales for several standard categories. It will leave the option open for a custom hand-typed rationale in special cases, but it will not be required since the rationales will be standard boilerplate for those images. Take care for now, and thanks. ... Kenosis 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've waited 2 weeks and am resubmitting my name for consideration for VP. Thanks. Mbisanz 02:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Any progress on the sort key diacritics issue? I was reminded of it again because this AN thread involves a user whose does a lot of this sort of stuff. If it will take a while, just say and I won't bug you again for a while. Carcharoth 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry betacommand - I'm not good at this bot stuff yet - cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size,
- all others (including generic poultry) are fine to be included. Do I just delete them off the sandbox page? cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
shall I edit the sandbox3? cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, getting esoteric now: remove -
that's all I could find extra. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
and a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fungi/fungus_articles_by_size
and a
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size - I know, an afterthought this one.
IS UNACCEPTABLE. if policies change, let users fix the page. dont speedy delete it. this goes against productive efforts. UNACCEPTABLE. Obrez 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot has marked images that are not tagged with a fair use tag as "orphaned fair use", for example, [2]. -- Carnildo 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As you know, BetacommandBot is mass-tagging images with {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}}. It is also leaving the original uploaders a {{ di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} and a message on article's talk pages. However, it is not following the directions of the tag because it is failing to add {{ deletable image-caption}} to the captions of these images. This is a problem because for a large number of images, the original uploader is absentee and article talk pages get far fewer page views than the articles themselves. These images then go ignored for seven days at which point an administrator either is lazy and deletes an otherwise valid instance of fair use which lacks correct tagging, or else scarce admin time is used to correctly tag an image that could have been tagged by any user had the caption indicated there was a problem.
I'm not asking you to shut off your bot, just make it leave the notifications recommended by {{ Deletable image}} so people have a chance to fix the tags. Please reply on my talk, because yours too busy to watchlist. Thanks. —dgies t c 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I AM giving a decent fair use rationale for the Bob Goen picture! Freakin' let it go already! >:( -- JoBrLa 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See this diff, where BetacommandBot tagged the image with {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}} even though the image in question did not have a fair use rationale, or any claim of fair use at all. The correct tag in this case would've been {{ no source}} or {{ no copyright holder}}... except that the image already had that tag (and nothing else), courtesy of a previous visit by OrphanBot. This certainly looks like a bug in BetacommandBot to me. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WHY WONT HE SHUT UP?NEARLY EVERY ARTICLE HE SPOILS EVERYTHING!THE BIKERS IMAGE HAS A FAIR USE!STOP IT ALREADY.-- Someguyudontknow 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot seemed to mistag Image:CM abraham lincoln.jpg, as the rationale is clearly stated in plain text. How did it miss the rationale? -- Knulclunk 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot tagged this picture as having no fair use rationale. It appears a complete rationale was present at the time of tagging.- AKeen 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Logos are painfully obvious, IMHO (hell, you could probably make a template specifically for logo rationales if that gives you a warm fuzzy). But really, this bot should not be tagging logos for speedy deletion. It would be far more constructive to actually have the bot put in a generic logo template when it comes across logos lacking rationales. — Locke Cole • t • c 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There, I added this template to [3]: {{Non-free use rationale |Description= 2002 Logo |Source=http://www.2002music.com/movies.html|http://www.2002music.com/movies.html] |Article=2002 (band) |Portion=All |Low_resolution=Yes |Purpose=Logo of Band for Infobox |Replaceability=Because there is only 1 logo. }} Is this clear enough?!!!! How much more info do I need to add before this bot will stop marking it, and most of all, stop posting message after message on my talk page?!!!
Of all things, the "replacability" annoys me the most. Why can't a "free" image replace the 2002 Logo? Maybe there's only 1 logo!
-- Mooshykris 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot keeps on trying to delete Image:Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee Poster.jpg but there is nothing wrong with the fair use rational. Please can you help me and turn this bot off for this image? -- UKPhoenix79 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a message in my talk from Betacommandbot which begins:
Thanks for uploading Image:UCI letters.png.
The image in question is an interlinked "UCI" (University of California, Irvine, perhaps?) in gold on a medium blue background. I did not upload this to Wikipedia. In fact, I have yet to upload an image of any kind to the site. Could you check your bot and the image to see if you can find out who did upload this?
Marketstel 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This bot doesn't recognize the "not orphan" tag and keeps tagging images as orphans when, obviously, they are not. This needs to be fixed. -- Sable232 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I have a second opinion about a question on my talk page in the "image question" section User talk:Wiki alf#Image question please. Your thoughts would be appreciated as to what to do next with this, if anything.-- Alf melmac 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Continuing on from this image conversation started over on Alf's talkpage. Could you take a look at Image:Mustaine052007.jpg. The uploader doesn't have a very good track record for understanding WP:FAIR and seems to be shading the rules a little on his latest upload. The image he is trying to replace is a free-use image from Commons and is a bit grainy... but still a freebee. I think he may be a fan who is trying to push a better quality image into a hero page at any costs. I will google around and see if I can find the true source. 156.34.142.110 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, I don't have much experience of Images and their licensing, especially the fair use policy, your bot recently tagged this image {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=November 6 2007}}
So I added this template: {{ subst:Book rationale | Article name goes here | website goes here | person or company owning the intellectual property goes here }} however, I'm not sure if its right... please get back to me on my talk page cheers PhilB ~ T/ C 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand, I've been told that the Discussionbot.py script is taking up way too much RAM. Could you look into why that is? MessedRocker ( talk) ( write this article) 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to discuss this tagging [4] at Talk:Shadow Star - Because there are multiple characters discussed to this article, and the fact that these images in no way harms the ability for Shadow Star comics or TV media to be sold, this should be compliant with Wikimedia image policies. If you contest the amount of images, please also discuss at the Village Pump. WhisperToMe 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
See, I believe that it is the responsibility of the person making the assertion to link to the policy decision. I will look for them anyway, but next time it is a good idea to have links on hand to the discussions themselves so that other participants will easily follow decisions. Now, I will state that images showing several characters at once exist. Maybe it may be good to use one of those pictures to represent some characters and then keep individual images for characters not in the pictures. WhisperToMe 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the Signpost was easy to search. Are you referring to this? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use ? WhisperToMe 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I already explained that the fair use was ok. why was it deleted??? I mean everything in the Fair Use Rationale was correct anyway so what was the point in bots deleting it over a dispute over a correct fair use ratione that makes little sence OsirisV 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale:
Official Capcom Artwork, used to show the detail and look of the creature. Artwork to show users Detail. Low-resolution image is used; not the original resolution for the image and cover artwork.
No free use substitute for the artwork is available.
It does not say on which page this rationale is valid, etc. Hence it did not have a valid fair use rationale, resulting in tagging and subsequent deletion (the deletion is not performed by a bot, that is done by a human editor who evaluates both the tag and the rationale (in case it did get repaired). Hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I have addressed the fair use rationale problem of the Home Alone image, can the template on the page be removed? mickyfitz13 Talk 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Through the Looking Glass (Lost), which has three posts by bcb saying that some images fail NFCC... after the article's promotion to FA. Both had FURs too, and although it wasn't a template rationale, text rationales are allowed under WP:FURG. Thanks, Will ( talk) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if this damn thing at least gave me a chance to fix the FUR on the first image it messaged me about before dumping another two messages on my talk. How about a autodelay so it only dumps one template every 5 or 10 mins on a user talk, giving them a chance to fix the image before it notifies them about the next? Exxolon 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I don't actually know it's designation down-pat. I hope that you, despite being a robot, can understand which image I mean. Since you say it needs to be deleted without a source and license provided, and since the user who uploaded it doesn't seem to want to bother with it; I propose that either you or ImageRemovalBot delete it. I know a site which has an image just like it; I can pick it up from there and upload it again, with the proper information (I think!). Wilhelmina Will 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of your pleading innocent, I think you (providing there is a human subject behind this "bot") are simply a busybody. Granted, Wikipedia is a free-for-all. But it is also a cooperative work, and the tone of all editors should be constructive. By this, you are not helping the image of Wikipedia, and in fact, may be encouraging competition to this service. I know that I am on the lookout for some alternatives to this nonsense. Think about it, if you have a conscience, which I gravely doubt.! Mike 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If I might put my two-bits in; I think you're wrong about this user. A user would not likely have the word "bot" in their name unless they actually were a robot, would they? Wilhelmina Will 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a screenshot from a freeware videogame used in that videogame article ( Neophyte (series), so I don't think it should be deleted. This also aplies for the two other images used in the article for the two other videogames in the Neophyte series. I'll add the non-free use templates to all three, and will be very grateful if you (or your bot) don't delete them. -- ŴôôD éļf 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand, I'm sure at some point down the road I'll be here railing about some image I want to keep that isn't permitted, but until then, thanks for upholding a reasonable policy. How long after a non-compliant image is posted does it take for your bot to label it? Just a fact I'm looking to keep in the back of my mind for when I begin uploading more images. Mbisanz 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a fair use rationale tag to this picture Image:John madden football.jpg (cover art) - Bonus Onus 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have clarified the fair use rationale. -- victor falk 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added fair use rational to this image. I hope it is okay now! Thanks! Josborne2382 11:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added a fair use rationale as required to Image:Northern bank logo.png. Hope it's OK now - please don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, Betacommandbot, or whomever has unleashed this on the world. What's the deal with this image?
image:Ble-goude.gif
You tag it for review, but the human behind you never bothers to show up with any reasons. More specificity is added to the rationale, the tag is removed, and a week later, here we are again!
Stated reason this time:
c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at
Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
Bloody christ, what do you call the link at the bottom of the page?
Look, I understand your desire to make wikipedia as small and nonspecific as possible. Heck, I might even admire it in another time and another place. But if you feel the need to auto delete images from wikipedia, please tell your creator that she/he has to actually visit and look at the images in question, and come up with some human readable demands which can be addressed by other humans.
Otherwise, your existance, dear Betacommandbot, is a massive pain in everyone's collective ass.
XOXO
T L Miles
14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the bot is tagging image pages that don't have a link to the pages that they are used in. This is causing problems when articles are moved to a different name because of disambiguation, or when a better name is found for an article. I don't know much about bots, but it seems like you could have it check if the article's name has been changed from "foo" to "foo (bar)" and then check the dates of the image and the original "foo" page. If the dates check out, then the bot could update the article name field, leave the article alone, or add it to some category where editors can change the name. Not sure what should be done when an article is renamed. I don't know what kind of info WP's database can give you to resolve that issue, but maybe you could search for "fair use for foo" and update the image page if "foo" has been changed. Another problem I've found is that one can do a bullet proof FU rational for some page (page A), and then an inexperienced user can come along and add the image to another page (page B) and the image is then tagged for deletion. Maybe you could check dates, and instead of deleting the image, if it met our requirements for page A, then remove it from page B. Obviously these are difficult things to script. The thing I worry about is that well chosen images with well made image pages are going to be deleted and replaced with poor images and image pages. We need a system where if you do it right, it sticks. That way we can slowly get reid of all the bad images (and descriptions) until only good ones are left. I know I've had images caught up in these sweeps where I took a lot of time to select the correct image and have created extremely detailed image description pages, then had to fix trivial disambiguations so the image isn't deleted. I frequently take wikibreaks, so it's a little unreasonable to expect editors to constantly defend well made image pages. Anyways, probably nothing you haven't heard before, but I think these are issues that should be dealt with. - Peregrine Fisher 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not "dab" pages that are in question. It's redirect pages. Since a redirect page points unambiguously to a unique page, this is fully compliant with 10(c).
A way needs to be figured out for the 'bot to take redirects into account. Jheald 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I hate your bot. I have no idea what it wants me to do to make my images fair use, again despite the fact that they are all already fair use under Wikipedia guidelines AND have valid fair-use rationales. What can't your bot just tell me specifically what's wrong, or better yet, fix it. -- jackturner3 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing missing in the fair use rationale for this image as it now stands. I have not attempted to change anything yet. Backspace 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I see the new article tagging rule for fair use rationales...what do you do if the same image is used in multiple articles though? Douglasnicol 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Is a backlink required by NFCC 10(c)? regarding what seems to be a discrepancy between the current wording of WP:NFCC and BetacommandBot's interpretation of it. Your opinion on the matter would be most welcome. Thank you. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, shut it off with the automated messages. Londo06 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Netscape-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
BetacommandBot keeps telling me that there is a problem with the images that I supply. That "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid". I've done my best within the Wiki guidelines, I believe, to provide justification for their use, but I do not think that the program has even considered them. Is this a serious use of a program or is it simply a means of being a pest? If so well done, but a joke's a joke.-- Marktreut 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this a correct tag? -- Mooshykris 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, so have I finally got the correct format on how to cite my images? (If so, I will add this to all of my image uploads.) -- Mooshykris 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a fair-use tag for Image:Mrs. Load.jpg. I also added one for Image:Lizzie McGuire Xmas.jpg. ---- DanTD 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I note that on both his user page and talk page, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE has indicated his recent discouragement and that he may have left permanently. I think the fact that you right now have 37 messages for him on his talk page might conceivably have been a factor. In cases like these, would there be any way to revise your specs such that you maybe left editors who contribute so many images only, say, one message a day, listing all the images contested? I think that would probably be a lot less, dare I say annoying, to editors who contribute so many images as that party. Just a suggestion, anyway. John Carter 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have added a rationale for Image:Floreelogo.gif. Please let me know if it is or is not sufficient. Thank you for your diligence! - RobbyPrather (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - you wrote:
If you check what that image pafge actually contains, you will see that I simply added the non-free tag to that page. The original image on the page, which I did upload, is now at Image:MitrePeakNZ.jpg. Another user replaced my original image with a new picture without changing the details on it, making it look like I had taken the photograph and was releasing it as gfdl-self. Since I did not take the photograph and could not, therefore, claim that licence, I removed the description and the licence tag I had originally placed on the page. I also replaced all the uses of that unsourced image with my original picture. Unfortunately, the problems run deeper than that, since the unsourced image has also been transwikied to Commons. I placed an unsourced template on it there as well,m so hopefully someone will be able to do something about it there, too... Grutness... wha? 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Blofeld of SPECTRE for reason, he is not the only significant contributor to give up Wikipedia. King of the North East ( T/ C) 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:NLE-NYM-Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_numbers_retired_from_two_or_more_teams"
this bot removed a school logo that i had uploaded. 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop spamming my talk page. Deleting images because the fair use rationales don't link to the articles they're used in is excessive, bureaucratic nonsense. And giving only seven days to fix such a minor problem is unfair (not everyone logs in every day). Your pointless bot has done nothing but damage this site. -- YellowTapedR 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe the bot was approved to tag images that lack fair use rationales, not to pester users who, in good faith, forgot to include a link in the rationales to the articles in which they're used. Some 15-year-old sitting at his computer shouldn't wield so much power. -- YellowTapedR 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. To have a bot tag images lacking fair use rationales is one thing, but spamming people's pages because they didn't provide a link in the rationale, which hasn't always been a requirement, is another. There is only one way you can describe Betacommandbot's actions: trolling. -- YellowTapedR 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a pain, that's why. You upload an image to improve an article just to have it deleted with hardly any warning -- again, most people don't log on everyday -- because of a minor rule that the bot might be able to fix itself. Calling the bots actions "trolling" isn't a baseless accusation; it's an observation. Think about it: Why else would someone want to run a bot that gets practically nothing but complaints. -- YellowTapedR 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Re these two edits: [7] and [8] - We had a discussion here about rationale tagging a bit ago, in which I asked you to make sure that you spent reasonable effort on anything you did manually, though the explanation that the specific issue I had an objection to was fully automated (tagging due to lack of specific article reference) took the discussion sort of sideways.
On this specific edit series, however, you (not the bot) reverted to the bot version of the page with warning twice without once taking the effort to either explain on the article talk page or in an edit summary what the problem was with the rationale. Unlike automated bot tagging, those reverts without explanation were your manual responsibility and fault.
This is unacceptable behavior. Failing to explain what was wrong with the rationale, and blind reverting, was clearly not good process on your part there. That was sterile edit warring rather than discussion to explain and show consensus. Sterile edit warring, even in the name of improving the encyclopedia, is not vaguely OK.
If someone removes the tag out of ignorance you bear the responsibility to explain if you're going to put it back manually. Our fair-use rationale policy is obtuse and difficult for even many experienced editors to understand. Enforcing it in a sterile and arbitrary manner is destructive to the encyclopedia. The automated tagging is one thing - when someone has indicated by editing that they are paying attention to something and are merely ignorant, you have to do the right thing and put in reasonable effort.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's wonderful that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia; however, blindly editing pages using a bot isn't contributing. I would be happy if you used your bot to find images that might not have sufficient rationale information and the like so that you could personally review them and act upon what you see; but, you don't seem to have any personal involvement with what your bot finds.
Please stop and think about the net effect your bahaviour is having on the wider community. You only have to read the posts on this page to see that your net effect is negative.
I have spent several 10s of hours reading and re-reading the image usage guidelines and discussion pages, then editing the images I've uploaded to ensure compliance; however, it doesn't matter what I do your bot always wants to delete my images. Please either get personally involved or find another outlet for your desire to contribute. Christopher Rath 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As a novice user I guess I don't get to call your warnings spam. Could you possibly clarify, in simple terms, whether there is any easy way of putting a picture on the page in question? I have looked again at the criteria for use of unfree images - 10 is a nice round number, easy to remember, but I'm still not sure I actually understand them. How do I find, construct or request a justification and from whom? In simple terms: "is trying to load an album cover really worth the effort?" Thanks. Martinevans123 12:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt and positive response - I'll try again. But since I mistakenly used the feminine pro-noun in the name I gave it, it might be convenient if this image was deleted anyway (maybe there is a gender bot for pages Francaises?)! Martinevans123 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now added link to article - is this better/sufficient? Martinevans123 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now added a rationale as per the template - is this now ok? Martinevans123 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for having free images and stuff, but of course some images just simply cannot be free. Ever. So we have to use fair use images, which once again I agree with having provided they are properly licensed and within the policies of Wikipedia.
The problem? Your bot is going about this the wrong way. It's going around blindly tagging images and beginning the process of deletion. I have had several of my images that this bot has claimed has no fair use rationale at all when it clearly DOES. Maybe there is a problem with the information I have provided, maybe it wants me to include or change something. Your bot does not tell me that, it just keeps telling me that I have included nothing. Several times. It's like it's trying to pound into submission that I am wrong when I am not. This bot can detect that something is wrong, so why not WHAT IS wrong? I simply cannot help correct my mistakes if you do not help me know what exactly is the problem. I actually left Wikipedia for a short while, because I had hordes of images deleted for wrong reasons or reasons that were not specified (Actual users also left me some messages about images and WHAT the problem exactly was, but these were images I chose not to keep and let them get deleted) and it drove me insane. I'm sorry, I don't believe in removing something that, save for one thing, can otherwise be perfectly on Wikipedia without making an effort to try and fix what is wrong with it. Going around removing everything you can find is destroying Wikipedia and is in no way contributing to it. Many articles have been disrupted and many of us do not know what to do. We read these policy pages but still, we are wrong according to this bot. Many of images were perfecty acceptable in the past, now it's suddenly like they are poisonous to Wikipedia. Rather than telling me, or indeed anyone, that we are wrong, how about telling us what EXACTLY is wrong? What EXACTLY is our mistake? That is the biggest flaw of betacommandbot. Fix your bot, and fast. .:Alex:. 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, (my last message was archived within minutes) could you give it a break please. One of our most productive and reliable editors has recently quit Wikipedia and I don't think coming back to see this awful backlog (just over 1 days worth) will encourage him that the great image purge is over. FYI he is not the only significant contributor to give up Wikipedia recently. Please find another important task for your bot for the next day or two, after all, driving people away from Wikipedia is not the objective here, is it? Could you please respond to this, my talk page or here would be fine. King of the North East ( T/ C) 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
yes // laughing man 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there; as much as your bot annoys me (LOL) it's doing good work. I am curious about the specifics of what the bot is looking for in its WP:NFCC runs. It's obviously looking for image description pages not citing articles the image is used in, etc., but is it also looking for certain fair use templates or parameters? How is it determining the presence or validity of the actual "purpose" portion of the rationale? Some sort of general explanation of the bot's scope posted somewhere on its page might help people get it.— TAnthony Talk 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Remaining steps to list Mississauga City Council for deletion:
1. Replace "cat=U" in the box below with an appropriate category for the article being deleted:
cat=M Media and music
cat=O Organisation, corporation, or product ...
2. Replace "Reason" in the below text box with your reason for nominating this article. Do not modify the other text. Your signature has been added automatically.
3. Edit today's AfD log and copy the following line to the top of the list on that page:
4. Use the below line as your edit summary:
5. Save this page.
If the image uploader could do the same thing, that might encourage people to give proper rationales. Mbisanz 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've addressed some concerns to your bot talk page. I'm giving you this heads up, so you won't over look it. If you remember, I've expressed concerns before about your bot running unsupervised, so that you're not around if something goes wrong. You got offended at my blocking the bot for misbehaving before, but what else is a person to do when you're not here to mind the bot and answer concerns? AKRadecki Speaketh 04:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I created this file, scanned it off from my own video tape collection, and would like the image used on the Jem (TV series) listing on Wikipedia's website regarding the show's old VHS releases from the 1980s, just to illustrate an image to one of the VHS videos. How can I fix the image copyright dispute to properly leave the image on Wikipedia permanently? I give Wikipedia full permission to use this image. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.
(talk) 02:04, 9 November 2007 User:Queen of Swords
Betacommandbot tagged this Image:Kyama.JPG as orphaned although it is used in one articale [9] Af 648 10:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no fair use rationale on the image article. Simple as that. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 12:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that if the bot didn't remind you, you'd wonder why your image just vanished without any sort of warning. Also, you're still required to be civil here. The bot may not have feelings (though I betcha Betacommand is working on that...) but the creator sure does. Thanks! ~Kylu ( u| t) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
When the bot is doing this task, it adds a single space after the class parameter. Example:
{{albums|class= Stub|auto=yes|importance}}
Just pointing that out.-- Tasc0 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You ( with reason) claimed that the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nell_tu_gamuza.jpg was ot properly racionalized. I have racionalized it acording to the template presented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline . Will it still be deleted, if so tell because i will have to find an alternet solution for the article mentioned on the image template.-- Tosta mista 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So is the image renaming a go?--Esprit15d( • ۞ • ▲) 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to reconsider what the bot calls a stub. WP:STUB defines a stub as a very short article with only a few sentences. So why is the bot tagging an article with 4 paragraphs and over 20 sentences a stub? See Neel E. Kearby.
Secondly, please take a look at Talk:Neel E. Kearby...see how the tag that the bot adds messes up the project banner nesting? For another example, see [ [10]]. If fully expect that you will either fix this in all the articles that have now been affected, or roll them back until you find a fix. That needs to be addressed. Please respond to let me know that you've seen this and are addressing it. AKRadecki Speaketh 04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Per above. Haukur 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for a orphaned fair-use warning, Betacommand (I think...) This is a Jimmy Wales parody image... Thanks anyway for notifying me... God Bless and have a nice day... Blake Gripling 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
...eh, look at the license tag you used. That called for a detailed fair use rationale. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Is BetacommandBot supposed to distinguish the complete absence of a fair use rationale from an invalid rationale? The copied warning above suggests it does, but it didn't here. ( The image then had a logo copyright tag (which I suspect is frequently mistaken for a rationale), but nothing else. I fixed it myself as the original uploader has a busy tag on their talk page.)-- QuantumEngineer 12:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that's the proper way to add a rationale. Most users forget to link to the article that the image is used...or they don't know what a rationale looks like. I don't think it matters if there is no rationale or the rationale doesn't link to the article; in both cases, it is invalid, isn't it? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Its the Johnny and the Sprites picture along with a picture of Macavity. Can you please just leave them alone and stop spamming my pages with these warnings? Really, this has gotten annoying. The Quidam 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir, you don't have a fair use rationale in that image article! That's why BetacommandBot's breathing down your neck! -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I request that you add a cleanup feature to your bot allowing users (or the bot itself) to automatically remove its boiler plate when they are no longer applicable.
For example, the other day I received a mass orphaned file notice. I was able resolve the orphan problem itself in about 4 clicks. However It takes far longer to go to each individual file that your bot has boiler plated and then to delete the boilerplate warnings that it has placed. It's time consuming and a real disruption as I have to go around undoing your bots edits on each individual image even though the issue has been resolved on an entirely separate page.
A simple detag button supplied with the user-page template would do the trick nicely. You could link it to a piece of code that would scan the named page and remove orphaned file tag (it should, however, scan to ensure that the image actually in use first).
while I'm at it, could you also add a link to the user-page template that allows the user to place a db-author request on tagged images. It would be so much simpler than a user having to go to the image itself, particularly if the user is a new-user who is not aware of how to perform a db-author.
- perfectblue 11:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
perfectblue 11:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of this bot coming onto the Shadow Star characters page, deleting all of the images, and claiming there is no fair use rationale. It's happened so many times that I have to come onto the bot's very talk page to get somebody to notice the issue! I edited that required information into every single image that has been uploaded for that article, but no explanation is good enough for this bot! This "fair use rationale" is so tedious and not even needed, I am beyond pissed off. Does this bot's owner even look over the fair use rationale provided for ONE SECOND?! It's going back over and over again, complaining about all of the images used in the aforementioned article. I know that complaints about this bot's moderation of fair use are not supposed to be here, but I have edited all of the information the bots and Wiki rules have told me to, yet I still get these messages and now the images have been removed from their parent article. LOOK AT THE IMAGES. THE FAIR USE RATIONALE IS ALL RIGHT IN THE IMAGE DESCRIPTION. -- Selo12394 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand said that he was deliberately removing the images. He uses the following as his rationale: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use and User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation WhisperToMe 02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to clone this bot, as it might go offline if you are not using it, or not currently using it, and it would get all of it done faster. With a clone, it would get all of it done. If you will allow me to clone it, I would prefer you to comment on it on my talk page. Dreamy § 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You wrote:
Thanks for uploading
Image:TraneingIn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you've got the time to go through pages and post automated complaints on it, how about fixing them instead? Doesn't take more time and is actually a contribution. Unlike what you're doing, that's just copyright trolling. -- 84.178.118.242 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Noticed this on my watchlist, only seems to have done it the once, so just wanted to point it out to you, [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dureo ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently got a message saying that I copied pictures off the Internet. I've never done that with any of the pictures I uploaded. I really makes me mad. Annoyomous24 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot is at it again. I've just had 8 orphan notices placed on my user page after mass page blanking by a rogue user. I have to visiteach and every one of these images to remove your tags, this is the third time that this has happened to me in the last couple of days PLEASE ADD A CLEANUP FUNCTION. A simple "Problem sorted, remove tag" link would do. It shouldn't be up to me to do this, your bot should scan its own tags and remove them if they are no longer required. - perfectblue 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a picture with a camera of a book cover Image:HoldOnToYourKids.jpg. Do I have the copyright to this picture, and so can I release it to the public? In general, is a book cover in the public domain since it is sold in book stores? The book cover picture is used with the article describing the book content. Is this not allowed, the same way we can use the book title. The book title could be argued to be copyright material as well, couldn't it? So my question is: Is it allowed to make a picture of a book cover and upload the image with an article about the book itself, or not? If that is allowed, what tag should I use? Ervinn 05:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking over a few of the articles related to Fender Guitar products I am findong quite a few of them contain copyvio images lifted directly from the Fender website. The articles contain a very thin fair-use rationale. But, like most "white background" pro-shots of guitars... the release for use has not been granted by the manufacturer. Take note of the uploads of this one particular user on April 14/15 of this year. [12] His image sources are correct and, like I said, there is a FUR on each one... but it is thin. Free-use images of these guitar models are obtainable. They aren't particularly rare guitars... in most cases. Fender Guitars are certainly not the only guitar models to contain these sorts of "white background" pro-shots. These types of copyvio images are easily accessed either via manufacturer websites or online sales vendors like musiciansfriend.com. It just so happen in this situation that a large number of uploads came from one editor so they were easy to track. Thanks! 156.34.213.204 10:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The category you depopulated as "POV" ( Category:Mobile phone culture) has been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 12 - I'd be grateful if you could comment there. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand, is there anything else I need to do with this or do you have enough information for it to go now? cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What does "up to" mean in your phrase "up to stub class" mean, on edits such as this one? For that matter, what exactly does the whole phrase mean? Gene Nygaard 13:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In particular, what are you coming "up" from, to get to the very bottom of the scale? Gene Nygaard 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Why should an assesment with regard to one WikiProject be taken as applying to other WikiProjects in the first place? Is there good reason for that? Is it documented in a discussion anywhere? Gene Nygaard 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If a project asks for this, fine, but I wonder if it's really that helpful to assign "unassessed" articles a "stub" assessment? Any article is presumably at least a stub, especially if it's tagged by two or more projects. Also, the assessment duplicated from another template may be old and no longer apply to the article.
I would think a somewhat inverse task might be more helpful: generate a list of articles assessed as "stub" but which lack a "stub" template in the article. This might be a way to identify articles which are likely expanded and need a review. Given the approaching target date for images, I suspect the bot has more urgent work to do than this, though. Cheers. Gimmetrow 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
to Betacommand for a great asset to Wikiproject Birds. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading
Image:CompactFluorescentLightBulb.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bug report - The recent run to replace "Infobox CVG" with "Infobox VG" did not properly check for transclusion, see [13]. This should be looked into before any future template replacing runs are done. User:Krator ( t c) 09:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
84.96.69.79 ( talk · contribs) (who also edits under the name VigierX ( talk · contribs)) is adding several copyvio images to the Vigier Guitars article that have been lifted from www.vigierguitars.com. Adding to the problem is that the same user is also adding these images to the Commons library... under the name PatriceJ (see Commons Uploads). As with most other guitar images taken from manufacturer websites they are copyright and not to be used without permission. 156.34.142.110 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:BetacommandBot#Blocked and the thread on WP:AN/I. -- Carnildo 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that if the bot didn't remind you, you'd wonder why your image just vanished without any sort of warning. Also, you're still required to be civil here. The bot may not have feelings (though I betcha Betacommand is working on that...) but the creator sure does. Thanks! ~Kylu ( u| t) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Usually, BetacommandBot tags images for not having a Fair use rationale or not having a complete one. All you need to do is add a rationale to the image description or if it already has one, you probably need to add the article it is being used in to the rationale by adding article=article name. If it is used in more than one article, a seperate fair use rationale must be used for each one. As long as you follow this policy for each of your images, you will not receive these messages in future! -- Jack 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Michael McGee federal criminal complaint.pdf is a PDF file being (mis?)used as a source in Michael McGee, Jr.. The link there is in the form [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Michael_McGee_federal_criminal_complaint.pdf]. This is a use, not an orphan page. Please fix the bot to recognize this pattern of call as a use instead of repeatedly and wrongly claiming the page to be an orphan. [14] [15]. GRBerry 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked BetacommandBot for applying the {{ di-orphaned fair use}} tag to images that are not claimed as "fair use", such as [16]. Please fix this problem. -- Carnildo 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We have several tags that mark an image for WP:CSD#I4 and "images that have no license". They include {{ nsd}}, {{ no source}}, {{ nld}}, {{ no license}}, {{ untagged}} and {{ no copyright holder}}. All six of those tags will mark an image for deletion under WP:CSD#I4. They are often properly applied by other bots. It is just plain worthless for this bot to add incorrect tags when one of those tags is already on the image. GRBerry 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This bot does some tasks well, and some have consistently been done poorly. Could you split each approved task into separate bots so that when the coding gets fouled up (as led to the latest block), we can block only the fouled up portions. GRBerry 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So annoying, I spent ages uploading images to make wikipedia look better. fine it was tagged, so I added a lengthy and accurate fair use rationale to each which took even longer, but lo and behold, they were both deleted anyway. I dont think I can retrieve them now. thanks for making wikipedia less attractive and wasting my time you pos. Do you realise how many album covers don't have any fair use rationale whatsoever? Yeah, so lets delete 80% of album art, what a bright idea. So anyway, aince I added fair use rationale and they were deleted wrongly, it's up to you to retrieve and upload them. Hurry now, run along! Now there's a good boy. Feudonym 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey BetacommandBot, I'm bored. Could you please tag some of my images for lacking source, lacking a fair-use rationale, for being an orphaned, fair-use image, or something like that? Oh, and please be sure to leave me message(s) about it on my talk page! Hope to hear from you soon, Jecowa 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Crazy bots and their gogo gadget deletioning ways... Image:HeadwoundcityEP.JPG is an album cover and has every right to be on wikipedia, if your bot wants to remove album covers from wikipedia, then that is just silly. Word to the above comment. Tubeyes 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Onorem fixed my fair use issues, sorry bot! *squirts oil* Tubeyes 12:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Image:Fearcats.jpg was deleted. I am not the uploader and I read that you say only the uploader should provide Fair-Use Rationale. How is it possible to identify the uploader so as to get him/her to provide a rationale? 69.69.80.77 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll
Looking at the history of Image:Lyriki.png, it appears the bot isn't paying any attention when I place the exclusion comment. -- MindlessXD 03:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is already an image (Image:Flag of Panama.svg) that is being used on the article: Panama. Image:Flag of Panama.gif is a douplicate image and so must be deleted. OsirisV 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This bot will not stop sending the same damn messages to my inbox, make it stop! I beg of you! -- ∑ssarege∑ 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot added a note on my userpage and on the image Image:3village-Wikify.png . this is incorrest as the image is infact being used on pages. Compwhiz II 02:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I just received a message saying this is an orphaned photo, though clearly it is not. -- Thankyoubaby 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I still think a direct link to the fair-use template would be a very nice thing to have in the warnings your bot puts on users' talk pages, but you clearly don't want that (those of you who didn't read the discussion we had about this will have to believe me — ten minutes of rooting around in archives hasn't turned up anything) so what about this: Could the bot stick the blank template on the images it flags? Then the alert on the image could read something like "this image won't be compliant until the template below is filled out or an equivalent rationale is given," and the talk page message could say "your image isn't compliant. please go write a rationale - I've supplied a blank template in case you'd like to use that." — eitc h 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiggy, you might want to review WP:CIVIL, and, WP:NPA, please. Calling other editors names, is not helpful. SQL Query me! 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Teaching a man to hunt for food so he doesn't starve to death is very different than having someone figure out for himself how to find the fair-use template. Stop pretending what you're doing is important. There are only a handful of hardlining users who support you. -- YellowTapedR 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
From observing entries at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive Index that you may be able to answer the many questions which have arisen. The Canadian province of Saskatchewan has a wikiproject that has some automated program queries that have arisen and are stated in the November Newsletter. Do you have any advice from your experience in helping a multitude of wikiprojects? Kind Regards, SriMesh | talk 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' ( talk) 09:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Please keep the bot in mainspace when doing WP:MOS changes to avoid things like this. — METS501 ( talk) 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Your efforts are consistently making Wikipedia a lower quality encyclopedia, and driving away not only good content but good contributors. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm not joking, nor am I exaggerating. Your bot is a severe blight on Wikipedia. BTfromLA 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to suggest something for your bot.
No, it is not to put it where the sun don't shine (though I have had that thought...)
I have encountered several images, logos specifically, that were properly cited with a fair use rationale that was solely in text form instead of using the {{ logo fur}}. Your bot tagged these as not having a proper fair use tag, driving the uploaders to contemplate violence against you, the bot or both.
So here is my suggestion: When the bot tags an image and notifies the uploader, could you please have it point out where to find the fair use template the bot looks for? Mayhaps you could possibly add a disclaimer or something to the effect of If this image has been properly cited using a plain text fair use reasoning, please consider upgrading it to the appropriate template. then put a small list of said templates.
That would be helpful in teaching editors to "fish".
Jeremy ( Jerem43 ( talk) 08:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
So why is your bot designed to get just about as many images deleted as possible? -- 71.157.174.18 ( talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot appears to be posting redundant copies of the same message on Talk:Alex (comic strip). Please have a look at it and consider rectifying its behaviour. Thank you. -- 82.13.146.160 ( talk) 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the bot screwed up on this message. The page already had a non-free use rationale. -- teb728 ( talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I used the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command (with the angled brackets) in order to prevent your program from questioning the legitimacy of my using images in certain articles, when I had put in almost all the justifications I could think of. However, it has done it again: it has gone to all these images, claimed that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid" and threatened to remove it. May I have an explanation, please, in order to put an end to this. Thank you,-- Marktreut ( talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What am I missing? I cannot see what the bot is seeing when it claims the image is violating WP:NFCC#10c.
The source, article name and a copy right tag are all included. I did edit it to make it less verbose, but it still contains the same information that was there before my edit. So why did the bot tag it as not being WP:NFCC#10c?
-Jeremy ( Jerem43 ( talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
I need a bot script written for me. I need a script for a bot that can deliver a a community newsletter. It would be operated in one trip every Sunday (to deliver the newsletter). If I could get the script for that, I'd appriciate it really much. Thanks! The Chronic 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I used the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command (with the angled brackets) in order to prevent your program from questioning the legitimacy of my using images in certain articles even after I had put in almost all the justifications I could think of. However, it has done it again: it has gone to all these images, claimed that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid" and threatened to remove them. Nothing seems to satisfy it. Could you please inform us what kind of justification would satisfy your program, and why the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command is not working. Thank you,-- Marktreut ( talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot has tagged Image:Mbta-logo.svg as having an invalid rationale for the second time, despite the fact that the image is in public domain. It was tagged first on November 9 and again on November 19. – Dream out loud ( talk) 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit? [19]
My suspicion is that your bot is looking at the pre-expand wikitext when checking for links to the article in which it is used, which would cause it to overlook the link in the template. However, this template does appear to satisfy the NFCC#10; the bot should be changed to look at the expanded wikitext, or to look for this specific template.— Random832 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello BetacommandBot, I have noticed that you have been adding the {{ WPUKroads}} tag rather indiscriminately. For instance The List (magazine) and Edinburgh Castle are now listed as within the scope of the UK roads project, which I'm not sure should be the case. It's because these (and other) articles are in Category:Royal Mile, which is a UK road. It may be worth investigating what other non-road articles are in street categories like this, meanwhile I have notified the project and will start de-tagging Royal Mile articles. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot repeatidly tags MakkankosoppoPiccolo.JPG even though the image has a sufficent summary for its use. DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Betacommand,
I was curious about this edit. Could you please tell me about this?
Thank you! Jecowa ( talk) 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you kindly let me know when you are done targeting the images I have uploaded. Thanx. Handicapper ( talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the bot pending resolution of this problem. There's a related thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BetacommandBot blocked yet again -- Carnildo ( talk) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to track which articles in a category BCB has tagged as being non-compliant? Specifically, I'd like to take a category like Category:All non-free Logos and see all the non-compliant articles BCB has tagged (I'd ideally like to see all non-compliant images, but don't know how to write a bot to do it.) Mbisanz ( talk) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The messages that your bot leaves on talk pages about images that need FU rationale are really annoying. As it is, it's a big block of text that seriously clutters up talk pages, especially when there are multiples. It's even more annoying when they messages are still around even after the FU has been added or the image deleted. Please either shorten the message it leaves or incorpate some sort of auto-message removal for after the issue is resolved.-- SeizureDog ( talk) 09:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I answer questions at WP:MCQ, and too many people come there who are totally mystified by the disputed fair use rationale concern of “invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.” I suggest that you modify the concern to say something like “no non-free use rationale for use on <<article>>. See WP:NFCC#10c.” Thanks, teb728 ( talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This image got deleted from the Space 1999 moon buggy page. I'm pretty sure that I put in a fair use rationale after the warning was put in. If you look at my past history you'll see that I've been pretty good at doing so when I didn't initially put it in, and when acquainted with the process I have now done so. I do not remove the warning templates afterwards as I'm sure it's removed by yourself. Douglasnicol ( talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on my understanding that you're discussing or have discussed the issue, Betacommand, I'm unblocking this bot. I suggest that you review policy to ensure that the bot is following it correctly, and if it is not, work to correct it. Carnildo, if you read this here: Please remember that blocks are intended to be a last-resort to prevent further damage. In fact, I'd suggest that any admin with problems with this bot bring the issue to betacommand's attention, politely, and he will be able to work to resolve it. A block is a last resort, and is not a way to revoke a bot's approval. That should instead be done through the bureaucrats, who approve them in the first place. Blocks are preventative, and unless there is a critical issue with a bot and the operator is not available, the bot should not be blocked. Blocking BetacommandBot is becoming more of a rite of passage than the solemn duty it should be. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Something must be done about Betacommandbot, we are perennially told. So here I am doing something about it, namely awarding you this barnstar for putting up with the endless tide of crap that comes with defending Wikipedia from copyright hell. If ever the masses realise that "I found it on the web somewhere" != "public domain", you will have played a major part in the process. Guy ( Help!) 23:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
Pff .. nothing has to be done about BetacommandBot! What is this all about. The bot is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. 99.9% correct, and of the 0.1% which is not 'correct' surely in 99% of the cases there is something else wrong with the image, and the tagging is correct. I award you The da Vinci Barnstar for the technological wonder that is called BetacommandBot! Dirk Beetstra T C 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
And for whatever others say or have said, I know the bot is 'learning' from its mistakes. I hope it will, resilient as ever, go on tagging wrongly-tagged or un-tagged non-free images! Dirk Beetstra T C 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
Ninthed. I've done my best to help those who need to be helped. Keep up the good work BCBot...... The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi I was recently approved by you for vandalproof however it is saying that i am not approved please fix this ASAP Alex fus co5 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I had applied for VP and been turned down once for not having enough edit experience. I re-applied after waiting and getting more experience like we discussed, but now I see I was rejected again [20]. What am I missing here? Thanks. Mbisanz ( talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did your bot reject this image: [21]. It certainly looks to me like it has a category. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 19:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size, and was wondering if you could do the same for Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music? (No problem if you don't feel like doing so.) Category:WikiProject Alternative music articles would be the category in question. 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Done
βcommand
13:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yet your bot is designed to get just about as many images deleted as possible? You never replied to this the last time it was posted, and it deserves a response. Even if the response is to take that quote out of your intro, as it quite blatantly brands you as a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.223.55 ( talk) 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it OK now?
The Helpful One (Talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to thank you for updating the bot, providing a much better commentary as to why images are tagged for FUR violations, Much more helpful. - Jeremy ( Jerem43 ( talk) 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
...has tagged the same image on the WAJR (AM) page twice now for not having an FU-R, when it does...on the page....added by me. Please fix this. Take Care.... NeutralHomer T: C 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What is going on? The bot is tagging images with perfectly valid fair use rationales. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I replied but just a heads up here. -- Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I have had a thought for one way that you might reduce the number of complaints (and blocks) about BCB: on the user page, the tasks are currently linked as a log search to the approval pages, which are pretty messy to look at. If you took a few minutes to make a subpage, e.g. User:BetacommandBot/Tasks, where you list exactly what the bot does, in a form explaining triggers and actions clearly, then at the very least when people make a complaint anyone can compare it to the task description, and only take action when there is a difference.
For example, at the moment there's an issue where the bot is apparently not following redirects in FURs, despite a comment that it's supposed to. If, under "Task: check fair use rationales", it included the line "Bot will check whether rationale includes link to article, or link to redirect to article", then everyone would be clear on what was supposed to happen. Just a thought. Confusing Manifestation( Say hi!) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand why an image I uploaded violates fair-use policies. It is this pic: Image:Uwlathletics.gif. What is the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosscountrycpjon ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're adding user tags to article pages. Gimmetrow 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot is tagging images that have a fair use rationale. For example Image:Virtual_Qumran.jpg. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I loaded this up thinking it was OK as "cover art" being an album cover, if I am wrong please remove immediately. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your link to WP:NONFREE in edit summaries is going directly to the edit link instead of the page itself, thus it is showing as red in the edit summaries. IvoShandor ( talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't you get in trouble for not recognizing redirects about 5 months or so ago? Well, your bot is ignoring backlink redirects in fair use rationale again. Due to page moves and merges and the like, this is not tenable. Please stop your bot until you fix the problem. SnowFire ( talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This image was not found in any web site. It was taken from an offline, burned DVD. Please do not remove the image at any costs. Thank you. Jonghyunchung ( talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone help me to put a right fair use template to this image?... Image:Tnp-logo.png I don't understand a thing, and I'd really like to have this problem solved. It would be sad to have this pic removed... Help, please! Klow ( talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot just tagged Image:Shriners.png for not having the article name. However, the FUR did contain a valid redirect to the article name. Should it be checking for this case?-- uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:The Amityville Curse 1990 DVD Cover.JPG wrongly tagged it would seem by your bot? The DVD cover had the appropriate licensing tag and was only linked to one page? I will check for a link to the article name but was unaware that that was mandatory. What have I missed?-- Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Please explain what I need to do to prove this. The photo is the property of the American Jewish Congress, where I was employed as Director of Communications. I had and have authorization to use the picture on for the Internet and Wikipedia. Please tell me what is needed here, I will get it for Wiki. Thank you
Can't it follow redirects or is it just fucking stupid? — Pengo 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion here. Haukur ( talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not use the word "disputed". People "dispute". Bots tag. There is no dispute, just an over zealous bot. — Pengo 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The following images have been challenged: Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg, Image:Phoenix (static).jpg, Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg and Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg are all challenged under fair use. What does it take to have them qulaify since three of them are screen shots and the other is an organization's logo. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
Please update your bot to recognize when an article is renamed or moved. The image Image:KNUJ.png used in KNUJ (AM) was tagged for deletion, apparently because the article had the name KNUJ when the rationale was added. The article was renamed and the redirect was replaced with a disambiguation page, which is why, if your bot is checking for redirects, this check would have failed. If your bot could check the edit history of the article (either the one in which it is used, or the one which is named in the use rationale) to determine if a rename occurred, and either leave the image alone or fix the article names in the image description, this would be a million times appreciated. Thank you. DHowell ( talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Here: the newsletter is located right here. It goes out to everybody on the project's members list except for those in the no-spam list. The Chronic 05:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question: If I set up an alternate account exclusively to deliver the newsletter (likely using AWB), but assisting it doing so, would that considered an assisted bot? If so, do I need bot approval to use it? The Chronic 03:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this bot going to repeatedly contest images? Image:The Normal Heart.jpg is a poster that is used on the play's page, as well as the author of the play's page. This is inherently fair use, yet this bot has tagged this as disputed twice. What is the issue here? --David Shankbone 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong whith that image? Cannot be it used as a logo? K r i s t o f talk 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law.
Logo is of a 501c not-for-profit organization. Also no free equivalent of this image can exist. Use of this image on Wikipedia does not restrict its use by the copyright holder. It illustrates the organization or a component or an aspect of the organization in question. Werecowmoo ( talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're bot says this image infringes WP:NFCC#10c, but there's a clear fair use rationale for each article the image is used in, with all the information required by that criterion. Therefore, I'm removing the tag. If you still have a concern, feel free to discuss it on the image's talk page. EDIT: I realized the link to the relevant article provided in the fair use rationale was a redirect. Maybe that was the cause of the wrong tagging? Kazu-kun ( talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the rational for this picture? It keeps rejecting it, so I went all the way and copied the use agreement from the game, and it still doesn't like it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin boy93 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot tagged Image:Powers_of_ten.jpg But I believe that it is in fair-use.
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 27#Category:Non-free Logos. --- RockMFR 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that you know more about this stuff than I do. So can you take a look at it please. It was uploaded with such obvious bullshit by a user that has uploaded several copyrighted images. I left a comment at Image talk:SanBernardinoValley-1907-loc.jpg. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Just came across quite a few copyvio guitar images that are lifted from guitarcenter.com, musiciansfriend.com and other onlone vendor sites. The uploads come from Stratovarious ( talk · contribs). Some are tagged as permission granted... some are already tagged for lack of proper licensing. All are copyright violations. 156.34.230.187 ( talk) 11:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out how it is that your bot has enough AI to think that it can judge fair use claims, like here... kmccoy (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot Betacommandbot just tagged a FUR tag on the image above (the title). I do not see any problem with my fur. If you see any problem, please talk to me in my talk page. -- Jackl 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, obviously that would be silly, but really I think there's a lot of huff and puff going into moaning about the Bot when just modifying the FU would take seconds. It's a better idea to educate people how to do it right and why they're getting messages (even if their FU were right in the first place, but it does beg the question, if the page has been changed into a disambiguation page, it wouldn't be right for BCbot to follow ther redirect would it?) rather than taking the stance thate BCBot should be terminated. Ultimately it's doing the "right thing", just not in an optimal fashion. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your BetacommandBot is a reaper. It is inserting {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} at screenshots images. Since they already have {{Non-free software screenshot}} labels, what's the problem. Please write a standard text to show me what will satisfy you. Regards Necessary Evil ( talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BC, just wondered, now you've fixed the redirect issue, what happens if a page is modified to become a disambiguation page? Can the bot spot that or are those pages just going to be doomed? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering why I was denied for VP, according to this diff? -- Nn123645 ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Having scrutinized the rules reg. non-free images, I see that uploading the image in question was a bit of a bad idea. I'll certainly give it more thought next time. Thanks for enlightening me. Tchernobog ( talk) 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This so called "BOT" has been doing a lot of this. How do we stop this person. They are removing photos with fair use rationale, then removing comments from here about it. Wikibones ( talk) 13:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see:
Image:Wake county logo.jpg. The bot tagged the image as lacking a fair use rationale; however the image descruption page DOES contain such rationale, and as far as I can tell, the rationale is being used correctly. Please manually double check this, and see that it is fixed. --
Jayron32|
talk|
contribs
07:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This point has been made before. The bot's fair use msgs still say images "lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded", but policy says one week after notification. Fix it please. 86.42.83.73 ( talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
STOP SPAMMING MY TALK PAGE. Your bot is out of order. I DO NOT UPLOAD ORIGINAL IMAGES. I just OPTIMISE them. Either fix your bot or write an exception for my uploads. -- Tene ( talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There IS a fair use rational on these pages that lists the EXACT publishing details of the original recordings etc. Unless you do not JUSTIFY your 'claims' in plain english you will simply destroy a good, featured article candidate that uses music samples LEGALLY. Matt.kaner ( talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I sign in to VandalProof? (please reply on my talk page) Chetblong talk to me 03:05, 28 November 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. |
I'm curious about the circumstances around the deletion of the image Felix1.jpg and CT1.jpg as these are both public domain images. I will be submitting all further images under public domain as I was unsure as to what category this might fall under given the very convoluted guidelines for tagging and fair use. I suggest the problems with complex guidelines be taken up by parties responsible as well as problems of robotic enforcement, in a bad sense of the term "robotic". These "fair use images" have been tagged and even when an updated specific rational explaining the reason for use, still deleted them. It should be noted that the images although rationale was corrected tags were not removed out of timid nature. If this is the underlying reason then I suggest that auto-messages explain this reason to remove tags. I suggest that when images are deleted that systemic notifications indicate reasons for such deletion. Was rationale not good enough. Will correct existing images to public domain and let this incident slide. But if public domain images of what is a traditionally repressed subject of left wing groups continues to be deleted it must be considered it a malice attack of red-baiting and take it up at higher levels being a potential political matter. -- J. D. Pfaff 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not clear why this image (Image:Songsofthecolonies.jpg) was removed after a fair-use rationale was provided. Can you shed some light on the situation? -- Chironomia 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've come here to dispute removal of the image of Oboro on the Oboro (Basilisk) article. The image doesn't reveal or spoil any aspect of the Basilisk anime's storyline or the ultimate fate of the character. It is a primary means of visual identification of the Oboro (Basilisk) character thus the original copyrighted work as a whole is not affected. I intend to add these arguments to a fair use section of the picture's Image page and would greatly appreciate it if you did not remove the image from the article and canceled the template you have put there before the image is removed on Saturday November 3rd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin6401 ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the new comments in Talk:List of Wild Arms 2 characters. - Gilgamesh 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Just delete all my images that I've uploaded, most were just album covers anyways (I don't understand why we have to bend over backwards for a fair rationale on 'em anyhow)... Also I don't care to be reminded (on my userpage) that you (the bot) will be deleting them. Restecp 02:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Restecp ( talk • contribs)
Your bot tagged a number of images I had uploaded for the Batmobile article. I looked at the fair use rationale page and it is just too confusing to be worth the effort. I am sorry for the users of Wikipedia that the images will be deleted but I don't have the time, energy or interest to fix problems that don't seem like problems to me. Blackhawk66 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Shadowbot moved it to my talkpage and I have adjusted the bot." Shadowbot moved it to your talkpage? Huh? Was it not already on your talk page? Shadbowbot removed the comment; it didn't add it. нмŵוτн τ 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The fair-use rationale for Image:DCARead.jpg does include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed. -- DieWeisseRose 08:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just wondered if you had spottted my rather belated reply at WP:BOTREQ#Tagging_for_WikiProject_Ireland. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You included in wikiproject Belarus a lot of articles about localities in Romania (see bellow). Please correct
-- R O A M A T A A | msg 06:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, will remember that for future!
As for the general fixes, i'll go over them tommorow and give you a list of everything they do. No chance of remembering off the top of my head - Be a good idea/time to update the AWB pages as to what "general fixes" it actually does do....
Reedy Boy 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If you need/want to know in more detail what any of the things do, let me know, and i'll look into them in further detail
Reedy Boy 20:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand,on Betacommandbot's user page,I have asked 3 times on how to fill in the template on [Image:Default.JPG]and never gotten a reply.instead,the bot removed my comment without a reply.Why?Can you tell me how to fill in the template? IslaamMaged126 11:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[1] Please try not to create collateral damage when making petty edits such as this. Thanks.-- Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you have seen fault with my uploading of these batallion and corps flashes form the irish army. I had gotten them from www.bailerweb.com. since they are logos of government bodies i would assume that they are public domain, but if you wish you could look it up in an attempt to find the correct licensing for them, thus helping me rectify the problem. Your friend ~r —Preceding comment was added at 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand, thanks again for setting up User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage. A couple things: 1) "Usage" is the correct spelling -- maybe it should be transcluded when you have a free moment. 2) I wonder if there exists the capability to set this up into a spreadsheet, so we can begin to develop trend lines. 3) This has helped immensely in getting WP ready for March 2008 -- really nice work.
One more thing as well. When you have a chance, please have a look at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria/Proposal and Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria/Proposal. This will affect your point #9 at the top of your talk page, as it involves standardizing rationales for several standard categories. It will leave the option open for a custom hand-typed rationale in special cases, but it will not be required since the rationales will be standard boilerplate for those images. Take care for now, and thanks. ... Kenosis 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've waited 2 weeks and am resubmitting my name for consideration for VP. Thanks. Mbisanz 02:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Any progress on the sort key diacritics issue? I was reminded of it again because this AN thread involves a user whose does a lot of this sort of stuff. If it will take a while, just say and I won't bug you again for a while. Carcharoth 19:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry betacommand - I'm not good at this bot stuff yet - cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size,
- all others (including generic poultry) are fine to be included. Do I just delete them off the sandbox page? cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
shall I edit the sandbox3? cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, getting esoteric now: remove -
that's all I could find extra. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
and a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fungi/fungus_articles_by_size
and a
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size - I know, an afterthought this one.
IS UNACCEPTABLE. if policies change, let users fix the page. dont speedy delete it. this goes against productive efforts. UNACCEPTABLE. Obrez 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot has marked images that are not tagged with a fair use tag as "orphaned fair use", for example, [2]. -- Carnildo 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As you know, BetacommandBot is mass-tagging images with {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}}. It is also leaving the original uploaders a {{ di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} and a message on article's talk pages. However, it is not following the directions of the tag because it is failing to add {{ deletable image-caption}} to the captions of these images. This is a problem because for a large number of images, the original uploader is absentee and article talk pages get far fewer page views than the articles themselves. These images then go ignored for seven days at which point an administrator either is lazy and deletes an otherwise valid instance of fair use which lacks correct tagging, or else scarce admin time is used to correctly tag an image that could have been tagged by any user had the caption indicated there was a problem.
I'm not asking you to shut off your bot, just make it leave the notifications recommended by {{ Deletable image}} so people have a chance to fix the tags. Please reply on my talk, because yours too busy to watchlist. Thanks. —dgies t c 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I AM giving a decent fair use rationale for the Bob Goen picture! Freakin' let it go already! >:( -- JoBrLa 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See this diff, where BetacommandBot tagged the image with {{ di-disputed fair use rationale}} even though the image in question did not have a fair use rationale, or any claim of fair use at all. The correct tag in this case would've been {{ no source}} or {{ no copyright holder}}... except that the image already had that tag (and nothing else), courtesy of a previous visit by OrphanBot. This certainly looks like a bug in BetacommandBot to me. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WHY WONT HE SHUT UP?NEARLY EVERY ARTICLE HE SPOILS EVERYTHING!THE BIKERS IMAGE HAS A FAIR USE!STOP IT ALREADY.-- Someguyudontknow 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot seemed to mistag Image:CM abraham lincoln.jpg, as the rationale is clearly stated in plain text. How did it miss the rationale? -- Knulclunk 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot tagged this picture as having no fair use rationale. It appears a complete rationale was present at the time of tagging.- AKeen 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Logos are painfully obvious, IMHO (hell, you could probably make a template specifically for logo rationales if that gives you a warm fuzzy). But really, this bot should not be tagging logos for speedy deletion. It would be far more constructive to actually have the bot put in a generic logo template when it comes across logos lacking rationales. — Locke Cole • t • c 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There, I added this template to [3]: {{Non-free use rationale |Description= 2002 Logo |Source=http://www.2002music.com/movies.html|http://www.2002music.com/movies.html] |Article=2002 (band) |Portion=All |Low_resolution=Yes |Purpose=Logo of Band for Infobox |Replaceability=Because there is only 1 logo. }} Is this clear enough?!!!! How much more info do I need to add before this bot will stop marking it, and most of all, stop posting message after message on my talk page?!!!
Of all things, the "replacability" annoys me the most. Why can't a "free" image replace the 2002 Logo? Maybe there's only 1 logo!
-- Mooshykris 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot keeps on trying to delete Image:Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee Poster.jpg but there is nothing wrong with the fair use rational. Please can you help me and turn this bot off for this image? -- UKPhoenix79 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a message in my talk from Betacommandbot which begins:
Thanks for uploading Image:UCI letters.png.
The image in question is an interlinked "UCI" (University of California, Irvine, perhaps?) in gold on a medium blue background. I did not upload this to Wikipedia. In fact, I have yet to upload an image of any kind to the site. Could you check your bot and the image to see if you can find out who did upload this?
Marketstel 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This bot doesn't recognize the "not orphan" tag and keeps tagging images as orphans when, obviously, they are not. This needs to be fixed. -- Sable232 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I have a second opinion about a question on my talk page in the "image question" section User talk:Wiki alf#Image question please. Your thoughts would be appreciated as to what to do next with this, if anything.-- Alf melmac 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Continuing on from this image conversation started over on Alf's talkpage. Could you take a look at Image:Mustaine052007.jpg. The uploader doesn't have a very good track record for understanding WP:FAIR and seems to be shading the rules a little on his latest upload. The image he is trying to replace is a free-use image from Commons and is a bit grainy... but still a freebee. I think he may be a fan who is trying to push a better quality image into a hero page at any costs. I will google around and see if I can find the true source. 156.34.142.110 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you, I don't have much experience of Images and their licensing, especially the fair use policy, your bot recently tagged this image {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=November 6 2007}}
So I added this template: {{ subst:Book rationale | Article name goes here | website goes here | person or company owning the intellectual property goes here }} however, I'm not sure if its right... please get back to me on my talk page cheers PhilB ~ T/ C 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand, I've been told that the Discussionbot.py script is taking up way too much RAM. Could you look into why that is? MessedRocker ( talk) ( write this article) 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to discuss this tagging [4] at Talk:Shadow Star - Because there are multiple characters discussed to this article, and the fact that these images in no way harms the ability for Shadow Star comics or TV media to be sold, this should be compliant with Wikimedia image policies. If you contest the amount of images, please also discuss at the Village Pump. WhisperToMe 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
See, I believe that it is the responsibility of the person making the assertion to link to the policy decision. I will look for them anyway, but next time it is a good idea to have links on hand to the discussions themselves so that other participants will easily follow decisions. Now, I will state that images showing several characters at once exist. Maybe it may be good to use one of those pictures to represent some characters and then keep individual images for characters not in the pictures. WhisperToMe 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the Signpost was easy to search. Are you referring to this? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use ? WhisperToMe 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I already explained that the fair use was ok. why was it deleted??? I mean everything in the Fair Use Rationale was correct anyway so what was the point in bots deleting it over a dispute over a correct fair use ratione that makes little sence OsirisV 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale:
Official Capcom Artwork, used to show the detail and look of the creature. Artwork to show users Detail. Low-resolution image is used; not the original resolution for the image and cover artwork.
No free use substitute for the artwork is available.
It does not say on which page this rationale is valid, etc. Hence it did not have a valid fair use rationale, resulting in tagging and subsequent deletion (the deletion is not performed by a bot, that is done by a human editor who evaluates both the tag and the rationale (in case it did get repaired). Hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I have addressed the fair use rationale problem of the Home Alone image, can the template on the page be removed? mickyfitz13 Talk 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Through the Looking Glass (Lost), which has three posts by bcb saying that some images fail NFCC... after the article's promotion to FA. Both had FURs too, and although it wasn't a template rationale, text rationales are allowed under WP:FURG. Thanks, Will ( talk) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if this damn thing at least gave me a chance to fix the FUR on the first image it messaged me about before dumping another two messages on my talk. How about a autodelay so it only dumps one template every 5 or 10 mins on a user talk, giving them a chance to fix the image before it notifies them about the next? Exxolon 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I don't actually know it's designation down-pat. I hope that you, despite being a robot, can understand which image I mean. Since you say it needs to be deleted without a source and license provided, and since the user who uploaded it doesn't seem to want to bother with it; I propose that either you or ImageRemovalBot delete it. I know a site which has an image just like it; I can pick it up from there and upload it again, with the proper information (I think!). Wilhelmina Will 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of your pleading innocent, I think you (providing there is a human subject behind this "bot") are simply a busybody. Granted, Wikipedia is a free-for-all. But it is also a cooperative work, and the tone of all editors should be constructive. By this, you are not helping the image of Wikipedia, and in fact, may be encouraging competition to this service. I know that I am on the lookout for some alternatives to this nonsense. Think about it, if you have a conscience, which I gravely doubt.! Mike 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If I might put my two-bits in; I think you're wrong about this user. A user would not likely have the word "bot" in their name unless they actually were a robot, would they? Wilhelmina Will 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a screenshot from a freeware videogame used in that videogame article ( Neophyte (series), so I don't think it should be deleted. This also aplies for the two other images used in the article for the two other videogames in the Neophyte series. I'll add the non-free use templates to all three, and will be very grateful if you (or your bot) don't delete them. -- ŴôôD éļf 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand, I'm sure at some point down the road I'll be here railing about some image I want to keep that isn't permitted, but until then, thanks for upholding a reasonable policy. How long after a non-compliant image is posted does it take for your bot to label it? Just a fact I'm looking to keep in the back of my mind for when I begin uploading more images. Mbisanz 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a fair use rationale tag to this picture Image:John madden football.jpg (cover art) - Bonus Onus 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have clarified the fair use rationale. -- victor falk 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added fair use rational to this image. I hope it is okay now! Thanks! Josborne2382 11:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added a fair use rationale as required to Image:Northern bank logo.png. Hope it's OK now - please don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, Betacommandbot, or whomever has unleashed this on the world. What's the deal with this image?
image:Ble-goude.gif
You tag it for review, but the human behind you never bothers to show up with any reasons. More specificity is added to the rationale, the tag is removed, and a week later, here we are again!
Stated reason this time:
c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at
Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
Bloody christ, what do you call the link at the bottom of the page?
Look, I understand your desire to make wikipedia as small and nonspecific as possible. Heck, I might even admire it in another time and another place. But if you feel the need to auto delete images from wikipedia, please tell your creator that she/he has to actually visit and look at the images in question, and come up with some human readable demands which can be addressed by other humans.
Otherwise, your existance, dear Betacommandbot, is a massive pain in everyone's collective ass.
XOXO
T L Miles
14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the bot is tagging image pages that don't have a link to the pages that they are used in. This is causing problems when articles are moved to a different name because of disambiguation, or when a better name is found for an article. I don't know much about bots, but it seems like you could have it check if the article's name has been changed from "foo" to "foo (bar)" and then check the dates of the image and the original "foo" page. If the dates check out, then the bot could update the article name field, leave the article alone, or add it to some category where editors can change the name. Not sure what should be done when an article is renamed. I don't know what kind of info WP's database can give you to resolve that issue, but maybe you could search for "fair use for foo" and update the image page if "foo" has been changed. Another problem I've found is that one can do a bullet proof FU rational for some page (page A), and then an inexperienced user can come along and add the image to another page (page B) and the image is then tagged for deletion. Maybe you could check dates, and instead of deleting the image, if it met our requirements for page A, then remove it from page B. Obviously these are difficult things to script. The thing I worry about is that well chosen images with well made image pages are going to be deleted and replaced with poor images and image pages. We need a system where if you do it right, it sticks. That way we can slowly get reid of all the bad images (and descriptions) until only good ones are left. I know I've had images caught up in these sweeps where I took a lot of time to select the correct image and have created extremely detailed image description pages, then had to fix trivial disambiguations so the image isn't deleted. I frequently take wikibreaks, so it's a little unreasonable to expect editors to constantly defend well made image pages. Anyways, probably nothing you haven't heard before, but I think these are issues that should be dealt with. - Peregrine Fisher 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not "dab" pages that are in question. It's redirect pages. Since a redirect page points unambiguously to a unique page, this is fully compliant with 10(c).
A way needs to be figured out for the 'bot to take redirects into account. Jheald 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I hate your bot. I have no idea what it wants me to do to make my images fair use, again despite the fact that they are all already fair use under Wikipedia guidelines AND have valid fair-use rationales. What can't your bot just tell me specifically what's wrong, or better yet, fix it. -- jackturner3 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing missing in the fair use rationale for this image as it now stands. I have not attempted to change anything yet. Backspace 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I see the new article tagging rule for fair use rationales...what do you do if the same image is used in multiple articles though? Douglasnicol 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Is a backlink required by NFCC 10(c)? regarding what seems to be a discrepancy between the current wording of WP:NFCC and BetacommandBot's interpretation of it. Your opinion on the matter would be most welcome. Thank you. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Once again, shut it off with the automated messages. Londo06 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Netscape-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
BetacommandBot keeps telling me that there is a problem with the images that I supply. That "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid". I've done my best within the Wiki guidelines, I believe, to provide justification for their use, but I do not think that the program has even considered them. Is this a serious use of a program or is it simply a means of being a pest? If so well done, but a joke's a joke.-- Marktreut 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this a correct tag? -- Mooshykris 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, so have I finally got the correct format on how to cite my images? (If so, I will add this to all of my image uploads.) -- Mooshykris 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently added a fair-use tag for Image:Mrs. Load.jpg. I also added one for Image:Lizzie McGuire Xmas.jpg. ---- DanTD 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I note that on both his user page and talk page, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE has indicated his recent discouragement and that he may have left permanently. I think the fact that you right now have 37 messages for him on his talk page might conceivably have been a factor. In cases like these, would there be any way to revise your specs such that you maybe left editors who contribute so many images only, say, one message a day, listing all the images contested? I think that would probably be a lot less, dare I say annoying, to editors who contribute so many images as that party. Just a suggestion, anyway. John Carter 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have added a rationale for Image:Floreelogo.gif. Please let me know if it is or is not sufficient. Thank you for your diligence! - RobbyPrather (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - you wrote:
If you check what that image pafge actually contains, you will see that I simply added the non-free tag to that page. The original image on the page, which I did upload, is now at Image:MitrePeakNZ.jpg. Another user replaced my original image with a new picture without changing the details on it, making it look like I had taken the photograph and was releasing it as gfdl-self. Since I did not take the photograph and could not, therefore, claim that licence, I removed the description and the licence tag I had originally placed on the page. I also replaced all the uses of that unsourced image with my original picture. Unfortunately, the problems run deeper than that, since the unsourced image has also been transwikied to Commons. I placed an unsourced template on it there as well,m so hopefully someone will be able to do something about it there, too... Grutness... wha? 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Blofeld of SPECTRE for reason, he is not the only significant contributor to give up Wikipedia. King of the North East ( T/ C) 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:NLE-NYM-Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_numbers_retired_from_two_or_more_teams"
this bot removed a school logo that i had uploaded. 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop spamming my talk page. Deleting images because the fair use rationales don't link to the articles they're used in is excessive, bureaucratic nonsense. And giving only seven days to fix such a minor problem is unfair (not everyone logs in every day). Your pointless bot has done nothing but damage this site. -- YellowTapedR 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe the bot was approved to tag images that lack fair use rationales, not to pester users who, in good faith, forgot to include a link in the rationales to the articles in which they're used. Some 15-year-old sitting at his computer shouldn't wield so much power. -- YellowTapedR 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. To have a bot tag images lacking fair use rationales is one thing, but spamming people's pages because they didn't provide a link in the rationale, which hasn't always been a requirement, is another. There is only one way you can describe Betacommandbot's actions: trolling. -- YellowTapedR 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a pain, that's why. You upload an image to improve an article just to have it deleted with hardly any warning -- again, most people don't log on everyday -- because of a minor rule that the bot might be able to fix itself. Calling the bots actions "trolling" isn't a baseless accusation; it's an observation. Think about it: Why else would someone want to run a bot that gets practically nothing but complaints. -- YellowTapedR 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Re these two edits: [7] and [8] - We had a discussion here about rationale tagging a bit ago, in which I asked you to make sure that you spent reasonable effort on anything you did manually, though the explanation that the specific issue I had an objection to was fully automated (tagging due to lack of specific article reference) took the discussion sort of sideways.
On this specific edit series, however, you (not the bot) reverted to the bot version of the page with warning twice without once taking the effort to either explain on the article talk page or in an edit summary what the problem was with the rationale. Unlike automated bot tagging, those reverts without explanation were your manual responsibility and fault.
This is unacceptable behavior. Failing to explain what was wrong with the rationale, and blind reverting, was clearly not good process on your part there. That was sterile edit warring rather than discussion to explain and show consensus. Sterile edit warring, even in the name of improving the encyclopedia, is not vaguely OK.
If someone removes the tag out of ignorance you bear the responsibility to explain if you're going to put it back manually. Our fair-use rationale policy is obtuse and difficult for even many experienced editors to understand. Enforcing it in a sterile and arbitrary manner is destructive to the encyclopedia. The automated tagging is one thing - when someone has indicated by editing that they are paying attention to something and are merely ignorant, you have to do the right thing and put in reasonable effort.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It's wonderful that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia; however, blindly editing pages using a bot isn't contributing. I would be happy if you used your bot to find images that might not have sufficient rationale information and the like so that you could personally review them and act upon what you see; but, you don't seem to have any personal involvement with what your bot finds.
Please stop and think about the net effect your bahaviour is having on the wider community. You only have to read the posts on this page to see that your net effect is negative.
I have spent several 10s of hours reading and re-reading the image usage guidelines and discussion pages, then editing the images I've uploaded to ensure compliance; however, it doesn't matter what I do your bot always wants to delete my images. Please either get personally involved or find another outlet for your desire to contribute. Christopher Rath 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As a novice user I guess I don't get to call your warnings spam. Could you possibly clarify, in simple terms, whether there is any easy way of putting a picture on the page in question? I have looked again at the criteria for use of unfree images - 10 is a nice round number, easy to remember, but I'm still not sure I actually understand them. How do I find, construct or request a justification and from whom? In simple terms: "is trying to load an album cover really worth the effort?" Thanks. Martinevans123 12:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt and positive response - I'll try again. But since I mistakenly used the feminine pro-noun in the name I gave it, it might be convenient if this image was deleted anyway (maybe there is a gender bot for pages Francaises?)! Martinevans123 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now added link to article - is this better/sufficient? Martinevans123 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now added a rationale as per the template - is this now ok? Martinevans123 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for having free images and stuff, but of course some images just simply cannot be free. Ever. So we have to use fair use images, which once again I agree with having provided they are properly licensed and within the policies of Wikipedia.
The problem? Your bot is going about this the wrong way. It's going around blindly tagging images and beginning the process of deletion. I have had several of my images that this bot has claimed has no fair use rationale at all when it clearly DOES. Maybe there is a problem with the information I have provided, maybe it wants me to include or change something. Your bot does not tell me that, it just keeps telling me that I have included nothing. Several times. It's like it's trying to pound into submission that I am wrong when I am not. This bot can detect that something is wrong, so why not WHAT IS wrong? I simply cannot help correct my mistakes if you do not help me know what exactly is the problem. I actually left Wikipedia for a short while, because I had hordes of images deleted for wrong reasons or reasons that were not specified (Actual users also left me some messages about images and WHAT the problem exactly was, but these were images I chose not to keep and let them get deleted) and it drove me insane. I'm sorry, I don't believe in removing something that, save for one thing, can otherwise be perfectly on Wikipedia without making an effort to try and fix what is wrong with it. Going around removing everything you can find is destroying Wikipedia and is in no way contributing to it. Many articles have been disrupted and many of us do not know what to do. We read these policy pages but still, we are wrong according to this bot. Many of images were perfecty acceptable in the past, now it's suddenly like they are poisonous to Wikipedia. Rather than telling me, or indeed anyone, that we are wrong, how about telling us what EXACTLY is wrong? What EXACTLY is our mistake? That is the biggest flaw of betacommandbot. Fix your bot, and fast. .:Alex:. 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, (my last message was archived within minutes) could you give it a break please. One of our most productive and reliable editors has recently quit Wikipedia and I don't think coming back to see this awful backlog (just over 1 days worth) will encourage him that the great image purge is over. FYI he is not the only significant contributor to give up Wikipedia recently. Please find another important task for your bot for the next day or two, after all, driving people away from Wikipedia is not the objective here, is it? Could you please respond to this, my talk page or here would be fine. King of the North East ( T/ C) 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
yes // laughing man 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there; as much as your bot annoys me (LOL) it's doing good work. I am curious about the specifics of what the bot is looking for in its WP:NFCC runs. It's obviously looking for image description pages not citing articles the image is used in, etc., but is it also looking for certain fair use templates or parameters? How is it determining the presence or validity of the actual "purpose" portion of the rationale? Some sort of general explanation of the bot's scope posted somewhere on its page might help people get it.— TAnthony Talk 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Remaining steps to list Mississauga City Council for deletion:
1. Replace "cat=U" in the box below with an appropriate category for the article being deleted:
cat=M Media and music
cat=O Organisation, corporation, or product ...
2. Replace "Reason" in the below text box with your reason for nominating this article. Do not modify the other text. Your signature has been added automatically.
3. Edit today's AfD log and copy the following line to the top of the list on that page:
4. Use the below line as your edit summary:
5. Save this page.
If the image uploader could do the same thing, that might encourage people to give proper rationales. Mbisanz 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've addressed some concerns to your bot talk page. I'm giving you this heads up, so you won't over look it. If you remember, I've expressed concerns before about your bot running unsupervised, so that you're not around if something goes wrong. You got offended at my blocking the bot for misbehaving before, but what else is a person to do when you're not here to mind the bot and answer concerns? AKRadecki Speaketh 04:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I created this file, scanned it off from my own video tape collection, and would like the image used on the Jem (TV series) listing on Wikipedia's website regarding the show's old VHS releases from the 1980s, just to illustrate an image to one of the VHS videos. How can I fix the image copyright dispute to properly leave the image on Wikipedia permanently? I give Wikipedia full permission to use this image. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.
(talk) 02:04, 9 November 2007 User:Queen of Swords
Betacommandbot tagged this Image:Kyama.JPG as orphaned although it is used in one articale [9] Af 648 10:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no fair use rationale on the image article. Simple as that. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 12:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that if the bot didn't remind you, you'd wonder why your image just vanished without any sort of warning. Also, you're still required to be civil here. The bot may not have feelings (though I betcha Betacommand is working on that...) but the creator sure does. Thanks! ~Kylu ( u| t) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
When the bot is doing this task, it adds a single space after the class parameter. Example:
{{albums|class= Stub|auto=yes|importance}}
Just pointing that out.-- Tasc0 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You ( with reason) claimed that the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nell_tu_gamuza.jpg was ot properly racionalized. I have racionalized it acording to the template presented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_rationale_guideline . Will it still be deleted, if so tell because i will have to find an alternet solution for the article mentioned on the image template.-- Tosta mista 18:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So is the image renaming a go?--Esprit15d( • ۞ • ▲) 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to reconsider what the bot calls a stub. WP:STUB defines a stub as a very short article with only a few sentences. So why is the bot tagging an article with 4 paragraphs and over 20 sentences a stub? See Neel E. Kearby.
Secondly, please take a look at Talk:Neel E. Kearby...see how the tag that the bot adds messes up the project banner nesting? For another example, see [ [10]]. If fully expect that you will either fix this in all the articles that have now been affected, or roll them back until you find a fix. That needs to be addressed. Please respond to let me know that you've seen this and are addressing it. AKRadecki Speaketh 04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Per above. Haukur 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for a orphaned fair-use warning, Betacommand (I think...) This is a Jimmy Wales parody image... Thanks anyway for notifying me... God Bless and have a nice day... Blake Gripling 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
...eh, look at the license tag you used. That called for a detailed fair use rationale. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Is BetacommandBot supposed to distinguish the complete absence of a fair use rationale from an invalid rationale? The copied warning above suggests it does, but it didn't here. ( The image then had a logo copyright tag (which I suspect is frequently mistaken for a rationale), but nothing else. I fixed it myself as the original uploader has a busy tag on their talk page.)-- QuantumEngineer 12:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that's the proper way to add a rationale. Most users forget to link to the article that the image is used...or they don't know what a rationale looks like. I don't think it matters if there is no rationale or the rationale doesn't link to the article; in both cases, it is invalid, isn't it? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Its the Johnny and the Sprites picture along with a picture of Macavity. Can you please just leave them alone and stop spamming my pages with these warnings? Really, this has gotten annoying. The Quidam 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir, you don't have a fair use rationale in that image article! That's why BetacommandBot's breathing down your neck! -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I request that you add a cleanup feature to your bot allowing users (or the bot itself) to automatically remove its boiler plate when they are no longer applicable.
For example, the other day I received a mass orphaned file notice. I was able resolve the orphan problem itself in about 4 clicks. However It takes far longer to go to each individual file that your bot has boiler plated and then to delete the boilerplate warnings that it has placed. It's time consuming and a real disruption as I have to go around undoing your bots edits on each individual image even though the issue has been resolved on an entirely separate page.
A simple detag button supplied with the user-page template would do the trick nicely. You could link it to a piece of code that would scan the named page and remove orphaned file tag (it should, however, scan to ensure that the image actually in use first).
while I'm at it, could you also add a link to the user-page template that allows the user to place a db-author request on tagged images. It would be so much simpler than a user having to go to the image itself, particularly if the user is a new-user who is not aware of how to perform a db-author.
- perfectblue 11:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
perfectblue 11:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of this bot coming onto the Shadow Star characters page, deleting all of the images, and claiming there is no fair use rationale. It's happened so many times that I have to come onto the bot's very talk page to get somebody to notice the issue! I edited that required information into every single image that has been uploaded for that article, but no explanation is good enough for this bot! This "fair use rationale" is so tedious and not even needed, I am beyond pissed off. Does this bot's owner even look over the fair use rationale provided for ONE SECOND?! It's going back over and over again, complaining about all of the images used in the aforementioned article. I know that complaints about this bot's moderation of fair use are not supposed to be here, but I have edited all of the information the bots and Wiki rules have told me to, yet I still get these messages and now the images have been removed from their parent article. LOOK AT THE IMAGES. THE FAIR USE RATIONALE IS ALL RIGHT IN THE IMAGE DESCRIPTION. -- Selo12394 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand said that he was deliberately removing the images. He uses the following as his rationale: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use and User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation WhisperToMe 02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to clone this bot, as it might go offline if you are not using it, or not currently using it, and it would get all of it done faster. With a clone, it would get all of it done. If you will allow me to clone it, I would prefer you to comment on it on my talk page. Dreamy § 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You wrote:
Thanks for uploading
Image:TraneingIn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you've got the time to go through pages and post automated complaints on it, how about fixing them instead? Doesn't take more time and is actually a contribution. Unlike what you're doing, that's just copyright trolling. -- 84.178.118.242 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Noticed this on my watchlist, only seems to have done it the once, so just wanted to point it out to you, [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dureo ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently got a message saying that I copied pictures off the Internet. I've never done that with any of the pictures I uploaded. I really makes me mad. Annoyomous24 06:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot is at it again. I've just had 8 orphan notices placed on my user page after mass page blanking by a rogue user. I have to visiteach and every one of these images to remove your tags, this is the third time that this has happened to me in the last couple of days PLEASE ADD A CLEANUP FUNCTION. A simple "Problem sorted, remove tag" link would do. It shouldn't be up to me to do this, your bot should scan its own tags and remove them if they are no longer required. - perfectblue 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a picture with a camera of a book cover Image:HoldOnToYourKids.jpg. Do I have the copyright to this picture, and so can I release it to the public? In general, is a book cover in the public domain since it is sold in book stores? The book cover picture is used with the article describing the book content. Is this not allowed, the same way we can use the book title. The book title could be argued to be copyright material as well, couldn't it? So my question is: Is it allowed to make a picture of a book cover and upload the image with an article about the book itself, or not? If that is allowed, what tag should I use? Ervinn 05:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking over a few of the articles related to Fender Guitar products I am findong quite a few of them contain copyvio images lifted directly from the Fender website. The articles contain a very thin fair-use rationale. But, like most "white background" pro-shots of guitars... the release for use has not been granted by the manufacturer. Take note of the uploads of this one particular user on April 14/15 of this year. [12] His image sources are correct and, like I said, there is a FUR on each one... but it is thin. Free-use images of these guitar models are obtainable. They aren't particularly rare guitars... in most cases. Fender Guitars are certainly not the only guitar models to contain these sorts of "white background" pro-shots. These types of copyvio images are easily accessed either via manufacturer websites or online sales vendors like musiciansfriend.com. It just so happen in this situation that a large number of uploads came from one editor so they were easy to track. Thanks! 156.34.213.204 10:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The category you depopulated as "POV" ( Category:Mobile phone culture) has been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 12 - I'd be grateful if you could comment there. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Betacommand, is there anything else I need to do with this or do you have enough information for it to go now? cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What does "up to" mean in your phrase "up to stub class" mean, on edits such as this one? For that matter, what exactly does the whole phrase mean? Gene Nygaard 13:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In particular, what are you coming "up" from, to get to the very bottom of the scale? Gene Nygaard 13:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Why should an assesment with regard to one WikiProject be taken as applying to other WikiProjects in the first place? Is there good reason for that? Is it documented in a discussion anywhere? Gene Nygaard 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If a project asks for this, fine, but I wonder if it's really that helpful to assign "unassessed" articles a "stub" assessment? Any article is presumably at least a stub, especially if it's tagged by two or more projects. Also, the assessment duplicated from another template may be old and no longer apply to the article.
I would think a somewhat inverse task might be more helpful: generate a list of articles assessed as "stub" but which lack a "stub" template in the article. This might be a way to identify articles which are likely expanded and need a review. Given the approaching target date for images, I suspect the bot has more urgent work to do than this, though. Cheers. Gimmetrow 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
to Betacommand for a great asset to Wikiproject Birds. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading
Image:CompactFluorescentLightBulb.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bug report - The recent run to replace "Infobox CVG" with "Infobox VG" did not properly check for transclusion, see [13]. This should be looked into before any future template replacing runs are done. User:Krator ( t c) 09:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
84.96.69.79 ( talk · contribs) (who also edits under the name VigierX ( talk · contribs)) is adding several copyvio images to the Vigier Guitars article that have been lifted from www.vigierguitars.com. Adding to the problem is that the same user is also adding these images to the Commons library... under the name PatriceJ (see Commons Uploads). As with most other guitar images taken from manufacturer websites they are copyright and not to be used without permission. 156.34.142.110 14:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:BetacommandBot#Blocked and the thread on WP:AN/I. -- Carnildo 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that if the bot didn't remind you, you'd wonder why your image just vanished without any sort of warning. Also, you're still required to be civil here. The bot may not have feelings (though I betcha Betacommand is working on that...) but the creator sure does. Thanks! ~Kylu ( u| t) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Usually, BetacommandBot tags images for not having a Fair use rationale or not having a complete one. All you need to do is add a rationale to the image description or if it already has one, you probably need to add the article it is being used in to the rationale by adding article=article name. If it is used in more than one article, a seperate fair use rationale must be used for each one. As long as you follow this policy for each of your images, you will not receive these messages in future! -- Jack 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Michael McGee federal criminal complaint.pdf is a PDF file being (mis?)used as a source in Michael McGee, Jr.. The link there is in the form [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Michael_McGee_federal_criminal_complaint.pdf]. This is a use, not an orphan page. Please fix the bot to recognize this pattern of call as a use instead of repeatedly and wrongly claiming the page to be an orphan. [14] [15]. GRBerry 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked BetacommandBot for applying the {{ di-orphaned fair use}} tag to images that are not claimed as "fair use", such as [16]. Please fix this problem. -- Carnildo 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We have several tags that mark an image for WP:CSD#I4 and "images that have no license". They include {{ nsd}}, {{ no source}}, {{ nld}}, {{ no license}}, {{ untagged}} and {{ no copyright holder}}. All six of those tags will mark an image for deletion under WP:CSD#I4. They are often properly applied by other bots. It is just plain worthless for this bot to add incorrect tags when one of those tags is already on the image. GRBerry 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This bot does some tasks well, and some have consistently been done poorly. Could you split each approved task into separate bots so that when the coding gets fouled up (as led to the latest block), we can block only the fouled up portions. GRBerry 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So annoying, I spent ages uploading images to make wikipedia look better. fine it was tagged, so I added a lengthy and accurate fair use rationale to each which took even longer, but lo and behold, they were both deleted anyway. I dont think I can retrieve them now. thanks for making wikipedia less attractive and wasting my time you pos. Do you realise how many album covers don't have any fair use rationale whatsoever? Yeah, so lets delete 80% of album art, what a bright idea. So anyway, aince I added fair use rationale and they were deleted wrongly, it's up to you to retrieve and upload them. Hurry now, run along! Now there's a good boy. Feudonym 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey BetacommandBot, I'm bored. Could you please tag some of my images for lacking source, lacking a fair-use rationale, for being an orphaned, fair-use image, or something like that? Oh, and please be sure to leave me message(s) about it on my talk page! Hope to hear from you soon, Jecowa 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Crazy bots and their gogo gadget deletioning ways... Image:HeadwoundcityEP.JPG is an album cover and has every right to be on wikipedia, if your bot wants to remove album covers from wikipedia, then that is just silly. Word to the above comment. Tubeyes 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Onorem fixed my fair use issues, sorry bot! *squirts oil* Tubeyes 12:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Image:Fearcats.jpg was deleted. I am not the uploader and I read that you say only the uploader should provide Fair-Use Rationale. How is it possible to identify the uploader so as to get him/her to provide a rationale? 69.69.80.77 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll
Looking at the history of Image:Lyriki.png, it appears the bot isn't paying any attention when I place the exclusion comment. -- MindlessXD 03:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is already an image (Image:Flag of Panama.svg) that is being used on the article: Panama. Image:Flag of Panama.gif is a douplicate image and so must be deleted. OsirisV 16:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This bot will not stop sending the same damn messages to my inbox, make it stop! I beg of you! -- ∑ssarege∑ 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot added a note on my userpage and on the image Image:3village-Wikify.png . this is incorrest as the image is infact being used on pages. Compwhiz II 02:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I just received a message saying this is an orphaned photo, though clearly it is not. -- Thankyoubaby 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I still think a direct link to the fair-use template would be a very nice thing to have in the warnings your bot puts on users' talk pages, but you clearly don't want that (those of you who didn't read the discussion we had about this will have to believe me — ten minutes of rooting around in archives hasn't turned up anything) so what about this: Could the bot stick the blank template on the images it flags? Then the alert on the image could read something like "this image won't be compliant until the template below is filled out or an equivalent rationale is given," and the talk page message could say "your image isn't compliant. please go write a rationale - I've supplied a blank template in case you'd like to use that." — eitc h 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiggy, you might want to review WP:CIVIL, and, WP:NPA, please. Calling other editors names, is not helpful. SQL Query me! 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Teaching a man to hunt for food so he doesn't starve to death is very different than having someone figure out for himself how to find the fair-use template. Stop pretending what you're doing is important. There are only a handful of hardlining users who support you. -- YellowTapedR 01:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
From observing entries at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive Index that you may be able to answer the many questions which have arisen. The Canadian province of Saskatchewan has a wikiproject that has some automated program queries that have arisen and are stated in the November Newsletter. Do you have any advice from your experience in helping a multitude of wikiprojects? Kind Regards, SriMesh | talk 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
El-Dude-O' likes your style. El-Dude-O' wants to know if you want to be wikiamigo's - El-Dude-O' ( talk) 09:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Please keep the bot in mainspace when doing WP:MOS changes to avoid things like this. — METS501 ( talk) 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Your efforts are consistently making Wikipedia a lower quality encyclopedia, and driving away not only good content but good contributors. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm not joking, nor am I exaggerating. Your bot is a severe blight on Wikipedia. BTfromLA 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to suggest something for your bot.
No, it is not to put it where the sun don't shine (though I have had that thought...)
I have encountered several images, logos specifically, that were properly cited with a fair use rationale that was solely in text form instead of using the {{ logo fur}}. Your bot tagged these as not having a proper fair use tag, driving the uploaders to contemplate violence against you, the bot or both.
So here is my suggestion: When the bot tags an image and notifies the uploader, could you please have it point out where to find the fair use template the bot looks for? Mayhaps you could possibly add a disclaimer or something to the effect of If this image has been properly cited using a plain text fair use reasoning, please consider upgrading it to the appropriate template. then put a small list of said templates.
That would be helpful in teaching editors to "fish".
Jeremy ( Jerem43 ( talk) 08:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
So why is your bot designed to get just about as many images deleted as possible? -- 71.157.174.18 ( talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot appears to be posting redundant copies of the same message on Talk:Alex (comic strip). Please have a look at it and consider rectifying its behaviour. Thank you. -- 82.13.146.160 ( talk) 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the bot screwed up on this message. The page already had a non-free use rationale. -- teb728 ( talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I used the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command (with the angled brackets) in order to prevent your program from questioning the legitimacy of my using images in certain articles, when I had put in almost all the justifications I could think of. However, it has done it again: it has gone to all these images, claimed that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid" and threatened to remove it. May I have an explanation, please, in order to put an end to this. Thank you,-- Marktreut ( talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What am I missing? I cannot see what the bot is seeing when it claims the image is violating WP:NFCC#10c.
The source, article name and a copy right tag are all included. I did edit it to make it less verbose, but it still contains the same information that was there before my edit. So why did the bot tag it as not being WP:NFCC#10c?
-Jeremy ( Jerem43 ( talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
I need a bot script written for me. I need a script for a bot that can deliver a a community newsletter. It would be operated in one trip every Sunday (to deliver the newsletter). If I could get the script for that, I'd appriciate it really much. Thanks! The Chronic 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I used the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command (with the angled brackets) in order to prevent your program from questioning the legitimacy of my using images in certain articles even after I had put in almost all the justifications I could think of. However, it has done it again: it has gone to all these images, claimed that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid" and threatened to remove them. Nothing seems to satisfy it. Could you please inform us what kind of justification would satisfy your program, and why the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command is not working. Thank you,-- Marktreut ( talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot has tagged Image:Mbta-logo.svg as having an invalid rationale for the second time, despite the fact that the image is in public domain. It was tagged first on November 9 and again on November 19. – Dream out loud ( talk) 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit? [19]
My suspicion is that your bot is looking at the pre-expand wikitext when checking for links to the article in which it is used, which would cause it to overlook the link in the template. However, this template does appear to satisfy the NFCC#10; the bot should be changed to look at the expanded wikitext, or to look for this specific template.— Random832 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello BetacommandBot, I have noticed that you have been adding the {{ WPUKroads}} tag rather indiscriminately. For instance The List (magazine) and Edinburgh Castle are now listed as within the scope of the UK roads project, which I'm not sure should be the case. It's because these (and other) articles are in Category:Royal Mile, which is a UK road. It may be worth investigating what other non-road articles are in street categories like this, meanwhile I have notified the project and will start de-tagging Royal Mile articles. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot repeatidly tags MakkankosoppoPiccolo.JPG even though the image has a sufficent summary for its use. DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Betacommand,
I was curious about this edit. Could you please tell me about this?
Thank you! Jecowa ( talk) 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you kindly let me know when you are done targeting the images I have uploaded. Thanx. Handicapper ( talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the bot pending resolution of this problem. There's a related thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BetacommandBot blocked yet again -- Carnildo ( talk) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way to track which articles in a category BCB has tagged as being non-compliant? Specifically, I'd like to take a category like Category:All non-free Logos and see all the non-compliant articles BCB has tagged (I'd ideally like to see all non-compliant images, but don't know how to write a bot to do it.) Mbisanz ( talk) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The messages that your bot leaves on talk pages about images that need FU rationale are really annoying. As it is, it's a big block of text that seriously clutters up talk pages, especially when there are multiples. It's even more annoying when they messages are still around even after the FU has been added or the image deleted. Please either shorten the message it leaves or incorpate some sort of auto-message removal for after the issue is resolved.-- SeizureDog ( talk) 09:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I answer questions at WP:MCQ, and too many people come there who are totally mystified by the disputed fair use rationale concern of “invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.” I suggest that you modify the concern to say something like “no non-free use rationale for use on <<article>>. See WP:NFCC#10c.” Thanks, teb728 ( talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This image got deleted from the Space 1999 moon buggy page. I'm pretty sure that I put in a fair use rationale after the warning was put in. If you look at my past history you'll see that I've been pretty good at doing so when I didn't initially put it in, and when acquainted with the process I have now done so. I do not remove the warning templates afterwards as I'm sure it's removed by yourself. Douglasnicol ( talk) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Based on my understanding that you're discussing or have discussed the issue, Betacommand, I'm unblocking this bot. I suggest that you review policy to ensure that the bot is following it correctly, and if it is not, work to correct it. Carnildo, if you read this here: Please remember that blocks are intended to be a last-resort to prevent further damage. In fact, I'd suggest that any admin with problems with this bot bring the issue to betacommand's attention, politely, and he will be able to work to resolve it. A block is a last resort, and is not a way to revoke a bot's approval. That should instead be done through the bureaucrats, who approve them in the first place. Blocks are preventative, and unless there is a critical issue with a bot and the operator is not available, the bot should not be blocked. Blocking BetacommandBot is becoming more of a rite of passage than the solemn duty it should be. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Something must be done about Betacommandbot, we are perennially told. So here I am doing something about it, namely awarding you this barnstar for putting up with the endless tide of crap that comes with defending Wikipedia from copyright hell. If ever the masses realise that "I found it on the web somewhere" != "public domain", you will have played a major part in the process. Guy ( Help!) 23:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
Pff .. nothing has to be done about BetacommandBot! What is this all about. The bot is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. 99.9% correct, and of the 0.1% which is not 'correct' surely in 99% of the cases there is something else wrong with the image, and the tagging is correct. I award you The da Vinci Barnstar for the technological wonder that is called BetacommandBot! Dirk Beetstra T C 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
And for whatever others say or have said, I know the bot is 'learning' from its mistakes. I hope it will, resilient as ever, go on tagging wrongly-tagged or un-tagged non-free images! Dirk Beetstra T C 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
Ninthed. I've done my best to help those who need to be helped. Keep up the good work BCBot...... The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi I was recently approved by you for vandalproof however it is saying that i am not approved please fix this ASAP Alex fus co5 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I had applied for VP and been turned down once for not having enough edit experience. I re-applied after waiting and getting more experience like we discussed, but now I see I was rejected again [20]. What am I missing here? Thanks. Mbisanz ( talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did your bot reject this image: [21]. It certainly looks to me like it has a category. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 19:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size, and was wondering if you could do the same for Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music? (No problem if you don't feel like doing so.) Category:WikiProject Alternative music articles would be the category in question. 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Done
βcommand
13:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yet your bot is designed to get just about as many images deleted as possible? You never replied to this the last time it was posted, and it deserves a response. Even if the response is to take that quote out of your intro, as it quite blatantly brands you as a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.223.55 ( talk) 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it OK now?
The Helpful One (Talk) 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to thank you for updating the bot, providing a much better commentary as to why images are tagged for FUR violations, Much more helpful. - Jeremy ( Jerem43 ( talk) 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
...has tagged the same image on the WAJR (AM) page twice now for not having an FU-R, when it does...on the page....added by me. Please fix this. Take Care.... NeutralHomer T: C 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What is going on? The bot is tagging images with perfectly valid fair use rationales. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I replied but just a heads up here. -- Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I have had a thought for one way that you might reduce the number of complaints (and blocks) about BCB: on the user page, the tasks are currently linked as a log search to the approval pages, which are pretty messy to look at. If you took a few minutes to make a subpage, e.g. User:BetacommandBot/Tasks, where you list exactly what the bot does, in a form explaining triggers and actions clearly, then at the very least when people make a complaint anyone can compare it to the task description, and only take action when there is a difference.
For example, at the moment there's an issue where the bot is apparently not following redirects in FURs, despite a comment that it's supposed to. If, under "Task: check fair use rationales", it included the line "Bot will check whether rationale includes link to article, or link to redirect to article", then everyone would be clear on what was supposed to happen. Just a thought. Confusing Manifestation( Say hi!) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't understand why an image I uploaded violates fair-use policies. It is this pic: Image:Uwlathletics.gif. What is the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosscountrycpjon ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're adding user tags to article pages. Gimmetrow 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot is tagging images that have a fair use rationale. For example Image:Virtual_Qumran.jpg. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I loaded this up thinking it was OK as "cover art" being an album cover, if I am wrong please remove immediately. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your link to WP:NONFREE in edit summaries is going directly to the edit link instead of the page itself, thus it is showing as red in the edit summaries. IvoShandor ( talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't you get in trouble for not recognizing redirects about 5 months or so ago? Well, your bot is ignoring backlink redirects in fair use rationale again. Due to page moves and merges and the like, this is not tenable. Please stop your bot until you fix the problem. SnowFire ( talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This image was not found in any web site. It was taken from an offline, burned DVD. Please do not remove the image at any costs. Thank you. Jonghyunchung ( talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone help me to put a right fair use template to this image?... Image:Tnp-logo.png I don't understand a thing, and I'd really like to have this problem solved. It would be sad to have this pic removed... Help, please! Klow ( talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The bot just tagged Image:Shriners.png for not having the article name. However, the FUR did contain a valid redirect to the article name. Should it be checking for this case?-- uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:The Amityville Curse 1990 DVD Cover.JPG wrongly tagged it would seem by your bot? The DVD cover had the appropriate licensing tag and was only linked to one page? I will check for a link to the article name but was unaware that that was mandatory. What have I missed?-- Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Please explain what I need to do to prove this. The photo is the property of the American Jewish Congress, where I was employed as Director of Communications. I had and have authorization to use the picture on for the Internet and Wikipedia. Please tell me what is needed here, I will get it for Wiki. Thank you
Can't it follow redirects or is it just fucking stupid? — Pengo 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion here. Haukur ( talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not use the word "disputed". People "dispute". Bots tag. There is no dispute, just an over zealous bot. — Pengo 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The following images have been challenged: Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg, Image:Phoenix (static).jpg, Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg and Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg are all challenged under fair use. What does it take to have them qulaify since three of them are screen shots and the other is an organization's logo. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
Please update your bot to recognize when an article is renamed or moved. The image Image:KNUJ.png used in KNUJ (AM) was tagged for deletion, apparently because the article had the name KNUJ when the rationale was added. The article was renamed and the redirect was replaced with a disambiguation page, which is why, if your bot is checking for redirects, this check would have failed. If your bot could check the edit history of the article (either the one in which it is used, or the one which is named in the use rationale) to determine if a rename occurred, and either leave the image alone or fix the article names in the image description, this would be a million times appreciated. Thank you. DHowell ( talk) 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Here: the newsletter is located right here. It goes out to everybody on the project's members list except for those in the no-spam list. The Chronic 05:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question: If I set up an alternate account exclusively to deliver the newsletter (likely using AWB), but assisting it doing so, would that considered an assisted bot? If so, do I need bot approval to use it? The Chronic 03:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this bot going to repeatedly contest images? Image:The Normal Heart.jpg is a poster that is used on the play's page, as well as the author of the play's page. This is inherently fair use, yet this bot has tagged this as disputed twice. What is the issue here? --David Shankbone 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong whith that image? Cannot be it used as a logo? K r i s t o f talk 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law.
Logo is of a 501c not-for-profit organization. Also no free equivalent of this image can exist. Use of this image on Wikipedia does not restrict its use by the copyright holder. It illustrates the organization or a component or an aspect of the organization in question. Werecowmoo ( talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're bot says this image infringes WP:NFCC#10c, but there's a clear fair use rationale for each article the image is used in, with all the information required by that criterion. Therefore, I'm removing the tag. If you still have a concern, feel free to discuss it on the image's talk page. EDIT: I realized the link to the relevant article provided in the fair use rationale was a redirect. Maybe that was the cause of the wrong tagging? Kazu-kun ( talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the rational for this picture? It keeps rejecting it, so I went all the way and copied the use agreement from the game, and it still doesn't like it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin boy93 ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot tagged Image:Powers_of_ten.jpg But I believe that it is in fair-use.
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 27#Category:Non-free Logos. --- RockMFR 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that you know more about this stuff than I do. So can you take a look at it please. It was uploaded with such obvious bullshit by a user that has uploaded several copyrighted images. I left a comment at Image talk:SanBernardinoValley-1907-loc.jpg. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Just came across quite a few copyvio guitar images that are lifted from guitarcenter.com, musiciansfriend.com and other onlone vendor sites. The uploads come from Stratovarious ( talk · contribs). Some are tagged as permission granted... some are already tagged for lack of proper licensing. All are copyright violations. 156.34.230.187 ( talk) 11:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out how it is that your bot has enough AI to think that it can judge fair use claims, like here... kmccoy (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your bot Betacommandbot just tagged a FUR tag on the image above (the title). I do not see any problem with my fur. If you see any problem, please talk to me in my talk page. -- Jackl 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, obviously that would be silly, but really I think there's a lot of huff and puff going into moaning about the Bot when just modifying the FU would take seconds. It's a better idea to educate people how to do it right and why they're getting messages (even if their FU were right in the first place, but it does beg the question, if the page has been changed into a disambiguation page, it wouldn't be right for BCbot to follow ther redirect would it?) rather than taking the stance thate BCBot should be terminated. Ultimately it's doing the "right thing", just not in an optimal fashion. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Your BetacommandBot is a reaper. It is inserting {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} at screenshots images. Since they already have {{Non-free software screenshot}} labels, what's the problem. Please write a standard text to show me what will satisfy you. Regards Necessary Evil ( talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BC, just wondered, now you've fixed the redirect issue, what happens if a page is modified to become a disambiguation page? Can the bot spot that or are those pages just going to be doomed? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering why I was denied for VP, according to this diff? -- Nn123645 ( talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Having scrutinized the rules reg. non-free images, I see that uploading the image in question was a bit of a bad idea. I'll certainly give it more thought next time. Thanks for enlightening me. Tchernobog ( talk) 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This so called "BOT" has been doing a lot of this. How do we stop this person. They are removing photos with fair use rationale, then removing comments from here about it. Wikibones ( talk) 13:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see:
Image:Wake county logo.jpg. The bot tagged the image as lacking a fair use rationale; however the image descruption page DOES contain such rationale, and as far as I can tell, the rationale is being used correctly. Please manually double check this, and see that it is fixed. --
Jayron32|
talk|
contribs
07:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. ( talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This point has been made before. The bot's fair use msgs still say images "lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded", but policy says one week after notification. Fix it please. 86.42.83.73 ( talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
STOP SPAMMING MY TALK PAGE. Your bot is out of order. I DO NOT UPLOAD ORIGINAL IMAGES. I just OPTIMISE them. Either fix your bot or write an exception for my uploads. -- Tene ( talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There IS a fair use rational on these pages that lists the EXACT publishing details of the original recordings etc. Unless you do not JUSTIFY your 'claims' in plain english you will simply destroy a good, featured article candidate that uses music samples LEGALLY. Matt.kaner ( talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I sign in to VandalProof? (please reply on my talk page) Chetblong talk to me 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)