User talk:BetacommandBot: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:01, 29 June 2007

If you are here to register a complaint regarding this bot's edits, before doing so please note:

There is a very clear policy regarding having fair use rationales on fair use images. This policy is located at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria point #10(c). Rationales must be provided for each use of an image. Also please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline.
We do not permit fair use, copyrighted images to exist on Wikipedia if rationales for that image's use are not provided. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2Fmedia #6. Also please see the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on this matter at m:Resolution:Licensing policy point #4.
For quite some time, we have attempted to encourage people to provide rationales. The results of this effort have been dismal at best.
The creator of this bot has come under fire for performing this work manually. One of the main complaints is that the effort to tag images could just as readily be spent providing rationales. This is not the case; the uploader and/or user of each fair use image is the person who should provide the rationale. A non-involved editor can not know under what principles the user of an image intended such use as fair use.
The use of fair use, copyrighted images on the Wikimedia servers is covered by United States law. Our policies with respect to this bot's actions are based on that law. Please see Fair_use#Purpose_and_character.
Read this talk page before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer.
Bug reports are very welcome; tagging images as this bot is doing per policy is not a bug.

Favorite statement about ORFU images:

Thank you for the message, Mr. Bot, but you have to understand that this image was used in an article, but the article got deleted. PK 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 |archive = User talk:Betacommand
 }}
-== subst:unsigned ==
-Please do no subst this. WP:subst does not say to, as you claim. It just makes for ugly code. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baiji&diff=141120040&oldid=140542465] —[[User talk:Pengo|Pengo]] 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-:Other discussion about this topic is also available at the [[User talk:Betacommand#Substituting .7B.7Bunsigned.7D.7D|Betacommand talk page]]. &mdash;[[User:Adavidb|Adavidb]] 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-:::I agree wholeheartedly with [[User:Pengo|Pengo]]. [[WP:subst]] does '''not''' state that the unsigned tag must be must be substituted. Also, the robot's revisions are leaving two <nowiki><small></nowiki>'s and two <nowiki></small></nowiki>'s (see [[Talk:Amine gas treating]] for example). And the code is indeed ugly. - [[User:Mbeychok|mbeychok]] 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-::::The template states it should be subst'd, but [[WP:SUBST]] says it's disputed.  However, whether or not {{tl|unsigned}} is to be [[WP:SUBST]]'d, it should NOT be SUBST'd if it doesn't have a parameter.  Please revert those substitutions immediately.  If you cannot, I'll block the bot until a fix-bot can be run.  &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] |  [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-:One do not make threats. One if you do block the bot I will consider that an abuse of admin privileges and I will respond in that manner. If you paid attention this bot does a lot of work for more than one task. Since this issue was brought up I havent subst'ed any {{tl|unsigned}}. as for reverting that is not as simple as you take it to be, its far simpler, less hassle and less trouble to leave it was they are. [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] • [[User:BetacommandBot|Bot]])</sup> 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-::Maybe everyone would be more clear on this bots actions (and reactions by other Wikipedians) if you didn't "archive" all feedback here to oblivion. // [[User:Laughing Man|laughing man]] 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-:::It doesnt go to oblivion, It goes to my talkpage. [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] • [[User:BetacommandBot|Bot]])</sup> 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-::::: You should either REDIRECT this page to YOUR talk page if everything here gets moved there, or put a notice where the messages disappear to. // [[User:Laughing Man|laughing man]] 13:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-:::*Far better (or at least easier) to hate than to investigate. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-::::Substituting a broken template means the bot was broken.  Also, '''if''' the bot does not have a revert capability, it ''should'' be considered broken, but that doesn't appear to be in the bot requirements.   You ''should'' have a bot which does an "undo" on all your bot actions within a certain time-frame (for all those which can be undone, of course).  Seems a simple enough bot to write.  &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] |  [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
-:::::Wrong. The bot is operating properly. Its not the bots fault that the template is broken, A broken template is not a broken bot. Threats to block are a mis-use of admin status. The introduction of a un-used template parameter is not a big deal. [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] • [[User:BetacommandBot|Bot]])</sup> 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-:There was [[Wikipedia_talk:Template substitution/Archive_3#Unsigned and Unsigned2|debate in 2006]] over whether this template should be substituted. Continued "official" debate would be appropriate on the current [[Wikipedia_talk:Template substitution|talk page]]. &mdash;[[User:Adavidb|Adavidb]] 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)