User talk:Betacommand/20070701

Image:Wajahp.png, Image:Wajalogo.GIF, Image:Wajaexample.JPG

Thanks for bringing these to my attention. The article they have been used in has been deleted. These images will no longer be used. I would like these images to be deleted right away without the whole speedy deletion fuss. --Hot Dog Wolf -- What's your beef? 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Dvb at Crean.jpg

Hi. This photo was removed from my Biographical entry Denys Val Baker It appears that I just don't understand how the system works, for much as I read the links etc. Please explain to me what I should do to include this photo which, as I stated, was given to me by the Val Baker family representative, Denys' first son, Martin, with the express permission in writing to use it free of charge in the Wikipedia entry for his father. The photo is also viewable on Martin's own site. The link was given in the Fair Use formula that I filled out. An early reply would be appreciated, as I thought this article was completed and the photos approved. (BTW, please also confirm the other family photo is OK. Same source and same permission given). Thanks in advance. Algrif 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand: Your bot marked this image as orphaned when it was not, and I guess this fact was overlooked in the mess of images for deletion. Please make sure your bot is tagging correctly.

Algrif: The image has been restored. The family image was not marked as orphaned and is therefore not up for deletion.

Lexicon (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for a speedy solution. Algrif 13:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Image:Stokecity1972leaguecup.jpg

I noticed you reverted my edit to Image:Stokecity1972leaguecup.jpg, I removed the message because of the notice left underneath the Fair Use box: "I plan to use this image in Stoke City and History of Stoke City. The latter is still a work in progress, and can be seen at User:Dave101/History of Stoke City; once this article is finished, the image will be used in both article's "1960-77" history sections." Dave101→talk 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is currently orphaned and you have seven days to use it in the mainspace, since it is orphaned it should be tagged as such. You removed the tag without fixing the issue so I reverted your change since the issue is still there. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless some reason to retain it is given". I think I have a valid reason, the image will be used on main space, but the article is taking time. Deleting it would just cause more unnecessary work for me. Dave101→talk 13:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why you are given seven days to fix the problem. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you consider WP:Sense. I cannot guarantee the article will be finished in 7 days, imposing such a stringent policy is needless. Dave101→talk 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution here is to simply spend 30 seconds re-uploading it if/when the article is in mainspace. That would be better than having a fair use image hanging around for an indefinite length of time because one day it might have an article to go in. – Steel 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the image to the Stoke City article for now. Dave101→talk 14:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpebiBot

Hi again Betacommand. My other message to you got archived, and I doubt you will see it again. I'm writing to you to confirm if you are still working on the bot code for SpebiBot. The substing task has been approved, and the RfA tally task has not yet been approved. Thanks, +spebi ~ 07:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah Im working on the subst bot, but the RFA function im not sure how to do that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangotango gave me the code, although it is in PHP. Thanks again, +spebi ~ 06:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im still working on it, Ive run into a few issues that im ironing out. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendlier name for BetacommandBot interaction purposes

Raising the issue again, as no response was given -- Guroadrunner 07:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It has come to my attention that BetacommandBot has an unfriendly name. Is there any way to rename it to something without the word "Command" or adding that it has a specific purpose? Perhaps even renaming to BetacommandImageBot ?

-- Guroadrunner 10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One that it has more than one function. Images are just one part of what it does. Two the naming conventions for bots is <ownersname>Bot. Three BCBot cannot be renamed it has too many edits. Four Friendly is your POV others have different measurements. ^∆ 12:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-man.png

I've gotten two notifications from BC-bot about Image:Pac-man.png. I've since removed it from the articles that is wasn't tagged for fair-use with. I should mention that I had initially uploaded it only with the intention of using it in Pac-Man. Is it then my responsibility as the uploader to provide additional rationale when the image is included by others in other articles? Cause it seems to me that that buck should be passed to them. Gus 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And It is. When BCBot finds images without any proper rationale, It does three things, One It leaves a note on all pages where the image is used, Notifies all users in the file history, and tags the image. ^∆ 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scouting licence.....

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2002le1k.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- don't agree this. Use this

Edwtie 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that template To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. you need to do that, you havent. ^∆ 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new bug?

the bot just put a warning on the Talk:Mario Party 8 talk page, referring to the image Image:Mario Party 8.jpg. The talk page already had a warning for that image, and because of the previous warning, I slapped a fair use rationale on the page. So, the page had a fair use rationale, but the bot slapped a warning on anway. McKay 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Video game and Image:Pac-man.png. McKay 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that image doesn't have a proper FU rationale see the discussion here ^∆ 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knac.jpg

The bot keeps tagging Image:Knac.jpg as being unused. However, it's being used in the KNAC article. Tempshill 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, wikipedia doesn't show that KNAC uses the image on the image page, even though that it does. Very strange. McKay 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah /me goes to bug a dev ^∆ 16:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

made a null edit to KNAC and solved the problem. ^∆ 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleting messages

Why are you deleting my messages on this talk page? // laughing man 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] —Миша 13 14:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I responded today (in the context of the original thread) and Betacommand deleted it twice. [2] // laughing man 14:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully - messages left here are transferred to Beta's talk page ASAP (which means once per day, when my bot runs). Миша 13 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood Misza. After your bot archived, I then responded to here (please see page history). Betacommand reverted (read: deleted) my comments. // laughing man 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it archived already, you should've continued the discussion wherever it was moved to. Миша 13 14:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive told you before that messages left here are moved to my talkpage. re: deleting, Because you dont know how to follow the discussion and decided to fork it again instead of posting the thread as it stood. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "I've told you before" doesn't make any sense. If this page will be moved to your talk page every day, why not simply redirect to YOUR talk page? // laughing man 14:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because for most task I add a failsafe to the bot so that it stops on new messages. (Non-error discussions prevent that) But it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not that is how I do it. so get over it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever reason you dont want to redirect... But why not then simply put a note that says "All comments posted here will be moved to my talk page". // laughing man 15:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason I guess. // laughing man 19:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had added such a note and it was quietly removed. It seems evident that the editor doesn't wish for people to easily find or review past discussion. —Adavidb 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried VERY hard to assume good faith with this editor to no avail, and now I believe this is true. There is no other reason why the message is not included on the talk page, unless the editor wants to make it hard to track past discussion regarding the bots behavior. // laughing man 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I removed that "note" it was out of place and how it was placed made the page ugly. If you want to track the discussions just check the edit history. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add in your "instructions" section then? // laughing man 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on this? // laughing man 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been Kinda busy and this is very low priority so back off and stop trolling. ^∆ 21:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling? For requesting your bots talk page be properly archived? // laughing man 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is archived properly there are links to where its archived. Check the edit history. ^∆ 00:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no lasting links from the BetacommandBot talk page to the Betacommand talk page, where the Bot page's content is periodically moved and archived. Such a link is sought in the interest of transparency and to conserve Wikipedia/editor resources. —Adavidb 05:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page history per GDFL the chain of source is maintained. ^∆ 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page history is no substitute for including notice about the routine relocation of BetacommandBot talk page content to Betacommand's talk page. —Adavidb 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing fair-use rationales when rationales have already been provided

Hi there. I noticed that your bot added a "Please add fair-use rationale" message to Image:Pac-man.png, even though that image already has THREE fair-use rationales listed. Those rationales are not in the form of the template suggested in the link, but they are there and they are complete, and were done some time ago. Does your bot only look for the boiler-plate templates, or do you manually verify fair-use rationales before adding the bot warnings? And if the latter is true, can you briefly explain what's wrong with the fair-use rationales already provided for that image?

Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

templated fair use rationales are not valid. Such templates as User:Mckaysalisbury/FUR are not appropriate and do not pass FNCC. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll translate the text from his template and let him know. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the non-template version that's now on the page (thanks to User:Remember the dot) acceptable? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close, the only issue I have with those rationales is, you need to state why you need the image in each page. Is significant to the <INSERT PAGE NAME HERE> article isn't really a reason. why must that image be on that page? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

those rationales look good but what about rationales for Video game industry, 1980 in video gaming, Video game genres? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: If fair-use rationales aren't given for ALL pages on which an image appears, are the references to the images removed from the pages where the image isn't justified, or is the image itself removed? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the refs need to be removed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, does this discussion represent something official? What's the FNCC referred to? Why are templated fair-use rationalies not valid? Kiefer said he'd let me know, but he didn't. McKay 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, McKay - I meant to, but I've been embroiled in an unrelated dispute (which I could really use some help with, by the way), and I wasn't able to get to it. My apologies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templated rationales were not valid, because they were not specific enough to explain why the way the image was being used on that particular page specifically was in accordance with the WP policy. It's not enough blandly to state just "the use is in accordance", you have to say what contribution the image makes to the article, and why it is so significant that the use of the non-free content should be allowed. FNCC I suspect was a typo for WP:NFCC. Jheald 16:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is what i did on Image:Guldukat.jpg? Is that sufficient?
"you have to say what contribution the image makes to the article, and why it is so significant that the use of the non-free content should be allowed" Is this policy stated somewhere? McKay 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Dukat image looks fine (I just gave it a quick look). and as for 2 WP:NFCC says that images need rationales and points to the guideline on writing rationales which says # What purpose does the image serve in the article? ^∆ 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that typo. and you took the words out of my mouth. ^∆ 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone through and added more detailed reasons to the other pages that were using the template, and I changed the Pac-Man image to be back using the template. (reasons given in the edit summary there). Are there any other images that were using the template, but have since been substed? I'd like to go through them again. McKay 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, and back to the original topic, shouldn't the bot say why the FURs on the page aren't valid, rather than complaining that there isn't one? As it currently stands, it really looks like a bug. McKay 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since templates do not provide valid rationales it doesn't see templates as rationales. ^∆ 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, maybe a slight rewrite/retool is in order. Because these templates do provide valid rationales. McKay 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that the bot isn't equipped to detect and follow your custom template. If you want to use your template as a source, try using {{subst:MyTemplate|params}} to insert the text into the page rather than having it interpret the template. That should simplify things. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with substing templates, but I'm not a fan for most cases. If I wanted to change something about my rationales, I can. Keeping track of which images I've provided the rationale for is easy... McKay 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. I just think you're going to keep running into problems with this bot when it fails to recognize your template. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mckaysalisbury, as long as you use those templates the bot will not see valid rationales, and that is correct. What I would suggest is creating a separate, blank page and use that when substing or just linking to that page from your template. ^∆ 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And that is correct"? What's correct about that? I shouldn't have to modify my behavior to be more friendly to some bot. The bot should conform to the editors, not the editors to the bot. McKay 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC the rationale McKay has added to Image:Guldukat.jpg with appropriate text put into his template does appear to be valid. Seems to me you may need to re-tool your bot to identify cases like this for human assessment. Jheald 19:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is identifying every unique special template that every user and their kid brother creates for writing FUR isn't feasible either. How do you figure out what is a FUR template and what is a BS template? that is why they need to be substed and have the rationale text on the image description page. ^∆ 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you currently determine whether or not the text on the page is a valid fair use rationale?
"Need" is a strong word. You're not in charge here.
Take a look at Talk:Mario Party 8 the bot is making silly edits on that page. McKay 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for identifying images without any rationale it checks for pages with basically no text except for templates and categories. later steps have more complex methods. ^∆ 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Wikidemo has given some quite solid reasons why templates which are not subst'd may be advisable for particular identifiable types of usages of images, in edits here and here. In particular, leaving the template unsubst'd allows the rationale to subsequently be revised and strengthened for the entire class of usages of that type, if the need subsequently arises. It also makes possible easy tracking of usages of that type, by seeing which page the template is linked on.

Policy requires a valid rationale for the particular usage on the particular page; it does not say a template has to be subst'd. As I said before, it seems to me that in these cases you may have to re-tool your bot to identify cases like this for human assessment. You ask, how do you then figure out what is a FUR template and what is a BS template? Well, just like a rationale made of text, you have to read it. Jheald 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate what I have said multiple times. Template rationales CAN NOT WORK. The mere identification of something is insufficient fair use rationale for almost all fair use images, and that's the only fair use rationale that could work in a template under a rationale of "serves to illustrate" or some such. Other uses where commentary must occur can not have templated rationales. Any presumption that such rationales can be templated is absolutely false and horribly misguided. --Durin 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it yet again doesn't make it true. The proof is in the pudding. There are plenty of template-assisted rationales (including the one on the fair use rationale guideline page) that generate perfectly appropriate rationales. My case in point is the corporate logos and record album covers. In both cases identification alone is sufficient. A template can reference issues other than identification too. A template can reference illustration, critical commentary, or any other justification. It's just a question of what fields you put in the template and how the editor fills those fields out. - Wikidemo 19:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying over and over again there's a consensus that fair use rationales can be templated does not make it true. No such consensus exists. Template-assisted yes, but full blown rationales through templates for images requiring critical commentary? Blatantly false. Logos and covers are entirely different categories of images. And no, a template can NOT identify why an image for critical commentary is important to an article other than to say "critical commentary" because the template is clueless about how the image is being used in an article. Referencing a justification is insufficient. It has to be explained. Otherwise, we might just as well say "fair use...because it's fair use". This is absurdly ridiculous. Stop focusing so much on trying to force copyrighted works down the throat of this project. It's a free content encyclopedia. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again I keep having to explain this and the message never gets through. Instead, it's push as much fair use imagery as possible onto the project, else it looks bad, else people lose interest, else the article is stupid, and all sorts of other ridiculous reasons that have nothing to do with the basic principles on which this project is founded. You've made your point, a thousand times over. You want as much fair use imagery as possible. Fine. Problem is, you're against our philosophy here and against policy. If you want this stopped, then take the measures necessary to have the bot blocked, have Betacommand banned from the project, and me banned from the project as well. If you want assistance in how to go about having us banned, I'd be happy to give you such assistance. I've already pointed you to WP:AN/I. I suggest you start there. Get me banned. I'm 100% dead serious. I'm obviously a menace to the project because I am upholding policy. --Durin 19:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the job for editors who use non-free images to provide fair use rationales, not to achieve consensus for every format they use to do so. To make that call is an unapproved use of the bot. I'm not sure if that's a bug the owner simply doesn't care to fix, POV-pushing, or simply sabotaging images. You've made clear that your aim is to get rid of as many images as possible. I'll ignore the rant except to say I'm not trying to make Wikipedia anything it's not, just trying to help keep the site orderly be ensuring that people play by the rules.Wikidemo 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a bit help

Hi, thanks for to let me know about the Image:Kovagoors cimer.jpg (by your bot). You know it is a coat of arms of the village and I think I could not find the correct category of license. I have found only one similar: the PD-flag-100. But it is not a flag. Would you so kind to tell me which is the best?Beau de Noir 10:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Album Covers

This bot seriously needs to stop flooding my talk page over album covers.

If its flooding your talkpage then your doing something wrong. ^∆ 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dual use templates

the currency template includes both fair use and free images. It's marking free images as fair use and removing them. SchmuckyTheCat 04:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because its labeled as Non-Free. ^∆ 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming my talk page, please

Would be grand. ¦ Reisio 04:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy you need to be notified. ^∆ 04:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approval

Hi Betacommand, do you think you could approve me for Vandal Proof I was authorised as The Sunshine Man but I've since been renamed and it says I'm not on the list, I tried to change myself but it then said the user list was corrupt, as you're a moderator could you do it for me. Regards --The Sunshine Man is now Qst 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-apply and one of the mods will take care of it. ^∆ 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

Your bot removed an image from this page. Why? The Clawed One 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCC Fair use images can only be used in the mainspace.

Restrictions on location. Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

^∆ 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the problem wasn't the image itself, just the fact I was using it in a sandbox? If I create the actual article, I can use the image? The Clawed One 19:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I encourage you to do that. Just as a side note check and make sure that those images have proper Fair use rationales] (i havent checked) But I it was removed for where it was being used. ^∆ 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Also, the bot has recently given User:S@bre several alerts about orphaned images. The images in question link to pages that have been redirected while he and I perform clean-ups of them on sandbox pages. I'm sure that, once we've redone the pages and posted them again, we'll use the images. Just a heads-up.

My photo

Can you tell me why your bot removed my photo Image:BobWickman.jpg from my user page User:Chrisjnelson/Photos?►Chris Nelson 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section above and WP:NFCC ^∆ 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not non-free content though. It's my photo.►Chris Nelson 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until you changed the license on the image about 10 minutes ago it was tagged as Non-Free. that is why it was removed. ^∆ 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Must have been a mistake.►Chris Nelson 19:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up

The bot tagged an image of mine (Image:FresnoStateBulldogs.gif) which I had orphaned purposefully, and had then brought up for deletion. I don't know if there's any way to have the bot not tag images with an IfD tag, but I'm sure that mine wasn't the first image that was tagged when it probably didn't need to be. --fuzzy510 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Heretic images

The images are placed in the article Heretic (computer game). Someone erased them of the article, but I've put it again there. Fsolda 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original uploader

Hey there. I've been doing some work reducing over-sized Fair Use images that are tagged with {{fairusereduce}}. Per procedure, when I do this, I request that the original large image be deleted (which in most cases, makes it look like I am the only uploader). Is there any way your bot can recognize that I am just an editor of these images, and instead leave a Fair Use message on the original uploader? I keep getting these messages to add Fair Use rationales, when I am not really qualified to write one, as I am not the user who uploaded the image in the first place. (for an example, see Image:BD logo blue.png.) Let me know, thanks. tiZom_(2¢) 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

The picture Image:Clementegomezrodriguez.jpg you tagged as orphened.. Can that photo be used in an article about the author of the book, Clemente G. Gomez-Rodriguez? Callelinea 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

I would like to say thanks for clarifying the rationale for the Delta Sigma Theta logo, if I haven't done so already. Have a good day. Miranda 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the rationale for another image up for deletion, too...due to laziness. Your work is well appreciated. Miranda 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ARE YOU DELETING THE I DREAM OF JEANNIE DVD COVERS

I want to know why you are deleting the I Dream of Jeannie DVD covers? They are on the for a reason to improve the article as a whole!! And all other sitcoms have the covers... they come from www.tvshowsondvd.com and there has never been a problem with them!Jdcrackers 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the answers to your questions are available in the notice at the top of this page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image (Image:Logistics Management magazine cover.gif)

I accidentally posted this message to your bots page, and I thought it would be better to post it here instead, sorry if I am creating more confusion. I uploaded this picture to replace another image that was pixelated. I was confused because it did not seem to be working so I uploaded the same image under a slightly different name. Image:Logistics Management magazine cover.gif is the same image as Image:Logistics management magazine cover.gif (the second file has a lowercase "m" in its name). The second file is being used on the article page for Logistics Management magazine and is just fine, but the first is redundant and ok to delete. If you have to wait the seven days before deleting it that's fine, I just thought it would save you some additional work. Thank you again for letting me know. Sean Montgomery 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Orphaned image has been used

Thank you.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Record Barclay 62713.jpg)

This image is not orphaned, it is used in Une Vie D'amour (song), as shown on the image page. Please remove the orphanned tag from the image. Ebeili 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image (Image:Logistics Management magazine cover.gif)

I just wanted to let you know that I uploaded this picture to replace another image that was pixelated. I was confused because it did not seem to be working so I uploaded the same image under a slightly different name. Image:Logistics Management magazine cover.gif is the same image as Image:Logistics management magazine cover.gif (the second file has a lowercase "m" in its name). The second file is being used on the article page for Logistics Management magazine and is just fine, but the first is redundant and ok to delete. If you have to wait the seven days before deleting it that's fine, I just thought it would save you some additional work. Thank you again for letting me know. Sean Montgomery 14:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMZ pics

Can u please stop deleting my pics? They are all liscenced in Wikipedi's free-use policy, and your bot apparently doesn't even notice the lisncence comments!

Please add the pictures back on if possible, or reconsider the bot's field of deletion

⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you please tell me what images/pages you are talking about? ^∆ 20:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Orphaned" non-free image notices

I recently received two notices of orphaned non-free images (Image:All Tomorrow's Parties--I'll Be Your Mirror.JPG and Image:Stephen, stephen - the apples in stereo.JPG). I'm adding fair use rationale to them now, but I thought it was odd that they were both marked "orphaned", despite each being used in at least one article.

I don't know if it's a problem with the bot or whatever, but it doesn't seem logical to label images as orphaned if they're being used in articles. Thanks, Pele Merengue 20:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notice for for an image (Image:Single hangar.jpg) that is also being used in one article. Doppelganger 23:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FUCK YOUR BOT

This bot is RUINING wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshy0 (talk • contribs)

That's a convincing section title and argument. No elaboration required. --Durin 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your bot

You've made your point, but please work through the Wikipedia process and don't keep unleashing the vandalistic image-tagging bot. Your unilateralist approach has and refusal to follow process has already caused a lot of consternation, inconvenienced thousands of people, and gotten your sysadmin privileges stripped. I'm planning to open a request for arbitration case on this as soon as I get around to it, but if you want to avoid the trouble please agree not to use the bot until and unless you have a consensus from the community for doing so. Thanks, Wikidemo 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the consternation you refer to did not result in a consensus for this bot to permanently stop. Rather the opposite. Second, the reason betacommand was desysopped has nothing to do with tagging images, so he desysopping is irrelevant. If you want to open up an RfAr, you will be missing some keys steps in the dispute resolution process and it is unlikely to be accepted. ArbCom is the last resort to dispute resolution, not one of the earlier resorts. --Durin 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He was desysoped for inappropriate use of bots to make edits on a massive scale. That's exactly what he's doing again. Now he restarts one of his problem bots, in the same way and to the same unfortunate resorts that got the bot blocked last time. It's like a pickpocket that starts pickpocketing again the day he gets out of jail. I've asked him to stop. I'm checking to see which forum we should use but this is an urgent matter that can't wait. By the time we escalate it up the chain thousands of images will be inappropriately deleted.Wikidemo 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The edits he was, in part, desysopped for have nothing to do with the edits the bot is doing now. If they did, the bot would have already been shut down. You're making a very weak case regarding these actions based on the RfAr's findings. What Betacommandbot is doing has been repeatedly found to be inline with policy. The analogy isn't a pickpocket returning to pickpocketing. Rather, the person got out of jail, went straight with respect to the law, and is upholding the law. Now you're criticizing him for upholding policy????????? What is an urgent matter that shouldn't wait is the toooo long tolerance we have had for fair use image abuse. If you want this bot blocked, then take it to WP:AN/I. However, it's highly unlikely it will be stopped as this has been repeatedly brought up before without the bot being blocked for what it is currently doing. Sorry. --Durin 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We've had this very discussion on another page. The misbehavior he was censured for included misuse of bots in ways that caused disruptive editing on a grand scale. The guy keeps unleashing buggy problem bots on Wikipedia to push his various controversial agendas. The urgent matter is that thousands of perfectly appropriate images are about to be deleted again, just like they were last time. Wikidemo 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - When approached about bugs, Betacommand has been entirely responsive. As for the images being deleted, if they are deleted it will be in accordance with policy. We do not accept fair use images without sufficient fair use rationale here. This is policy. Period. It's stated quite clearly in the image upload page. That people are complaining about a bot tagging their images for deletion because they didn't follow policy does not engender any sort of sympathy from me. The images are existing here improperly. They are, in that respect, no different than a blatant copyright violation. Stop focusing on trying to prevent fair use images from being deleted from Wikipedia and instead focus on our m:Mission, to create a free content encyclopedia. Fair use images are not free content. We do not liberally permit them. --Durin 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        And if I succeed in blocking the deletions and the bot and stopping this user from doing it again it will certainly be by Wikipdia policy and not by his technique of unleashing bots over everyone's objections. Are you really trying to tell us that any corporate logo identifying the article page for its corporation, and any album cover identifying the article for the album, is "no different than a blatant copyright violation" and should be deleted rather than attaching a fair use justification? I don't care if you have sympathy on the guy who uploaded those things a couple years ago when they weren't required. You should have some sympathy on Wikipedia itself and the hundreds of thousands of editors that are trying to write articles instead of deleting things. You may feel that way and a guy who keeps getting shut down for buggy bots feels that way, but thousands of Wikipedians feel otherwise. The consensus model is you're supposed to get agreement on things, not compete to see who can build the fastest and most destructive bot. - 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
de-indent You say over everyone's objections as if you represent consensus. You do not. This has been hashed out before, and the result was not that the bot was blocked. Are there objections? Yes. Have the objections been sufficient to stop the bot? Not permanently, no. Fair use rationales have been required for a VERY long time. Enough of this. If you want the block applied to the bot, then by all means make it happen. I've shown you where to go to make it happen. In your request, please request that I be permanently banned from the project as well, since I fully intend on continuing the bot's work. Thank you, --Durin 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to that list. I've been marking hundreds of images as {{no rationale}} all through June and today, and plan to continue. ~ Bigr Tex 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BigrTex, are you doing this by hand or via a bot? If it's with a bot, yes, add yourself to the list. If it's by hand and concerns certain classes of images, I urge you to consider ways to add rationales or use a workflow that sends them in that direction rather than marking them for deletion. If you're trying to rid Wikipedia of truly problematic images, more power to you! For anyone in the discussion, there is talk about what to do with the bot here.Wikidemo 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if the actions are done by a human you're ok with it? So you agree the policy is accurate and being enforced properly? So your only complaint :is the speed with which it is being done then? You are aware that a small cluster of humans could readily keep up with this bot, are you not? There are plenty of automated edit assisting tools, such as AWB that can do this work. What, exactly, is your complaint if you agree with the policy, agree with how it's being applied? Is all we're disagreeing here on is the speed??? --Durin 21:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js, like most image patrolers. I don't know that it is significantly more complicated than my understanding of BetacommandBot - at one point at least, it was an AWB-style interface with 8 options for tagging images. I've got about a dozen links on my sidebar that allow me to tag images.

I believe that my workflow is sending them in that direction. They get categorized into neat little categories where there is a team of editors adding rationales to the images. ~ Bigr Tex 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, bot edits are in a different category than human edits. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that, and that you need permission to operate a bot. My complaint, which you have read because you've been arguing with me all day on it, is very clear. Whatever my position is on various policies and guidelines, bots running amok is not a good thing. Wikidemo 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK the bot is approved and authorized. either shut up and go away or file an arbcom case. ^∆ 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not helpful to tell fellow editors to shut up. Please don't do it. --Hemlock Martinis 04:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

msg posted to Talk:Hicom Trading E

Howdy -- this bot has posted a warning on Talk:Hicom Trading E about an image that's actually part of a stub tag ( template:econ-stub ) that happens to be on the Hicom Trading E page. Not sure what if anything this does or doesn't mean, but I'm guessing you didn't really want it to post a warning on each of the several thousand pages that include that stub tag... --NapoliRoma 14:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can we stop this nuisance once and for all?

There has been extensive discussion and argument in the past regarding this disruptive bot. Counter to the claims made in the rationale above:

Policy is not clear on fair use rationales. Portions of Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline are illegitimate and/or lack consensus. See the active debate and consensus building on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.
Wikipedia deletionists want to rid Wikipedia of fair use images as much as possible, and have announced that as their overarching goal. They have doggedly changed policy without consensus to give them cover for beginning to delete. This bot is part of that effort. Meanwhile, a majority of Wikipedians favor fair use, or at least an orderly policy, over the disruption caused by purging Wikipedia of its graphic content.
Tens or hundreds of thousands of images could be deleted if tagged by the bot and. Most were uploaded when policy was different than today, or before there was any push for widespread deletion. Many are most are perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia; the flaw is not that they violate copyright but that they lack adequate sourcing and fair use metadata.
We should fix articles, not delete content. The claim that non-involved editors can't know the fair use status of an image is simply not true. Fair use is a question of how an image is used in an article, not the uploader's state of mind. In cases like corporate logos, modern artworks, television and movie stills, album covers, and pictures of buildings, the rationale is plainly obvious and missing rationales can be added en masse. Once an image is deleted it is gone and cannot be fixed. The constructive people on Wikipedia need a chance to improve things before people on an agenda make a mes of them.
Wholesale image deletion is premature while the debate is unresolved. The Wikimedia Foundation resolution does not directly enable people to delete images; it asks Wikipedia to adopt a policy on images in due course, which we are currently doing.
One user's frustration is not a mandate. The bot-master says the state of things is "dismal." Other people differ. There is still plenty of time for resolution by consensus.
BetacommandBot runs against consensus and discretion urged by the policy. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion says users may flag noncompliant images for review and administrators may delete them. Nowhere does it say anyone "must" launch a project wide deletion effort. "May" requires discretion. This bot does not exercise discretion, it tags images automatically, project-wide.
This is not about the law. The law does not require fair use rationales and most images marked for deletion are perfectly legal. What is happening is the Wikimedia Foundation wants to go beyond the legal requirements so that Wikipedia content can be freely available to all, including commercial users. That is a good aim. We're not talking about opposing that effort, but talking about achieving it in the best way. Getting rid of images instead of making them usable by all is the wrong approach.

If your article got tagged, please fix your image before it gets deleted. First take a moment to make sure it really is a legitimate, legal image. If it is, add a fair use rationale and remove the tag from the image page.

This bot caused a lot of frustration and consternation several weeks ago when it was first unleashed on Wikipedia. It tagged images indiscriminately and the administrators followed behind deleting many images improperly. In the latest gaffe, it just tagged thousands of pages in error over an image that was used on a stub template. A perfect illustration of why we cannot allow bots to run amok. If you have any suggestions on how we can stop this vandalistic bot and resolve things constructively and by consensus, please share. Wikidemo 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly easy to cut the bot off at the knees... write a fair use rationale. Voila, then there's nothing the bot can do. Besides, it's not like an image can't be restored; if you ask the deleting admin to restore an image so you can provide a rationale, I'm sure they'd be willing (no reason to go through DRV for something that trivial). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to reinstate are on a one-by-one basis. BetacommandBot just tagged thousands of corporate logos where the fair use status is not in legitimate dispute. I have written a handful of fair use rationales for other people's images today, thank you. Care to join me? But in the time it takes to write just one and remove the offending tag Betacommandbot will tag another two hundred. That's hardly cutting the an out of control bot off at its knees. Let's shut it down, now, and don't waste everybody's time cleaning up the mess. Wikidemo 15:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, that the bot's owner has stated in the past that Templated FURs are not valid, and now insists that my FUR template must be substed or his bot won't work Talk:Mario Party 8 for example. McKay 16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he'd backed down on that? I thought BC had ultimately accepted the points put to him at the end of the discussion here ? -- Jheald 16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stop this bot once and for all, then get the policy requiring fair use rationales changed. The policy is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #10(c). However, I would like to point out that this point is unlikely to be changed as this particular aspect of our fair use criteria is based in fair use law, in that fair use must have a reasonable justification. The intention of the fair use rationales is to provide the same, and it is also the reason why templated fair use rationales are insufficient. --Durin 17:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to get the policy changed, I'm trying to stop an out of control bot. This one was just unleashed a second time by a rogue Wikipedian, after it was soundly condemned and blocked the first time he pulled the stunt. I am building a case for blocking the bot again and possibly blocking the user. The fact that images need a fair use rationale does not equate to a license to build a bot that automatically tags them. He already had his administrative privileges stripped over this sort of thing. An analogy. Just because cities have parking meters does not mean that any citizen can go out and build his own robocop to arrest overtime parkers. If the policy requires fair use rationales, let's give them fair use rationales rather than deleting the images or vandalizing the image pages. Wikidemo 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the last comment. Template rationales comply with the guideline and policy pages, and there is a consensus on the page User:Jheald linked to that templated rationales are fine. For goodness sakes, the fair use rationale page even has a template you're supposed to use. Enough of this crazy talk. Wikidemo 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accusing me of crazy talk. Warms me to the heart. *hug* --Durin 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're on a witch hunt then? You're rooting around for evidence to get the bot shut down?
Understand the bot is acting directly in accordance with policy. You do not happen to like the fact that it is tagging images that have no fair use rationales. But, that doesn't change the fact the the images do not have fair use rationales yet MUST have them to be in adherence with policy. Your analogy fails by the way. Cities can and do automatically ticket people who violate red lights, speed limits, and more. Since editors here at Wikipedia have every bit as much standing as Jimbo Wales does, than an editor can act as he is doing, essentially a part of the government. We do have means of dealing with people acting in opposition to policy, but this bot and its manager is rather far from doing this. You've got a long road to hoe to get him blocked. You've got a much better chance of getting policy changed. --Durin 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Witch hunt? I'm trying to stop an out of control bot that's causing lots of mayhem. In my analogy, which you've now changed for your purposes, even Jimbo Wales has to operate by consensus. Even he can't just delete people and articles for no other reason than he does not like them. When you question a user's inappropriate actions on Wikipedia you try to see if it's an isolated mistake or a pattern of misbehavior. Betacommand and his pet Bot are operating unilaterally. I see the guy was also blocking users for disagreeing with him, running automatic deletion bots, deleting thousands of links by bot that should not have been deleted, running user blocking bots, and all kinds of other stuff. He's been blocked multiple times. Why are you defending the guy? The corporate logos he's trying to delete are all appropriate to Wikipedia. Why are you trying to delete them? Wikidemo 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an out of control bot that is upholding policy. How shocking. If you think Betacommandbot is acting unilaterally, then you have failed to read considerable discussion regarding this bot's behavior. Perhaps you're unaware of these discussions. Would you like a pointer to them? I'll restate, yet again, go to WP:AN/I to have this bot blocked. This bot isn't going to block itself, and discussing the issue here isn't going to achieve what you want; the permanent shutting down of this bot. Further, since I fully intend on continuing the work of this bot per our long standing policies, I am just as much a threat to your line of reasoning as the bot is. Thus, you should have me banned from the project as well. I urge you to act now, before any more images are deleted from Wikipedia, especially since I can't even block myself. I'll restate my offer as well; if you need assistance in having my banned from the project, I remain at your disposal on how to go about doing that. Do you require assistance? --Durin 19:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the extensive discussion and the Bot owner is acting unilaterally. I have asked him to stop doing so and to act under consensus; if he refuses then arbitration or administrator intervention is clearly the next step. I'll ignore the sarcasm. If you find an image you dispute and put a dispute tag on it then I will either respond or not as per Wikipedia policy. If you want to continue debating the issue with me I am happy to debate. But if you try to circumvent the debate and overwhelm the system by programming a bot to start fifteen thousand disputes at the same time as this user has done, yes, I would try to have your bot blocked too and its actions reversed. One wikipedian, one voice -- this is not rule by programming might. The issue is now being discussed [| here] so I think we should continue any further discussion there. - Wikidemo 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this bot owner is acting unilaterally, despite the comments on WP:AN/I informing you otherwise, I'm at a loss as to how to proceed with you. You are blatantly wrong, but insist you are right. Fair enough. My comments about offering you assistance in having me banned from the project are sincere, and not intended to be sarcastic. I am blatantly a threat to your line of thinking on this, in precisely the same way that Betacommandbot is acting. If you feel the bot and he should be banned, then you should have me banned as well. I'm at your disposal to assist you with that process. --Durin 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sincere too. If you're going to try to ban Durin, please add me to the list. I see very few users arguing for banning Betacommand/BetacommandBot, and quite a few arguing that they are not the issue. I agree with that crowd, and have been tagging images as {{no rationale}} as quickly as I could, even while Betacommand was on hiatus, and will continue to do so as long as I need to in order to bring our image library into compliance with our policies. If I felt that I could do a better job with BetacommandBot's code, I would ask for it. ~ Bigr Tex 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please consolidate the discussion over here? Thanks. 22:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

substituting unsigned template

This bot replaced {{subst:Unsigned| with {{subst:unsigned}} on the Talk:Alligator page. [3] Its edit summary reads "(subst'ing templates per WP:SUBST)". However, when I go to WP:SUBST, {{subst:Unsigned| is not in the list of templates that must be substituted. Instead, it is listed as template whose substitution status is under discussion. Also, the page says that one of the drawbacks of substitution is "Substituting en masse — editing thousands of articles with bots — slows down the site and wastes server resources unnecessarily." From these two points on WP:SUBST, I am very much NOT convinced that is is appropriate for a bot to go around substituting unsigned templates on article talk pages. At the very least, the link I follow from the bots' edit summary should convince me that the bot is doing the right thing, not convince me that the bot is doing the wrong thing. We need Hagerman bot or another signer bot to get up and working again, we don't need a bot to go back and fiddle with all {{subst:Unsigned| templates. Enuja 15:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the convenience

Can you insert another line break before the bot's automated messages to talk pages. Would make it a bit easier to identify them when browsing through the source. Grue 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request: List of tagged images, by category?

BC, would it be possible as the bot is running through, for you to produce lists of the images tagged by category -- eg list of logos tagged, list of album covers tagged, list of screenshots of video games tagged, etc.? Producing 'menu' lists like this would make it easier and quicker for people to go through and add appropriate rationales - at least for the easy cases.

In fact, producing such lists prospectively from a dry run, a few days before running the bot to add the tags, might be quite helpful towards achieving the desired outcome with rather less wiki-angst.

Lists categorising the images you've already tagged would be a really helpful start.

What do you think? Jheald 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use reasoning given, but now the bot's a critic?

Fair use rationale for Image:MysteryoftheWhisper.jpg

An album page, review, or critical commentary should be able to include a low-res image by way of illustration, and that's the explanation I've used. What is wrong with my description? -- Xinit 16:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is annoying.

Wikipedia gives me the option to post DVD covers this is not allowed? Please dont have your bot harrass me and take up the issue with wikipedia.

Jeremy221 19:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images uploaded to Wikipedia must have an associated fair use rationale. Please see WP:NFCC item #10(c) for the policy regarding this. For assistance in crafting a fair use rationale, please see WP:FURG. Other questions? Please feel free to ask. --Durin 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really commenting out discussion about the Bot's operation on this talk page?

I'm rather astonished. It's one thing to start a bot of this magnitude with almost no notice or consensus or agreement. It's another to keep reverting links to the pages where the operation of this bot is discussed. Participation, consensus, clarity...very important Wikipedia principles. Forcing your own way over objections is not good, and editing out other people's comments on your own talk page is highly discouraged. Telling people to stop whining and take it to arbitration if they don't like it, not good. You've launched a plan to put deletion tags on approximately half the images on Wikipedia. Why not alert people to where they can learn more about fair use issues and the authority under which this bot is working? Wikidemo 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, If you read the notices that the bot leaves you would understand on what Authority the bot is operating under. Two, the approval process has been followed, Discussion has occurred And consensus is Policy since you cannot seem to be able to read those discussions and insist on trolling I ask that you file an ArbCom case and make a fool of yourself. ^∆ 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All bots require approval before the bot bit is allowed. Why is it so difficult for you just to add the proper rationales, instead of spending all of this time fighting against consensus? Corvus cornix 02:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notices the bot leaves do not cite the authority or consensus under which the bot operates. They merely cite fair use policy. Following the links to the archive I see the activities of the bot exceed its authority as to scope of operation, much less consensus as to how it operates.

I have added several fair use rationales to images uploaded by other people, thank you, and plan to continue (my own house is in order as far as I know). I'll let bot owner's latest ad-hominems about "fool" and "troll" passand at the risk of taking a rhetorical question at face value, my reason for devoting time to process rather getting to work on fixing are twofold. First, the bot tagged 5,500+ non-free images in the last week, many of them inappropriately. There are plans to rapidly tag 140,000 more in the next round, eventually half of all images on Wikipedia. Most of these images are perfectly appropriate but merely missing the rationale. I don't know how fast you type but my typing skills cannot keep up with a bot urging speedy deletion on half of the images on Wikipedia. Second, there is no facility for fixing the problem, just deleting. I've proposed one solution in the form of a template-assisted rationale but so far my questions have gone unanswered as to whether it will placate the bot or just get re-tagged despite the rationale as others have. Hence, I am questioning why the bot is running and asking that we assure consensus for its continued operation. Wikidemo 04:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for its authority, its tagging images that have no rationale on the page. as for errors you just say that many of them inappropriately, yet you fail to show any proof. you also fail to read prior discussion and read policy. As for leaving notes to its approval when tagging there is no need to add that to the messages that the bot leaves. As to stands there are two options with the FUR mess. Fix or delete. Its been several years since rationales were required and many people fail to do that. so the only real option that has been presented is bot tagging. Ok Ive had enough with your mis-quotes, libel, and your un-willingness to actually read the old discussions, If you wish to continue to beat a dead horse file and arbcom case so we can get this over with and I can continue to fix the fair use mess. ^∆ 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already cited examples of inappropriate tagging as have others. I'll save any repeated effort for the arbcom case. You seem to be cutting off discussion on this page, which I'm fine with. I wish you wouldn't keep deleting my notice of where the actual policy and bot discussions are taking place. That's one of the components people are probably going to demand in any consensus solution, a way of telling people what's going on. Wikidemo 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

This image is used by the stub tag for econ and finance. Are you leaving image-removal warnings on ALL the econ and finance stub articles? This is awfully confusing.--Busy Stubber 12:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was left for the image, not the articles. At the time it was tagged, it was tagged with a potential fair use requirement tag, necessitating a fair use rationale. The bot acted properly. --Durin 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was referring to an image that was labelled and categorised as public domain, with a {{currency}} tag. It would be good if the bot could check for the presence of Category:Public domain images, {{PD-RU-exempt}} and similar markers to prevent this kind of mess. I've just received a request to mass-revert 500 bogus deletion messages from this bot :( -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this version of the image summary page. That's the version that Betacommandbot tagged. That version places the image in a public domain category, true. However, it also places it in a non-free media category. These are contradictory and mutually exclusive; you can't have it both ways. Since the default case here is to assume something is non-free unless proven otherwise, we assume that it is non-free. The bot acted entirely appropriately, since there was a non-free licensing tag on the image. --Durin 19:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that the redirects involved with {{currency}} caused problems. I'm not saying the bot acted completely inappropriately, nor am I particularly complaining. I'm saying it created an avoidable mess and could have acted better. And is it really necessary to leave one message for every article a stub template is used in? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot did not create a mess that could have been avoided. The mess was created by the person who failed to provide a fair use rationale for the image. Betacommandbot was working to clean up the mess, not make it worse. It leaves messages as it does because it was requested as a feature. Of course, Wikidemo below feels that the bot is buggy, yet this very feature proves that the bot manager acts in response to bug fixes and feature requests. --Durin 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sakes, Durin, can't you just admit the bot got it wrong? The image is PD, and was appropriately tagged as such at the time. One tag said it was an image of currency which might or might not be PD - the tag doesn't specify. The other explicitly confirmed that it was PD. It was an unforeseen eventuality - fair do's, mistakes happen. But it was a mistake. And perhaps the thing to learn is that if an image is being used on 500 different pages, it is advisable to check things first with human eyes, not to tag on regardless. I'd submit that that is the most valuable lesson to learn from this for next time. Jheald 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

de-indent I'm quite happy to admit error on my part when such error has been made. In this case, I'm not wrong. It is blatantly obvious...blatantly....that the image was tagged with a tag that placed it in a non-free image category. Do you deny this? Do you deny that the image, despite being in such a category, did not have a fair use rationale? Do you deny the presence of WP:NFCC item #10(c) that requires a fair use rationale? --Durin 19:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this in simple terms without expecting further reply. If it is possible please get the bot to flag for human review illogical conflicts such as the one today which resulted in the bot leaving 500 unnecessary deletion messages. It took me between 5 and 10 seconds to see there was a problem and what the problem was. Meanwhile numerous editors on up to 500 various talk pages are wondering what on earth the bot is talking about. Could the editor placing the currency tag have avoided this? Yes. Could the bot have avoided this? Yes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Every single image that is deleted on Wikipedia is reviewed by an administrator prior to deletion. There is no automated process for deleting images. --Durin 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the multiples of 500 other problems I mentioned. I give up. This talk page was always going to be a hard place to get a non-defensive response. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry perhaps you missed my comment above. The 500 messages were a feature request that was asked to be added to the bot. --Durin 20:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider my new feature request. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do? Some want a feature informing as the bot did. You want the opposite. ? --Durin 20:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a request for an extra sanity check before leaving the messages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking for. Stop posting the messages? That was the feature request, which leaves us with the above noted quandary. Which feature request do we hold to? --Durin 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could also add a sanity check to the sanity check, to make sure the sanity check itself wasn't malfunctioning. And some sort of high level sanity check for that check to. Quis Custodiet Custodes Ipsos? More sanity checks, of course. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chairboy, you're insane! --Durin 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Durin, the image was not tagged with a tag that placed it in a non-free image category. It was tagged with {{currency}}, which leaves its free/non-free status indeterminate. In this case, the image was PD, indicated by it also being tagged with {{PD-RU-exempt}}. A PD image does not need a fair use rationale. The bot made a mistake. An understandable mistake, in retrospect, possibly. But a mistake none the less.

As I said before, maybe the lesson to learn from this, is to be careful that if an image is used on a very large number of pages, it is worth human eyes looking at the case, rather than letting the bot proceed blindly. Jheald 20:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting again, have a look at User:Durin/test. You'll see that with the {{currency}} tag on it, the page has been placed into Category:All non-free media (see the category listing on the bottom of the page). As I noted above, we presume things are copyrighted until affirmatively proven otherwise. The default case is not public domain. Thus, there needs to be a fair use rationale with this tag until the matter is clarified and the tag is removed (as has now been done on the image). Again, the bot acted properly. --Durin 20:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot correctly identified (if we ignore the template redirect mixups) a claim of fair use. It should also have identified a contradictory claim of public domain and yielded to a human before delivering 500 messages. That is my request. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what we've discovered is a bug in the workflow the bot was using. For images marked {{currency}}, Category:All non-free media is not necessarily reliable. So the bot mustn't necessarily rely on it. In this case the image was PD, and correctly tagged as such. Relying on Category:All non-free media, we can now see, was a mistake. Jheald 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except of course that the image was not PD, and Category:All non-free media applied. --Durin 21:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit of {{PD-RU-exempt}} are you failing to understand here? Jheald 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was still tagged with {{currency}}, placing it in a non-free media category as I have indicated before. The bot correctly tagged the image as missing a fair use rationale. You are complaining because the bot tagged it when the tag asks for a rationale. Instead, you should be either (a) correcting the tag to not require a fair use rationale (this would be a serious mistake) or (b) taking the issue up with the person who tagged the image with {{PD-RU-exempt}} but didn't remove {{currency}}. Stop blasting this bot for acting properly. It did NOT make an error. The human working on the image made the error. --Durin 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the category from the template, it is inappropriate on a "maybe" template. (or you should fix your bot to detect the "maybe" image and exempt those pages) --Random832 22:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing we're ignoring is this: - {{currency}} is NOT a "non-free image" tag, it's a MAYBE tag, and its inclusion is NOT a basis for requiring a rationale. Using this category is a bug in the workflow of the bot, plain and simple. --Random832 23:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the template redirect it is labeled as Non-free {tl|Non-free currency}} thus it requires a rationale. ^∆ 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Python Bots

I am trying to finish of a bot called User:BoxCrawler and am having trouble getting it to stay logged in. It uses Python and I notice that the bot you have up for approval also uses Python. As such, I was wonderring if you might be able to help me sort out this problem. Even a look at whatever code you use to login would be very helpful. Thanks Adam McCormick 18:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found the issue Adam McCormick 06:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A by-category listing of tagged images

BC, this also appears higher up the page, but you may have missed it.

Could you modify the bot to produce a by-category summary list of the images you've tagged?

AFAICS, this should be very easy to add to the code, but would be really helpful for groups and projects trying to add rationales in the bot's wake (eg as User:wikidemo is concerned to do for the case of corporate logo images). This could be something really helpful.

Also, if you could knock out such a list for what's already tagged, that would also be useful.

Could you do this? Cheers, Jheald 23:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category structure on wikipedia is a complete disaster. Because I use just the wikitext of the image pages extracting categories is impossible. 99.9% of image categories are placed there by templates, since I only load the pagetext of the image and not of the templates, (rationales cannot be in templates and i want to lower my server use) Im not sure how do do that for you. ^∆ 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A listing by image-tag-type would do pretty much as well - and that is directly there in the pagetext. Jheald 09:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for no fair use rationale

When BetacommandBot tagged Image:Zedd2.jpg for no fair use rationale, it tagged it with the {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} template. Wouldn't it make more sense for the bot to tag it with {{Di-no fair use rationale}}? After all, you cannot dispute a fair use rationale that does not exist in the first place. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew that existed, I'm going to start using that one now that I see it. Looked at the history and it was made on July 4th.++aviper2k7++ 20:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I was also going to point that out, and the template in question existed before, at {{no rationale}}, why it wasn't moved, was to prevent clashing with current use. _→AzaToth 18:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about tagging the image

I notice that the template placed on the image now says "Add following to the image captions: {{deletable image-caption|Saturday, 7 July 2007}}". I'm pretty sure this is new, and I was just wondering if you plan on tagging pages you leave that template?++aviper2k7++ 20:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adding it to image captions is problematic, Instead I leave a note on the talkpage. ^∆ 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD covers/movie posters removed

I understand why your bot is doing it, but man isn't the dvd cover and movie poster tag enough to keep all the dozens of posters and DVD covers I took days to scan to Wikipedia? I don't come back to Wikipedia often just for this reason. All your work can be blown out even though I'm following the fair use rules for DVD and movie posters correctly because some bot decides it's not good enough. Sigh. Just delete everything I posted over the years and create a bot to do everything. Steve-O 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your images are being tagged and deleted, then I propose that you are not, in fact, "following the fair use rules" correctly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template used

Why does this bot use {{non-free use disputed}} for images with no rationale? Shouldn't it use {{nrd}} (which should be subst'ed) for this instead? Also, it should be subst'ing {{tl}} instead of calling it directly - although it doesn't matter since it doesn't work in the edit summary. The bot is doing good work otherwise. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

until recently {{nrd}} was dated so images uploaded prior to may 5, 2005 couldnt be tagged with {{nrd}}, instead It said use {{non-free use disputed}} ^∆ 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well go back to just using {{subst:frn}} regardless of upload date. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A by image-tag-type listing of tagged images

BC, I'm not sure whether you saw this above. While I can see the problems BCBot would have determining categories, when these are added by image-tag-templates that the bot doesn't ever expand, could you modify the bot to produce a by-image-tag-type summary list of the images you've tagged?

AFAICS, this should be very easy to add to the code, but would be really helpful for groups and projects trying to add rationales in the bot's wake (eg as User:wikidemo is concerned to do for the case of corporate logo images). This could be something really helpful.

Also, if you could knock out such a list for what's already tagged, that would also be useful.

Could you do this? Cheers, Jheald 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can, but this will not be pretty. ^∆ 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that will be really helpful. Jheald 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its still running but here are the results for what is already tagged. [4] ^∆ 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like its working. Great! So could we add the names of the images to the run-log too, and then at the end produce a sorted list of the image names by template? That would be excellent. Jheald 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have time for that right now, but once I get a list of templates I can cross reference them with the already tagged images. that could be a few days though. ^∆ 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well just printing the name of the image would be good. Then I can do the sorting myself - that should only take about 10 lines of perl. Thanks! Jheald 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ^∆ 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot message

Just so you know, I've left a message regarding image tagging at User talk:BetacommandBot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchuminWeb (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

becomes

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchuminWeb (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchuminWeb (talk • contribs)

becomes

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SchuminWeb (talk • contribs).

Apparently the solution is to remove the parserfunction entirely, and just ditch the period. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia screenshots

Is is possible to get the bot to lay off Wikipedia screenshots, like Image:Main_Page_Draft_1600x1200_A.png? Unfortunately the community is unable to come to consensus about them (see Wikipedia talk:Non-free_content#Copyrights_owned_by_Wikimedia and the prior discussion I linked from there) but given the fact that a) Commons allows them[5] and b) The Foundation is working on a policy exception for them[6] it is ridiculous for us to treat them as non-free (why we do I have no clue). -N 09:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I though I had fixed this issue (the bot should have ignored those images). Since you stated that this was still a problem i looked back and re did some code. it shouldnt tag them anymore. ^∆ 13:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still tags. it would be best if you fix it asap. _→AzaToth 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bothersome Bot

Your bot keeps tagging my picture as "orphaned", when it is clearly not. It has already been tagged and subsequently deleted twice. I uploaded the picture for the explicit purpose of proving a point on a discussion page (which you can see here). Since the image is clearly being used, could you get your bot to stop tagging it? (I would also point out that the message notifying you that your image has been tagged does not provide directions for how to challenge the tagging, which is why I'm coming to you.) Radioactive afikomen 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that while the image is being used on Wikipedia, it is not being used in an article. For fair use images, they have to be used in the article space or they will get considered orphan. I would suggest if you wish to use this to prove an issue, I suggest moving the image off Wikipedia onto Photobucket or something. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that that is more a problem of the standards than with the image. Why shouldn't a discussion page count? Radioactive afikomen 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the question is why must we have that image? its copyrighted and per our policy we limit the use of such images to a very specific use since our mission is to provide free content. ^∆ 04:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-tagging the image as orphaned. Per WP:NFCC item #7 specifically states that non-free content must be used in at least one article. Talk pages, or any other page other than actual articles do not constitute usage in an article. If the image is not used in an article, it will be deleted 7 days from tagging. --Durin 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetaCommand, Durin tagged this conversation a bit ago for wider attention, but that change was reverted without comment. What's up? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I didn't tag it. Betacommand did. --Durin 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arg, of course, I'm dumb. Blame it on poor reading comprehension, bad schools, and the price of oil. Whoops! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :) Regardless, the issue doesn't require wider attention. The image supported a discussion from over a month ago. Even I have temporarily uploaded fair use images in support of discussions only, though I marked them for deletion soon after. In this case, there's just no reason to keep the image in violation of our policies. Why make an exception here? No need for wider attention here. This is a cut/dry case. We don't use fair use images in this way. --Durin 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I I wrote the original bot that messedrocker is using. I wanted to add a new function for adding sections to the list and decided to test on my talk page. ^∆ 15:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I I wrote the original bot that messedrocker is using. I wanted to add a new function for adding sections to the list and decided to test on my talk page. ^∆ 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BetacommandBot tagging images as orphan twice

Hi Betacommand, just a little note. Betacommandbot tagged an image as orphan even though there was already a tag there. [7] Does the bot look for those kind of tags (maybe just at the top of the page)? Otherwise, I want to give you thanks for trying to force people to follow the actual policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me stabs whoever changed the template name. Someone changed the template name that I use. ^∆ 22:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots of Wikipedia are non-GFDL?

So, apparently your bot tagged an image I uploaded of the Wikipedia mainpage (while vandalized) as requiring fair use rationale. Since when is the *main page* of Wikipedia non-GFDL?

Just asking. Suntiger 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since our logo is copyrighted and not GDFL. ^∆ 22:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies logo

Hi Betacommand, I have a question regarding a recent bot notification about WMF copyrighted Image:WikispeciesZS-protected.jpg, which was originally uploaded for use on the Main Page back when Wikispecies decided on a logo, but is now replaced by Image:Wikispecies-logo-35px.png. However, it still used, in expected ways, in a small number of pages in the project and user namespaces. I was just going to replaces instances of use when I noticed that the image is much larger than the image that replaced it and at least two uses utilize a larger thumbnail, though I imagine a Commons duplicate is available somewhere. Anyway, it seems that the bot doesn't pick up on the lack of non-free use rationale for either image, which would obviously be impossible given how much Image:Wikispecies-logo-35px.png is used, but the last use in the main namespace of Image:WikispeciesZS-protected.jpg was recently removed. Given that WMF copyrighted images appear to be a special case and the uses of the image are appropriate, I'm not 100% clear that WP:CSD applies. Do you think it would be OK if I simply found the duplicate on Commons and placed the image under {{nowcommons}}?- Banyan Tree 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter to me. ^∆ 22:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug?

Is there something wrong with the bot? It seems to have just replaced a warning instead of adding the new one. 17Drew 22:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it edit conflicted with its-self. ^∆ 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images

Betacommand, you may be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images#CopyrightByWikimedia which has been prompted by recent edits by BetacommandBot. —Bkell (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Blocked

Just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you hadn't noticed that I blocked BetacommandBot. It was still tagging Wikipedia screenshots and other images whose copyright is owned (partially or fully) by the WMF. According to the thread above, you had fixed this; however, it is clear that it is not fixed. Please do fix this behavior, test it, and only then unblock (or get me or someone else to unblock) the bot. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

MKDSluvr saw the fair use rationale for Image:Mario Party 8.jpg

Look at the Mario Party 8 talk page.

that is a unsupported template rationale format. ^∆ 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, the approval of your bot is limited to tagging pages with no fair use rationale at all, not to deciding what format those rationales have to be in to facilitate your bot's operation. These people may be happy to comply because you asked them sort of nicely, but not everyone wants to subst. their templates. I'll support you on this if we can get some accepted guidelines regarding what kind of templates are acceptable to use. Wikidemo 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. Subst the templates and it will be ok. --Durin 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)e[reply]

The approval was to tag rationales with no fair use guideline. It was not approved as a bot to force people to subst. their templates. At any rate, the point is moot for this particular image. Wikidemo 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace transclusion is not proper and a mis-use of transclusion. Like I have said either use {{non-free media rationale}} or subst it? otherwise file the arbcom case because Im sick of complaints that have zero ground. ^∆ 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always request the bot be blocked. Not likely to succeed, but you can. --Durin 21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration on the matter would shut down the bot. He has a history of bullying by bot. I'm just asking him to confine his bot to its approved use and play by the rules Wikipedia set out. But you know, it's unfair to try to provoke me at Betacommand's expense. He's been downright polite lately. Wikidemo 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the rationale formats that have been discussed I have no problem with, my issue is that everyone and their kid brothers creating custom transcluded templates, how can you check for rationales if that happens? why not just have a uniform method? ^∆ 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed out the dispute resolution process to you. If despite this you feel that taking this to ArbCom is the next step, I won't stop you. But, as I said before, don't be surprised when it's rejected out of hand for failure to follow the dispute resolution process. I am not attempting to provoke you. I am telling you what your options are. If that's provocation, so be it. --Durin 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Betacommand, Durin and I are having our own debate today that doesn't involve you directly. What I would like for my templates to do is simply feed information into the existing FURG template. So you can simply look for that template (and perhaps someday verify that the information inside is filled out). Sharool (sorry if I forget the exact name) suggested something I initially didn't like, but is making more and more sense, that whatever template I use it should subst. at the time it is saved. The problem right now is just the limits of template programming. I want all the information from my templates to subst. into the main FURG template, so what gets saved is a FURG template that happens to have fields my templates help the user fill out. So what your bots will see is a FURG template. I would probably want to preserve the fields my template used to create it, but those are fields the FURG template would not process. For example, you suggested that I add a field for critical commentary. If there is any critical commentary about the image in the article you fill out a descriptive field to say what it is. There is not such a field in the FURG template; it would have to be appended to the Purpose field. That is fine, but we might as well preserve for the sake of recordkeeping that the user entered that information. I hope that's making sense. The bottom line is that I think it's best if we stick to a single recognized fair use rationale template in a standard format, I just need a little time to figure out how to get templates that transclude it to save properly. Wikidemo 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you subst the template, that means the text for standard usages can't be revised across the project if guidelines get tweaked, and also that its standardisation will likely fall apart. It also destroys the ability to easily identify and track particular forms of usage. Both of these seem to me to be advantages of unsubst'd templates it would be better not to lose. Jheald 22:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I was planning for a hybrid solution. My templates will have all seven of the FURG parameters plus a few of their own, plus one that really should be in there (Article name). When you save things, it stuffs all of them down into the seven FURG parameters and substs itself out of existence and becomes a FURG template, but with the extra parameters still in place for archival record, searching, etc. If you want to recreate what you did you can simply change the template from the FURG one and re-save it. I hope that makes some sense, you never know how much sense you're making when you write in English about parser functions. I see the plusses and minuses of both. Yes, it would be best if we can tweak the rationales if the guidelines get tweaked. On the other hand the uploader / editor approved of the language before saving it and personally assured himself it was true. Would he approve of the tweaked version? He might have signed off that the image was, say, important to show something. But if we change the requirement to say it has to be essential, would he really have agreed to that language? It's a pretty simple issue, really. As long as we save the variables plus the final version the editor agreed to, we have everything we're going to get from them. Wikidemo 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record Image:Gpacket logo.gif is an example of an image tagged tonight by BCbot, despite one of Wikidemo's templates.

Suggest BCbot checks the templates it finds against a whitelist including {{Logo fur}} etc. Jheald 00:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember reviewing that image personally today, making sure it was used properly, filling out the template, and saving it. It clearly qualifies for allowable non-free content. In fact I remember making sure that I could stand behind the claims made in the template. So I spent several minutes. In fact, as you can see from the history I was experimenting with this very page on the difference between substituting and just leaving the template. There's no reason or excuse the uploader didn't use a proper fair use rationale. But they didn't. I tried to help. Things like this are exactly why we need oversight, consensus, and public participation in the project. Ultimately we will have to go with a white list or some other programmatic solution. But until then we can't just hang with baited breath on what the bot decides to do today. It was approved for a specific, narrow purpose, to find missing fair use rationales. Not to make policy and standards over the next 9 months over what everyone has to do.

Sorry that was my error/mis-understanding of how that template is used. I thought that you substed it and it became the {{non-free media rationale}}. sorry Ill fix that now. ^∆ 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bd galactus-visage.jpg

It's actually being used, just as a link instead of a pic:Galactus

The page is picture heavy and if I post it as a picture, it keeps getting reverted. Posting it as a link let's us both get what we want: the picture is still there without messing up the page. It was agreed upon as a compromise. HalfShadow 23:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image needs to be displayed to be "in use". There's no exceptions. I've changed the link to the image to displaying the image as a thumb, and on the left. This makes it non-orphaned. --Durin 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:May31-Jpkoester-cdvf.jpg

You said this image was orphaned when it wasn't. It wasn't supposed to illustrate encyclopedic content, but a problem with one of the Wikipedia-related programs. Since when is it not allowed to post a screenshot of Wikipedia on Wikipedia to illustrate a problem? - Mgm|^(talk) 04:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore that message, There is a issue with wikipedia screen shots. ^∆ 04:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tangeline.jpg)

It was taken out of an article to due vandalism, but has been replaced.--Migospia †♥ 09:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can remove the orphan tag from the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still orphaned. It's also missing a fair use rationale. --Durin 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By template listing

I've turned the log you kindly made for me here into a breakdown of templates seen, and the images for each one: User:Jheald/BCbot/2007_0709. Perl program here.

It's quite a mixture - I haven't weeded out things like Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale. But quite interesting, to see the balance. And quite useful, I think, to have the separate listings under eg Template:Non-free album cover, Template:Non-free book cover, Template:Non-free magazine cover, Template:Non-free television screenshot, etc.

Could you run the bot in non-tagging mode to produce a similar by-template listing for the images in Category:Images with no fair use rationale and Category:All disputed non-free images for similar analysis? That would be really useful. Jheald 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done check my toolserver page[8] ^∆ 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! However disputed non-free images.txt looks good, but with no fair use rationale.txt appears to be broken. Jheald 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toolserver bot hogging server...

Please check your bot on the toolserver. We have a server load of 200+, most probably because of one of your bots getting confused... Siebrand 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot bug

I tagged Image:Poliwrath tcg.jpg with a substed {{Orfud}} (which substitutes a {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag), and your bot left a duplicate notice. I got rid of the duplicate. Could you please program your bot to check the image page first to look for {{di-orphaned fair use}} before the image is tagged with {{Orfud}}? I think that the reason your bot is not catching this first is that {{Orfud}} now points to a different tag than it used to point to. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

betacommandbot erases from buttons and banners page

THere is a project page for button and banners to promote wikipedia. The bot has been marking images there for deletion. THis issue has arisen before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Banners_and_buttons. THe consensus is that banners and buttons are not deleted because they are used offsite to link to wikipedia.Mrdthree 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again!!!

You're the main reason why I had to clear out my user talk page twice already!!! I suppose, any image I put up on Wikipedia isn't satisfactory! :{ TMC1982 12:00 a.m. 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You could of course avoid a lot of that by adding fair use rationales to the non-free content you upload. A look at your talk page indicates that you don't tend to do that a lot. --Pekaje 14:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WDMK-FM.jpg

The bot tagged Image:WDMK-FM.jpg with Template:di-no fair use rationale twice. Don't know if that was a random fluke or what. JPG-GR 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was from someone changing the templates ^∆ 23:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canorus-logo-full

I uploaded Image:Canorus-logo-full.svg hoping to use it on the Canorus article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia crops the SVG so that the displayed PNG is different from the original SVG (it cuts off the "s" in "Canorus"). This is why it is currently "orphaned." Do you know why this is or how it can be fixed?--Dbolton 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WCBU2.jpg

I currently work at WCBU radio and was given permission (actually, I was asked to use this logo) by the Executive Director of the station. As far as I know, this logo is not copywritten and was used on their website. How do I go about keeping this logo on the WCBU wikipage? -- Thunderstix33 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept media under a permission to use on Wikipedia license, if that is what you mean. See Template:Copyrighted. It is highly unlikely that the radio station has release rights to its logo under a free license. Thus, we must treat the image as a fair use image, which it is properly tagged as. With that in mind, it must have an appropriate fair use rationale associated with it. Please see WP:FURG for guidance. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacomandbot bug

Betacommand bot tagged a couple of GDFL/Copyright Wikimedia Foundations as orpahned where they still had pages linking to them. See here, and also on a lot of the images seen in the User:Esteffect/April Fool's Day, 2005 gallery

A list of wrongly tagged images can be found on User talk:Esteffect's talk page

Af 648 03:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Last night's no fair use tags

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that some (many? most?) of the notices made last night had what looks like a mistake in the period stated for how long the uploader has to add a rationale. The templates on the image file and the article talk page(s) seem right, at seven days, but the notice on my user page said "a couple days" and was subst-ed onto the page, meaning there is no easy way to fix it. If you can catch this today and give people a correction or a new notice on their talk page, then the notices on the other pages are still correct as to date.

Nice notice, by the way - it's a good example of encouraging people to fix things and not making them feel bad like they've done something too wrong. Incidentally, I created a modified templates that you could substitute in on an emergency basis in case you ever have to retract a notice or do re-notice, but after I reflected on it I'm not sure whether it's helpful or not. You would want to add a date test or some other conditional statement there so that if you send out 1,000 bad tags and there are 10,000 good tags that point to the template, it only catches the 1,000 bad ones. It's at Template:Deletable image (deficient notice). Feel free to use, delete (or let me know how I can delete them), etc. Take care, Wikidemo 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on closer look maybe the 2-day period is the correct one for the new images, but the seven day notice on the image and talk pages is longer than required. Just letting you know, in case you don't already. Wikidemo 05:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wrinkly Kong

I uploaded that for a personal purpose. You can delete it. --Coconutfred73 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up fair abuse

I want to clear some of the badly backed-up fair-abuse categories. The deletions i'll do by hand from Firefox tabs, 'cos bot-deletion is considered evil - but I want something a little less laborious to fix the articles I'm zapping the images from (because leaving red links is considered impolite and untidy). I'm talking about the daily categories of 400-500 images that need to die. I'll be giving WP:NPW a spin, but was wondering if you have any other suitable tools for the task. Alternately, feel free to unlink a category over a month old and point me at it to zap the contents :-) I'm not on IRC much of late, but of course I do check my talk page and have email - David Gerard 15:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahaha. User:Freaksock/image_fun.js does the cleanup job very nicely. I shall ... beta test it. Thoroughly. - David Gerard 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpebiBot

Look, I'm really sorry to be bothering you again about SpebiBot, but... when do you think you could send me the source code, so I could start running the bot? Thanks again for writing me the code, it is much appreciated. Kind regards, Sebi _[talk] 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:CheatBase.JPG

Why is this image unfree? -PatPeter 20:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a copyrighted logo. ^∆ 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

I'm not going to provide you with the satisfaction by writing up fair use justifications for obvious cases that have been up on wikipedia for months. I don't care if the boiler plates aren't enough anymore, it isn't worth my time. If you want to destroy wikipedia by gutting it of all it's images go right ahead.--God Ω War 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Stop flooding my talk page with bot messages and please just start a bot to delete all images uploaded by me. Thank you. 23skidoo 04:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot delete images, second per Policy you have to provide rationales and should have done so since early 2005. If you choose to ignore policy then what happens is your fault. ^∆ 02:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double tag

Your bot tagged Image:Townsend_harris_seal.gif twice in the same day. I'm guessing (hoping?) that's not the intended behavior. Bgruber 17:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Known, fixed, issue. ^∆ 02:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

Can I upload images of the logos of political parties in Galicia? I think that this must be fair use... sorry for my english.--Norrin_strange (Talk) 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow policy i see no problems. ^∆ 02:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I have some questions regarding images and copyrights and I was wondering if maybe you could help, or if perhaps you know of a user on wikipedia who is learned on the subject?

--Mrlopez2681 01:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and ask. If I cannot answer the question people watching this page will be able to. ^∆ 02:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshots

Your bot has tagged some of my images I have added for criminals. All of the photos I use are mugshots {{mugshot}}. All mugshot are fair use under the Freedom of Information Act, at least in the US. If you could please contact me regarding this I would appreciate it. Thanks, Jmm6f488 04:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the last paragraph of the template, To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work. ^∆ 05:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need images deleted

I need the following images promptly deleted from wikipedia. Can I do it myself or must a bot do it?

Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Olga Preobrajenska -1895.JPG

Image:Golden Fish -Underwater Scene -2.jpg

Image:Caprices of a Butterfly -Victor Aleksandrovich Semenov, Elena Mikhailovna Lukom & Vladimir Ponomarev -1919 -3.JPG

Image:Corsaire - Enrichetta Grimaldi -Moscow -1901.JPG

Image:Harlequinade -Serenade -Vladimir Ponomareyev -1910.JPG

Image:Humpbacked Horse Karsavina.JPG

Image:-Bluebird -Pierre Vladimirov -1910.jpg

Image:Awakening Of Flora -Mathilde Kschessinska & Vera Trefilova -1905 -1.jpg

Image:Harlequinade -Vera Petipa -1905.JPG

Image:Corsaire -Pierina Legnani as Medora & Pavel Gerdt as Conrad -1899.JPG

Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Tamara Karsavina -circa 1910.JPG

Image:Corsaire -Medora -Tamara Karsavina -circa 1910.JPG

Image:Pharoah's Daughter -Vera Karalli as Aspicia, Sofia Fedorova as Hita, & Kozlov as Taor -1909.JPG Image:Pharoah's Daughter -Vera Karalli as Aspicia, Sofia Fedorova as Hita, & Kozlov as Taor -1909.JPG

Image:Tgfminkus.jpg

Image:Camargo.JPG

Image:GoldFish2.jpg

Image:GOLDFish1.jpg

Image:Mlada -Mathilde Kschessinska -1900.jpg

Image:Camargo.JPG

Image:Corsaire -Pierina Legnani as Medora & Pavel Gerdt as Conrad -1899.JPG

Image:Harlequinade -Vera Petipa -1905.JPG

Image:Fairy tale.JPG

Image:Harlequinade -Serenade -Vladimir Ponomareyev -1910.JPG

Image:Tamara Karsavina -circa 1910.JPG

Image:Fille Mal Gardee -Widow Simone -Konstantin Varlamov -1895.JPG

Image:Awakening Of Flora -Mathilde Kschessinska & Vera Trefilova -1905 -3.JPG

Image:Rtyrte.JPG

Image:Bayadere -Bazhok-Golden Idol -Nikolai Zubkovsky -1941.JPG

--Mrlopez2681 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-author}} should do it. ^∆ 05:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Mrlopez2681 05:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot continues to flag Fair Use media

Your bot continues to leave annoying messages on my talk page about Fair Use images I have uploaded. These images are Logos and Screeshots and have been templated as such. Please restrain your bot. --Munchkinguy 06:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read those templates, as you are required to provide rationales for them. ^∆ 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platowasabore

Pfff lol. Man, I need to read between the lines! Getting a bit too late for me now :). Thanks though! Jmlk 1 7 07:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm loving the fact that your bot is kicking butt with the username reports. It's keeping me busy! Jmlk 1 7 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert duplicate messages

Hi. I'm sure you've noticed that the messages your bot leaves really piss people off. It is now leaving duplicate messages about the same image. Please undo those duplicate messages ASAP (or else apologise on all the talk pages with duplicate messages). Thanks, CWC 08:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates:

You claimed to earlier on this page to have fixed this bug. You were wrong.
The bot is also duplicating messages on Image: pages.
Please do not run buggy software on live systems!
Do you read http://worsethanfailure.com? Scary stuff, but motivational.

Cheers, CWC 08:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CWC. Betacommand's bot is an important and authorized resource for Wikipedia. If you have concerns regarding some function of the bot, I'm sure it will be dealt with. But, please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. j talk 11:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wrong, Yes it made errors on the 11, But since the issue was brought to my attention I fixed the problem. As for needing to apologize I dont see the need. Editors involved with the images/pages in question will resolve them. I do not write buggy code, users changed templates that the bot uses and created new versions without informing me. and the bot did not recognize the new template. that problem will solve itself. Thanks and have a nice day. ^∆ 23:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate messages, please shut down

The bot is adding duplicate messages to talk pages. Eg., [9], [10]. Please don't let it do that. CWC 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

UAA

Could you please point me too your BRFA for UAA work? I was unaware that you're bot was approved for UAA, and I cannot find any BetacommandBot BRFA's for UAA. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's editing again, can you please request approval? --ST47Talk 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it would be greatly appreciated if the bot would stay shut down, instead of starting back up again when the MiszaBot comes through and wipes the talkpage. Shadow1 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

Can you please clarify this entry:

MooOoOoOonii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was reported because bad phrase ([^\d]+?)\1{3,} was detected BetacommandBot 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

specifically, the bunch of code? Thanks. —Kurykh 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That means "any character or characters that does not include a number repeated 3 or more times", I.E. BetaBetaBeta, or in this case, OoOoOo. --ST47Talk 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if this bot would do as HighInBc's bot does and points out exactly what the regex matches, as most folks don't know what regex is, let alone how to read it. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering indefinitely blocking your bot

Your bot is tagging logos incorrectly. I'm considering blocking it until you stop doing this. Every other fair use image is OK, but as I've said before logos shouldn't be tagged like your bot is doing. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry Logos are not exempt to policy. If a fair use image lacks rationale then it needs to be fixed. Im sorry but I dont see any problem. ^∆ 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oho, so now you don't mind replying to me. Sorry, but your bot is out of control. Your signature sucks, btw. Strongly advise you change it, I didn't know who I was replying to at a glance on WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta bu shi da yu, the question of whether or not logos should need individual rationales was discussed ad nauseam and, like it or not, policy is that they should. I'm personally not a big friend of this requirement either but I must tell you your block of the bot has no consensus behind it (as you should have known from the discussion on ANI too). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is now unblocked per consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Advise requested on User:BetacommandBot. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FU header

when we put in a FU rationale, is it necessary to make a section on the image page called "Fair Use rationale"? ie, does the bot look for this header or what exactly does it look for?Rlevse 12:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to do anything special. The bot only looks for a few key Items. Right now it looks at pages and checks to see if there are more than 20 characters besides templates. (IE is there anything except templates on the image). During the next checking phase, it will look for the page name for where fair use is being claimed. (it doesnt matter if its wiki linked or not). So as long as you add a valid rationale you shouldnt have a problem. ^∆ 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

BC, it would be awesome if you could change your signature so it states your username in some form; a single triangle is very confusing. Thanks. Neil ╦ 16:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Or at least make the symbol a link to your User page. Something to indicate who the heck you are when you sign posts. --ElKevbo 16:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

look what your bot did

Why the hell did your bot do this? The sunder king 17:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also spammed the talkpage of Sunderland A.F.C. The sunder king 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pywikipedia

I have a question. Could you write a bot script in python/pywikipedia that uploads a text file to the same page every 2 minutes or so? Also, could the bot remove edits older then PERIOD OF TIME from the page? You could possibly leave those blank/add FILL IN SO & SO HERE. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Theblastcover.jpg

Ok, so your bot is spamming me, and image pages. The tag that was put on this image, and my talk page TWICE, doesn't even refer to the tag on the image. The image is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN, as pointed out by the tag on the image, but your bot seems to be concerned with some Fair Use issue, which should be irrellevant, as the image is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Please fix this, or tell me what is to be done. Murderbike 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its taken care of, sorry about that. ^∆ 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Murderbike 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like there's bugs in the bot? Are they going to be fixed? McKay 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt really a bug just a timing problem, Murderbike changed the license tag on the image, and the bot did not catch that. If you note in my response above I said the issue was fixed. ^∆ 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you crazy? Lemme break it down for you:

The bot added this notice properly. There was an issue, it tagged it. No problem
Murderbike in a single edit removed the old tag, and changed it to public domain.
7 hours later the bot mistakenly added a different tag.
Timing issue?
1. 7 hours? The timing should be be better than that
2. why did it it put on a different tag, wouldn't it have put on the same tag
3. why didn't it see that the previous version already had a tag placed on it by itself.
QED, not timing issue.
20 minutes later, the bot adds another idential tag. Maybe this is a timing issue, but if the bot is stamping on its own feet, then the bot needs to be reworked.

Care to change your stance some. You've got a horrid case.

Ok please stop your attacks and AGF 1.) the templates that I use {{nrd}} and others have recently been replaced. with a {{di-xxxxxx style formating. When nrd is substed it automatically fills variables into a second template. that second template is what appears on the images. Since these were changed no one told me about that and since I found out I have adapted the programming. As for the timing error It was working off a stale list that I had generated the day before. the bot made no mistakes the errors lay with humans, who-ever changed the templates and myself for forgetting to refresh the list it works off of. so stop your personal attacks when you dont know what your talking about. ^∆ 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really what I'm saying is that this bot is running rampant, making changes that aren't checked. (1)Doubly tagging images, (2)multi-tagging article talk pages, (3)not recognizing valid fair use rationales. I think a re-tooling might be in order. McKay 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your mistaken and its not ignoring valid rationales. The fact that there was an error in regard to templates was minor and it was fixed rather quickly. ^∆ 02:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you're saying is if they change the tl|nrd again, all of the images that use the old one will be tagged again? Or has that error been fixed?
Take a look at Talk:Mario Party 8. Look at the edits your bot made. Very pretty.
Your bot doesn't recognize my FUR template. And others's FUR template. This bot doesn't have the authority to make us subst our templates.

What I'm saying is that this bot does have issues. They should be looked at. McKay 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to replace 2 images

I would like to replace the main images for Tiff and Tuff, please. Two reasons:

1. It's better if each image contained solo characters. 2. If they contained multiple characters, it might be complicated to see who's the main character in the image.

I promise I will not upload any more images than this -- 2 is quite a very limited number for using screenshots. I will also put up fair use rationales for both.

I tried to contact the uploaders for the original images, but they didn't respond. Thank you. Jonghyunchung 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead I have no objections if you follow policy. ^∆ 21:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antiword Article

Today I looked to see if there was an antiword article. I saw that you had deleted one three months ago and I was wondering what exactly was wrong that made it "blatant advertising". I use antiword at home and work frequently and would like to see an article written for it, but I want to avoid writing something that will be deleted. --Mosquitopsu 00:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it follows WP:NPOV and doesnt read like an advert and is properly sourced and written I would see mo porblem. ^∆ 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Keeper boxart

float|right I'm not sure if it's a problem with the bot or with the rationale, but can you have a manual look at the Zoo Keeper boxart? Directly below your bot's message is a fair-use rationale, which was already in place before the bot visit - check the history. Tim (Xevious) 10:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no rationale on that image.^∆ 13:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free Wikimedia logo

Images with Template:Non-free Wikimedia logo are not fair use, as I understand, based on m:Logo and trademark policy. I can AWB away the deletion tags for the ones that haven't been deleted. Do you have any way of seeing which (if any) have been deleted? Λυδαcιτγ 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not ^∆ 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot spat on my talk page...

So here I am.

Image:Edit.JPG is owned by Wikimedia and is already released under license in the form of Wikipedia. - Tεx τ urε 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting of usernames containing "="

In this edit your automated script reported a username containing "=", but because of the templating syntax, it did not appear properly. I think this came up a while ago when we had discussed automated reporting and the AIV helperbots, and the solution is to explicitly specify the "1=" before the username. This can safely be done with all username reports, and the AIV helperbots understand this syntax and can remove the reports correctly. If you could update your script to make reports using {{userlinks|1=<username>}} instead of {{userlinks|<username>}}, that would be great. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me slaps old regex. Ill remove that flag. ^∆ 21:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For running a bot from your main account. Notification has also been placed on WP:ANI. Viridae ^Talk

Please unblock. You should have at least done me the favor of asking what was happening before blocking. It happens that I am not running the script on the toolserver like I normally do. (Im using it for non-posting data gathering that is already gotten from the IRC feed that the bot uses) and am logging that on my personal PC. Because I also have several Non-bot python scripts that use the same file sets (pywikipeda) I forgot to change the config file from usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'Betacommand' to usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'BetacommandBot' so instead of using the bot account it was using my account, I did not even know it was happening until you blocked me. ^∆ 04:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you might have worked out it was a mistake on my part, and that I was sorry for the block. However if you weeren't you are now :). Any luck on finding your entry in m:Special:Log/rights? I can't find any other desysopped admin either. Or is that just for meta actions??? Viridae ^Talk 05:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats /bomg

[11] Is it supposed to be bong? Viridae ^Talk 05:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that /bomg and \bomg are two completely separate things. \bomg is a regular expression for finding the term omg at the beginning of a word. it would find omgjimbosdead but wouldnt find jimbomgitti. ^∆ 05:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks. Not a programmer. (but I know what a regex is) Viridae ^Talk 05:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View comments

Helllo! I hope you are feeling great. I would like to have your opinion with regards to my comments here. Your opinion would be valuable here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Donkey Kong.jpg

You may delete that image since an updated version has been posted. --Coconutfred73 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot can't delete images ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I can (and did). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I posted Image:Cat_dude.jpeg as a picture for my userpage. Since it is an lolcat picture, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find ownership. The picture is not an orphan and is used. If you could help me find a suitable picture template, I would appericate it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that Image is being released under the cc-by-nc-sa creative commons license. because its a cc-by-nc-sa we cannot have it on wikipedia. ^∆ 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted under the template {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. That should work for everyone.

But that is not correct. the website is licensed under version 3.0 not 2.5. ^∆ 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website claims to be cc-by-nc-sa-3.0, which we won't accept, but even if we would it's not a valid claim for the images, those cat images are taken randomly off the web and these sites are saturated with copyright violations. --Gmaxwell 12:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your robot

Your robot has mixed up the logo I added to my unfinished article as a "Fair use" image when it was not. I suggest that You look into what caused your bot to malfunction and delete my image. Thank you.

--Muriness 06:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot did not malfunction, Logos are non-free media. ^∆ 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Image:mappart1, part2, part3

Did you not read the descriptions on the image pages?

I only uploaded these images for them to be improved by the graphics lab! This is clearly stated in the description. I never intended for the images to be used in articles! Therefore, I do not need to be pestered with a message telling me so. Please check in future.

As it happens, the images are now not needed, as the graphics lab has finished with them. I therefore give you permission to delete them. Please do not leave any more such messages on my talk page.

Regards, Dewarw 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While on the site, an image must comply with our licensing policies. Also, please find another website, Wikipedia ain't a free webhost, if that's the use you're describing. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image market by your BOT

User:BetacommandBot was market this image for speddy deletion (Image:KION logo.svg), the wikipedia rules say this: This image or media is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Unless some reason to retain it is given, the image will be deleted after Wednesday, 25 July 2007. Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles..

The image was created for use in this article: Kion de Mexico, but i have problems with the image editor in my pc i see perfect rhe image, but in the browser this is no visible, for this reason y not in in use at the moment, because this i has uploaded the image in PNG format.

If you or any other user can help me to edit the image in format SVG i think is a better option deleting the image in format PNG. Thanks --Mnts 14:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really create the image as a SVG, you simply loaded a bitmap image into inkscape and tried to save it. As a result the SVG just references a file on your hard disk called "C:\Documents and Settings\Alejandro\Escritorio\KION logo 2.bmp". SVG's with images stuffed in them, especially images on your disk, are not going to work for us. --Gmaxwell 14:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image notices

Please delete all images I have posted that your "Betacommandbot" has notified me about. I have not intention of posting any additional information on fair use rationale because it apparently doesn't matter whether I do or not. You do not need to notify about deleting thes images, I'm sick of getting your messages on my talk page. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Squad51 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ACAT logo.JPG

Dear Mr. Bot. You continually post on my talk page and I continually respond regarding Image:ACAT logo.JPG. That image is used on a user page for an upcoming article. Per Unused unfree images speedy delete criteria, reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. I've responded on my talk page, the image talk page, and the image page. Is there something that more I can do? Is there an image page template regarding this unused unfree image exception that I could post on the image page so that you will acknowledge my replies? Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Humans rule![reply]

Concern about BetacommandBot

Greetings. I left a note for you at User_talk:BetacommandBot#Rationales. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use tagging for images with {{Wrong-license}}

Hi. I noticed that BetacommandBot has been tagging images tagged with {{Wrong-license}} as fair use images lacking rationale. This is usually incorrect, as most of those images aren't claimed to be under fair use. Whether or not they need to be so to be used on Wikipedia is a matter of image source verification, which isn't exactly being facilitated by tagging images the way the bot is currently doing. You may want to look into this, thanks. Paul_012 ^(talk) 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's just checking categories. Because that template put's it in "Category:All non-free media" that's the issue at hand. I think that Wrong-license probably shouldn't be putting it in that category. McKay 18:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan re-tagging

Hi Betacommand! An image, Image:InnocentmansinglecoveMM.jpg, has been tagged by the bot twice for being an orphan. It is, of course, and orphan, so the bot is working properly, except that the orphan tag says to remove it if there is a reason given for keeping the image. There is a reason given on the page, and so I've removed the tag. Since it was re-tagged, though, I wondered if there was some way to let the bot know that the requested reasoning is present on the page. (For reference, this image was on Mark Morrison, but it's been agreed to remove it from the article temporarily pending a fair use review). Thanks! Cmprince 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales

Greetings. I am very involved in non-free content policy, and I agree that non-free images without rationales should be deleted. I appreciate the work that BetacommandBot does. However I am concerned that this bot is tagging for deletion many images that have acceptable rationales, but that merely do not use a specific template. Using that template is not required by NFCC#10, and so these images should not be tagged for deletion. See Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Rampant_User:BetacommandBot for more. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proceedure for removing tags

It has been stated that the removal to warning tags should be refered back to the user placing them. Could you please post a policy on your bot user page stating that it is OK to delete tags after the copyright issues have been handled. See Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg with tag posted to Talk:Deewar (TV series)Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is ok, if the problem has been taken care of. You do not need special permission. Where did you read such a recommendation? It is inaccurate and should be fixed. --Durin 03:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Plion.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Plion.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

I uploaded the images listed below some time ago, and I have learned recently that they are in fact copyrighted (I was contacted by the copyright holder and asked if I could kindly remove them). I informed the copyright holder I would have them deleted as soon as possible.

I asked User:DESiegel to delete the images, and I was informed that, due to the fact that most of them were uploaded under pd-old, they could not simply be deleted due to my request.

So, I have changed the tag on the images 'Fair use in article' without providing a rationale or without them being used in an article to get them deleted ASAP.

If you can please help me in getting them off of wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate it. --Mrlopez2681 05:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19th and early 20th century photos are very unlikely to be copyrighted. According to the Russian law all anonymous photos printed before 1954 and all photos whose author died before 1954 are public domain. I have sent Mrlopez an E-mail asking to forward the demand from the alleged copyright holder. Please wait a few days until the info is cleared. If needed I would delete the photos myself Alex Bakharev 09:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpebiBot up and running

Hi Betacommand, and thanks again for writing the script for SpebiBot for me. I'm currently running the bot script, and it produced one good subst (this one) ... ooh and as we speak more changes! I was wondering, the bot has a bot flag, yet all of its edits aren't marked as bot edits... would you be able to show me how to include in subst.py the code that makes the edits marked as bot edits? Thanks again for all your help, Sebi _[talk] 05:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that means that you dont have a bot flag then. ^∆ 11:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a bot flag... [12]: at the bottom of the list, however, [13] brings up nothing. Sebi _[talk] 05:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot ignores {{notorphan}} tag.

The betacommandbot ignores the {{notorphan}} tag. Pages with this tag should be brought to the attention of a sentient user. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need those images are orphans. that tag was designed for allowing inline links to non free images. No such links exist for images that BCBot tags. ^∆ 01:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PuzzlePotato.png

Thans for letting me know about that. I uploaded the image so that I could create an article about it but I got busy and stuff. Anyways my understanding is that I can upload it again once I've started the article about it Please let me know if I misunderstood.

Cheers--AragornSonOfArathorn 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Ruthann cover front.jpg

Hello. You tagged the image I uploaded as "Orphaned non-free image", but I want to say that I got the direct permision to use it from 1-2-3 Crocodile Music, or concretely - Onur Tezgeldi. They gave me full rights to use it in the article. The other point is if I should use a smaller image. Maybe about 200x200? Hope we will decide this question.

PS: sorry if I wrote in a wrong place. ILIAS

As long as the image is used there should be no problem. the reason that you were notified was that the image was not being used. ^∆ 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pd-ineligible

Your bot just tagged Image:Plot warning.png as needing a fair use rationale. Considering that the image is tagged as pd-ineligible, this seems slightly irrational. Bug? --tjstrf talk 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was classified as non free, [14] by orphanbot. ^∆ 01:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should go bug Carnildo instead then. It looks to me like that Orphanbot template needs to be fixed, to not include the fair use media category. The other two categories it adds are the relevant ones for the deletion process, and that's not the first time I've seen it tag PD or GFDL/CC images as needing a source either. --tjstrf talk 02:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:53logo.JPG

Thanks for the explanation. I guess editors wouldn't be able to handle any more :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

Thank you for letting me know about the images. Apparently someone else uploaded newer (still the same though) images that are used in the Girlfriends article. Is there any way I can delete them or I just have to wait until someone else do that? Ceddy06 03:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP Application

Hello, and thank you for reviewing my application for VP. Would you please specify the requirements, as I've been active in helping with Vandalized pages, have never been involved in any edit war or conflict, have close to 900 edit counts, (The requirements listed on the page said 250+,) and I've been registered for 2 years. I'd just like to know what is required to be accepted. Thank you very much for your time. :) ^Ariel♥Gold 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue that I saw that of your total 879 edits, 830 of those were made within the last 24 days. (Normally we like to see a few months of continuous activity) Ill look into your history closer and see if I judged too quickly. ^∆ 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this happens every time a lot of applications are dealt with, but I, in fact, have the same question for Betacommand, and you just barely beat me to it. :) Therefore, to Betacommand: so I have an idea of when to apply again, may I ask what specifically led to your decision to decline the application? Like Ariel, I notice my "edit count" is a bit higher and my anti-vandalism work is a bit more frequent than several others approved in this batch. I realize edit count is only one factor, so clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks! j talk 23:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened, I approved you. ^∆ 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. Thanks for the follow-up. Take care, j talk 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason that the "activity" has been in the last week or so, much higher, is I'm on summer break, (Master's Degree work leaves little time for play - yes, I find AV fighting fun! hee hee) and I've been able to devote lots of time, because I have nothing else to do, and I very much enjoy keeping Wikipedia vandal free.

I'd also like to note that if I have any question about the suspected edits, I do take the time to review the past versions, compare text, spell check, and then make a decision, (or if undecided, I will tend to ask another editor for advice or assistance.) I don't act without thinking, and only hit the "Rollback: Vandal" button (TW) when it is obvious (Swearing, racism/hate speech, etc.) The reason I'd love to use VP is that I'm currently using simply an IRC program, and the bot commands/chat are a lot to wade through, and I feel I could be more effective, and faster if using a program that could help me see those things that need attention faster.

Thank you for your consideration, I look forward to a final decision. :) ^Ariel♥Gold 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommandbot orphaned non-free notice after speedy tag

Betacommandbot sent a notice about an orphaned non-free image, after I deliberately orphaned File:070722-mybloglog-logo.jpg ( log ) and placed a {{db-self}} tag to request removal. I wonder if detection of existing {{prod}} or {{db}} requests could be easily detected? Thanks for all the wonderful work. ∴ here…♠ 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned notice on image used in infobox

This time an incorrect notice about Image:Helium_logo.jpg, which looks orphaned ( Special:Whatlinkshere/Image:Helium_logo.jpg ), but is used in a {{Infobox Company}} template at Helium.com. Just letting you know.. ∴ here…♠ 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someone messed with {{Infobox Company}} and the option for images that caused the images not to appear. ^∆ 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalproof application

Hi. Thanks for taking your time to check my request for approval. I have noticced that most moderators who check approvals leave a reason for declining of requests. I would be grateful if you could do the same so that I know when I can re-apply if at all possible. ThanksTbo 157 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was because most of your edits are in the last 24 days. ^∆ 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Can I please ask how long you should have edited on wikipedia before applying for approval. The approval request page suggests that you should be actively editing for a month and I have been a registered user since April, but have made more edits in the last month when I have had more time. Sorry for adding to the amount of similar queries you get.Tbo 157 14:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oberweis Dairy.png

I'm not sure why the bot tagged this picture as an orphan. It's not (and wasn't before the bot tagged it, either). Maybe I have the license wrong? Since I uploaded the file, I'll leave the tag on there for now. Jauerback 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there was a problem with the info box template that prevented logos from appearing and that was why it was tagged by mistake. ^∆ 15:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP approval

I was most pleased to see I had been approved for VandalProof, but the program's 'verify authorization' button keeps claiming I'm not authorized to use the program. Is this in error in my IE or my program version, or is there a list that needs to be updated? Thanks, I'm looking forward to trying out the program! Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is happening to me as well. Strangely enough, I was on and checking things out earlier today, but can't get on now for the reasons expressed by Eliz81 above. Hope you can help...Have a good one, Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalproof Application

Heya, was curious about why my application was denied. I have zillions of reverts and tons of thanks for reverting userpage vandalism, an anti vandalism barnstar, and a comment asking me why I wasn't approved before I even knew it :) . Feedback would be much appreciated. Cheers! - superβεεcat 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, could you take a look at this?

Thank you for helping clear up the confusing re: My VP Application. I was approved, and downloaded the program. Upon first use, I did no edits, just got familiar with the layout, and then I went over to my browser to read the user guide. If you could take a look at the issue I posted over on the Discussion page, I would really appreciate it. It has me a bit worried, and I've closed the program, and won't run it until I hear back regarding this issue, due to concerns the program did something it should not have done.

Thank you sincerely for your time! ^Ariel♥Gold 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot script

Could you write a Python script that gets the text to edit a page from a .txt file? Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 03:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof approval

You have recently approved me, together with User:Kai, User:Dreadstar, User:U, and User:Eliz81, for using VandalProof; however, you did not add our usernames to the User:AmiDaniel/VP/L2 page, as you did for the other approvals. Whenever I attempt to use the tool, I am being informed that "The username you are trying to connect with is not approved to use VandalProof." Could this be caused by my username's absence from the said list? CounterFX 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting this CounterFX! I'm unable to log in and get the same error message. – Dreadstar † 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me stabs VP error ^∆ 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in! Thanks!! This is awesome looking software...I'll have to donate! – Dreadstar † 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your signatue

Hello Betacommand,

Could you please change your signature so that we can more clearly tell what your username is by just reading your signature? Having the beta symbol is place of your username is not appropriate. As per WP:SIGNATURE:

"Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment, and the date and time at which it was made. Because of that, having an uncivil signature is strongly discouraged (in some cases, to the point of blocking the user until it is changed). In general, anything that is not allowed in a user name should not be used in a signature either."

it also states that:

When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind: A distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. Some editors find it disruptive to discourse on talk pages, or when working in the edit window.

When conversing with you the first time, I didn't realise who was responding to me. Because you run a bot that tags a lot of images, you deal with a lot of newer editors. if it was confusing for me, an experienced editor and admin, I can imagine that it is very confusing for them. Therefore, I feel that your signature is inappropriate.

If you could please respond to this message, I would appreciate it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His signature links to his user page. I don't find anything confusing about it at all. ~ Wikihermit 09:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually its my talkpage that it links to. But it clearly states who I am. ^∆ 15:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-orphan image gets orphan image tags

Hi there. I recently uploaded a screenshot of the article Fighting in ice hockey when it was on the main page. The image is on WP:HOCKEY for archival purposes. I don't want anymore warnings on my talk page, please make sure that this bot disregards this image in the future. --Krm500 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fii logo.png also got incorrectly tagged as an orphan. Vagary 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emerald Energy Logo.png also got incorrectly tagged as an orphan. TubularWorld 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DML.jpg is also not an orphan. It is being used in Dragon Models Limited. -- Feathered serpent 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one. Image:Capiqlogo.jpg is not an orphan, as it is being used on Capital IQ -- Richc80 02:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are all likely caused by the recent edits to {{Infobox company}} that caused images to not display within the infobox. I've reverted the change, and the images are again appearing in articles, but I suspect many images that are actually being used were tagged as orphans. - auburnpilot talk 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Longines logo.png, Image:TAG Heuer.png and Image:Oris logo.png was incorrectly tagged as orphans. I have since removed the orphan notice. Dropping a note here for the bot master. The {{Infobox company}} template needs to be locked as a high impact template editable only by admins. --Eqdoktor 06:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for removing tags

I am a bit lost and am playing catchup. I have copied the following from the history file so as to be able to reply to it and have the reply make sense. I hope that this is the right why to proceed. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been stated that the removal to warning tags should be referred back to the user placing them. Could you please post a policy on your bot user page stating that it is OK to delete tags after the copyright issues have been handled. See Image:Deewar - A Wall.jpg with tag posted to Talk:Deewar (TV series)Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is ok, if the problem has been taken care of. You do not need special permission. Where did you read such a recommendation? It is inaccurate and should be fixed. --Durin 03:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It came from a reply to a question posted on another template page, I will copy the original question and reply below: (source is Template talk:Missing rationale2

Basically it left be a bit confused as to what the proper procedure was, then applying the general policy that entries posted by others should not be deleted, has left me a bit confused. It would be nice to know just were the policy regarding warning notices and their removal can be found. Thank you for your reply Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it doesnt matter what you do with the bot messages, If the problem has been addressed you can either delete the bot notice or leave a comment below the message saying that you have addressed the issue. (In simple terms if you have fixed the problem do what ever you want with the message). ^∆ 15:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copied content starts here:

Proceedure for the proper use / deletion of this template

What is the proper proceedure for dealing with this template on article talk pages AFTER the fair use requirement have been meet making the template's use on the talk page obsolete. Dbiel ^(Talk) 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either Leave a note that you fixed the issue, remove the notice, or ignore it ^∆ 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the end of the copied content Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is playing up

Image:Ljhooker logo.jpg is just one example of it marking a non-orphaned image as orphaned. I'm blocking it till you sort this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is Image:Opel networks logo.png - was tagged as orphaned today when it isn't. -- Rob.au 09:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC) (edited my comment... didn't realise all the other comments are from today as well). -- Rob.au 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the account. If I see it play up again, I shall block the bot again. Honestly, your bot is more disruptive than some vandals! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, I suggested in the ANI thread about this recent block of the bot that you should use the API to check image usage rather than dumps. There's even a query set up just to check file links, see mw:API:Query - Lists. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate tagging

See Talk:Aporia harrietae & Talk:Aporia leucodice amongst many others. Duplicate tagging. Please stop using your bot in automated manner if its going to create work for others. AshLin 10:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first that I have heard about this, the edits your talking about happened back in November. ^∆ 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be thinking I'm complaining about really old issues.:-) True. I live in India. I'm almost the only person working on this issue in the world. I have great internet problems. I'm dealing with 1000 spp of Indian butterflies, 400 spp of snakes and truly countless number of moths. Hence I could not even detect the activities of the bot until I started assessment of Wikiproject Lepidoptera unassessed articles. Please consider this as feedback for improving it. I apologize for the abrupt tone in my earlier post. AshLin 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, If you had brought it to me sooner I might have been able to remember better and provide more help. ^∆ 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot edit to zemirot

I'm not sure why the bot would have tagged zemirot for [15] into WP law, so I have undone it for the moment. --Bachrach44 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened. ^∆ 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wirralgrrl1983

Was on a speedy tagging spree (see contribs), of articles that clearly did not fit the criteria. The user then made this claim which was pretty clearly BS. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the editor was obviously not a bot. But I've never seen anyone make that claim before, (s/he slapped a "Betacommand bot" template on the userpage as well) so I am simply alerting you. User has been blocked indef. Cheers. Dina 20:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah some goofball trying to make me look bad. ^∆ 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HarcenBot making a mistake

Your bot, User:HarcenBot, replaced a license and source information with a no source tag in this edit, and then warned me about not licensing the image or including source information. I'm not sure why this happened, but you should fix it. Natalie 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has done this three more times, as you can see in its contributions. I've blocked the bot until you can sort this out. If your userpage is correct and you are away, I suggest that you not run your bots. Natalie 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is not mine, that is some vandal that is attempting to impersonate me. Please hard block them. ^∆ 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS see the section above about the same type of vandal. ^∆ 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sucks. Sorry for the mistaken identity - it didn't even occur to me that a vandal might attempt to impersonate your bots. I did indef block them, but I'll unblock and reblock so the reason reflects that you weren't at fault. Natalie 22:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im used to it, vandals, spammmers, copyvio users all hate me. Ive had many vandals try to claim that they are me. ^∆ 22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brannigans head

Your bot is incorrect, you can go to the image to see that it has been incorporated into a userbox (as intended). It has also been listed in the Television userboxes listings so others can find & use it. --IdLoveOne 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. per WP:NFCC#9 images can only be used in the mainspace and not in userboxes. ^∆ 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free images Allisee and Actooffaith

Initially, I started articles for all of the singles released by Presence, but if you look on my talk page, you'll notice that somebody said that he thought that was overkill. So, I agreed to redirect them. If you want to delete those images that I uploaded, go right ahead. Shaneymike 12:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot doesn't delete images, it tags them. ~ Wikihermit 15:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Bot_edit_summaries. ~ Wikihermit 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

(Not) orphaned fair use images

While I commend your bot for the timely tagging of orphaned fair use images, today seemed like the exception, as 143 out of the 188 images present were not orphaned at all. Which brings me to my point: would it be possible for your bot to go through the orphaned fair use images list on the day of scheduled deletion (at 00:00 UTC or something) and de-tag those that are not orphaned? Just a suggestion from an admin going through CSD. —Kurykh 05:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that rarely happens, but because someone changed the parameters of {{infobox company}} and prevented images from displaying thus orphaning. ^∆ 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-orphaned image tagged as orphaned

Image:Mars_logo.jpg is incorrectly tagged as orphaned. It's in the article MaRS Discovery District. Thanks Chjovans 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was messing around with {{infobox company}} and disrupted how images were displayed for a short time. that "orphaned" a lot of images. ^∆ 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Renaissance Learning

I'm not sure why you tagged Image:RLI Logo.jpg with the orphan tag. It is in use on the Renaissance Learning page. Is this a glitch or something? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 06:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt a glitch, but for a short while {{infobox company}} was changed. that change prevented images from displaying. while the template was broken images were orphaned. ^∆ 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Bot?

this bot has flagged Image:Temax.gif as not being used in any articles. It is being used in Tangalakis-Temax and was being used in the same article on the 25th when the bot decided it wasn't - see page history, article unchanged for > 3 weeks.

Is the bot working ok?

Could it possibly be malfunctioning? Georgeg 14:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is fine, someone changed the {{Infobox Company}} template around that time wich caused thousands of logos to become orphanded for a while. --Sherool (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Persistent logo.gif)

As above, the bot is malfunctioning. This image, Image:Persistent logo.gif, is clearly used in Persistent Systems. BlueValour 16:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Se reply above. --Sherool (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP

Of course, but , i want to use this program on sr wikipedia. Can i ? My contrib. there Fica Blok38 13:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to sr.wiki please talk to User:AmiDaniel, the author. ^∆ 03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot

Based on Erik and Jimbo's comments, it looks like the {{cc-by-3.0}} license is now acceptable. If Betacommand currently doesn't recognize the license, would you mind adding it? 17Drew 04:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete all my images

As I have posted time and time again on other talk pages, please feel free to delete any images of mine that you find on Wikipedia. I am sick and tired of fighting against the ever increasing restrictions that will strangle and kill Wikipedia. I am sure that soon all of you rules lawyers will find a way to have the text ruled as unacceptable as well. Enjoy your blank page encyclopedia.

Epolk 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Please feel free to program a bot to delete all images uploaded by me. I no longer want them dirtying up Wikipedia. 23skidoo 02:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.{35}

Hello BetacommandBot.

I think there is a bug. What is ".{35}"? Greetings, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]