User talk:Betacommand/20080201

If I may add a more verbose "word to the wise" (verb sap), I think people would appreciate direct answers to some direct questions. As I said over in the AN thread, just "I've admited that I fucked up, I was acting in what I though was the betterment of wikipedia" and "I am sorry that my good faithed attempt to protect the encyclopedia, caused as much drama as it did" comments are not really enough. You need to say that you are sorry for doing this without proper discussion (not just for causing the drama), and to show that you will be able to judge such things better in the future and not do them again. The best way to do that is to actually discuss what happened, rather than trying to move on too quickly (cynics would say that is a way to avoid scrutiny). So here are the questions. I'm aware that you have answered some of these questions in the AN thread or elsewhere in the past, but I think repeating the answers here in one place would help. For one thing, you can then point people here when they ask.

• (1) What exactly was your role in all this?
• (2) Who did you discuss it with?
• (3) Why did you do this without any on-wiki discussion?
• (4) Given your answers to questions 1-3, what will you do when a similar request is made to you in future?
• (5) Do you accept that your "bots are usualy exempt from needing approval for user subpage editing" reasoning does not apply here?
• (6) Should the bot request have been approved by WP:BAG?
• (7) Do you accept that your bot functions need to be split up to prevent over-reliance on a single bot and to reduce the effects of any future blockings?
• (8) Do you accept that back-up bots, or clones, operated by others should be available?

That should be enough for now, though I will note that there is an unanswered question from me in that AN thread: "passing him a bot that made a bunch of garbage edits at reckless speed without informing him of its nature, although I suspect he's learned a lesson to not run unvetted code on his account" Beta, did you really run unvetted code on that account? How much did you know of what East718 was trying to do?" It would be good if you could answer that in your reply to question 1 as well. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 I just ran the code that created 1026 revisions in a user subpage of east's, that were either 0 or 1.

2 it was just east

3 there are a lot of things I do without discussion that dont cause any problems. and I did not expect this to be any different.

4 Like I have said, I try and avoid drama and I dont want repeats. so I will check with others before doing something like this again.

5. for my direct actions no approval is needed. had I known fully what east had been planning that would have been different.

6. Like I said for what my part in the issue no approval is needed, see above.

7. Like I have said Im working on that, changing large amounts of code does not happen overnight.

8. I have said that I would release my code to trusted persons under the conditions that they dont release the code, that they dont modify it, and dont use it if Im available. I dont trust OTRS for that kind of thing so I do it on a personal level.

β^_command 14:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'm happy to drop most of this now, and raise points 5 and 6 at WP:BAG. I'll note that over on AN. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know that a federal investigation is necessary in this case. The problem is solved, the parties have apologized and most of us have moved on. The fix against deleting the main page is a dirty hack that should probably have been done a long time ago. Betacommand does a difficult job that few others have shown both the willingness and ability to do - and he receives tons of undeserved (and some deserved) flak as a result. His communication isn't ideal, but he performs a valuable (and long) list of tasks. The situation is in someways similar to Giano - because his contributions are so valued, we've made and will continue to make allowances for those things that disturb us but result in no real harm. If there continues to be serious community interest in a comprehensive investigation here, perhaps an RfC is warranted rather than a list of questions posted in multiple forums.

talk 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems that Betacommand disagrees with you. I've got the answers I wanted. I'm satisfied. There, wasn't difficult, was it? Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. I don't see much in his answers that he hasn't already said elsewhere, so if this was all you were looking for... His answers should probably be crossposted to AN so it doesn't look like he is ignoring your questions when he isn't.

talk 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you like me to list what he has said here he that he hasn't said elsewhere (on-wiki at least), or would you like to list what he has said elsewhere (on-wiki)? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can correct me if I'm wrong because I'll do it without looking for references:

• He has already said he discussed it with east only/this was already known.
• He has said multiple times that he releases his code to specific people he trusts under conditions.
• He has already said his actions to userspace don't need approval.
• He has already said that he is working on diversifying his bot activities to multiple accounts.
• He already said he didn't wait or discuss it because he didn't think it would be a big problem, and
• He's already said he doesn't like drama and won't repeat this particular mistake.

My smiley was meant to show that I wasn't serious about that! :-) My point about having this all in one place was serious. Would you like to gather diffs to demonstrate the above? Are all those responses already in one place? Not having a centralised response mean people have to have distributed awareness to realise that he had said all this in various places. Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this image was public domain, on the mre article page for over a year without any complaint and added a lot to the depth of the article, I believe it was overzealously deleted and wish to register my dissent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Country Captain Chicken (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern.... Recently, I have uploaded a picture which I obtained from my friend who got this picture of my school badge from my official school web instructor. Recently, I have asked the the web instructor, Puan/Mrs Azalina who create the logo for my school web -http://k.domaindlx.com/smkseriperak/main%20page.htm. She allowed me to use this logo to be used in wikipedia article and that's why I licensed it under-The owner this picture has allowed me to use this picture for wikipedia article. I hope my request is fullfilled for the sake of my school.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syfuel (talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are two seperate RFCs raised a couple of days apart, seperate articles. When you took over RFC BOT work you edited the one for Contesting on 21 January to point to the Contesting controversies one. That was incorrect, they should both be showing in the RFC list. Dsergeant (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its been fixed.

β^_command 15:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Many thanks Dsergeant (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why tag them for deletion? What is wrong with the Fair Use Rationales provided? Is this 'bot' out of control or something!? Stephenjh (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Read points #3 and #5 from the great big stop hand box at the top of this page. Also read the warning tag on Image:Roy Harper Single Elizabeth.jpg for example; "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." On that image, the article "Whatever Happened to Jugula?" is not linked (or even mentioned...should be linked) in the rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When does the

Ill update all RfC's in ~3 hours.

β^_command 20:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the owner is aware, and a note about the ANI discussion has been left on his talk page, but just noting the block here for the record. See here and block log entry here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to add the category "Scotland" to an article which is already in a category which is ultimately a sub-category of it e.g. "Islands of Loch Lomond". PatGallacher (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what you're on about with the comment you left on my talk page. I suggest that you suspend this activity until we have a chance to discuss this. PatGallacher (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very high level categories like "Scotland" will quickly become overloaded with hundreds of articles if you grant this approach. PatGallacher (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

large categories are not an issue. see

β^_command 17:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey! Beta, I'd strongly suggest you stop any attempt to populate primary categories based only on that

WP:CFD for starters. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Beta, I think from "Im going it for easier access to information within Primary categories so that finding articles is a similar process." and "By fully populating Primary categories it elimantes the need to use subcats for bot work" - I think you are pushing this idea to make it easier for bots to operate. That is not on. Categories are for people, not bots. Category population and creation is an organic and sometimes chaotic business that is best done by humans. Bots are not very good at doing this (well, not yet anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its just not bots, ive been pissed of countless times because I cant find what Im looking for due to micro categorization. Instead of look eight categories deep in who knows what proper subcat, its a lot easier to have redundancy in both subcats and primary categorization also.

β^_command 18:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop this bot categorising numerous small islands under Category Scotland. I note from the above you may be reluctant to do so for your reasons, but this is very irritating and somewhat counter-productive. Thank-you. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your comments may raise some questions about the Wikipedia categorisation procedure, but as this raises some pretty fundamental questions about categorisation please refrain from making major changes until there is a clearly established consensus or decision on this issue. If your bot or search procedures cannot handle the current approach maybe that's a problem with your bot. PatGallacher (talk)

Beta, are you aware of CatScan? Won't that do what you are after? Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this! Any problems you have finding things because of micro-categorisation are nothing to the problems duplicating all the sub-categories in the main category will cause. I have not seen anyone except yourself speak in favour of this yet. Johnbod (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Attempting to centralise discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Populating primary categories. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betacommand,

I'm working on software to detect potential sockpuppets, and I was told that apparently many of the planned features are already in your BetacommandBot! Duplicate code is pointless, so I thought it'd good to get in touch with you. This all benefits you because it could very well mean free work on extending your existing bot -- which would be nice I think. Anyway, if you would, email me at virgil at caltech dot edu. Thanks. Romanpoet (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sock detecting tool operational right now,

• Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.

β^_command 22:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

uuuh, I've never uploaded any image on here, let alone Image:Sonsandaughters.PNG. Just thought you should know, so that you can find the real person that uploaded it... Bmecoli (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uhm... then again, my name is on there... how strange... huh. Bmecoli (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack on me is unjustified. I've left a comment here. You are free to comment on my comment. Wjhonson (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reply, as you reversed the page List of Minor Characters in Xena: Warrior Princess, I hope you have a good reason Answer me please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawless fan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

β^_command 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Is it OK if I upload an image of myself holding a piece of human feces to be used in the above article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lantern Oil (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole category on Commons just for Human Feces. Knock yourself out with the picture taking.. but it's up to the regular editors of the article to decide which, if any pictures are added. --Versageek 01:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to run it on someone. How do I do that? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

give me the usernames and Ill post the results.

β^_command 04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I know you have a lot of other stuff to do, but could you please go over the Vandal Proof Approval list, as it seems to be getting quit lengthy. 71.249.42.11 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reviewing it as you posted.

β^_command 16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, so when my I reapply and what do I need to be assured approval next time?--Pewwer42  Talk  17:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please see the requirements for using VP you need at at least 250 mainspace edits.

β^_command 17:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

ok, I think I have enough now, but I'm asking you to check ahead of time so I don't waste time getting rejected. Edit count can be found here. Thank you very much for your time --Pewwer42  Talk  22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I don't contest your decision to not approuve me for using VandalProof. I just would like to know the reason (is it because I want to use it in french wikipedia or for an other reason? If it's for another reason I hope you know my account was renamed recently (I was Hercule bzh). I know than the count edit tools have a problem with this. My contributions in fr are visible with the name Hercule bzh.

Regards

--Hercule (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VP does not work on fr wiki. and you dont have enough edits on en yet.

β^_command 19:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thanks for your answer. I don't need it in en ;) --Hercule (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Betacommand, might I ask why you declined me?

I understand about the protocols, but seriously, why did you decline me? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your bot marked the fair use I provided to

It wasn't betacommand. 10:07, October 31, 2007 Maxim (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Semprelivremix.jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "CSD I7 - Invalid fair use rationale". using TW) Timeshift (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift9, the issue that was raised was that BCBot tagged the image without notifing the uploader.

β^_command 23:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

the reason that you did not receive a warning about the image is because you did not upload it. see

β^_command 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed, here's from the file's history:

User:Cesarm was also the only one to edit it outside of BCBot SQL^{Query me!} 06:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BC...The IP I'm looking for info on is

 549 approximate day(s) of edits on this page (551 day(s) passed since first edit)
Current time: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:06:59 UTC || Last edit: 15:36, February 8, 2008 || Oldest edit: 18:10, August 8, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 69.7% Minor edits: NaN%
Average edits per day: 26.31 (currently, for last 1000 edit(s))
Average edits per day: 27.69 (since last active, for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 989 edits): Major article edits: 69.46% Minor article edits: NaN%
Encyclopedia contributions (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 0 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.32% (16)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 75.28% (3764)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 0 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 0%
Project contributions (as marked):
Articles for Creation: 0% (0 edit(s))
Peer Review: 0% (0 edit(s))
Pages for Deletion: 0% (0 edit(s))
Copyright problems pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
WP:AN/related noticeboards: 0% (0 edit(s))
Bot approvals pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
FA/FP/FL candidate pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
RfC/RfAr pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
Requests for adminship: 0% (0 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0% (0 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s))
User warnings: 0% (0 edit(s))
User welcomes: 0% (0 edit(s))
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
Page moves: 0% (0 edit(s)) (0 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.08% (4 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
AutoWikiBrowser edits: 0% (0 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 637 | Average edits per page: 7.85 | Edits on top: 0.84%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 76.64% (3832 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0% (0 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0.6% (30 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 22.76% (1138 edit(s))
Edit count by namespace:
Article: 98.6% (4930) | Article talk: 0.82% (41)
User: 0.02% (1) | User talk: 0% (0)
Wikipedia: 0.06% (3) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0.5% (25) | Image talk: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0) | Template talk: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0) | Category talk: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0)

Overall edit summary use (last 231 edits):  Major edits: 68.4% Minor edits: NaN%
Average edits per day: [Value unknown]* (currently, for last 231 edit(s))
Average edits per day: 0.33 (since last active, for last 231 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 218 edits): Major article edits: 70.64% Minor article edits: NaN%
Encyclopedia contributions (out of all 231 edits shown on this page and last 0 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0% (0)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 66.67% (154)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): [Value unknown]* (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 0%
Project contributions (as marked):
Articles for Creation: 0% (0 edit(s))
Peer Review: 0% (0 edit(s))
Pages for Deletion: 0.43% (1 edit(s))
Copyright problems pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
WP:AN/related noticeboards: 0% (0 edit(s))
Bot approvals pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
FA/FP/FL candidate pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
RfC/RfAr pages: 0% (0 edit(s))
Requests for adminship: 0% (0 edit(s))
Identified RfA votes: 0% (0 support vote(s)) || (0 oppose vote(s))
User warnings: 0% (0 edit(s))
User welcomes: 0% (0 edit(s))
Special edit type statistics (as marked):
Page moves: 0% (0 edit(s)) (0 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
AutoWikiBrowser edits: 0% (0 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 41 | Average edits per page: 5.63 | Edits on top: 0.43%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 68.4% (158 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0% (0 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 0% (0 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 31.6% (73 edit(s))
Edit count by namespace:
Article: 94.37% (218) | Article talk: 2.16% (5)
User: 0.43% (1) | User talk: 0.43% (1)
Wikipedia: 2.6% (6) | Wikipedia talk: 0% (0)
Image: 0% (0) | Image talk: 0% (0)
Template: 0% (0) | Template talk: 0% (0)
Category: 0% (0) | Category talk: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0) | Portal talk: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0) | Help talk: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0) | MediaWiki talk: 0% (0)

β^_command 13:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

BC, whatever tool that is, it's wonderful, and I thank you so much for the effort! (I really hope that was, like, one command or simple pre-existing script or something...) Tell me one thing, though, if you will: That "marked reverts" category--does that mean things HE has marked to revert, or things he's WRITTEN that have been reverted? It's the second piece of info I'm looking for, and if he has seriously only had 30 reverts, I will eat a significant article of my own underclothing. If, as I suspect, that category means reverts HE's done, is there a category that tells which are reverts of HIS work? (damn SAVE button...) And if so, which is it? Thanks!

Gladys J Cortez 23:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

none of those are a list of reverted edits by the user. since the user in question has 5,300+ edits most other tools will not be effective, but I might have one more trick up my sleeve.

β^_command 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to clarify and maybe save you some work: I don't need details about what he's written that have been reverted; I'm mainly interested in a percentage (reverted edits as a percent of total edits). I'm not as much concerned with content as with numbers. And thanks again for all this work you're doing!

Gladys J Cortez 05:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you get new message popups on talk subpages as well? Timeshift (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im waiting on the toolserver to get back up 100%

Any headway on pre-processing the logos into a list for me to tackle? MBisanz ^talk 05:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand bot put a challenge on the Vic McGlynn article. These are low resoultion captures from the in-studio webcam at BBC 6 Music. I then edited the photo and made a new one and uploaded it. The image in question is "Image:VicMc3.jpg" . It is fair use. Please advise. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use non-free images in articles about living people.

β^_command 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. But isn't a screen capture of a LIVE webcam shot from the studio in BBC, with my edits and photo shop editing of it afterwards, a different kettle of fish ? Now I am really concerned about uploading ANY images ! --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the studio holds the copyright to the webcast. It doesnt matter what you do to the images the studio will keep their copyright to those images. and thus they are non-free.

β^_command 20:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

But what if someone from the studios uploaded it, and verified that they were indeed from the studios? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you would need them to release a free version of that image and confirm it with

β^_command 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. At this point, I am disinclined to put any images into the articles I write on WP unless I took the photos myself or they're over 100 years old. That's weird. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to send me repeat notices about the images that I uploaded long after I added a summary about said images' backgrounds. :{ TMC1982 2:05 p.m., 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The first image I checked,

WP:NFURG for help setting one up. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Why don't you save all of the trouble and do it your damn self (since you know more than I do about Wikipedia)!? TMC1982 10:23 p.m., 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello !

Sgeureka just suggested me that DumZiBoT could easily check in the edited pages for {{reflist}} and <references/>, and add it. Now, the check is easy, a regex will do; but I'm concerned about where should I add {{reflist}} ?! That is surely not *this* hard, but I know that lately you've been running a task like this: May I ask to see the code ? I'm not willing to use it as a standalone; I'm just willing to add the template to the pages I already edit :)

Thanks !

NicDumZ ~ 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont use {{

β^_command 14:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Betacommand ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{14:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi! Can you program Betacommandbot to ignore anything I upload, because I generally don't upload anything on Wikipedia absent the behest of someone else. (Commons, you know). I've transferred images from commons or uploaded fair use images for the Australian Football League, and still your bot bugs me! I don't want its ugly messages! Thanks, man. Cary Bass ^demandez 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

β^_command 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If you really "do not want to see images deleted", instead of tagging images as problematic, why not just fix them instead? Chesdovi (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

simple, I dont upload non-free content. I will not fix images, there are tens of thousands of images with problems. there is no way in hell a single user can handle the workload. If you dont like it dont upload non-free content.

β^_command 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And so please quit running your bot amok tagging album cover images that are clearly marked with proper tags for a long time. You seem to think that adding layers of bureaucratic verbiage is helpful. It is not. Hu (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu, images that BCBot tags do not have rationales. if you disagree please link to the image in question and Ill help explain what the issue is.

β^_command 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The burden is on you to explain why you tag album images that already have proper rationales including in bold letters "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". You are hiding behind a bogus claim of violation of section 10c. Further, you can't take harsh criticism so you revert it, yet you think it is perfectly civil when you write abusive obscenities like this one: [2]. Hu (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images that the bot tag fail NFCC 10C. plain and simple. the audio recording in question does not pass 10c.

β^_command 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You seem to have your work cut out! But I can't see how by adding the page that the image relates to in the rationale section will take up anymore time than the time it takes to add the tag?! Chesdovi (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence containing 'is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy' uses the word insure incorrectly. The word should be ensure. Please correct this. Thank you. Poltair (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer me why you are removing the images of Article List of Minor Characters in Xena: Warrior Princess, I just want to know the reason, answer me please bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.34.112.18 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make any more edits like this one. This image has a perfectly valid rationale. If your bot tags an image like this for deletion again then I will request that it is blocked until it is fixed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its an issue with how mediawiki parses greek letters. I hope I fixed it.

β^_command 03:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for removing the deletion tag. When you say "fixed", do you mean that you've fixed your bot to take this case into account, or that you've just made an exception for this one image? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is no method for fixing the bot. what I did was I wikilinked to the actual title that mediawiki uses. which should solve this issue.

β^_command 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Implement the MediaWiki title rules into your bot. If you do not do this then other images with greek letters will be needlessly deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no decent method of converting. Im not sure exactly how mediawiki does what it does. the issue only happens when the greek letter is the first one and is lowercase. (mediawiki forces it to be uppercase.)

β^_command 03:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Then you are not going to fix your bot? At the very least you can omit whatever check is resulting in false positives. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the bot checks for the title of the article. in this case

β^_command 03:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The bot understands that

mTorrent all refer to the same article? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

its not as simple as you would think. letters a-z are

β^_command 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You're going to have to implement MediaWiki's algorithm, no matter how difficult that is (and how hard could it be, the greek alphabet only has 24 letters), in order to prevent this from happening in the future. If your bot continues to report false positives then it will have to be shut down. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked BetacommandBot: it's still having trouble with redirects. See [3] --Carnildo (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the subject image on August 29,2006 (well over a year ago). It is a scan of a book cover. I am the author of that book as well as the publisher and I drew the original artwork for that book cover. That was clearly stated when I uploaded the image.

Earlier this evening, your bot added a tag which states:

This image or media has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern:invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

I don't understand what this is all about. I don't even know what a "fair use rationale" is.

At the time I uploaded the image, the license tag on the edit page read GFDL-self. Sometime between then and now, that was changed (by another bot, I think) to read GFDL-self-with-disclaimers. Could that be what has caused this problem? I did not make that change nor have I ever claimed "fair use" ... whatever that means.

I am the creater of the artwork for that book cover and I want to release it to Wikipedia without any restrictions or disclaimers. It is that simple! And please don't tell me to go elsewhere to respond. I repeat once more that I drew the original art work for that book cover.

If User:liftarn had notified me (which he did not) when he placed his tag about fair use on September 6, 2006, all of this could have been settled then.

Please remove the tag that was added by Betacommandbot as well as the tag added by User:Liftarn on September 6, 2006. Thanks in advance, - mbeychok (talk) 06:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I posted this problem at

User:TEB728 removed the two tags and all is well now. That is the trouble with bots, they have no brains. And I wasted over an hour on this silly problem. - mbeychok (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I'm from the Assessment department of the Schools Project. We don't use the auto parameter and have a dedicated assessment team, is there any way to have this bot avoid our template? Adam McCormick (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use the auto parameter and have a dedicated assessment team, is there any way to have this bot avoid our template? Adam McCormick (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you notified me about an image I didn't upload. I will strike that out on my talk page. Any reasons why it did that? Thank you! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 07:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see what I did. I apologize. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 07:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the images Image: Herc Giant.jpg and Image: Herc Fight.jpg get their articles, make sure everything is in order please Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawless fan (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My account is too new to add the image to the article. (It's semi-protected.) In short while I should be able to use it.--

the image is orphaned and should be tagged as so. when the image is no longer orphaned you can remove the tag.

β^_command 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't you ever call my edits vandalism again. Consider this a civility warning. You should know better than to spend your time biting new users.--

talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

One sec, stepping in here to mediate. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetaCommand was correct in his action. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One your not a new user, you are a return user. Second enforcing policy is not biting. your blind removal of tags is uncalled for. I reverted. I also left another note stating that it was orphaned. you blindly, against policy reverted. that is vandalism. I call a duck a duck.

β^_command 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Boy, Betacommand, you are worthless. In about 40 minutes, the image will be in the article and you will have wasted about 10 minutes of our time being disruptive and incivil--for nothing. You're violating civility rules by calling me a sockpuppet and by calling my edits vandalism. Plus you violated the 3RR. So, don't pretend like you respect the rules. I don't think Wikipedia is for you.--

talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

One I did not call you a sockpuppet, interesting a new user knows that term. I was not being in-civil, and three I did not breach

β^_command 02:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

We can talk about it on the Administrator's Noticeboard in about thirty minutes. It's semi-protected.--

talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, just dont forget to reveal what your previous account was.

β^_command 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll be watching. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 14:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it looks like was bluffing. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 14:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHY is your stupid bot flagging my images? Most fall under rules for fair use as covers of board games. Get with the program. Damn this paranoia crap is getting under my nerves MiracleMat (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, your bot added a "disputed rationale" for Image:Uggsy box.jpg. I'm not the original uploader, who seems to have vanished, however I have added what I believe to be a suitable fair use rationale for use of the image. Now that I've done this though, I'm unclear on what I do next - should I just delete the template your bot added, or...? Thanks :) Xmoogle (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you a busy bee? I'll keep it short. This will be my only response. You want to make this world a poorer place? Go ahead. Delete the images. Delete them all. Then go to that place I read about. Djdaedalus (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I've permabanned people for spamming talk pages the way you have (you meaning Betacommand, not Djdaedalus). There must be a better way to do this than to flood people's pages, causing them to become overwhelmed and just ignore the messages en masse. You might as well speedy delete the lot. 23skidoo (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you permaban this bot over the issue of posting notifications to user's talk pages, it'll be unblocked just as fast. This posting of notifications was a requested feature, and was implemented. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is an example of the worst of Wikipedia practice. Someone adds a tittle to a form - then instead of making the change themselves tries to track down thousands of contributors (many of course no longer present) to force them into compliance with your newest regime. I cannot count the number of times I have been asked to relicense or reformat photo pages. It is perfectly valid as it is. And as it was. If you feel the need to change it yet again, feel free to do so yourself. However stop removing valid and important Wikipedia information. Rmhermen (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• See the big stop box above, item #7. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE)"

Should say "notifying user..." Just a heads up. Enigma (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what does "49 days left" refer to? Enigma (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wild guess, but I think it's his birthday.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the days till the deadline the wikimedia foundation set for wikipedia to be fair-use image compliant. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch time, then. Double time! Enigma (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Betacommand wants to have it there, then that's his choice. But please understand that the deadline described at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy doesn't apply to us. It only applies to projects that didn't have a non-free content policy when the resolution was passed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the dot, that date is when our Exemption Doctrine Policy needs to be compliant.

β^_command 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Nope, read again: For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place...

The English Wikipedia did have an EDP in place when this resolution was passed, therefore the Wikimedia Foundation does not ask that we have everything perfectly in line by March 23, 2008. We have time to discuss the merits of keeping or deleting images; we don't have to resort to mass deletion. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in addition to the small typo thing, the bot's edit count hasn't been updated in a while. Minor detail. Enigma (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE) Enigma (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments on the administrator's notice board (incidents) are well and truly beyond the limits of what's civil. In particular, "too fucking much to ask?" and "Carnildo has to be an ass" are unacceptable. I'd ask that you attempt in future to phrase concerns of this nature more diplomatically, particularly in light of big Jim's new stance that we should take a "hard line on civility." - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not being uncivil an ass may refer to a donkey or jackass which are very stubborn and difficult to work with, in this case its a good parallel. I stand behind what I said. Im not a diplomat, so I say what I mean and mean what I say.

β^_command 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You don't help your case by playing games. It wasn't civil.. why not tone it down a bit? Friday (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be surprised by any of this. Betacommand is very good about twisting the definitions of words so that accusations of incivility can't be leveled against him. 68.57.116.116 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi !

I understand how having your blocked is annoying, as I've experienced this countless times on fr:. I thought about that, and the best that I could come up with was User:DumZiBoT/EditThisPageToStopMe, a soft stop page. Having such a feature really helps : Of course, there are some false positives, and DumZiBoT have been stopped for nothing maybe 1 or 2 times. But consider these same false reports ending on AN/I : One admin could quickly review the request, and eventually block your bot for *nothing*; And overall, having your bot stopped for nothing is better than having your bot blocked for nothing :)

I personally really think that this feature softens bot-related talks, maybe because those who don't understand how bot works have the feeling that if something goes wrong, they will be able to do something, something that is not a plain aggressive block.

I really suggest you to try this :)

(If not stopping the bot, a positive check on the stop page could simply imply some sort of hang, waiting for a console input, a signal, or simply one of your edit on the stop page, it's up to you.)

Cheers,

NicDumZ ~ 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you manually fix one of those rationales yourself? That way I can apply that rationale and follow up on other similarly tagged articles by your bot. All your bot does is tag articles, with no indication of what is wrong with my rationales... it's not particularly helpful in that regard. --Madchester (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you need to state why you need each image and for what page each rationale is for.

β^_command 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's best to learn by example, so I prefer if you fix one of my rationales... I can follow up on them thereafter. Simply tagging an image violation on a user talk page is insufficient in educating an editor on how to prevent such problems in the future. Cheers --Madchester (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB - Some other kind editor showed how it was suppose to be done. As a kind suggestion, a bit more explanation in your bot or talk space messages could go a long way in reducing such errors. As an admin, I realize that it's not appropriate to be sticking with a template message or standard policy spiel on every editors talk page. You need to flexible with your approach and communication. Cheers! --Madchester (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Betacommand, I've got a question.

I'm not american and I don't live in USA. So, ¿Can I use the fair use in my images? This is a problem that I didn't understand when I learned the Fair Use.

Bye! Mr. Manu (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in discussing the validity or otherwise of use of this image but would note that it has been tagged by your bot on a number of occasions and then removed by the uploader. Could you not develop sufficient records such that if you find an image which you think should be tagged you check whether you've done so in the past and refer it for human intervention of some sort. Regards. Adambro (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Betacommand. Today, Betacommandbot tagged

I fixed that error.

β^_command 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Good. Thanks. — Mudwater 02:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Have fun deleting images and ruining wikipedia.--Jack Cox (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you should consider that it is the policies that are supposedly ruining Wikipedia, since this bot is only do a) approved work and b) work that is entirely in line with policies. If you don't like our policies, work to change them. Insulting the owner of this bot will achieve nothing. Plenty of people have tried, and (no surprise) the work continues. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand Jack Cox's annoyance:

• The bot goes around tagging images faster than people can fix them up
• It gives a 7 day limit before deletion
• Many image issues could be fixed by the bot auto-adding the correct template (eg. all album covers follow a similar format for their free-use rationale) rather than leaving what some people perceive as threatening messages
• Unlike deleted articles, deleted images cannot be retrieved easily (if at all).

-- Chuq (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are one bot that tags images and thousands of editors that can fix them. Some editors have fixed thousands of images the last month.
• It gives a seven day limit, but deletion is not carried out before reasonable time has gone and there seem to be little or no decrease in the unfixed images. I deleted the last images in Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008 yesterday. Editors had 30 days to fix the images in that category.
• Bots can't write rationales. Yes it can write most of what is needed in a rationale, but the purpose should be written by a human. This has been discussed at
  WP:BRFA
  and I belive such a bot was declined.
• Deleted images can be restored just as easily as any article. Rettetast (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So none of you can understand how a new user might see all of these messages from a faceless bot and be completely overwhelmed by it? I've been here for years but it took me a bit of looking around to find the right template (which I just filled in with generic content - "Image:AlbumName cover.jpg" "fair use on AlbumName article", "use: to illustrate the AlbumName album" "portion: entire album cover" "replaceable - no, its an album cover" - this kind of stuff would be identical for all album art. -- Chuq (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the new(ish) users who was intimidated by BetacommandBot messages. A "rationale" sounds like such a complicated, official sounding thing. "Be bold" went straight out the window for quite a long time, until I was faced with the removal of images from the article of one of my favourite childhood series (The Famous Five). I closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, held my breath, and dove in. Considering that the images in question still exist, I'm assuming the rationale was acceptable. However, it was upon seeing a dispute notice for the poster for The Bridge on the River Kwai, that the camel exceeded it's maximum straw capacity. As a result, for the last 2 days, I have been going through the Betacommandbot contrib list, and rescuing (yes, "rescuing", for that's how I see it) as many images as I can. I guess that Betacommandbot and I aren't going to get on. Whereabouts does the "I want a piece of the bot" line start? Johnmc (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It starts over at
  WT:NFC, where you can work to change the policy of Wikipedia such that fair use images are liberally allowed without justification. The bot is doing nothing more than upholding policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:NFC doesn't say anywhere that an out-of-control bot can enforce the strictest possible interpretation of the policy according to the bot's own inflexible standards. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

On "Bots can't write rationales": but they can judge whether those rationales are correct and tag them for deletion? This is the false assumption. This bot enforces an unreasonably strict interpretation of 10c (saying that every fair use image has to have specific things called "rationales" that are readable by this particular bot, even when the rationale is completely obvious to a human). It's disheartening that the bot to do the constructive thing was rejected, while this destructive bot keeps on running. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most or all of the album covers tagged by the busybody bot BetacommandBot already have proper tags that clearly mark the album covers as fair use. This excessive tagging is not necessary or helpful and is just make-work interference. Hu (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu your wrong, those images have copyright tags but no

β^_command 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The spelling is "you're". Since you are so deeply into correcting other people, I hope you appreciate the correction. Hu (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot is seriously out of control. That is all. Enigma (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. It's behaving exactly as it should. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, cancer behaves exactly as it should as well. Which is how I've come to consider this bot. It's a cancer on Wikipedia, consuming images faster than they can be saved. Clayhalliwell (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's behaving stupidly. It's not recognizing when a fair use rationale has been written and might be missing a single piece of information, and gives the same generic message as if no fair use existed whatsoever. 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torc2 (talk • contribs)

• The example you cite shows the bot worked perfectly. The article on which the image is used is not mentioned in the rationale. This is required via
  WP:NFC #10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No, the bot behaved stupidly. You don't issue a murderer and a jaywalker identical citations that just say "Bad". You give people clear ideas what exactly they have to do to fix it. It's certainly not apparent from the message exactly which part of it is wrong, or why a license that appears to have all the necessary information is insufficient. You give editors clear access to help so they don't feel lost in the machinery. This bot is garbage and its messages are useless. Torc2 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torc2, so why dont you write a new message for the bot.

β^_command 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That's kind of like asking why I don't try to improve the image of the Klan. I don't agree that what it's doing is necessary or correct, or that automating this is the correct course of action. Want to make the bot seem like less of a dick? Limit the tagging to images that have no information whatsoever, cut the tag rate down to about 100 articles an hour, and space the search order out so that a single editor doesn't have ten photos tagged simultaneously. Torc2 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear case where the bot had incorrect behavior, not "perfect" behavior. There was a clearly written rationale (even meeting your technical definition of 'rationale') saying that the album cover was reduced in resolution and was to be used to illustrate the album "!". It was, in fact, only used on the page ! (album), so any human could tell that the rationale was correct. The bot, however, incorrectly believed there to be no rationale. Your interpretation of policy is that we have to cater to a brainless bot that doesn't know that ! (album) refers to the album "!", or else images get deleted. If rationales can't be written by bots, then it's even more true that lack of rationales can't be detected by bots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rspeer, the bot cannot determine the validity of a rationale. Our non-free policy requires the exact name of the article for where the image to be used in the non-free rational. that is what the bot checks for.

β^_command 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I know that a bot can't determine the validity of a rationale, that's what I'm telling you. And you're being inundated with examples of correct rationales that don't include exact matches of the article name, and you dismiss them by defining them by fiat to be incorrect because a bot can't handle them. Which was the point to begin with: a bot cannot handle this task, so right now a bot is rather mishandling it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's doing bang up job identifying images which fail WP:NFC #10c. Hundreds of thousands to date. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that "rationale" is a precise technical term for you (which your bot does a horrible job of explaining), but to ordinary people the rationale for why you would use an album cover, properly tagged as a fair-use album cover, to illustrate an album, is completely obvious. Avoid Copyright Paranoia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot is posting illegitimate warnings. Period. The fact is, images tagged often have exactly the correct rationale. I suspect the real task of the bot is to eliminate all visual contnt from Wikipedia. Sorry if that hurts. Reverting my comments won't change the facts. - Nhprman 03:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bsd

i recently got your notice on

• Out of compliance is out of compliance. Further, a bot would not readily be able to tell how "good" a rationale is. That is highly subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Hammersoft, there is a difference between "no rationale" and "bad rationale" or "incomplete rationale". A human can tell that difference, but the bot can't. Ben Stone has accurately pinpointed the major failing of Betacommandbot, a failing that others have pointed out before and which Betacommand has done nothing to address. It wouldn't matter so much if the deleting admins managed to spot the images with incomplete rationales and fix them, but this doesn't always happen. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It becomes particularly tricky when, for example, one makes a typo in the article name or the article is moved to a new name. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot does a wonderful job of identifying images which are not in compliance with WP:NFC #10c. Occasionally, errors crop up which the owner addresses, usually quite rapidly. There isn't an error here. If an admin is overzealous in deleting an image, the error is with the admin, not the bot. Lay blame where it belongs. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not tell me how to tag images, I'm well aware of what is and what is not fair use. Also, by the looks of this comments page, I'd say you need to turn your bot off. You are clearly not helping Wikipedia, this is only causing a disturbance. Mets (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Enigma (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bsd. well, i guess i stepped on the land mine. i think it all comes down to the basics: arguably, wikipedia's strongest advantage, in the practical sense, is it's evolutionary nature, something that no one else (eg- britannica) can dream competing with. the role of GPL, although vital, is merely that of an enabler: most people don't contribute to fight closed sources, they contribute to make the great resource wikipedia is, even better. in other words, the most important asset wikipedia has is the people, not its political correctness. by being overzealous and non-adaptive in enforcing NFCC, not only does it annoy people to the extreme, but the policy enforcement department has actually fully impersonated those which it is trying to protect wikipedia from: copyright "holders"- dull, overzealous, inconsiderate and unreasonable.

i certainly understand there is a need to manage copyright, but you have to be practical. annoyance must also be managed. that is my point in the first post: an inaccurate rationale is different than no rationale at all, both from:

• a) the contributor's side: no rationale = 1) definitely inexperienced editor, who has much to learn, or; 2) a sloppy editor, whose contributions may well be a burden. inaccurate rationale = a more experienced user, in most cases some minor tweaking is needed, and on the other hand will definitely take a deletion notice as an offense. btw, this type of enforcement runs squarely against the principle of assumption of good faith.
• b)the Bot's side: quite easy to distinguish. Hammersoft says that this distinction is highly subjective. well, any objectiveness depends on the framework to which it is applied, hence, "Out of compliance is out of compliance." as he said, is objective from the copyright perspective. unfortunately, it is clearly not so in the practical sense. suffice it to check how much this issue has been debated, or more accurately, battled over.

enough of my yada yada, some practical ideas: draw a loose line between utter crap, and things that need to be improved, and implement it accordingly. a procedure for dealing with crap exists and works well enough. a different procedure for this second category, of work that needs to be improved, should be created. it should be a one month (or any other agreeable time frame) friendly notice, which only then, would be followed by the usual 7 day deletion notice. this method is quite non offensive, and has worked quite well for telecoms and others (eg- friendly notice followed by disconnection notice). it would cut much of this totally unnecessary friction. if it's true, as someone mentioned above, that the actual time until a file is deleted is much longer than 7 days, using the procedure i suggest shouldn't change much, after all, if the objective is a minor fix, it wouldn't hurt another 3 weeks of waiting.

if anybody who is actively involved in policy making likes my idea, please further it, i'm way too lazy for that! if you don't agree, at least further the idea that we need an alternative to the current "weapons of mass distraction" approach. on a side note to our own homebrew "patent trolls": you ought to change your disdain attitude towards brands and copyrighted material (eg- "who needs this stuff anyway"), fair use is an integral part of free speech, and is here for us, not against us. sorry for the post formatting! --Ben Stone 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End the madness. Enigma (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What madness? The bot is enforcing policy. Perhaps your comments are misdirected? Perhaps you wanted to work to change the policy instead? If that's the case, you may wish to start a discussion on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The policy is fine. The bot isn't. There are better ways to enforce policy. Enigma (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been debated ad nauseum, with the overwhelming response being that yes, we do want the bot doing this work exactly as it is doing it now. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• At least fix its edit summary message, then. It's spelled wrong. Enigma (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which edit summary? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard message it leaves. (notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE). The bot is posting the same messages thousands of times. They should at least be spelled correctly. Also, it should probably be ensure, not insure. Enigma (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming response here that the bot is wreaking havoc doesn't count? Where was this overwhelming response in favor of it? Last I saw this discussed on a prominent board (Administrator's Noticeboard, I think), there were hardly any people in favor of it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's been heavy debate on this before, with the result that the bot's work has continued. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First it's "overwhelming response", then it's "heavy debate". How about you show me so I can see for myself if there's consensus for it? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I posted in 3 appropriate forums the exact issue about the destructive nature of this policy as applied by this bot and the people who use it, rather than thinking as a contributor and put in effort to fix the highlighted images or address why so many images are labelled correctly. Absolutely no discussion was forthcoming, or any precedents pointed out. MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. I'll dig and find some, if you think it's necessary. This bot has performed more than 700,000 edits. Some common sense should come into play here. If this bot was *really* doing something that the community just can't get behind, don't you think it would have been permanently stopped long before it got to 100,000 edits much less 700,000? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard too many in support of it either. I think this bot does more harm than good. Its edit count doesn't prove a thing. Enigma (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It proves quite a bit. If this bot actually caused as much damage as you bot haters think it does, it would have been stopped a LONG time ago. But that's not the case. In fact, it's been operating for a very long time and has performed hundreds of thousands of edits. As for prior debates, have a look through [4]. There's tons of debates regarding this subject buried in there if you are truly interested. Despite all these debates, despite all the electrons that have been spent, despite all the keystrokes spent debating this....the bot continues to operate. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because a) the bot owner refuses to listen to anyone, and nobody has the courage to block him or b) the bot is operating with the support of the community? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going with A. The bot owner has refused to listen on multiple occasions and I can personally attest to this. Enigma (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So it would follow that it would have been permanently blocked long before. Except, that's not happened. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tell you what; why don't you bring this up at
  WP:AN. When that fails to get you the response you want, you can try the next steps in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process and take it all the way to ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No. I'm commenting on the Talk page and this is my opinion. I'm not bringing this up at

WP:AN. Saying a bot has made hundreds of thousands of edits without being shut down proves absolutely nothing except that no one has taken the drastic step of shutting down the bot. The bot's owner has been shown to ignore people. You say you can't shut it down. Terrific. Am I talking to you? No. You keep inserting yourself into the conversation. Enigma (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Well you don't think the bot owner will listen to you, and it's obvious you're not getting anywhere convincing me. Why was it you were complaining here again? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched those AN discussions. They don't show the overwhelming support for the bot that you're claiming. Also, I know exactly why the bot gets unblocked each time. It seems that the only way to get Betacommand to listen to people is to block his bot, but we can't because RfC stops working when we do. By writing a monolithic bot without releasing the source code, Betacommand wields power over even admins. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well then I'm sure it will be a trivial thing to get the bot shut down. Let me know how it goes. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was never to convince you of anything because I know you'd never be convinced. My comments are not directed at you. Enigma (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If they're not directed at me, and you know the bot owner won't listen to you...why are you posting on this talk page? I'm quite confused. Who is your intended audience here? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm registering complaints with the bot, whether they're listened to by the owner or not. I think it's helpful to have all the gripes posted somewhere, whether the bot owner is willing to address them or not (clearly he's just interesting in deleting the complaints). If you have nothing constructive to add, I don't see why you keep responding. Enigma (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma, yes I revert things that should not be on this page, personal attacks an comments that should be added to another users talkpage.

β^_command 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for replying. The last one was borderline, but it was a pretty funny rant about anti-image jihadists. Enigma (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it offensive. If you think there are issues that I am not addressing please create a new section with a list of them and Ill address them.

β^_command 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And I find the Deletionist Jihad itself offensive, and your deletion of my comment (and second one) VERY ironic. I will post this 100,000 times if necessary. Maybe I'll create a bot to do it. - Nhprman 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the bot double-tag this page? Talk:Delaware_Otsego_Corporation I added a rationale, you'd think that would have been good enough for a rationale-seeking robot. RussNelson (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

β^_command 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• It was double tagged because the bot correctly identified it as lacking proper rationale, tagged it as such [5], then you removed the warning without entirely fixing the problem [6] and it properly re-identified the image as still lacking [7]. Thus, two notifications. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Thanks. Sorry, I missed the part about linking to the article that the rationale covers. It's only used one one article, so I thought it would be obvious, but I guess the bot isn't smart enough. RussNelson (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issues with Image:Furious dragon.jpg and subsequently deleted the warning. Thanks for pointing it out. Robhakari (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it asking so much to ask that the edit count be updated and the typos in the bot's messages be fixed? Enigma (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the typo should be fixed, and Ill update the edit count when I feel like it.

β^_command 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for being reasonable and polite. I appreciate it. Enigma (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a fair use rationale - I hope this appeases the Wiki gods. Cheers. Peter1968 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a load of messages saying that this bot is going to delete images. I've been through all this with another bot. Not going to bother this time. Just delete them.--Moonlight Mile (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap I can't believe people have just deleted these images just because the uploader is pissed off with this bot. So much for community effort to provide fair use rationales. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If an uploader requests deletion, it's perfectly valid to speedy delete the images. Please see
  Wikipedia:CSD#General_criteria criteria #7, which is the criteria under which the images were deleted. All done according to policy. Enjoy, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, great. Thanks. Not that I didn't know that already. The issue is just that little bit deeper. MickMacNee (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this bot adding deletion tags to football club logos without notifying me, the original uploader of the logos and the only contributor to them? This means that any logos I have contributed to articles that are no longer on my watchlist are highly likely to get deleted. I thought the main purpose of the bot was supposed to be to get fair use rationales fixed, not enforce the deletion of images.

• Could you cite some examples please? Hard to rectify a problem without some examples. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Image:ItuzaingoLogo.gif
• Image:GimnasiaCU.gif
• Image:Laflorida.gif
• Image:GrupoUniversitario.gif

to name a few. I just changed my username today, but the bot followed the redirect to my new talkpage 11 times since then, before it stopped bothering

• It looks like the bot and the rename were underway at the same time. There's no way of predicting when the renames will occur, so it's kinda hard to correct this. The bot did properly inform you on other occasions today [8]. Hope this helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It informed me correctly after the rename process was complete. It stopped informing me between 23:23 and 23:38 and has not informed me of anything since then despite tagging at least 4 images I uploaded. Perhaps the should be stopped if it is not informing people of its actions?
    peasant 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

the full re-name process can take several hours.

β^_command 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to let you know that I provided rationales for the 11 that I was notified of on my talkpage + another 20 the bot didn't even notify me of. I would have liked to contribute to the encyclopaedia this evening but I had to trawl through bot edits instead. Perhaps you could run it at a slower speed next time, I mean most editors are going to give up if they see more than 10 or so aren't they?

peasant 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

See my attempt to explain that concept above. MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I happened to notice that you asked for one I've just added a free-use rationale at

Dwacon (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwacon, we welcome your contributions, since the bot flagged some of your images please do not be offended. there are just some issues with the images you uploaded. please see

β^_command 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey i kinda dixed up to non-free rational for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Infernaldevices1.jpg, you can take down the warning. Thanks mickyfitz13 ^Talk 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make sure that you state the EXACT article name in the rationale. I have added it in for you this time and removed the tag. Woody (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot needs to take into account that pages get moved and disambiguation pages created. I'm getting a dozen notices from this bot daily that radio station logos I've uploaded have invalid fair use because the pages they are used on have moved names.

Yes the fair use information needs to be updated but I'd like to see this situation handled a little more gracefully. If the page specified is a disambiguation page, the bot could look at the links on the disambiguation page, find the updated article title and update the article link in the fair use notice on that image. At the very least the bot could post a more helpful message and give more than a week for editors to fix the problem.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly impersonal, impolite and abrasive to harass people about image tagging via a bot. I would really like if you desist and leave the job to humans who personally leave messages for people rather than spamming them.

As someone who has been here for four years or so and an admin for about 3, I would suggest the likes of your bot do not enhance the environment at Wikipedia, but merely contribute to the growing social problems here.

Regards, zoney ♣ talk 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoney, Ive been lot more active than you, What the bot does do is handle a task that humans cannot. it enforces policy. My bot is far from causing the problems that are appearing on en.wiki

β^_command 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want the bot to stop spamming my talk page. I have no interest in doing anything with the images since I no longer support the use of images on Wikipedia of any type. There are other users who are selflessly giving up their time to make images I and others have uploaded adhere to the ever-changing policy. I was told that there is a code that can be added to a talk page that excludes bots from leaving messages and if this is true I want to know what it is. And in fact I suggest it be included on the boilerplate so that others who don't give a damn anymore can keep their talk pages from being flooded with what can only be called spam. If someone wants to see how bad it's gotten, please look at my talk page which has been spammed unto USELESSNESS. And for the record the only reason all my crap is being bot'ted is because someone decided a pretty template is needed. Everything I did was good and proper at the time i uploaded the images and the fact someone else changed the rules is not my concern. If this question has been asked on an archive page, please provide a link here. And if anyone brings up the whole "Wikipedia community" thing, I hope they include their mailing address so that I can invoice them my professional editing rate (in real life) of $75 an hour, prorated for the thousands of hours I've wast...spent contributing to this place. Thank you. 23skidoo (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Image:Cdn-dime-obverse.jpg and Image:Cdn-dime-reverse.jpg I wasn't the creator of this image. It was user 'thirty-seven'. My work on this image is merely as follows, from the work log of the image:

"Modification of previous (thirty-seven's) image; JASC Paint Shop Pro, convert to Monochrome followed by contrast enhancement, to remove offending copper color from our dime which is silver colored. For original credits, please refer to previous image." Mdrejhon (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I don't think I'm the correct person to send the warning to, since I merely downloaded the image, adjusted the saturation/contrast/brightness, and re-uploaded. Mdrejhon (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mdrejhon, the bot notified all uploaders.

β^_command 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

After a brief hiatus, I've found 15 image FUR requests on my page for Feb. 13-14 alone! You can see from the notices above these that I've been diligent in trying to apply fair-use rationales where I can. (In a couple of cases, even pulling back and going along with an image-deletion that in retrospect did seem proper and necessary.) But 15 in two days is an awful lot to ask. I think the policy is down to two days after a notice goes up, and I would just ask for a few more, say a week, to address them all one way or another. Thanks for understanding, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20,000 images were run in those 2 days, I don't believe (stifles a laugh) that this is a regular occurance, keep at it and try and get them correct, despite the nasty bot threats. MickMacNee (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot tagged Image:Central a.jpg with a non-free license. Shouldn't anything with a {{HKCrownCopyright}} be skipped by the bot automatically. The crown government technically does not exist anymore in Hong kong. If a government ceased to operate before wikipedia even exist, this license needs to be treated as some kind of {{old}}. Anyone is welcome to respond to my talk page. I am adding a temporary fairuse license. Benjwong (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I will take this to fairuse discussion first. Benjwong (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Bot is now apparently tagging all book covers images for deletion, despite Wiki policy to the contrary. Please fix this.

tks

Scott P. (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding of the tags. See: Image_talk:Disappearance-of-universe-book.gif#Fair_use_rationale. Vassyana (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry that I'm not a robot and have to do things "manually", but I'm not about to spend hours looking through 21 archive files to see if someone might have previously asked the question I would like to ask. Have you given any thought to providing a method by which users may quickly and easily determine if their question has previously been answered? Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of common responses are in the big grey box at the top. Might be of some help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of this is a "bot" issue, and how much is an "image" issue, so I'm posting this question in both places.
If I understand the policies, guidelines, etc. correctly, the appearance of the company's logo on the WP page about the company, the album cover on the WP page about the album, and the school's logo on the WP page about the school are all "correct" usages.
However, I frequently see BetacommandBot "Fair use rationale" messages complaining about the inadequacy of the rationale.
Two questions:

1. Given that these are "correct" usages, why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
2. Given that these are "correct" usages, why is a generic rationale not acceptable?

Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo template ({{Non-free logo}} specifically states [emphasis in original] [emphasis added]:

The album cover template ({{Non-free album cover}}) specifically states [emphasis in original] [emphasis in original] [emphasis added]:

WP:FURG#Necessary components lays out the minimal requirements for a valid fair use rationale. Vassyana (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed unique rationale for each use is required by the policy, for the reasons stated in the policy (and because a Foundation-level policy requires it). Bear in mind the usage is not "correct" if not accompanied by an appropriate rationale. Vassyana (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough of the fallacy that the bot enforces correct anything. All you need to do to not be tagged by the bot is state each article name in an otherwise gibberish piece of text. Seriously, we are not talking about a sophisticated piece of A.I. here, it is one persons attempt at coding a super tagging machine, it enforces nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a detailed rationale is required, I'm not questioning that. I am asking:

1. (Given that these are "correct" usages), why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
2. (Given that these are "correct" usages), why is a generic rationale (with gaps for required specific information) not acceptable? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand your questions, the answers are provided above. Could you perhaps rephrase the questions or better explain what you are asking? Vassyana (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but gotta go right now. Will respond later Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had help add the fair use and the non free tag i just need to ask you can the tag yet be removed HAHA70000 —Preceding comment was added at 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll block me for saying it, but you are the most annoying cunt on Wikipedia. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{WorldCoin}} and {{WorldCoinGallery}} are image licence tags. You should exempt images with those templates — or everything transcluding {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}, if possible — from your bot's messages. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

those images should not be labled as non-free. which is why the bot tagged them

β^_command 20:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have begun a WP:ANI thread about this bot here - [9] Exxolon (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, you (or your bot) tagged that image as being orphaned. It's actually not orphaned, the links below the image pretty much prove that point. I removed your template as it was in error. Just a heads up for you ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

β^_command 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Betacommand - the picture you keep removing is a generic drawing of a rooster. You first tagged it as being orphaned which it wasn't. Now you tag it as a copyright infrigement. Not possible as the image itself isn't copyrighted. Stop templating the image. Also, your threat to block is not within policy - I uploaded an image which , itself , is not copyrighted (www.oceansideemmaus.org/Pio.gif). If it's not copyrighted, there can be no violation. I realize you have a tough job and people yell at you all the time. I absolutely not willing to be one of them. Keep up the good work Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its copyright from the page that you linked to GoDaddy.com, Inc. All rights reserved. it is copyrighted

β^_command 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

will continue to be reverted as this image is neither orphaned nor non-free under wiki's guidlines which state:

For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. Such material may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met

... Bottom line - the image is not in violation of any regulation. The tag will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

show me where that image is free. if the page is copyrighted, images on it are also.

β^_command 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

SO let me see if I understand this: In patrolling images, you found the image Pio.gif and believe it to be in violation of terms, and therefore you tagged it. I have no problem with that. However, after the uploader has explained more than once that the image is not copyrighted and therefore not a violation you still continue to tag, and insist that I'm in the wrong. Sorry - that doesn't wash. The image is not copyrighted. Bottom line. I saw what you wrote above, and it's rubbish. Using your logic, I could then say that my template is copyrighted to me because I created the damn thing, but you and I know that's pure bullshit. Leave my damn image alone, your template is incorrect and I will continue to revert it every time you put it on . Capisce ? KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that, you have the image as being non-free. That, in itself is ok, but by policy, non-free images must' and can only only be used within mainspace articles - not on talk pages, user pages, or any other namespace. "What Links Here" for the image shows its only use is on a user talk page, which is invalid, so first you need to link it to a main-space article page, and then once linked, you need a valid rationale for its use on that article page. --MASEM 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template you created is clearly licensed under the

civil when interacting with other users here. SQL^{Query me!} 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It is just rubbing people up the wrong way. I see 7 articles on my watchlist that the bot has tagged within the last 6 hours - the FU tagging is getting worse, and is starting to annoy me (and by the look of this talk page many others). Sure FU rationale need to be provided - and sure that is something that should, methodically, be worked on - but going around tagging thousands of images per hour as being "about to be deleted" (no they are not, dumb bot) is completely ridiculous and is just seriously annoying a lot of people. Please throttle the bot back or I will post a note on AN - sensible time frames and availabilities of editors should be used to deal with the FU issue, not the mass tagging/deletions going on here. SFC9394 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you post to
  WP:AN. The rapidity of the bot's actions has been debated before, and upheld as proper. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please cite them SFC9394 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have a look through [10] searching for "betacommand". --Hammersoft (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. This is impossible. Any attempts to address the issue have gone nowhere, and Betacommand reverts my comments if I try to address you. Enigma (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settle down, please. Users are completely allowed to remove comments from their own talkpages. See:

Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages SQL^{Query me!} 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm perfectly calm, and I'm also completely aware of Wikipedia's policies on Talk pages. I was just commenting on the difficulty of getting anything done here. The discussion has moved elsewhere. Enigma (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Pio.gif, you will be blocked from editing. The status of this image (Not copyrighted) has already been explained to you. Repeated tagging of this image is considering vandalism and will be reverted as such— Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs)

I moved this warning to the bottom of the page, and fixed the wikilink, to keep this talkpage readable. This is in no way an endorsement of this warning. SQL^{Query me!} 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this was brought up before, but it looks to me that a lot of the images BetaCommandBot is flagging have articles that were either moved or redirected and the original article the image was used for had been altered to remove it. Would it be possible to automatically fix the article the image cited to the new one? --Ouzo (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot posted three "disputes" regarding the lack of the non-free/fair use templates for the images associated with the article Read or Dream. I have added these templates and provided information on the copyright owner and the source.

I am not complaining, but noting that I found the Wikipedia articles on the non-free/fair use templates a little confusing and therefore I cannot be 100% certain I added everything correctly. If there is still something wrong with the images/templates and a human editor is able to check on this, I'd appreciate that happening before the images are deleted unnecessarily. Thanks very much. DeathQuaker (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the term "dispute" and "invalid" (e.g. Image:Ch_m_michelle.gif.) It's just a robot. It's using an algorithm to determine compliance with Non-Free Images policy. Instead of saying that a "dispute" exists, if the rationale doesn't link to the article it should simply say that. I propose instead this language:

Hi. This is the BetacommandBot robot. I've noticed that there's a rationale for $image but it doesn't link to the article to which it applies. According to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, each and every use of the image must be justified as fair use. Please edit $image and provide a reason why this copyrighted or trademarked image may be freely copied. Nobody will delete the image prior to $date.

I do believe that a portion of the hostility to BetacommandBot is due to the language it uses. RussNelson (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When BetacommandBot finds multiple non-compliant rationales, it will insert an unlimited (as far as I can see) number of citations into the talk page(s) that reference those images. See, for example, Talk:Read_or_Dream where there are four. It would be an improvement if it consolidated all the rationale notices into one citation. RussNelson (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added the title of the article to an already existing fair use rationale on an article that most likely gets very few views, and thus would have been deleted. Pure and utter laziness. MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a bot. Not a human. A bot can't be "lazy", and further a bot can not write rationales or evaluate rationales for some characteristics because they are highly subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The people operating the bot can look at the tagged images and take the 10 seconds it took to fix the issue in this instance.

• One person operates this bot. One. This bot has over 700,000 edits. 10 seconds times even 100,000? More than 11 days of editing, non-stop, to attempt compliance with the images. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you see that as a problem with the policy/tags/established procedures when there are that many edits to be made by this bot? My issue is it's operation with a complete lack of any kind of parallel good faith group effort to fix what are 99% newbie errors. These images are lost after your arbitrary time limit, often with interested parties never even seeing the tags, never mind being able to understand them. I only encounter the stupid thing once in a while, but who is systematically examining tagged images? Leaving it to the uploader is a total cop-out in my opinion, and probably puts many new editors off. Remember here, I am not talking about an image here with no rationale, it was ALL there bar one tiny mistake, on a non-busy article, thus the image dissapears forever on the dodgy premise of it's too hard to fix it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you see that as a problem when it takes that many edits to keep up with the massive influx of improperly rationaled images??? We tried doing it with humans. It failed. That's why this bot is so necessary. This attack on the bot and countless others have all been raised before. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The bot fails too, just in a different and more spectacular way. How about you have the bot deal with new images, now that the upload wizard includes tools to provide the appropriate rationales, and stop messing with old images that were uploaded with proper tags before this idea of a "rationale" existed, or had a rationale but the page was moved, or have a reasonable rationale written by a reasonable human which doesn't satisfy your bot? Then you don't have an "influx" anymore. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not convinced when you can't link to any actual debates or established consensus over the use of the bot, in addition to the complete non-reply to me raising the issue a few months ago on all the appropriate pages. Given the amount of times you are referring to previous debates, you might at least have a handy link to them, or do you just not get the idea that I have that the same complaints are occuring every time this bot runs. Christ, even having the 17! point massive 'dont blame me' box should tell you something about the way things are currently being done. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If a bot can't evaluate rationales, why are you trying to use it for exactly that purpose? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not being used for that purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you ever made a good faith effort to assesss as a percentage of tagged images, how many are being dumped that are easily fixed and not actually causing a major breach of copyright? MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, nor have I made any bad faith efforts in that area either. I don't work in that arena. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You devote so much effort to defending a bot that deletes images as purported copyright violations, but you never look at how many of them are actually copyright violations? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The bot doesn't delete any images. It doesn't have the admin flag. I think you're misunderstanding what this bot does. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bot tags image, uploader doesn't see tag in time, other good faith editors like me who see 7! similar taggings on their watchlist tonight lose the will to even investigate possible bot errors, no parallel community effort is harnessed in parallel to the bot, deleting admin is not interested in fixing as per the attitude at the top of this page i.e. it's not our job, we don't work in that field, bingo, image deleted and lost. What are you not getting about that process, and the obvious role the bot's current operation plays in it? MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Previously debated. I encourage you to view the archive index I previously cited and spend some time reading the prior debates. What I am not getting is why we are having this debate, when it's been debated before with the conclusion being that the bot continues the work. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, as it seems you get complaints a million times when you run this bot, why don't you already have a handy list of links to specific decisions and precedents for pissed off people to look at? Judging at the rate of growth of this page alone tonight, dismissing someone to go peruse the archives is a blatant bad faith attitude. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I don't own or run this bot. Second, that's the second time you've accused me of bad faith. I strongly, strongly, strongly urge you to seek out another administrator to have me blocked as soon as possible to stop my bad faith edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's blatantly bad faith when you enter a discussion, take a position based on previous debates which no sane person would spend time finding in vague archive references, then claiming it's all nothing to do with you anyway. You are clearly on the wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It was previously asked to find prior discussions. I did. Now you're accusing me of bad faith for finding those discussions? Who's on the wind up again? I'm confused. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't found anythong. Pointing to talk archives means nothing in an issue that clearly everyone except you can see is a hotly contested bot. You are absolutely 100% on the total wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. Ok, look, above you asked for some feedback on prior discussions. I gave it to you. Now you're accusing me of doing something *bad* because I gave you partially what you wanted? If you don't want to go through those archives to search for the answers, what motivation does anyone have to find the answers for you? I gave you an entirely proper link to help you in your search. You just don't want to do the work to find the answers you want. I *helped* you, but that's not enough...you want me to do all your work for you. And *I* am the one acting in bad faith? *I* am the one "100% on the total wind up????? Ok, enough of this discussion, as it's clearly gone off the deep end. Please let me know when you make the request to block me and/or file an ArbCom case to get this bot permanently blocked. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be nice to see you stop pretending that it should be the many many editors being pissed off by this bot to have to repeatedly go find these what look like increasingly mythical overwhelming debates that all us stoopid people don't get. It would be nice if you could hold a discussion without bringing up ridiculous strawmen, it would be nice if you followed up with your assertions, or explain why you think there are no links on this page to these oft referenced decisions and debates, it would be nice if you addressed the actual points being made regarding the bots defficiencies and obvious flaws or even acknowledge its wider role in getting images deleted, rather than resorting to "it's not my job/remit/wikititle" (why are you even here then on a talk page about the bot?) and "if it was that bad it would be blocked" (which it has been many times), it would be nice if your whole attitude changed really and you acted less like a wind up merchant and more like a contributor. MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't intend to respond to your comments because of your devolution into hate filled vitriol. I suggest you read
  WP:AN/I. Thank you, and good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Your vague dismissals in here, your general comments such as that, and deletion of images on the grounds of what are minor errors, are all bad faith in my opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Ok. Please request I be blocked. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment and others on here aren't giving me the impression you know what blocks are for. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think I'm acting in bad faith, then my edits are a disruption to the project. That's a blockable offense. I'm sure you'll be able to find an admin to agree with your conclusion that I am acting in bad faith. Therefore, I request you please go and find an uninvolved administrator to perform the block. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That would mean finding a contributor that hasn't found a blatant error with this bot's operation, as I see it that only realy leaves you, so block yourself please and leave us to get on with our rationales. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Above you stated that I was acting in bad faith. That's got nothing to do with the bot. Bad faith edits are disruptive to the project and a blockable offense. I assume you meant what you said, yes? Or did you not mean to say that I was acting in bad faith? Also, I'm not an administrator, so I can't block myself. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• HEY GUYS! :-) I'm a bit late here, but you are both arguing back and forth here. It doesn't look pretty. Hammersoft, you are coming across as over-defensive. Why not politely redirect people to the help desk, instead of increasing the heat on this page? Mick, I understand this annoys you, but why not walk away if you feel Hammersoft's replies are winding you up? Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly I find myself agreeing with Hammersoft and BetaCommand all the way.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And that response to my attempt to calm things down helps how? Carcharoth (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before the next run, could you create a "short notice" version, that says something brief like "An image you've edited, $1, has been tagged for deletion. <sig>"? If there is already a B-bot notice on a user page, add the short form to that section. Same for article talk pages with a variant short notice. Also, I'm not sure how many other editors would get annoyed, but I would like some (brief) notice if any image I've ever edited were tagged. Gimmetrow 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be nice. Or at lump all the day's notices into list. I often have a dozen notices (some "helpful" editors have gone on an article renaming tear lately and NEVER update the images) and these repetitive notices could be made much more user friendly.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lag, and is this the right way to handle this case?

How much lag is the bot working with now? Reason I ask is the bot sent notices for one image at 23:03 and 23:04, but the image had been removed at 22:46.

I'm also wondering if this is the right way to handle this case. The fair use rationale was written up for one article, then the image was incorrectly added to a second article. This is a problem in the second article, not the first. Gimmetrow 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

βcommand, I would really like a response on these two issues. These could reasonably be construed as bugs. Gimmetrow 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what caused the lag, Ive been looking into it, BCBot normal only as a minute or two lag.

β^_command 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Salute!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For continuing to enforce the policy set forth at WP:NFCC and putting up with those editors who would blame you for enforcing it, rather than the policy writers or the original image uploaders, I award you this barnstar. Please keep up the good work and don't let the naysayers deter you - for every editor who complains profusely about your warnings, there is an editor who learned the FURG and has benefited from it. JPG-GR (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

Now with extra nose oil, to keep it running smoothly! -- SEWilco (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betacommand. Please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008

For obvious reasons, it would be good if you could comment over there, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. Carcharoth (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot just put up some deletion stuff fo that image. I now have a fair use clause for it, and you can take down the deletion notice asap. Besides, it's another day at work for me. -iaNLOPEZ1115 TaLKBaCK Vandalize it UBX 12:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the script finished or is it still running? Added a few more when I realised you'd begun... Timeshift (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once it starts it only moves whats tagged when it starts.

β^_command 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah. Btw, what happened here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here? The description is not there but is when I click edit... Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in a discussion in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like

thanks, Ill fix.

β^_command 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent behavior of

Hello, Betacommand. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #BetacommandBot is malfunctioning again. Tiptoety ^talk 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create messy wikitext like in [12]. In such a case the ParserFunctions should be substituted too. See m:Help:Substitution#Multilevel_substitution.--Patrick (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you would tell me what exactly is insufficient regarding the rationale I have left for the use of this image. This is what I included on the image page:

Fair use rationale

1. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work, and of such low quality that it will not affect potential sales of the art work.
2. Inclusion of the image is for information, education and analysis only.
3. The text discussing the significance of this art work, or referencing it as a key example of the artists work, is enhanced by inclusion of the image.
4. There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement image available.

With many thanks for your help. --Adammckenzie101 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you forgot to state for article that rationale is for.

β^_command 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that you plan not to respond to my bug reports. Very well, then, that gives me cause to ask that BetacommandBot be banned permanently: author refuses to fix bugs, and reverts bug reports without acknowledging their existance. I want to point out again that I agree with you that there is nothing wrong in what BetacommandBot is doing -- but everything wrong in how it does it. Fix your code or don't run it. RussNelson (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not ignoring your reports, they are not bugs. I was asked to do it that way. Also check my talkpage as that is where the conversation was moved to.

β^_command 00:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

My apologies. I looked on the archives link at #3, and my bug reports were neither on this talk page, nor were they in the archives. I suggest you edit #3 to also point to your talk page. RussNelson (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Betacommand. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #BetacommandBot is malfunctioning again. Tiptoety ^talk 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is less than 24 hours since the last posting to both of the next two items.

Why were they archived? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of this is a "bot" issue, and how much is an "image" issue, so I'm posting this question in both places.
If I understand the policies, guidelines, etc. correctly, the appearance of the company's logo on the WP page about the company, the album cover on the WP page about the album, and the school's logo on the WP page about the school are all "correct" usages.
However, I frequently see BetacommandBot "Fair use rationale" messages complaining about the inadequacy of the rationale.
Two questions:

1. Given that these are "correct" usages, why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
2. Given that these are "correct" usages, why is a generic rationale not acceptable?

Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo template ({{Non-free logo}} specifically states [emphasis in original] [emphasis added]:

The album cover template ({{Non-free album cover}}) specifically states [emphasis in original] [emphasis in original] [emphasis added]:

WP:FURG#Necessary components lays out the minimal requirements for a valid fair use rationale. Vassyana (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed unique rationale for each use is required by the policy, for the reasons stated in the policy (and because a Foundation-level policy requires it). Bear in mind the usage is not "correct" if not accompanied by an appropriate rationale. Vassyana (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough of the fallacy that the bot enforces correct anything. All you need to do to not be tagged by the bot is state each article name in an otherwise gibberish piece of text. Seriously, we are not talking about a sophisticated piece of A.I. here, it is one persons attempt at coding a super tagging machine, it enforces nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a detailed rationale is required, I'm not questioning that. I am asking:

1. (Given that these are "correct" usages), why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
2. (Given that these are "correct" usages), why is a generic rationale (with gaps for required specific information) not acceptable? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand your questions, the answers are provided above. Could you perhaps rephrase the questions or better explain what you are asking? Vassyana (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but gotta go right now. Will respond later Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that took longer than I expected. Sorry for the delay

As I said, I also posted this question on

Also, in an interesting coincidence, the very next question originally appearing after mine happens to be on exactly the same topic! I'm reproducing that here too.

So, merging MickMacNee, Masem, Adammckenzie101 and β^_command, it seems MickMacNee has the most concise summary of the situation:

"All you need to do to not be tagged by the bot is state each article name".

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from

Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk

The use of images as you describe are acceptable uses, but a correct rationale - in the sense that a machine can understand what the rationale is applying to - still must be provided per the Foundation requirements, it's just very unlikely that the non-machine readible sections of the rationale will be challenged. --MASEM 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in general, it doesn't matter if the rationale is imperfect; the bot messages are complaining about the machine-readable bits of the rationale that are not conforming to its requirements/expectations. Is that correct? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the bot can understand some parts of the rationale and make sure it's compliant, but other parts (the validity of the claims of fair use, no free counterpart, etc.) will have to be judged by a human. --MASEM 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Your answers have been very helpful. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacker Gachet image Help!

I would be grateful if you would tell me what exactly is insufficient regarding the rationale I have left for the use of this image. This is what I included on the image page:

Fair use rationale

1. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work, and of such low quality that it will not affect potential sales of the art work.
2. Inclusion of the image is for information, education and analysis only.
3. The text discussing the significance of this art work, or referencing it as a key example of the artists work, is enhanced by inclusion of the image.
4. There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement image available.

With many thanks for your help. --Adammckenzie101 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you forgot to state which article that the rationale is for.

β^_command 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you to all involved. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot makes multiple entries on an image uploader's talk page, e.g. [[13]]. These entries should be consolidated into one. I can think of two different ways to do that: by searching the talk page for a BetacommandBot entry, and adding the newly-found image into that entry, or by looking at the last entry on the page, and if it's a BetacommandBot enttry, adding the newly-found image into that entry. RussNelson (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Both this and the prior recommendation aren't bugs. They're feature requests. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a human persistently edited talk pages that way, they would be banned. A bot that edits talk pages that way is a buggy bot. I'm not disputing that BetacommandBot's mission will annoy people. I'm asserting that when it does so unnecessarily, that's a bug that needs fixing. RussNelson (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still a feature request, and not a bug. A bug implies a malfunciton. As you note, "there is nothing wrong in what BetacommandBot is doing". It's not a bug, and most emphatically not a reason for banning. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The error in BCB is not in what it does, but in how it does it. If a person made the same edits BCB makes, they would get banned. A bot that makes edits like that is buggy and needs repair. RussNelson (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You your self admitted it's working fine. It's not like it's tagging images already with an acceptable rationale as missing some component. What you're asking for is a feature, an advancement of the code. Should this bot be banned every time someone makes a feature request and such request is not done? Of course not. You're welcome to make a complaint to
          WP:AN/I that this bot operator refuses to implement your suggested feature request, but the chances are very small the bot will be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Please see
            WP:AN for some proposals, specifically: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
            ]

Hi Betacommand. I noticed over on WP:AN that you said "Given that we have about 500 non-free uploads per day, I'm guessing that my future should be around 1000 images about twice a week." Do you think you could expand that a bit more and explain things a bit more clearly (with some numbers) and put it on the record at, say, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#March 2008 schedule for BetacommandBot? For example, have you finished running through the lists of older images? It would be a nasty surprise if you discovered an old list you had forgotten and tagged several thousand old images without warning. I know you don't normally run to a definite schedule, but would you please, please consider it just for this month, as this month may be particularly hectic. And could you also say how you think things will change after the deadline? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deadline does exist (spirit of resolution). I know I can be rather insistent at times, but I really think that just a little bit more effort from everyone involved here, and a brief notification each time you intend to do a run, will make a big difference and make things easier. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also reading Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91#BetacommandBot and Fair use, and I was wondering if we could get a full update on the phases and how complete they are and the numbers involved? A new section and post somewhere, please? Not posted in the middle of an existing long thread... (I missed your post at ANI about Phase 4). Carcharoth (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use your bot to substitute templates appearing on template documentation pages, as instances of templates used in documentation of templates need to be transcluded, so that the text in the documentation will be updated when the templates are edited. Thank you. John254 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betacommand. I offloaded some of my thoughts here. A bit of a random location, but probably better than here. Unless you want me to copy them over here? Just leaving this note to let you know. Getting a response is a bit difficult sometimes. Would it be better if I e-mailed you? Carcharoth (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit bored with the non-free stuff. Was looking at User:Betacommand/Commons. I think I left a note for you before at User talk:Betacommand/20071201#Commons duplicates. Would you have time to point me towards any work needing to be done here or in the "Commons OK" stuff. I have an account at Commons if that helps, but I haven't really got the hang of categorising images there yet. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see the commons link on

β^_command 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Does that do the full move process, or just the renaming bit? I'm afraid those pages aren't telling me much. Maybe the pages are in state of flux as the functions switch over. I'll come back later when the process is fully working. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a polite message saying "Could you please explain why you have reverted this posting? It doesn't look like vandalism to me, but if you think it is, could you please explain why you think this? Thanks"

Your response was:

• revert my message, saying it was vandalism;
• give no answer to my polite question; and
• put an extremely aggressive message on my talk page.

Your behaviour is unreasonable, and is most certainly not "assuming good faith". Pdfpdf (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this from ST47? I make that an increase over 2007 of 155,000 images. That does include free images as well, but even so, are people really uploading that many free images? Geni indicated from a random selection of 100 images that these include many copyvios. What do you think? I remember a comment you made somewhere that there had been an overall decrease of about 100K in non-free images, which doesn't really seem to add up. Which set of stats are wrong here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, would you be able to comment on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance#Weekly uploads and deletions and bot taggings? Discussion should be taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content criteria compliance. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out the diffs given in this diff by a user that cite examples where the bot tagged the image (correctly for #10c FUR) but did not notify correctly. All of them seem to be recent (Feb 13 and later) so I don't know if it's a code change or the like, but would be a serious problem if there is large amounts of non-notification occurring. Hope this helps. --MASEM 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked not to send Blofeld any more notices. (long story), there was a image that was pointed out

β^_command 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

PS that page is full of lies and bullshit and is a complete farce and it will not affect how I operate BCBot.

β^_command 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

as for the other images uploaded by English peasant, that was caused by a user re-name while the bot was running.

β^_command 02:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi I recently raised the issue of non-notification but got fobbed off with "you recently changed your username, that's why". I have been putting fair use rationales on images you tagged and came across this edit. Could you explain why there is no notification about the impending deletion of this image on the talk page of the article in question (

Im looking at BCBot's logs, and it shows that the bot did post to the talkpage. Im not sure what the issue is.

β^_command 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I found the issue, it was a database lock that caused the error.

β^_command 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

SkierRMH, those images in question were all uploaded by the same user, the issue is the fact that the user had a rename. (I just checked all those links and 3 of them still said they were uploaded by the old username.) that issue I cannot help it was caused by a rename. db locks are very very rare and very very few images would be affected, there is just not any good method of re-checking them.

β^_command 03:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• I did not upload these
  peasant 03:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

see above.

β^_command 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm very sorry that I'm not a robot and have to do things "manually", but I'm not about to spend hours looking through 21 archive files to see if someone might have previously asked the question I would like to ask. Have you given any thought to providing a method by which users may quickly and easily determine if their question has previously been answered? Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of common responses are in the big grey box at the top. Might be of some help. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It is point #3 in this big grey box that is saying:

Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer.

I sincerely doubt that 21 archive files have been condensed into 17 numbered paragraphs.

So thanks for your reply, but my question remains unanswered. Viz:

Has anyone given any thought to providing a method by which users may quickly and easily determine if their question has previously been answered? Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to put together a FAQ. I think you'll find that that box does answer most questions, or link to the answers. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that that box does answer most questions
Interesting. If this is indeed the case, why does the box say point #3?
When I read point #3, I get the impression that it is telling me that the box doesn't answer most questions, and that I need to go look in the 21 archive pages. Or am I mis-understanding something? Pdfpdf (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is used, at the page "Maiq the liar/About"... Maiq the liar (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's copyrighted, and you can't use those images anywhere but in encyclopedia articles - so it isn't counting the use on your about page as a use. See

WP:NFCC for our rules about this. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have created the folowing page Wikipedia:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a method of opting out from receiving messages from your bot and letting whatever default action is necessary happen? If not, there should be. My talk page is literally spammed with messages from this bot, and it's bordering on harassment in my opinion. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BCB honours {{

nobots}}; I would consider that a bug rather than a feature if it did. Uploaders need to be informed of the problem. That said, perhaps some amalgamation of notifications is in order. Nevertheless, please provide rationales as required by policy. The notifications are for your benefit, and the benefit of the project, since unless they're addressed the images are very likely to be deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I refuse to be held to a moving target. When I uploaded the images I uploaded they met all policies in effect at the time they were uploaded. I refuse to participate in this non-stop "let's make uploaders do this" garbage that appears to have infested the anti-fair-use brigade.

So far as I see it, I have two options: find a way to stop this bot from informing me, hence my question here, or find all fair-use images I've ever uploaded and nominate them all for deletion at IFD (and risk violating

nobots}} though.. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well you could self-speedy them, since your the uploader. Looking at your history, its about 50-100 images.

I agree this bot is harasing, I want it off my talk page now.--Cloveious (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I was drowned out by ZOMG style comments to your original post, I'm reposting my thoughts on the next phase of BCB here:

So BC, if I understand thise new phase, BCB will go through articles that use an image, but that the image has no FUR for. What sort of FUR will it look for? A valid backlink? the article title? a FUR template? etc. I'd say I'd support BCB generating lists of images that are used in articles where there is no mention of the article title on the image page. My fear is that if BCB edits the articles to remove the images, people might not notice and know to write a separate FUR. How many images are we talking about (FUs in more than 1 article)? My rough guess is 5%-10%, but I'd like a firmer number (xx,xxx) for example to figure out the impact of this phase? BTW, how many images are left in the current phase? MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing there are some left in the current phase. I ran accross Image:NBTBank.jpg, which I've fixed, but it wasn't tagged by BCB and is a 2006 image. Seeing my mistake. MBisanz ^talk 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This activity is really unhelpful. I would strongly encourage you to stop the bot from doing edit sequences like this. If it wasn't for the fact that it is doing a highly important job I would be inclined to block it and you. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. That's not good Beta. I'm really hoping you've stopped by now. I've supported you in the past, as has Stifle, but he is absolutely correct. That is not on. Carcharoth (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly impersonal, impolite and abrasive to harass people about image tagging via a bot. I would really like if you desist and leave the job to humans who personally leave messages for people rather than spamming them.

As someone who has been here for four years or so and an admin for about 3, I would suggest the likes of your bot do not enhance the environment at Wikipedia, but merely contribute to the growing social problems here.

Regards, zoney ♣ talk 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoney, Ive been lot more active than you, What the bot does do is handle a task that humans cannot. it enforces policy. My bot is far from causing the problems that are appearing on en.wiki

β^_command 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I find your selective archival of relatively recent talk page sections interesting. Also strange is the suggestion that your level of activity dictates what behaviour is acceptable on your part. In any case, I can assure you that I have been very highly active at various stages in the past, and indeed review quite a lot of what passes for editing an encyclopaedia these days. I do not think that it is helpful for you to use such an iron hand in the enforcement of policy. If you are concerned about copyright violation, you can rest assured that Wikipedia is well up the creek without a paddle, nor would it have a leg to stand on in court, no matter how many images are removed or correctly tagged. While indeed a necessary and laudable task, it is not a task for which immediate attention makes much of a difference, considering the scale of copyright problems on Wikipedia. Also your bot is simply creating a workload with a lot of false positives and harassing others to tackle the issue, whereas what is more reasonable is for those concerned about image tagging to simply review each case themselves. Certainly that's not going to stop Wikipedia from having violations, but hey, the model is broken in the first place from a perspective of stopping that. zoney ♣ talk 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, have you started phase 4? Where was the discussion approving this? Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to go on the record. I've started an ANI thread here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BC, your bot keeps repeatedly tagging Image:Taal.jpg although it has an FU template and a seperate FUR. I am not entirely sur why it likes this page, but it is starting irritate me. Could you please have a look? Regards, rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you fixed the issue [17]

β^_command 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyways, it's not orphaned and hasn't been since 2006-10-10, so I'm taking the orphaned tag off. superluser_tc 2008 February 18, 13:53 (UTC)

No big deal, that is why the bot lets you know its orphaned.

β^_command 14:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

when the images were tagged they were not in any articles.

β^_command 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You rejected my application, and you don't answer my request to why. Again, why did you reject my application? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

After looking at your talk page you really do need it. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please don't be incivil. Nandesuka (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a right to say it how I want to say it. you have zero ground changing my comments.

β^_command 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Per #8 here, get with me tomorrow and I'll work on tweaking the bot messages to be a little softer. I'd be happy to do this.

Hi, I am Rbpolsen (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC). My userpage has been vandelised 5 times by 70.128.185.15 from Texas. Can you please do something? Thanks. Rbpolsen (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand;
Your recent edits to this userpage are outside the bounds of civility. In what circumstances do you imagine that editors will respond in a positive manner to being told not to "whine and complain?"

also you are not supposed to change others comments, I stated that way for a reason. if you dont like my headers get over it. you have zero grounds to edit my comments.

β^_command 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure if there was something cut off before the "also," but as it stands your reply has several factual errors:

1. It's not a signed comment, it's a header box.
2. I (and every other editor) is actually supposed to, and is
   encouraged to
   fix anything they perceive as a problem.
3. To respond to my (I thought) polite response with "get over it" is highly uncivil.
4. And, to reiterate point #1, I have every grounds to edit the header at the top of your page. It's rude.

I again make the argument that it does not actually facilitate commmunication. In fact it impairs communication. I won't re-edit the header right now, but I'd ask nicely that you make the change yourself. I may also ask a random editor to review this thread, as my discretion.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't deny that he's being slightly uncivil, but it does happen to be his Talk page so he can have it say what he wants, basically. Enigma ^msg! 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. I linked it above, but here it is again:

own this page, he's simply given "wide latitude" in its contents.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Got to agree with Betacommand on this. He's entitled to put whatever header he wants on his own talk page. If you think it's incivil, tell him, and he might or might not change it. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if you accept that he only has "wide latitude" in his talk page's contents, surely that includes warning people about whining and complaining. In my mind, this is far from incivil--it might not be the cheeriest thing to do, but there's no WP rule saying everyone should be cheery. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]