User talk:STBotI
PLEASE DIRECT ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT IMAGES TO THE IMAGE COPYRIGHT HELP DESK . |
If you are here to register a complaint regarding this bot's edits, before doing so please note:
|
I intend to start working on getting STBotI back up and running within the week on new images only, and eventually on all images. To that end, I have created two subpages, User:STBotI/CodeCollaboration and User:STBotI/MessageCollaboration. They are fairly self-explanatory. I'll be uploading the image detection code to the former and heavily commenting it shortly, and I'll put something up on the latter eventually. Suggestions or improvements are welcome to either the page, the talk page, or my user talk. Note that the messages are mostly transcluded, so edits made to those templates will affect all users. Anyone is welcome to participate constructively, I reserve the right to ban anyone from those pages if they are acting inappropriately.
/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4
COPYRIGHT ADDED
I added copyright to my image. Caio Morone (talk)
Picture is a university sports team logo
I added the liscensing information ond the fair use rationale, is this all i have to do for this image to stop it from getting deleted?
Understanding Copyright
User: Political Dweeb here thanks you for showing me this. I now wanted to ask you about how to put a copyright tag on a image description page and then when do I take it away from the image description page.Political Dweeb (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Opt-out
I would like to opt out. And by the way, I have the following code on my talkpage: {{bots|allow=MiszaBot,MiszaBot III,HBC Archive Indexerbot}}
and your bot should recognise this and bypass my page. But it didn't. Please exclude me from your ticketting ASAP. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not following nobots because it's too annoying to meet all the possibilities. My bot is not required to follow nobots. Once there is an optout, I'll review your contribs and decide whether to add you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 11:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Per the seventh bullet-point here, you are required to provide an opt-out method. Since you currently don't comply with the standard one, don't provide one of your own, and insist in exercising God-like power over who is permitted on the hypothetical future one, your bot is not permitted! I suggest you action this ASAP. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)]
- One could argue that these messages are not optional, as it's generally considered to be a good thing to notify a page's creators on a CSD, prod, or AFD request. Once I've assessed your need for opting out of warnings, I'll add you to the list. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 12:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I request at the top of my talkpage that I do not want image-deletion-label-bureaucratic-notice-warning-message-box-notification-thingies. Bots can't read the request, obviously, but that is what {{bots}} is for - I'd like to receive NONE, and I received one from you today. As I pointed out above, with the bot policy, you are required to operate an opt-out system for talkpages. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank-you. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Per
I DID WAT U SAID
I ADDED COPYRIGHT TAGS TO MY IMAGES!
I am lost
I got this message:
==Image copyright problem with Image:Vase3r 480.jpg==
Thanks for uploading
here- just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.For more information on using images, see the following pages:
- Wikipedia:Image use policy
Wikipedia:Image copyright tagsThis is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two of the same now. I only wanted one, and I wanted that on my used page, not a separate page, and smaller image size. Sorry, but computer savvy I lack. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Mamta
I am sorry but I beleive that I had already added the non free rationnel for the image , then what is the problem ? --Mazfired (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
adding links for radiolinkshollywood.com
Hello,
Adding links to wikipedia is very frustrating!
I add them and find out the next day that they have been removed!
What can I do to have them NOT removed?
Please help MY POKIPEEE
.
Thanks
courtens
Change message for 10c failures
The message left for images that fail NFCC 10c is incomprehensible to most people. Can you please edit it to say something simple, like "the rationale must include the title of the page to which it relates"?
4HCrest.gif
I have received a notifaction that this image may be deleted. That may be because my inexperience has left the wrong information regarding it. It is however a crest of a British army unit which ceased to exist in 1958. The crest is in use in the public domain.GDD1000 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:A nous les petites Anglaises.jpg
replied on my talk page. Pgr94 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Errors (tagging images on commons which are GFDL or public domain as non-free)
I noticed this bot left a series of templated messages at User talk:Severa. The images in question are: Image:AbortionAccessinCanadaMap.png (GFDL), Image:AbortionCzechRepublic.png (GFDL/CC-SA-2.5), Image:AbortionLawsAustraliaMap.png (GFDL/CC-SA-2.5), Image:AbortionLawsMap.png (public domain), Image:Abortion time series Norway.PNG (GFDL/CC-SA-3.0), and Image:Abortionmethods.png (public domain). All of these images are on the commons (but have a non-redlinked wikipedia page due to the inclusion of Category:Abortion images. Seems the bot doesn't realize these images are properly licensed on the commons, and that there actually isn't an uploaded image associated with these pages here on en.wiki. I guess it wouldn't matter that much if these image pages were deleted here, because the images would still show through via the commons. However, the categorization would not work (though I'm not even sure if it is appropriate to categorize images from the commons here on wikipedia...) One last thing, the user whose page received the warnings was not the "uploader" of some of these images, but instead was simply the one to add the category to the page. Anyway, hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to repeat these concerns with regard to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 images. I don't care to have my talk page barraged by a misguided bot. Thanks,--cj | talk 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise with Image:Ac preussen.jpg. If you're going to run a bot tagging images all copyright paranoid, you can at least make sure it only tags images that are actually problematic. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Errors in targeting
This bot left a message on my talk page about two dinosaur images, the second being Image:Afrovenator abakensis dinosaur.png. I didn't upload these images, despite what the bot thinks. de Bivort 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like I have the same problem noted in the messages above. Maybe it's time to take the bot off line for a while. de Bivort 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Bots Gone Wild
It looks like your bot wants to be free again, and has again escaped from your tyrannical clutches? ;)
It has again tagged my talk page concerning a couple fair-use images I did not upload. Is this a cry for help from your bot? Are you mistreating your bot?
See this version of my talk page: [1]. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Large fish
Despite your admonitions to the contrary, I find it ridiculous that you can't come up with a reasonable rationale for why an image of a book cover might appear on an article about the book. Wikipedia works best when people who see problems fix them on their own instead of admonishing their fellow contributors. If you were paying me to be a contributor, I'd be happy to listen to your nagging. As it stands, I'm happy to watch you remove good faith content for no good reason because I no longer give a damn. --Dystopos (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly with Dystopos. It is in my opinion counter-productive to bother image submitters who have to learn about using fair-use templates. Since when has competence with templates been a prerequisite for contributing to Wikipedia?
- It would be more constructive if those with competence in fair-use rationale policy and the relevant templates handled the clear-cut cases.
- Or as a compromise make it one-click easy to add a fair-use statement. Pgr94 (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image submitters who can not understand one of the most major concerns about images, copyright, should not be uploading images. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Would you extend that principle to say that "people who are not experts should not edit Wikipedia", or is it still "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? I'm not saying it isn't wrong to use images under Fair Use without a rationale. I'm saying that if you see a problem, you should fix it yourself. Wikipedia is about contributing, not about nagging. --Dystopos (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm saying that people who are not willing to put in a little effort should not edit Wikipedia. We have thousands of images uploaded every day, if everyone just included the right documentation, we'd be fine. Very many people don't, and I do not have the time to identify and fix every one of them. I do have time to identify them and let the uploader know, so they can fix it. If the uploader is going to continue ignoring policy, then that uploader should be blocked. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Could you explain why the people who uploaded content in the "bad old days" -- when the policy recommended using boilerplate fair use templates and didn't discuss individual rationales for each article --should be lumped in with the current crop of flagrant lawbreakers? And why it takes less time time and is more effective to notify the original uploader of content added years ago than to glance and see if maybe the rationale for the individual article is glaringly obvious, perhaps even something that could be worded precisely the same way the boilerplate was worded? It's just tiresome to have contributed ones efforts voluntarily and in good faith only to be bombarded years later with newly-discovered policy requirements. --Dystopos (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm saying that people who are not willing to put in a little effort should not edit Wikipedia. We have thousands of images uploaded every day, if everyone just included the right documentation, we'd be fine. Very many people don't, and I do not have the time to identify and fix every one of them. I do have time to identify them and let the uploader know, so they can fix it. If the uploader is going to continue ignoring policy, then that uploader should be blocked. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Would you extend that principle to say that "people who are not experts should not edit Wikipedia", or is it still "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? I'm not saying it isn't wrong to use images under Fair Use without a rationale. I'm saying that if you see a problem, you should fix it yourself. Wikipedia is about contributing, not about nagging. --Dystopos (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image submitters who can not understand one of the most major concerns about images, copyright, should not be uploading images. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Leading flack
Why is the bot putting <digit><CRLF><CRLF> out before its message - as here? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because the page didn't exist and for whatever reason the bot didn't see it as blank, but saw it as an error. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Erroneous image tagging
This bot has tagged
- Wrong, you failed to provide a non-free image use rationale, as required by policy. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It has also tagged Image:AppleInsider_Homepage.png when it already contained all the necessary copyright information Eraserhead1 (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC).
Image:AztecaLasVegas.jpg already provided a fair use rationale, which named the article in which it was used. Nevertheless, I have added the approved rationale using the template. You are creating unnecessary work by tagging images that already have a fair use rationale. dhett (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)(comment withdrawn)
Bot message
Hi! The message that I received on my talk page has this text:
"You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale."
When I had uploaded the image, I had put in a {{Non-free book cover}} tag. This is (at least was then back in 2005) logically understood to be the fair use rationale. However on investigating, your bot seems to make it mandatory to use the template: {{Non-free use rationale}}. So I would suggest that you modify the message text to allow users understand that this is what is needed. This would better ensure compliance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I explained to the other small-minded fool who assumed that the bot is a foolish script, the bot looks for many things, one of which is a non-free image use rationale. Anyone who talks about how to appease the bot rather than follow policy is misunderstanding the term "policy". The bot enforces policy, and if you have clearly failed to follow policy, then the bot will issue a warning and add a deletion template. {{Non-free book cover}} is not a fair use rationale. The template even says that it is not a sufficient claim of fair use. If you can't keep track of your old uploads, which I can understand, well that is why the bot sends you warnings... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Confused as to why this was tagged. NFCC 10c) is cited which states:
- "The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item" - yep got that, although the recommended (but not mandatory) link is omitted.
- "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." - yep got that too, although again in plain text rather than a template (which the guideline doesn't mandate).
The source and generic template tag are also present. I really can't see where I've gone wrong here...
- Reading the guideline again: The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item. Where does that say I need a link to the article? AlexJ (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)]
- Reading the guideline again: The name of each article (a link to the articles is recommended as well) in which fair use is claimed for the item. Where does that say I need a link to the article?
Fair use rationale for Image:BlasterBates LWABjpg.jpg
In compliance with policy 4Q2, you are hereby welcome to delete the image, and be damned. No attempt will be made to make this a more interesting encyclopedia in the future. ɟʎ. Djdaedalus (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
Please see [2]. --Duk 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked again
Please see [3] and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_again --Duk 03:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BethClaytonPSQ.png}
This seems to have been inappropriately tagged. The image description page does bear the required information, and it survived a deletion discussion already. Image:BethClaytonPSQ.png. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Logos
The issue of logos has been discussed several times. Once it is pointed that it is company logo claiming fair use, there must be no problem. Skartsis (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Bot error
Your bot has been repeatedly tagging images I've uploaded over the past few weeks as "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" incorrectly. The latest such image to be tagged was Image:Make It Happen (Mariah Carey song) screenshot.jpg, which, as can clearly be seen, does not violate that criterion in the slightest. Please fix this problem as soon as possible. Thank you. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your report. Unfortunately, I could not include all Wikipedia's rationale helper templates in the bot's initial version, and am relying on reports from community members such as yourself for bot mistakes and the like. I have reviewed your image, and the template {{filmr}} was not fully supported by the bot. The bot's image detection module has been updated in revision 81 of the bot, and the code will be pushed live shortly. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
fixed
ok, I fixed the sound clip for All Summer Long.... Seki rs (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello
So what should I do?
Actually
Actually forget it, I undserstand, I did it Russian Luxembourger (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Confuzzled
Hiya. Odd question for you. The bot left this message. Not questioning the copyright status, but I had nothing to do with this image whatsoever. Bug? TravellingCari 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- You uploaded it at 23:26 yesterday, then deleted it one minute later:
Deletion log * 23:27, August 18, 2008 Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:DSC04764.JPG" (restore) Page history * (diff) 23:26, August 18, 2008 . . Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) (215 bytes) File history * 23:26, August 18, 2008 . . Travellingcari (Talk | contribs | block) 3,072×2,048 (2,537,216 bytes)
- For some reason ,the bot decided to tag it anyway, even though it is now on commons. I'll look into that... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh got it, the one it notified me about was someone else's. I thought I had changed the name of my image when I uploaded it. Apparently I didn't. So it notified me about an image with the same name. Got it. TravellingCari 16:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. TravellingCari 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- And the bug is fixed and committed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Glad my comment that turned out to be an error on my part helped you ID and fix something TravellingCari 02:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- And the bug is fixed and committed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. TravellingCari 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh got it, the one it notified me about was someone else's. I thought I had changed the name of my image when I uploaded it. Apparently I didn't. So it notified me about an image with the same name. Got it. TravellingCari 16:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Your bot again
Your bot continues to incorrectly tag images I have uploaded as before, and is now threatening to block me. Please fix this problem as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect edit summary
This bot stated, "This image has no licensing information" when in fact the image in question had incomplete licensing information (the article name was missing in the fair use justification). It would have been useful to be clearer about this in the edit summary and in the note to the uploader. Is it possible to modify the bot to detect the missing article name? The fair use template changed itself to say "ARTICLE NAME NEEDED," so if nothing else you could use that. Thanks. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Richard Cromwell (actor) image uploaded today is for attributed free use please
Richard_Cromwell,_circa_'33_(from_Bill_Keane_collection).jpg This is an 8x10 glossy personally given by Richard Cromwell (actor), aka Roy Radabaugh, to his cousins and my late grandparents: Lowell ("Socks") & Ethel Stocking of Santa Monica, CA, circa 1933. I have owned this photo for 15 years upon inheritance from my late grandparents. Thanks for not deleting it as there are clearly no copywrite issues as it is from my personal collection. Sincerely, Bill Keane, Conejo Valley, CA aka "keane4"
To whom it may concern, please note: Please feel free to edit this page to be more in compliance with my obvious wished to have this photo, a personal possession of mine, to be perpetually included on Wikipedia, and anywhere else on the web going forward. My intent is to upload the photo to the Richard Cromwell (actor) article, and not have it unnecessarily deleted. My only request is that if the photo is used elsewhere in the future, then it be properly attributed to my personal collection. Thanks very much for your assistance in properly conveying my wishes. Much obliged, Bill Keane, Conejo Valley, CA. 08/31/08
Thanks very much for your help (this is all a little confusing to me), "user: keane4"
Keep It Playa
May you fix it..please. Thank you. :)
--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 21:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
About the image that had a copyright problem...
It now has a fair use rationale. Thanks for reminding me.
~~) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Sest dana juna image
I have uploaded a lower resolution image and believe to have a correct non-free rationale.
Bot tagging MTB-2.jpg
The bot tagged the image as lacking rationale. The rationale is written in the text. I understand that a bot cannot be made to comprehend text but perhaps then it should not run around tagging things. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: Fair use rationale for Image:Demo-shmemooooo.JPG
I added a description as to why the image has a purpose but I'm not positive it's what you gusy are looking for. Help me? Thanks! Rocknrollstar328 (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Image Kokneses_pils.jpg
This picture is a colored photograph of unknown origin from the beginning of the 20th century, definitely prior to the WWI. All authorship rights has expired due to the age of photograph, which exceeds 70 years.
Re:Your uploads
My adopter has helped me figure out the public domain liscence thingy so hopefully fewer problems in future.Petebutt (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)