User talk:Betacommand - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betacommand (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 9 November 2007 (→Thoughtful question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:41, 9 November 2007 by Betacommand (talk | contribs) (→Thoughtful question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

−6140 days left

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note:

There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria
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.
Read the policy
Check and make sure the image has a valid source
Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here)
I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine.
I do not want to see images deleted
All images must comply with policy
A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale.
If you're here to whine and complain that But <place image name here> is just like my image and isn't tagged for deletion I will tag that image too, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Bot misidentified source of protected image

There is a message in my talk from Betacommandbot which begins:

Thanks for uploading Image:UCI letters.png.

The image in question is an interlinked "UCI" (University of California, Irvine, perhaps?) in gold on a medium blue background. I did not upload this to Misplaced Pages. In fact, I have yet to upload an image of any kind to the site. Could you check your bot and the image to see if you can find out who did upload this?

Marketstel 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Love letter

Right, Betacommandbot, or whomever has unleashed this on the world. What's the deal with this image?
image:Ble-goude.gif
You tag it for review, but the human behind you never bothers to show up with any reasons. More specificity is added to the rationale, the tag is removed, and a week later, here we are again!
Stated reason this time:
c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
Bloody christ, what do you call the link at the bottom of the page?
Look, I understand your desire to make[REDACTED] as small and nonspecific as possible. Heck, I might even admire it in another time and another place. But if you feel the need to auto delete images from wikipedia, please tell your creator that she/he has to actually visit and look at the images in question, and come up with some human readable demands which can be addressed by other humans.
Otherwise, your existance, dear Betacommandbot, is a massive pain in everyone's collective ass.
XOXO T L Miles 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article name is supposed to be in the summary section. This bot got me on a few of those too until I figured it out. ≈Alessandro ♫ 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The File Links section is not part of the image description page. File Links is auto created to show where the image is used. Non-free rationales need to be specific for each use, and thus must contain the article name in the rationale. β 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And this is why having an automated bot leave cryptic messages results only in confusion and unneeded deletions of useable images. I'm sure you created this for the best possibe reasons, but the net effect is incredible annoyance for everyone involved. Please either do this manually or don't do it at all. T L Miles 14:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot keeps tagging non-orpaned images as orphaned

This bot doesn't recognize the "not orphan" tag and keeps tagging images as orphans when, obviously, they are not. This needs to be fixed. --Sable232 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

example please. β 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Marquis ornament.jpg. It's linked to in the text of the article to show the car's emblem (logo), but there's not really a good place to put an image in. --Sable232 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

{{not orphan}} says Warning This free file is linked to from some pages, Please note that not orphan is used for FREE images. β 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Can I have a second opinion about a question on my talk page in the "image question" section User talk:Wiki alf#Image question please. Your thoughts would be appreciated as to what to do next with this, if anything.--Alf 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, good sir.--Alf 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuing on from this image conversation started over on Alf's talkpage. Could you take a look at Image:Mustaine052007.jpg. The uploader doesn't have a very good track record for understanding WP:FAIR and seems to be shading the rules a little on his latest upload. The image he is trying to replace is a free-use image from Commons and is a bit grainy... but still a freebee. I think he may be a fan who is trying to push a better quality image into a hero page at any costs. I will google around and see if I can find the true source. 156.34.142.110 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The image in question is probably not a free image. If you take a look at the bottom right hand corner of the image, you will see a watermark image, showing that the user who uploaded it has probably taken it from another site. For him to release it free, he would have to be the copyright owner, which looks extremely suspicious in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Keen eye!. A quick Google search shows all sorts of poses taken from relatively the same angle... NOT our exact shot in question... but pretty close. Enough to indicate that a deeper search will likely reveal a web source somewhere. 156.34.142.110 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lorezjacket.jpg

Hi, sorry to bother you, I don't have much experience of Images and their licensing, especially the fair use policy, your bot recently tagged this image {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per ]|date=November 6 2007}}

So I added this template: {{ subst:Book rationale | Article name goes here | website goes here | person or company owning the intellectual property goes here }} however, I'm not sure if its right... please get back to me on my talk page cheers PhilB ~ /_C 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nvm A friend sorted it PhilB ~ /_C 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussionbot.py and taking up too much RAM

Betacommand, I've been told that the Discussionbot.py script is taking up way too much RAM. Could you look into why that is? MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ill take a look. β 21:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Star images

I would like to discuss this tagging at Talk:Shadow Star - Because there are multiple characters discussed to this article, and the fact that these images in no way harms the ability for Shadow Star comics or TV media to be sold, this should be compliant with Wikimedia image policies. If you contest the amount of images, please also discuss at the Village Pump. WhisperToMe 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Im not taking this to the VP. it has been discussed usage of NFC in list is not allowed. β 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the discussion. I would like to see the exact context and the rationale. If I find a page that is inconclusive, I will start a Village Pump discussion to attract more people to see if there is an agreement. WhisperToMe 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on AN and ANI (about 6 months ago). the result, NFC in list are not allowed. β 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I want an exact link to the discussion. Since you cite the AN and ANI discussions, please provide a link so that I understand which discussions you are referring to and how they define this. WhisperToMe 05:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Look them up, Im not a broken record. β 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See, I believe that it is the responsibility of the person making the assertion to link to the policy decision. I will look for them anyway, but next time it is a good idea to have links on hand to the discussions themselves so that other participants will easily follow decisions. Now, I will state that images showing several characters at once exist. Maybe it may be good to use one of those pictures to represent some characters and then keep individual images for characters not in the pictures. WhisperToMe 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I do not know where to begin with the Administrator's noticeboard - Is the discussion you describe in the administrator archive? Incident archive? 3RR? WhisperToMe 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please use the preview option, repeated quick editing of a discussion page is a disruption. If you can get one or two group images you might be able to make a case for that. But what you want to do is not allowed. As for the discussions it was on WP:AN and WP:ANI there was even a Signpost article. β 05:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the Signpost was easy to search. Are you referring to this? Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use ? WhisperToMe 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that was part of the discussion. β 05:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cool :) - I posted my opinion about the difference between gallery images of episodes and gallery images of characters on the talk page. What I will do later is upload a gallery image of the main characters of Narutaru, which will eliminate the need for the individual pictures of some of the main characters. There is also a large composite with minor characters which could be used for some of them. I would still have to find a composite for the anime versions of the characters. WhisperToMe 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to that :) WhisperToMe 05:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Australis_Dino Crisis 3.png

I already explained that the fair use was ok. why was it deleted??? I mean everything in the Fair Use Rationale was correct anyway so what was the point in bots deleting it over a dispute over a correct fair use ratione that makes little senceOsirisV 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only find File:Dino Crisis 3 Australis.png, I guess that this is the image you meant. You stated:

Fair use rationale:
Official Capcom Artwork, used to show the detail and look of the creature. Artwork to show users Detail. Low-resolution image is used; not the original resolution for the image and cover artwork.
No free use substitute for the artwork is available.

It does not say on which page this rationale is valid, etc. Hence it did not have a valid fair use rationale, resulting in tagging and subsequent deletion (the deletion is not performed by a bot, that is done by a human editor who evaluates both the tag and the rationale (in case it did get repaired). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Home Alone

I think I have addressed the fair use rationale problem of the Home Alone image, can the template on the page be removed? mickyfitz13 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

tag removed. β 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect tagging, three times on the same article.

Please see Talk:Through the Looking Glass (Lost), which has three posts by bcb saying that some images fail NFCC... after the article's promotion to FA. Both had FURs too, and although it wasn't a template rationale, text rationales are allowed under WP:FURG. Thanks, Will 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct they are allowed, and the rationale for Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG was 95% correct the issue was at the Through the Looking Glass article on the English Misplaced Pages, the name of the article was not specific it should have been at the Through the Looking Glass (Lost) article on the English Misplaced Pages, please note the exact name of the title of the article. β 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though to be honest, that's not the fault of the original uploader. Will 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Aargh! Slow down on my talk page!

It would be nice if this damn thing at least gave me a chance to fix the FUR on the first image it messaged me about before dumping another two messages on my talk. How about a autodelay so it only dumps one template every 5 or 10 mins on a user talk, giving them a chance to fix the image before it notifies them about the next? Exxolon 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Case in point - it's dumped 2 more in the it took to type the above message. Exxolon 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- 5 messages in 5 minutes - nowhere near enough time to deal with each issue. Slow it down! Exxolon 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have seven days to fix it. that is all the time you need. β 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is that your bot comes off as overly aggressive when it dumps multiple messages on a user talk page in that short a timescale. Understandably any reasonable user is going to feel victimized and or harassed by such a slew of messages - each of which boils down to "YOU DID IT WRONG! FIX IT OR I'LL DELETE IT!". I know it aggravates the hell out of me. Exxolon 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry you feel that way, But the bot needs to check 320,000 images attempting to place throttles on talkpage notifications just increases the risk of the bot crashing and then no-one getting a message about that image. Also neither I or the bot can delete images. The tag is placed there to let users know that they need to fix their images, they have seven days to fix it, and if the user ignores the issues they know that the image will be deleted.

Also if you dont want to get these messages from the bot fix your images before BCBot tells you to fix them. β 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

About the image of Mr. and Mrs. McCormick.

I'm sorry; I don't actually know it's designation down-pat. I hope that you, despite being a robot, can understand which image I mean. Since you say it needs to be deleted without a source and license provided, and since the user who uploaded it doesn't seem to want to bother with it; I propose that either you or ImageRemovalBot delete it. I know a site which has an image just like it; I can pick it up from there and upload it again, with the proper information (I think!). Wilhelmina Will 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Regardless of your pleading innocent, I think you (providing there is a human subject behind this "bot") are simply a busybody. Granted, Misplaced Pages is a free-for-all. But it is also a cooperative work, and the tone of all editors should be constructive. By this, you are not helping the image of Misplaced Pages, and in fact, may be encouraging competition to this service. I know that I am on the lookout for some alternatives to this nonsense. Think about it, if you have a conscience, which I gravely doubt.!Mike 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If I might put my two-bits in; I think you're wrong about this user. A user would not likely have the word "bot" in their name unless they actually were a robot, would they? Wilhelmina Will 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:JourneyBegins1.jpg

It's a screenshot from a freeware videogame used in that videogame article (Neophyte (series), so I don't think it should be deleted. This also aplies for the two other images used in the article for the two other videogames in the Neophyte series. I'll add the non-free use templates to all three, and will be very grateful if you (or your bot) don't delete them. --ŴôôDéļf 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Timing

Betacommand, I'm sure at some point down the road I'll be here railing about some image I want to keep that isn't permitted, but until then, thanks for upholding a reasonable policy. How long after a non-compliant image is posted does it take for your bot to label it? Just a fact I'm looking to keep in the back of my mind for when I begin uploading more images. Mbisanz 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

it all depends. sometimes its a matter of minutes other times its months. Just take care and make sure that the rationales that you upload are solid and you will not have any issues. β 05:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there someway to "submit" an image to the bot to be checked for compliance?Mbisanz 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot is tagging images with 10c when articles are disambiguated

As far as I can tell, the bot is tagging image pages that don't have a link to the pages that they are used in. This is causing problems when articles are moved to a different name because of disambiguation, or when a better name is found for an article. I don't know much about bots, but it seems like you could have it check if the article's name has been changed from "foo" to "foo (bar)" and then check the dates of the image and the original "foo" page. If the dates check out, then the bot could update the article name field, leave the article alone, or add it to some category where editors can change the name. Not sure what should be done when an article is renamed. I don't know what kind of info WP's database can give you to resolve that issue, but maybe you could search for "fair use for foo" and update the image page if "foo" has been changed. Another problem I've found is that one can do a bullet proof FU rational for some page (page A), and then an inexperienced user can come along and add the image to another page (page B) and the image is then tagged for deletion. Maybe you could check dates, and instead of deleting the image, if it met our requirements for page A, then remove it from page B. Obviously these are difficult things to script. The thing I worry about is that well chosen images with well made image pages are going to be deleted and replaced with poor images and image pages. We need a system where if you do it right, it sticks. That way we can slowly get reid of all the bad images (and descriptions) until only good ones are left. I know I've had images caught up in these sweeps where I took a lot of time to select the correct image and have created extremely detailed image description pages, then had to fix trivial disambiguations so the image isn't deleted. I frequently take wikibreaks, so it's a little unreasonable to expect editors to constantly defend well made image pages. Anyways, probably nothing you haven't heard before, but I think these are issues that should be dealt with. - Peregrine Fisher 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes BCBot tags images that link to DAB pages, per policy you need to include the exact title. BCBot does follow redirects, but it cannot follow DAB pages. there just is not a valid method to do this. As for your other concern. BCBot looks at an image, gets where its used, and then checks the image text for at least one of them. If you add the image to page A and have a good rationale for page A, it will not get tagged for deletion if another user adds it to page B. right now if the image has at least one valid rationale its skipped by the bot. β 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

but it cannot follow DAB pages. there just is not a valid method to do this. Further reason you need to kill this thing. It really appears you are emotionally invested in tagging images with a bot instead of manually. But its equally clear that doing this automatically simply does not work. You can't assess a rationale that way, and when you find an actual problem, you can't comunicate to the human uploader in a way s/he can understand. All that happens is that lots of well intentioned uploaders get frustrated and acceptable fair use images get deleted. Please stop this! T L Miles 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the messages are quite clear and this bot will not stop. I have been proven Time and again correct. DAB pages fail WP:NFCC Number 10 part C. if you dont like policy file and ArbCom case so that I can be proven correct again. β 15:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not "dab" pages that are in question. It's redirect pages. Since a redirect page points unambiguously to a unique page, this is fully compliant with 10(c).

A way needs to be figured out for the 'bot to take redirects into account. Jheald 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jheald, BCBot sees and understands redirects. BCBot does not follow disambiguation (DAB) pages, which is the issue raised here. BCBot has been understanding redirect pages for a while now. β 15:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the bot cannot determine which link on a disambig page is the correct one, and that a human needs to do it. But that is why the bot puts a tag up that gives humans a week to do so. Such images do need to have their link corrected to meet our criteria. The bot seems to be doing well. As for following redirects, it should be doing that now. If there is an example of when it has not followed a redirect, a diff would be helpful. 1 != 2 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's probably some problem that I'm not thinking of, but why can't it check if "foo" is the page mentioned in the FU rational when the page the image is used on is "foo (bar)"? Basically just try ignoring what's in parenthesis and see if that matches? - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Links to DAB's dont meet WP:NFCC#10c β 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously

Stop spamming my talk page. Deleting images because the fair use rationales don't link to the articles they're used in is excessive, bureaucratic nonsense. And giving only seven days to fix such a minor problem is unfair (not everyone logs in every day). Your pointless bot has done nothing but damage this site. --YellowTapedR 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it up on the policy pages, the bot did not make these rules up. It is policy that fair use images that do not have a rational linking to each article should be deleted after giving 7 days to fix. If you don't like it then try to change policy, but don't bitch at the guy who runs the bot. 1 != 2 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the bot was approved to tag images that lack fair use rationales, not to pester users who, in good faith, forgot to include a link in the rationales to the articles in which they're used. Some 15-year-old sitting at his computer shouldn't wield so much power. --YellowTapedR 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks, and I am not a child. the rationales that you use are not valid and that is why they were tagged. β 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) "...forgot to include a link..." = lack of fair use rationale. Simple. Sorry if you're annoyed but it's policy, not Betacommandbot power tripping... And please refrain from the ageism, very patronising. The Rambling Man 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. To have a bot tag images lacking fair use rationales is one thing, but spamming people's pages because they didn't provide a link in the rationale, which hasn't always been a requirement, is another. There is only one way you can describe Betacommandbot's actions: trolling. --YellowTapedR 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and not resort to baseless acusations. The requirement for a link is there now, and it is not a disservice to let people know the image is in need of attention. I really don't see how you have been slighted here, you can just ignore the message if you like. 1 != 2 03:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a pain, that's why. You upload an image to improve an article just to have it deleted with hardly any warning -- again, most people don't log on everyday -- because of a minor rule that the bot might be able to fix itself. Calling the bots actions "trolling" isn't a baseless accusation; it's an observation. Think about it: Why else would someone want to run a bot that gets practically nothing but complaints. --YellowTapedR 03:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

La Mariage Anglais

As a novice user I guess I don't get to call your warnings spam. Could you possibly clarify, in simple terms, whether there is any easy way of putting a picture on the page in question? I have looked again at the criteria for use of unfree images - 10 is a nice round number, easy to remember, but I'm still not sure I actually understand them. How do I find, construct or request a justification and from whom? In simple terms: "is trying to load an album cover really worth the effort?" Thanks. Martinevans123 12:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A simple and effective method of writing a rationale is to use {{non-free media rationale}} and make sure that you include the article name where your using the image, and why you need the image. If you do that you shouldnt have any problems. β 12:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and positive response - I'll try again. But since I mistakenly used the feminine pro-noun in the name I gave it, it might be convenient if this image was deleted anyway (maybe there is a gender bot for pages Francaises?)! Martinevans123 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added link to article - is this better/sufficient? Martinevans123 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to have a rationale, please see WP:NFURG and {{non-free media rationale}}. β 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a rationale as per the template - is this now ok? Martinevans123 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Bot

Once again, I hate your bot. I have no idea what it wants me to do to make my images fair use, again despite the fact that they are all already fair use under Misplaced Pages guidelines AND have valid fair-use rationales. What can't your bot just tell me specifically what's wrong, or better yet, fix it. -- jackturner3 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very specific please see WP:NFCC#10c β 14:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GramParsonsLive1973.jpg

I see nothing missing in the fair use rationale for this image as it now stands. I have not attempted to change anything yet. Backspace 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

see |this someone else fixed it already. β 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It looks like someone fixed it already. I think one of the problems was that the rational did not mention the article it was for, which is needed. Also the new rational states who owns the copyright, which is also required. Thanks. 1 != 2 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article taggin

I see the new article tagging rule for fair use rationales...what do you do if the same image is used in multiple articles though? Douglasnicol 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

you need separate rationales for each use. β 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sterile edit warring on Image:Gatesheadcrest.jpg

Re these two edits: and - We had a discussion here about rationale tagging a bit ago, in which I asked you to make sure that you spent reasonable effort on anything you did manually, though the explanation that the specific issue I had an objection to was fully automated (tagging due to lack of specific article reference) took the discussion sort of sideways.

On this specific edit series, however, you (not the bot) reverted to the bot version of the page with warning twice without once taking the effort to either explain on the article talk page or in an edit summary what the problem was with the rationale. Unlike automated bot tagging, those reverts without explanation were your manual responsibility and fault.

This is unacceptable behavior. Failing to explain what was wrong with the rationale, and blind reverting, was clearly not good process on your part there. That was sterile edit warring rather than discussion to explain and show consensus. Sterile edit warring, even in the name of improving the encyclopedia, is not vaguely OK.

If someone removes the tag out of ignorance you bear the responsibility to explain if you're going to put it back manually. Our fair-use rationale policy is obtuse and difficult for even many experienced editors to understand. Enforcing it in a sterile and arbitrary manner is destructive to the encyclopedia. The automated tagging is one thing - when someone has indicated by editing that they are paying attention to something and are merely ignorant, you have to do the right thing and put in reasonable effort.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

its not the fact that they are ignorant, the issue is they are not reading the notice. Ive tried to leave comments people dont listen. β 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming bad faith. If you make no effort to communicate with them, it's your fault. If they don't respond to one or two explanations, that's one thing, but failing to make the first effort to communicate with them is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume nothing. Its proven fact, I repeatedly say things users ignore it and revert. (this has happened MANY times). After numerous users repeatedly ignoring my comments and not fixing when its pointed out (All they do is undo or revert) I have given up attempting to talk with a box of rocks. β 00:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You made no good faith first attempt with User:The sunder king that I can find.

If you're unwilling to make good faith first attempts to communicate with people, then with all due respect to your long and extremely valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages, it's time for you to take a break. It's never been ok to abuse people like that. A lot of the time admins have looked the other way, but it's becoming increasingly disruptive and abusive.

I would prefer that you both continue your valuable contributions and take the time to try communicating with people. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me follow this up a bit. I understand if you don't feel like engaging in extended discussions with people over topics like that all the time. If I ended up doing a lot of them, it would drive me nuts, too.

But you run the bot. And a lot of people are confused by the bot's output, or react badly to it. You know that. Everyone knows that by now. It's part of the deal with running it.

Part of the community responsibility of running a bot, and a high-visibility one in particular, is being able and willing to deal with the kickback that happens from it.

I think that it's reasonable for you not to have to deal with the kickback all the time. But when you run one of these rationale tag runs, I think it's reasonable to ask that you do so when you have some time and energy available to help people understand and discuss with them. Timing a bot rationale tag run for a period of time when you're unwilling to put the effort into communicating with people and properly discussing objections is not good stewardship of the encyclopedia's best interests.

If you really are too tired of dealing with it, ask for some help with other admins who have some bandwidth and can follow along making the necessary followup. If you posted to WP:AN asking for volunteers to help with the followups on any of your bot runs, you're highly likely to get the help that's required to make such followup entirely discussion and communications happy.

Working yourself into a corner where you feel that sterile reverts like that are the only way out is just bad. It's bad for you, it's bad for the project, it creates drama and stress where we didn't really have to have any. It's entirely preventable.

Please either ask for help on the followups thing, or run it when you have the energy to do followups right. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly discuss things with users who are willing to discuss, As for the AN post I am almost constantly running BCBot and will continue to run it. Ive been doing this for several months now, People help with discussion here. We should apply the same issue to them, I show people the same respect they give me. If user post a question on my talkpage Ill gladly help them β 02:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't address the specific problem I noted, where you double-reverted someone without having informed them anywhere or explaining in an edit summary. That you discuss constructively here doesn't help if you silently revert out there... You have to proactively communicate whenever you take an affirmative action. Georgewilliamherbert 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop Your Bot

It's wonderful that you would like to contribute to Misplaced Pages; however, blindly editing pages using a bot isn't contributing. I would be happy if you used your bot to find images that might not have sufficient rationale information and the like so that you could personally review them and act upon what you see; but, you don't seem to have any personal involvement with what your bot finds.

Please stop and think about the net effect your bahaviour is having on the wider community. You only have to read the posts on this page to see that your net effect is negative.

I have spent several 10s of hours reading and re-reading the image usage guidelines and discussion pages, then editing the images I've uploaded to ensure compliance; however, it doesn't matter what I do your bot always wants to delete my images. Please either get personally involved or find another outlet for your desire to contribute. Christopher Rath 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here here! It's time some administration gets involved in this.T L Miles 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The bot is doing its job. It is policy that images be properly licensed. The net effect on the community is positive; that bot helps get rid of thousands of improperly license images. Maxim 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxim, read what Georgewilliamherbert wrote above. It makes a lot of sense. I (very occassionally) spot the odd query here and deal with it before Betacommand can get to it. We should all do that more. But we all need to be polite about it and not wave policy in people's faces and say this is just a small part of thousands of images being dealt with. That can alienate people who will think that you aren't paying attention to what they are saying. Christopher Rath made some good points. It would be better to respond to what he wrote than to respond to what T. L. Miles wrote (no offence to Miles). Carcharoth 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

NFCC 10(c) and backlinks

I've started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Is a backlink required by NFCC 10(c)? regarding what seems to be a discrepancy between the current wording of WP:NFCC and BetacommandBot's interpretation of it. Your opinion on the matter would be most welcome. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Added fair use rationale

I added a fair use rationale tag to this picture Image:John madden football.jpg (cover art) -Bonus Onus 03:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed issues with the image. Suva Чего? 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Masque of the Red Death (screenshot).jpg

I have clarified the fair use rationale. --victor falk 11:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:NBB Album Cover.jpg

I have added fair use rational to this image. I hope it is okay now! Thanks! Josborne2382 11:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Northern bank logo.png

I have added a fair use rationale as required to Image:Northern bank logo.png. Hope it's OK now - please don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot misfiring

Once again, shut it off with the automated messages. Londo06 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

where is the bot making errors? β 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Netscape-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Netscape-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please, please get your bot to just notify you when it flags something it thinks I've uploaded as unsourced or whatnot. I never, ever upload images other than to improve the compression and thus never know where the image came from, or anything about it other than the pre-compression filter and what it looks like. I suggest, as always, to actually notify the uploader of this, I feel it is terribly unfair to just delete images without notifying the actual uploader. --Tene 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The original uploader was also notified. The bot cannot tell the significance of your involvement, and even if it could it would not know your level of interest. I am not sure how the bot decides who to notify, but the first upload seems to always be amongst them. 1 != 2 15:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What will satisfy you ???????

BetacommandBot keeps telling me that there is a problem with the images that I supply. That "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid". I've done my best within the Wiki guidelines, I believe, to provide justification for their use, but I do not think that the program has even considered them. Is this a serious use of a program or is it simply a means of being a pest? If so well done, but a joke's a joke.--Marktreut 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NFURG β 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Operation Neptune Title Screen

Is this a correct tag? --Mooshykris 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah β 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so have I finally got the correct format on how to cite my images? (If so, I will add this to all of my image uploads.) --Mooshykris 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

that looks right β 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair-Use for Image:Mrs. Load.jpg

I recently added a fair-use tag for Image:Mrs. Load.jpg. I also added one for Image:Lizzie McGuire Xmas.jpg. ----DanTD 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the rationales are set up properly. β 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any way to consolidate messages?

I note that on both his user page and talk page, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE has indicated his recent discouragement and that he may have left permanently. I think the fact that you right now have 37 messages for him on his talk page might conceivably have been a factor. In cases like these, would there be any way to revise your specs such that you maybe left editors who contribute so many images only, say, one message a day, listing all the images contested? I think that would probably be a lot less, dare I say annoying, to editors who contribute so many images as that party. Just a suggestion, anyway. John Carter 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rational Added for Image:Floreelogo.gif

Hello. I have added a rationale for Image:Floreelogo.gif. Please let me know if it is or is not sufficient. Thank you for your diligence! -RobbyPrather (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

looks ok β 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mitre Peak.jpg)

Hi - you wrote:

Thanks for uploading Image:Mitre Peak.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use.

If you check what that image pafge actually contains, you will see that I simply added the non-free tag to that page. The original image on the page, which I did upload, is now at Image:MitrePeakNZ.jpg. Another user replaced my original image with a new picture without changing the details on it, making it look like I had taken the photograph and was releasing it as gfdl-self. Since I did not take the photograph and could not, therefore, claim that licence, I removed the description and the licence tag I had originally placed on the page. I also replaced all the uses of that unsourced image with my original picture. Unfortunately, the problems run deeper than that, since the unsourced image has also been transwikied to Commons. I placed an unsourced template on it there as well,m so hopefully someone will be able to do something about it there, too... Grutness...wha? 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break for a while will you

See User talk:Blofeld of SPECTRE for reason, he is not the only significant contributor to give up Misplaced Pages. King of the North East (T/C) 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NLE-NYM-Logo.png (FYI COPY)

Image:NLE-NYM-Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_numbers_retired_from_two_or_more_teams"

ßcommand, Your bot tagged an image on a baseball list that I authored, however the images that I used were "borrowed" from the pages of the various baseball teams that the players I wrote about were playing for. In looking, the image, as with litereally dozens of other baseball images has the following written in it's comments: "It's a logo. That's why we have the logo template. Logos are fair use under Misplaced Pages's policy, and anyone can tell that this is, in fact, a logo of a sports team, as already stated on this page. That being said, the logo is of fairly small resolution, and, while copyrighted by the team, is being used for educational purposes, with no personal or monetary gain. As logos are inherently copyrighted, there is no free equivalent, and it is not replacable."

All of the images in question were uploaded by a user calling himself: Silent Wind of Doom and from looking at his comments, there are a lot of warnings such as the one above on his talk page. Given the scope of his comtributions to many different baseball articles, I would like to have your suggestions as what is acceptible to your bot as many of these images relate to some significant and high profile baseball articles. I would also like to get folks from the baseball WikiProject involved so that all of these images are made to be compliant if possible.

If you would be so kind to leave comments on my talk page at your leisure I would most appreciate whatever support you can offer. I will also make a copy of this on the Baseball WikiProject page so that editors will be aware of the issue and can seek to remedy it. Thank you in advance for your assistance. RobHoitt 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Message from LDEJRuff

Hey, βcommandbot. Thanks for letting me know about fair-use rationales. I just recently got your message about the image for Nina Valerosa needing a rationale, and got to it. However, I just recently re-uploaded an image and added a fair-use rationale while re-uploading.

Once again, thank you. ~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 1:24, 7 November 2007 (EDT)

Betacommandbot is destroying Misplaced Pages

I'm all for having free images and stuff, but of course some images just simply cannot be free. Ever. So we have to use fair use images, which once again I agree with having provided they are properly licensed and within the policies of Misplaced Pages.

The problem? Your bot is going about this the wrong way. It's going around blindly tagging images and beginning the process of deletion. I have had several of my images that this bot has claimed has no fair use rationale at all when it clearly DOES. Maybe there is a problem with the information I have provided, maybe it wants me to include or change something. Your bot does not tell me that, it just keeps telling me that I have included nothing. Several times. It's like it's trying to pound into submission that I am wrong when I am not. This bot can detect that something is wrong, so why not WHAT IS wrong? I simply cannot help correct my mistakes if you do not help me know what exactly is the problem. I actually left Misplaced Pages for a short while, because I had hordes of images deleted for wrong reasons or reasons that were not specified (Actual users also left me some messages about images and WHAT the problem exactly was, but these were images I chose not to keep and let them get deleted) and it drove me insane. I'm sorry, I don't believe in removing something that, save for one thing, can otherwise be perfectly on Misplaced Pages without making an effort to try and fix what is wrong with it. Going around removing everything you can find is destroying Misplaced Pages and is in no way contributing to it. Many articles have been disrupted and many of us do not know what to do. We read these policy pages but still, we are wrong according to this bot. Many of images were perfecty acceptable in the past, now it's suddenly like they are poisonous to Misplaced Pages. Rather than telling me, or indeed anyone, that we are wrong, how about telling us what EXACTLY is wrong? What EXACTLY is our mistake? That is the biggest flaw of betacommandbot. Fix your bot, and fast. .:Alex:. 17:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

the bot does tell you whats wrong, if you can give me an example of that you think it miss-tagged Ill gladly show you whats wrong with it, why, and how to fix the issue. β 17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Image:Grand Theft Jimbo.jpg issue...

There's no need for a orphaned fair-use warning, Betacommand (I think...) This is a Jimmy Wales parody image... Thanks anyway for notifying me... God Bless and have a nice day... Blake Gripling 00:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break

At the risk of repeating myself, (my last message was archived within minutes) could you give it a break please. One of our most productive and reliable editors has recently quit Misplaced Pages and I don't think coming back to see this awful backlog (just over 1 days worth) will encourage him that the great image purge is over. FYI he is not the only significant contributor to give up Misplaced Pages recently. Please find another important task for your bot for the next day or two, after all, driving people away from Misplaced Pages is not the objective here, is it? Could you please respond to this, my talk page or here would be fine. King of the North East (T/C) 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ill add BioField to the bots talkpage skip. β 17:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

add my username to your "bots" talkpage skip, don't want that garbage on my talk page. // laughing man 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No β 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

yes // laughing man 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make it very clear here that I will take any further "warnings" from your "bot" as harassment. // laughing man 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

and you would be wrong, the bots messages are in no way harassment. β 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment." from the link I gave above sums it up. Thank you and have a good night, I've had enough of your nonsense and don't have any more time to waste on you. // laughing man 02:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The notices are neither false nor questionable. If you upload non-free images without a rational, then you can expect a mention of it when it is time to delete or fix the image. 1 != 2 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Until. You have to understand that Betacommandbot is a bot, not a Wikipedian. It's just a bot doing what it does best — tagging images with invalid fair use rationale. You must also understand that, for any fair use rationale to be deemed as "valid", it must link to the article using the image. You can't just put "Fair Use Rationale" and think that everything's fine...because it isn't. I've had my fair share of problems with Betacommandbot before. All I did, as an example, was this, and everything's fine now! Betacommandbot does not harrass; it just notifies! If the loss of a Wikipedian is due to a bot, then that is an invalid excuse! A Wikipedian, a true Wikipedian, won't quit just because he's being hit by friendly fire; it'll take something like H's case for that to happen! -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughtful question

Hey there; as much as your bot annoys me (LOL) it's doing good work. I am curious about the specifics of what the bot is looking for in its WP:NFCC runs. It's obviously looking for image description pages not citing articles the image is used in, etc., but is it also looking for certain fair use templates or parameters? How is it determining the presence or validity of the actual "purpose" portion of the rationale? Some sort of general explanation of the bot's scope posted somewhere on its page might help people get it.— TAnthony 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bots cannot read rationales or check the validity of them, what the bot can do is look for WP:NFCC#10c the article name where the image is used, and see if it passes that part of a rationale. (that is what BCBot does). β 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the BcB code been released? or is there a narrative of how it analyzes each image? The guidliness on NFCC are good, but sometimes knowing exactly how it applies them might help people accept it. Mbisanz 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The code has not and will not be publicly released. What BCBot looks for is simple WP:NFCC#10c β 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)