User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:29, 29 November 2007

−6036 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 Wikipedia: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.

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 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Could you please update the list, as I am requesting per what you said here. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betacommand/Sandbox 4 β^_command 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do you update that regularly? DREAMAFTER ^<TALK> 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when ever Im asked, I have toolserver access. β^_command 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free-Use Rationale

I'm wondering what would define FUR with regards to the bot tagging these images.

Image:Winged Dragon Of Ra.jpg

Image:Red-Eyes Black Dragon JMP-EN-UR.jpg

Image:Yubel.jpg

Image:Yugi muto.jpg

I understand they may or may not be free. However, the first two images are of trading cards, and because of this it's unlikely that free versions of their images can be found. The second images likely can be replaced with free images, but the problem would be finding these images as they are from the anime based on the cards, and thus are also copyrighted with the card images.

I apologize for bringing this up. It's just that in general, Yugioh related articles have had a lot of trouble finding reliable sources and images for use, so I'd like to get some help with defining what can and can't be used. The Clawed One (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the section header, Free images do not need a rationale. The images in question are copyrighted, and thus are non-free. To inculde non-free media in wikipedia it needs to pass our inclusion policy and have a non-free rationale β^_command 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by length

Do I understand you have a bot that can analyze articles by length? I think that's something WikiProject Alabama could use. What do we need to do? Thanks JodyB_talk 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what pages should the bot consider looking at? β^_command 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those with the template {{WikiProject Alabama}}. These articles are automatically added to Category:WikiProject Alabama articles. There are about 4900 articles total. If that's too many, we can prune it down. JodyB_talk 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done β^_command 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot can't read.

I can't figure out how it is that your bot has enough AI to think that it can judge fair use claims, like here... kmccoy (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image does not state for which image that fair use rationale is valid though. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't explain. A) it's a sound file, not an image, and B) it states that the fair use claim is for articles about Reinhardt Heydrich. kmccoy (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was an issue with redirects, which has now been fixed. β^_command 18:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RTHK-logo.svg

Your bot Betacommandbot just tagged a FUR tag on the image above (the title). I do not see any problem with my fur. If you see any problem, please talk to me in my talk page. --Jackl 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

off the bat I'd say its that the article its listed as being used in is RTHK and the file link says its used in Radio Television Hong Kong. You could put the full URL of the source displayed instead of just linked, but I don't think BCB has a problem with that. Also, I've seen longer Purposes used, but again, I don't think that's what BCB was looking at. Mbisanz (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is fine, BC and his bot just screwed up.[1] Haukur (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now now Haukurth, you know what they say, if you have nothing nice to say.... By the way, Mbisanz was right, it was because article specified was a redirect, not the precise name of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to inform. And they did screw up as explained in the diff I cited. Haukur (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as you keep pointing out, it didn't follow the redirect. But nobody died, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your standard for evaluating BetacommandBot's work? Whether anyone dies from it? Haukur (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, the user wasn't even looking here for an answer "please talk to me in my talk page". I've replied there summarizing it all. Mbisanz (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously that would be silly, but really I think there's a lot of huff and puff going into moaning about the Bot when just modifying the FU would take seconds. It's a better idea to educate people how to do it right and why they're getting messages (even if their FU were right in the first place, but it does beg the question, if the page has been changed into a disambiguation page, it wouldn't be right for BCbot to follow ther redirect would it?) rather than taking the stance thate BCBot should be terminated. Ultimately it's doing the "right thing", just not in an optimal fashion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not some raving luddite - I'm a software engineer. I don't want to kill bots, I want them to work properly. I don't know why you're bringing disambiguation pages into this, I don't see any relevance. You talk about the need "to educate people how to do it right and why they're getting messages" and I'm saying that they need more helpful and specific messages to begin with. Every day there are a dozen confused people at this page asking questions - I am certain that you could cut this confusion by half by providing more helpful messages to begin with. Why you are still defending BCB's failure to follow redirects yesterday when even BC himself has stated that it was an error is beyond me. If you look at User:Carnildo and his OrphanBot you'll see someone who's doing similar things in a much more competent way. Haukur (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software engineer? Me too, dull life isn't it? I'd rather be out in the forest... The dab page was just a thought that crossed my mind, a situation where just following the redirect would be a bad thing. Anyway, you're right about the confused people, most of them never even read the templates they blindly add to pages. Their fault. I'm not defending anyone, I agreed with you, BC said the Bot should follow redirects, you've pointed it out a few times already, the Bot doesn't do it right now. Point made, many times. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we agree on the forest part :) Haukur (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need a lawyer

Your BetacommandBot is a reaper. It is inserting {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} at screenshots images. Since they already have {{Non-free software screenshot}} labels, what's the problem. Please write a standard text to show me what will satisfy you. Regards Necessary Evil (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you direct me to an example? The fair use template alone is not enough. You must add a rationale and specify which article the fair use rationale applies to. Let me see which one you have a specific problem with... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; Image:PPT1.jpg - Image:Wmppalm12.gif - Image:Word Pro.jpg - Image:Word97pinball.jpg - etc.

What should be written to avoid the threat of deletion? regards Necessary Evil (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

those images need a Rationale β^_command 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you reprogramme BetacommandBot to insert {{Non-free use rationale}} when it deals with screenshot images? Few contributors want to chew through boring guidelines, so many valuable screenshots will be lost. The line "Replaceability" should be pre-infilled as it's identical for all screenshots. Necessary Evil (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #5 #6 #9 above. Bots cannot write rationales. β^_command 17:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time Necessary Evil (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poke

I hope real life has eased up on you a bit. I would be very grateful if you could assist me in satisfying this bot request. I'm initially thinking of setting this up on the The League of Copyeditors. If you need anything from me, like lists of pages/users, just drop me a line. Many thanks, Happy‑melon 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was was working off pages listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base here is the list of users who have edited those pages and the # of edits to those pages User:Betacommand/Edit count. β^_command 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really helpful. However, a few points:

Have you included edits to WP:COPYEDIT and Wikipedia:Transclusion, both of which are linked from WP:LOCE/B?? If so, is it possible to exclude them?
Would it be possible to include Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading
Is it possible to add the date of the most recent edit by each user?

Many thanks in advance, Happy‑melon 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

those are the number of edits in the last 30 days. not sure dating is needed β^_command 13:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi BC, just wondered, now you've fixed the redirect issue, what happens if a page is modified to become a disambiguation page? Can the bot spot that or are those pages just going to be doomed? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah the redirect issue was fixed about 20 minutes after I got home from work. As for DaB pages there is no good method for bots to check those that would be nice on the servers. β^_command 18:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just thought I'd ask! I'll keep my eyes peeled for any erroneous dabs... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denied for VP?

Hey, I was wondering why I was denied for VP, according to this diff? --Nn123645 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cerebus 110 23 bc.jpg

Having scrutinized the rules reg. non-free images, I see that uploading the image in question was a bit of a bad idea. I'll certainly give it more thought next time. Thanks for enlightening me. Tchernobog (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bot tagged image for deletion incorrectly

This so called "BOT" has been doing a lot of this. How do we stop this person. They are removing photos with fair use rationale, then removing comments from here about it.Wikibones (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Image:Wake county logo.jpg. The bot tagged the image as lacking a fair use rationale; however the image descruption page DOES contain such rationale, and as far as I can tell, the rationale is being used correctly. Please manually double check this, and see that it is fixed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the title of the image is to a redirect page, not to the page the image is located on. If I am correct, Betacommand repaired this in the bot, I did the image. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch Dirk. Thank you for handling that. I appreciate it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PhilTrust_banner_408x71.gif

hi, please check, i found the (hopefully) right logo rationale template, thanks a LOT!

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, except that the section header for the rationale should contain a wikilink to the article. If you repair that, all should be fine! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot msgs are misstating policy

This point has been made before. The bot's fair use msgs still say images "lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded", but policy says one week after notification. Fix it please. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually they can be deleted within 48 hours. I extend that to 168 hours. β^_command 15:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Yoshi2-title.png

STOP SPAMMING MY TALK PAGE. Your bot is out of order. I DO NOT UPLOAD ORIGINAL IMAGES. I just OPTIMISE them. Either fix your bot or write an exception for my uploads. --Tene (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL β^_command 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My solution to this for OrphanBot is that, if an upload summary contains any of the words or word fragments "optimis", "optimiz", "adjust", "tweak", "scale", "crop", "change", or "resize", that person is not considered the original uploader of the image, and is not notified unless they're the only person in the upload history for that image. OrphanBot and ImageTaggingBot also maintain lists of people to never notify. --Carnildo (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use for Image:Takemitsu litany excerpt.ogg and others in the Takemitsu article

There IS a fair use rational on these pages that lists the EXACT publishing details of the original recordings etc. Unless you do not JUSTIFY your 'claims' in plain english you will simply destroy a good, featured article candidate that uses music samples LEGALLY. Matt.kaner (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the bot means is that it wants you to say "Tōru Takemitsu" rather than "Toru Takemitsu". Didn't see that one coming, did ya? Haukur (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't sign in?

Why can't I sign in to VandalProof? (please reply on my talk page) Chetblong^{talk to me} 03:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use orphans

It would be so much more helpful if you would tag fair use orphans as fair use orphans rather than as images failing 10c.[2] Please? Haukur (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a ORFU run a day or two ago. β^_command 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an edit from yesterday, it shows your bot tagging an image as having a 10c problem when a more helpful tagging would have been that it is a fair use orphan. Why is that? Haukur (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I approved?

Hi Betacommand, I'm glad somebody takes the time to moderate the VP approvals page, but I'm wondering if I've been approved yet. In the Recently Approved section, it shows my name, yet I haven't been told that I've been approved, nor does VP work when I try it. I hope you can help me clear this problem. Thanks.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

photo rosie

Hi,

i have no idea how that picture got uploaded. I didn't do it. Did it come from my account? In that case it is probably a violation of privacy. Than you. Adrian Comollo (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photo rosie

Hi,

consequently, please go ahead and deleate it. Thank you Adrian Comollo (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments

I noticed your bot has been placing fair use deletion warnings on article talk pages: [3] - very nice! It's quite likely that people interested in articles will also be interested in the deletion of images used in them. I don't know if this is a new fix, but it's appreciated. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its been doing talk page notices since ~june. Also any suggested improvemets are welcome β^_command 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use for Image:Golb book cover.jpg in the Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? (book) article

Please note: I have inserted the template and accordingly have changed the purpose to "to illustrate the article about the book itself."

The image page warns me that the wikipedia article "doesn't exist," but the article does exist. I think this may be because of an extra question mark after the title of the wikipedia article on the fair use template. I don't see how I can correct that, please let me know if it's a problem. Here is the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Wrote_The_Dead_Sea_Scrolls%3F_%28book%29 Critical Reader (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title looks ok to me. It seems to follow through perfectly so I don't see where the article "doesn't exist,". You might want to fill in the Replaceability= tag even though BCB wouldn't tag an NFCC for lacking it. Also, I'm not sure of our policy on using images from generic sites like Amazon.com Mbisanz (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image you mention was ok from the start, but the other imags of the covers had that extra question mark. I fixed them for you. You can fix it by clicking the Edit tab at the top of the page and editing the Article title. I am a bit concerned about so many NFCC images all being used to illustrate a book cover. Could someone else take a look and suggest pruning if need be? Mbisanz (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof approval list at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval

Hi Betacommand,

I just wanted to drop by and let you know that there seems to be a problem with the current approval list for VandalProof. I noticed you went on a bit of a sorting rampage to clear out that backlog (and I thank you for that, sir!), but it seems that along the way a lot of names were removed without noting whether or not they were approved. Mine was one--I guessed that I had been approved and was pleased to find out I was right--but I would wager that a good chunk of users in the same situation either haven't thought to try it out or have assumed they were denied because their name is no longer on the list. I mentioned this to Snowolf in the IRC channel, and he suggested I drop a note on your page, so here I am!

When you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval? There are also a number of duplicates on the approved list that might need cleaning up. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the VP list, there are no duplicates on the actual list and if you were not approved I would have noted that on the edit summary. β^_command 15:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar

You state "7. I do not want to see images deleted" but then state "6. I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine.". These are in direct conflict. If you did not want to see images deleted you would use your bot to add fair use rationales rather than categorising them for speedy deletion. Categorising images for speedy deletion (i.e. roughly a week) that do not meet your/wikipedia's criteria for valid fair use rationales is not the kind of behavior that someone who wants to keep images displays. You are basically declaring war on uploaders by requiring them to meet your critieria within a week (when they may not log on to wikipedia to make the changes you demand in time). For images that have been on wikipedia a long time, the uploader may not have a backup copy, so the time they took to scan an image or photograph a subject may be lost essentially forever.

I believe that you are not using your time and your bot for good, you are not trying to help out wikipedia users and are actively working against them, and the richness of wikipedia. There is no compelling reason why you could not add rationales. Saying that if it not your responsibility is a cop-out, it saves you from having to work a little bit harder to make the images on wikipedia comply with the fair use rules that you value so dearly (to spend possibly hours of every day on it). - Diceman (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 209: / Line 209: @@
 When you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at [[User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval]]?  There are also a number of duplicates on the approved list that might need cleaning up.  Thanks, and sorry for the trouble! --'''[[User:jonny-mt|jonny-mt]]'''<sup>('''[[User_talk:jonny-mt|t]]''')</sup><sub>('''[[Special:Contributions/jonny-mt|c]]''')</sub><small>[[Wikipedia:Editor_review/jonny-mt|I'm on editor review!]]</small> 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 :I cleaned up the VP list, there are no duplicates on the actual list and if you were not approved I would have noted that on the edit summary. [[User talk:Betacommand|β<sup><sub>command</sub></sup>]] 15:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
+== You are a liar ==
+You state "7. I do not want to see images deleted" but then state "6. I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine.". These are in direct conflict. If you did not want to see images deleted you would use your bot to add fair use rationales rather than categorising them for speedy deletion. Categorising images for speedy deletion (i.e. roughly a week) that do not meet your/wikipedia's criteria for valid fair use rationales is not the kind of behavior that someone who wants to keep images displays. You are basically declaring war on uploaders by requiring them to meet your critieria within a week (when they may not log on to wikipedia to make the changes you demand in time). For images that have been on wikipedia a long time, the uploader may not have a backup copy, so the time they took to scan an image or photograph a subject may be lost essentially forever.
+I believe that you are not using your time and your bot for good, you are not trying to help out wikipedia users and are actively working against them, and the richness of wikipedia. There is no compelling reason why you could not add rationales. Saying that if it not your responsibility is a cop-out, it saves you from having to work a little bit harder to make the images on wikipedia comply with the fair use rules that you value so dearly (to spend possibly hours of every day on it). - [[User:Diceman|Diceman]] ([[User talk:Diceman|talk]]) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)