Jump to content

User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 452: Line 452:


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

== WMF deadline and Betacommandbot (discussion notices) ==

Hi Betacommand. Please see:
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How to handle the WMF non-free image deadline]]
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Avoiding drama with Betacommandbot during March 2008]]
For obvious reasons, it would be good if you could comment over there, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 10:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:03, 16 February 2008

−6056 days left

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note:
  1. There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
  2. 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.
  3. Read the policy
  4. Check and make sure the image has a valid source
  5. Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here)
  6. I will not add rationales for you. As the uploader it is your responsibility, NOT mine.
  7. I do not want to see images deleted
  8. All images must comply with policy
  9. A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale.
  10. 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.


The Original Barnstar
Because of your repeated kindness and willingness to help others when nobody else will even know about it, I sincerely thank you. You've helped me build an army of... well, I'll just leave it there. :-D east.718 at 01:16, December 16, 2007

the poor bot can't spell :)

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

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

Also, what does "49 days left" refer to? Enigma (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wild guess, but I think it's his birthday.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions|Guest) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its the days till the deadline the wikimedia foundation set for wikipedia to be fair-use image compliant. MBisanz talk 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crunch time, then. Double time! Enigma (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Betacommand wants to have it there, then that's his choice. But please understand that the deadline described at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy doesn't apply to us. It only applies to projects that didn't have a non-free content policy when the resolution was passed. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the dot, that date is when our Exemption Doctrine Policy needs to be compliant. βcommand 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, read again: For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place...
The English Wikipedia did have an EDP in place when this resolution was passed, therefore the Wikimedia Foundation does not ask that we have everything perfectly in line by March 23, 2008. We have time to discuss the merits of keeping or deleting images; we don't have to resort to mass deletion. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in addition to the small typo thing, the bot's edit count hasn't been updated in a while. Minor detail. Enigma (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE) Enigma (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pio.gif

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

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content/orphans and our non-free policy. that image is non-free and not used in the mainspace. Non-free content is not allowed in userspace. βcommand 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



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

its copyright from the page that you linked to GoDaddy.com, Inc. All rights reserved. it is copyrighted βcommand 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beta, the page is copyrighted. The image is not. Your tag is incorrect and therefore

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

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

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

show me where that image is free. if the page is copyrighted, images on it are also. βcommand 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



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

Regardless of that, you have the image as being non-free. That, in itself is ok, but by policy, non-free images must' and can only only be used within mainspace articles - not on talk pages, user pages, or any other namespace. "What Links Here" for the image shows its only use is on a user talk page, which is invalid, so first you need to link it to a main-space article page, and then once linked, you need a valid rationale for its use on that article page. --MASEM 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template you created is clearly licensed under the GFDL, as is all text available on this website. Every edit box says the following: "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". Therefore, we know, and, can prove the copyright status of edits you've made here. As for the image you have uploaded, we cannot, as I outlined on your talkpage. Furthermore, while I understand that you are frustrated, please, try to be civil when interacting with other users here. SQLQuery me! 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

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

I was not being uncivil an ass may refer to a donkey or jackass which are very stubborn and difficult to work with, in this case its a good parallel. I stand behind what I said. Im not a diplomat, so I say what I mean and mean what I say. βcommand 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't help your case by playing games. It wasn't civil.. why not tone it down a bit? Friday (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be surprised by any of this. Betacommand is very good about twisting the definitions of words so that accusations of incivility can't be leveled against him. 68.57.116.116 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi !

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

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

I really suggest you to try this :)

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


Cheers,

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

Comment

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

you need to state why you need each image and for what page each rationale is for. βcommand 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to learn by example, so I prefer if you fix one of my rationales... I can follow up on them thereafter. Simply tagging an image violation on a user talk page is insufficient in educating an editor on how to prevent such problems in the future. Cheers --Madchester (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB - Some other kind editor showed how it was suppose to be done. As a kind suggestion, a bit more explanation in your bot or talk space messages could go a long way in reducing such errors. As an admin, I realize that it's not appropriate to be sticking with a template message or standard policy spiel on every editors talk page. You need to flexible with your approach and communication. Cheers! --Madchester (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

Hi, Betacommand, I've got a question.

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

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

Image:IMG 1971.jpg

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

Image:DylanDead.jpg

Greetings, Betacommand. Today, Betacommandbot tagged Image:DylanDead.jpg as having an invalid fair use rationale per Non-Free Content Criterion #10(c), however at the time the image did include a fair use rationale with a link to the specific article in which it is used, i.e. Dylan & The Dead. Did something about the fair use rationale cause the bot to get confused? If you reply here I will see what you say. Thanks. — Mudwater 01:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that error. βcommand 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks. — Mudwater 02:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day!

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

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

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 7 11 February 2008 About the Signpost
Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad Foundation's FY2007 audit released 
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope Best of WikiWorld: "W" 
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up

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

  • Maybe you should consider that it is the policies that are supposedly ruining Wikipedia, since this bot is only do a) approved work and b) work that is entirely in line with policies. If you don't like our policies, work to change them. Insulting the owner of this bot will achieve nothing. Plenty of people have tried, and (no surprise) the work continues. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand Jack Cox's annoyance:
  • The bot goes around tagging images faster than people can fix them up
  • It gives a 7 day limit before deletion
  • Many image issues could be fixed by the bot auto-adding the correct template (eg. all album covers follow a similar format for their free-use rationale) rather than leaving what some people perceive as threatening messages
  • Unlike deleted articles, deleted images cannot be retrieved easily (if at all).
-- Chuq (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are one bot that tags images and thousands of editors that can fix them. Some editors have fixed thousands of images the last month.
  • It gives a seven day limit, but deletion is not carried out before reasonable time has gone and there seem to be little or no decrease in the unfixed images. I deleted the last images in Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008 yesterday. Editors had 30 days to fix the images in that category.
  • Bots can't write rationales. Yes it can write most of what is needed in a rationale, but the purpose should be written by a human. This has been discussed at WP:BRFA and I belive such a bot was declined.
  • Deleted images can be restored just as easily as any article. Rettetast (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So none of you can understand how a new user might see all of these messages from a faceless bot and be completely overwhelmed by it? I've been here for years but it took me a bit of looking around to find the right template (which I just filled in with generic content - "Image:AlbumName cover.jpg" "fair use on AlbumName article", "use: to illustrate the AlbumName album" "portion: entire album cover" "replaceable - no, its an album cover" - this kind of stuff would be identical for all album art. -- Chuq (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the new(ish) users who was intimidated by BetacommandBot messages. A "rationale" sounds like such a complicated, official sounding thing. "Be bold" went straight out the window for quite a long time, until I was faced with the removal of images from the article of one of my favourite childhood series (The Famous Five). I closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, held my breath, and dove in. Considering that the images in question still exist, I'm assuming the rationale was acceptable. However, it was upon seeing a dispute notice for the poster for The Bridge on the River Kwai, that the camel exceeded it's maximum straw capacity. As a result, for the last 2 days, I have been going through the Betacommandbot contrib list, and rescuing (yes, "rescuing", for that's how I see it) as many images as I can. I guess that Betacommandbot and I aren't going to get on. Whereabouts does the "I want a piece of the bot" line start? Johnmc (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On "Bots can't write rationales": but they can judge whether those rationales are correct and tag them for deletion? This is the false assumption. This bot enforces an unreasonably strict interpretation of 10c (saying that every fair use image has to have specific things called "rationales" that are readable by this particular bot, even when the rationale is completely obvious to a human). It's disheartening that the bot to do the constructive thing was rejected, while this destructive bot keeps on running. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most or all of the album covers tagged by the busybody bot BetacommandBot already have proper tags that clearly mark the album covers as fair use. This excessive tagging is not necessary or helpful and is just make-work interference. Hu (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu your wrong, those images have copyright tags but no non-free rationale βcommand 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling is "you're". Since you are so deeply into correcting other people, I hope you appreciate the correction. Hu (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This bot is seriously out of control. That is all. Enigma (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, cancer behaves exactly as it should as well. Which is how I've come to consider this bot. It's a cancer on Wikipedia, consuming images faster than they can be saved. Clayhalliwell (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's behaving stupidly. It's not recognizing when a fair use rationale has been written and might be missing a single piece of information, and gives the same generic message as if no fair use existed whatsoever. 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torc2 (talk • contribs)
No, the bot behaved stupidly. You don't issue a murderer and a jaywalker identical citations that just say "Bad". You give people clear ideas what exactly they have to do to fix it. It's certainly not apparent from the message exactly which part of it is wrong, or why a license that appears to have all the necessary information is insufficient. You give editors clear access to help so they don't feel lost in the machinery. This bot is garbage and its messages are useless. Torc2 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torc2, so why dont you write a new message for the bot. βcommand 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of like asking why I don't try to improve the image of the Klan. I don't agree that what it's doing is necessary or correct, or that automating this is the correct course of action. Want to make the bot seem like less of a dick? Limit the tagging to images that have no information whatsoever, cut the tag rate down to about 100 articles an hour, and space the search order out so that a single editor doesn't have ten photos tagged simultaneously. Torc2 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear case where the bot had incorrect behavior, not "perfect" behavior. There was a clearly written rationale (even meeting your technical definition of 'rationale') saying that the album cover was reduced in resolution and was to be used to illustrate the album "!". It was, in fact, only used on the page ! (album), so any human could tell that the rationale was correct. The bot, however, incorrectly believed there to be no rationale. Your interpretation of policy is that we have to cater to a brainless bot that doesn't know that ! (album) refers to the album "!", or else images get deleted. If rationales can't be written by bots, then it's even more true that lack of rationales can't be detected by bots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rspeer, the bot cannot determine the validity of a rationale. Our non-free policy requires the exact name of the article for where the image to be used in the non-free rational. that is what the bot checks for. ! and ! (album) are not the same page. a rational written for one page does not make it valid on another page. all the bot does is check for the article name, one part of a proper rationale. βcommand 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that a bot can't determine the validity of a rationale, that's what I'm telling you. And you're being inundated with examples of correct rationales that don't include exact matches of the article name, and you dismiss them by defining them by fiat to be incorrect because a bot can't handle them. Which was the point to begin with: a bot cannot handle this task, so right now a bot is rather mishandling it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that "rationale" is a precise technical term for you (which your bot does a horrible job of explaining), but to ordinary people the rationale for why you would use an album cover, properly tagged as a fair-use album cover, to illustrate an album, is completely obvious. Avoid Copyright Paranoia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NFCC#10 enforcement

bsd

i recently got your notice on Image:British Midland logo.svg and Image:BMI logo.svg, regarding WP:NFCC#10c, namely: linking the rationale to the article. what caused this, is a move to the article in question. IMHO, this is somewhat exaggerated, considering the image faces the axe, despite the fact that the uploader took the pains to add an appropriate rationale. i think there should be a lesser degree notice to images with inaccurate rationales, than to images with no rationale at all. you can draw a clear line between these two categories. --Ben Stone 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Out of compliance is out of compliance. Further, a bot would not readily be able to tell how "good" a rationale is. That is highly subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Hammersoft, there is a difference between "no rationale" and "bad rationale" or "incomplete rationale". A human can tell that difference, but the bot can't. Ben Stone has accurately pinpointed the major failing of Betacommandbot, a failing that others have pointed out before and which Betacommand has done nothing to address. It wouldn't matter so much if the deleting admins managed to spot the images with incomplete rationales and fix them, but this doesn't always happen. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot does a wonderful job of identifying images which are not in compliance with WP:NFC #10c. Occasionally, errors crop up which the owner addresses, usually quite rapidly. There isn't an error here. If an admin is overzealous in deleting an image, the error is with the admin, not the bot. Lay blame where it belongs. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop

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

No. The policy is fine. The bot isn't. There are better ways to enforce policy. Enigma (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standard message it leaves. (notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE). The bot is posting the same messages thousands of times. They should at least be spelled correctly. Also, it should probably be ensure, not insure. Enigma (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming response here that the bot is wreaking havoc doesn't count? Where was this overwhelming response in favor of it? Last I saw this discussed on a prominent board (Administrator's Noticeboard, I think), there were hardly any people in favor of it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted in 3 appropriate forums the exact issue about the destructive nature of this policy as applied by this bot and the people who use it, rather than thinking as a contributor and put in effort to fix the highlighted images or address why so many images are labelled correctly. Absolutely no discussion was forthcoming, or any precedents pointed out. MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. I'll dig and find some, if you think it's necessary. This bot has performed more than 700,000 edits. Some common sense should come into play here. If this bot was *really* doing something that the community just can't get behind, don't you think it would have been permanently stopped long before it got to 100,000 edits much less 700,000? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard too many in support of it either. I think this bot does more harm than good. Its edit count doesn't prove a thing. Enigma (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It proves quite a bit. If this bot actually caused as much damage as you bot haters think it does, it would have been stopped a LONG time ago. But that's not the case. In fact, it's been operating for a very long time and has performed hundreds of thousands of edits. As for prior debates, have a look through [1]. There's tons of debates regarding this subject buried in there if you are truly interested. Despite all these debates, despite all the electrons that have been spent, despite all the keystrokes spent debating this....the bot continues to operate. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because a) the bot owner refuses to listen to anyone, and nobody has the courage to block him or b) the bot is operating with the support of the community? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm going with A. The bot owner has refused to listen on multiple occasions and I can personally attest to this. Enigma (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it would follow that it would have been permanently blocked long before. Except, that's not happened. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell you what; why don't you bring this up at WP:AN. Nevermind that it's been brought up dozens of times before, and the bot has passed muster every time. I'm sure this brand new discussion will result in the bot being shut down. So, start the discussion. Hell, you're talking to the wrong person anyways. I can't shut it down; I'm not an admin. You believe the bot owner ignores people, so he won't shut it down either. You're wasting your breath on this talk page. So, bring it up at WP:AN. When that fails to get you the response you want, you can try the next steps in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process and take it all the way to ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm commenting on the Talk page and this is my opinion. I'm not bringing this up at WP:AN. Saying a bot has made hundreds of thousands of edits without being shut down proves absolutely nothing except that no one has taken the drastic step of shutting down the bot. The bot's owner has been shown to ignore people. You say you can't shut it down. Terrific. Am I talking to you? No. You keep inserting yourself into the conversation. Enigma (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched those AN discussions. They don't show the overwhelming support for the bot that you're claiming. Also, I know exactly why the bot gets unblocked each time. It seems that the only way to get Betacommand to listen to people is to block his bot, but we can't because RfC stops working when we do. By writing a monolithic bot without releasing the source code, Betacommand wields power over even admins. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was never to convince you of anything because I know you'd never be convinced. My comments are not directed at you. Enigma (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm registering complaints with the bot, whether they're listened to by the owner or not. I think it's helpful to have all the gripes posted somewhere, whether the bot owner is willing to address them or not (clearly he's just interesting in deleting the complaints). If you have nothing constructive to add, I don't see why you keep responding. Enigma (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enigma, yes I revert things that should not be on this page, personal attacks an comments that should be added to another users talkpage. βcommand 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. The last one was borderline, but it was a pretty funny rant about anti-image jihadists. Enigma (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it offensive. If you think there are issues that I am not addressing please create a new section with a list of them and Ill address them. βcommand 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I find the Deletionist Jihad itself offensive, and your deletion of my comment (and second one) VERY ironic. I will post this 100,000 times if necessary. Maybe I'll create a bot to do it. - Nhprman 03:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double tagging

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

Please see this βcommand 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was double tagged because the bot correctly identified it as lacking proper rationale, tagged it as such [2], then you removed the warning without entirely fixing the problem [3] and it properly re-identified the image as still lacking [4]. Thus, two notifications. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Furious Dragon.jpg

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


Point 15 is total rubbish

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

  • The people operating the bot can look at the tagged images and take the 10 seconds it took to fix the issue in this instance.
  • Don't you see that as a problem with the policy/tags/established procedures when there are that many edits to be made by this bot? My issue is it's operation with a complete lack of any kind of parallel good faith group effort to fix what are 99% newbie errors. These images are lost after your arbitrary time limit, often with interested parties never even seeing the tags, never mind being able to understand them. I only encounter the stupid thing once in a while, but who is systematically examining tagged images? Leaving it to the uploader is a total cop-out in my opinion, and probably puts many new editors off. Remember here, I am not talking about an image here with no rationale, it was ALL there bar one tiny mistake, on a non-busy article, thus the image dissapears forever on the dodgy premise of it's too hard to fix it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you see that as a problem when it takes that many edits to keep up with the massive influx of improperly rationaled images??? We tried doing it with humans. It failed. That's why this bot is so necessary. This attack on the bot and countless others have all been raised before. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot fails too, just in a different and more spectacular way. How about you have the bot deal with new images, now that the upload wizard includes tools to provide the appropriate rationales, and stop messing with old images that were uploaded with proper tags before this idea of a "rationale" existed, or had a rationale but the page was moved, or have a reasonable rationale written by a reasonable human which doesn't satisfy your bot? Then you don't have an "influx" anymore. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced when you can't link to any actual debates or established consensus over the use of the bot, in addition to the complete non-reply to me raising the issue a few months ago on all the appropriate pages. Given the amount of times you are referring to previous debates, you might at least have a handy link to them, or do you just not get the idea that I have that the same complaints are occuring every time this bot runs. Christ, even having the 17! point massive 'dont blame me' box should tell you something about the way things are currently being done. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever made a good faith effort to assesss as a percentage of tagged images, how many are being dumped that are easily fixed and not actually causing a major breach of copyright? MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bot tags image, uploader doesn't see tag in time, other good faith editors like me who see 7! similar taggings on their watchlist tonight lose the will to even investigate possible bot errors, no parallel community effort is harnessed in parallel to the bot, deleting admin is not interested in fixing as per the attitude at the top of this page i.e. it's not our job, we don't work in that field, bingo, image deleted and lost. What are you not getting about that process, and the obvious role the bot's current operation plays in it? MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously debated. I encourage you to view the archive index I previously cited and spend some time reading the prior debates. What I am not getting is why we are having this debate, when it's been debated before with the conclusion being that the bot continues the work. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, as it seems you get complaints a million times when you run this bot, why don't you already have a handy list of links to specific decisions and precedents for pissed off people to look at? Judging at the rate of growth of this page alone tonight, dismissing someone to go peruse the archives is a blatant bad faith attitude. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I don't own or run this bot. Second, that's the second time you've accused me of bad faith. I strongly, strongly, strongly urge you to seek out another administrator to have me blocked as soon as possible to stop my bad faith edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's blatantly bad faith when you enter a discussion, take a position based on previous debates which no sane person would spend time finding in vague archive references, then claiming it's all nothing to do with you anyway. You are clearly on the wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't found anythong. Pointing to talk archives means nothing in an issue that clearly everyone except you can see is a hotly contested bot. You are absolutely 100% on the total wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Ok, look, above you asked for some feedback on prior discussions. I gave it to you. Now you're accusing me of doing something *bad* because I gave you partially what you wanted? If you don't want to go through those archives to search for the answers, what motivation does anyone have to find the answers for you? I gave you an entirely proper link to help you in your search. You just don't want to do the work to find the answers you want. I *helped* you, but that's not enough...you want me to do all your work for you. And *I* am the one acting in bad faith? *I* am the one "100% on the total wind up????? Ok, enough of this discussion, as it's clearly gone off the deep end. Please let me know when you make the request to block me and/or file an ArbCom case to get this bot permanently blocked. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to see you stop pretending that it should be the many many editors being pissed off by this bot to have to repeatedly go find these what look like increasingly mythical overwhelming debates that all us stoopid people don't get. It would be nice if you could hold a discussion without bringing up ridiculous strawmen, it would be nice if you followed up with your assertions, or explain why you think there are no links on this page to these oft referenced decisions and debates, it would be nice if you addressed the actual points being made regarding the bots defficiencies and obvious flaws or even acknowledge its wider role in getting images deleted, rather than resorting to "it's not my job/remit/wikititle" (why are you even here then on a talk page about the bot?) and "if it was that bad it would be blocked" (which it has been many times), it would be nice if your whole attitude changed really and you acted less like a wind up merchant and more like a contributor. MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't intend to respond to your comments because of your devolution into hate filled vitriol. I suggest you read WP:NPA. I've already told you where to look. I'm not going to do you work for you, most especially when you think it a great motivator to insult me to get me to do you work. Have the last word if you like, but in the process please make sure you request I be blocked. You might try making such a request at WP:AN/I. Thank you, and good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think I'm acting in bad faith, then my edits are a disruption to the project. That's a blockable offense. I'm sure you'll be able to find an admin to agree with your conclusion that I am acting in bad faith. Therefore, I request you please go and find an uninvolved administrator to perform the block. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would mean finding a contributor that hasn't found a blatant error with this bot's operation, as I see it that only realy leaves you, so block yourself please and leave us to get on with our rationales. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above you stated that I was acting in bad faith. That's got nothing to do with the bot. Bad faith edits are disruptive to the project and a blockable offense. I assume you meant what you said, yes? Or did you not mean to say that I was acting in bad faith? Also, I'm not an administrator, so I can't block myself. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • HEY GUYS! :-) I'm a bit late here, but you are both arguing back and forth here. It doesn't look pretty. Hammersoft, you are coming across as over-defensive. Why not politely redirect people to the help desk, instead of increasing the heat on this page? Mick, I understand this annoys you, but why not walk away if you feel Hammersoft's replies are winding you up? Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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

the typo should be fixed, and Ill update the edit count when I feel like it. βcommand 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being reasonable and polite. I appreciate it. Enigma (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Horizons-_Empire_of_Istaria_logo.jpg

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

What is this?

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

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

You need to calm your bot down

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

Please cite them SFC9394 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ. This is impossible. Any attempts to address the issue have gone nowhere, and Betacommand reverts my comments if I try to address you. Enigma (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down, please. Users are completely allowed to remove comments from their own talkpages. See: Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages SQLQuery me! 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly calm, and I'm also completely aware of Wikipedia's policies on Talk pages. I was just commenting on the difficulty of getting anything done here. The discussion has moved elsewhere. Enigma (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think i fixed it.

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

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

disambiguation pages

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

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

The Robotic Touch

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

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

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

Zoney, Ive been lot more active than you, What the bot does do is handle a task that humans cannot. it enforces policy. My bot is far from causing the problems that are appearing on en.wiki βcommand 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Ships

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


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

Suggestion on notices

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

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

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

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

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

βcommand, I would really like a response on these two issues. These could reasonably be construed as bugs. Gimmetrow 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what caused the lag, Ive been looking into it, BCBot normal only as a minute or two lag. βcommand 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why is this bot adding deletion tags to football club logos without notifying me, the original uploader of the logos and the only contributor to them? This means that any logos I have contributed to articles that are no longer on my watchlist are highly likely to get deleted. I thought the main purpose of the bot was supposed to be to get fair use rationales fixed, not enforce the deletion of images. English peasant 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to name a few. I just changed my username today, but the bot followed the redirect to my new talkpage 11 times since then, before it stopped botheringEnglish peasant 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like the bot and the rename were underway at the same time. There's no way of predicting when the renames will occur, so it's kinda hard to correct this. The bot did properly inform you on other occasions today [6]. Hope this helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It informed me correctly after the rename process was complete. It stopped informing me between 23:23 and 23:38 and has not informed me of anything since then despite tagging at least 4 images I uploaded. Perhaps the should be stopped if it is not informing people of its actions? English peasant 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the full re-name process can take several hours. βcommand 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I provided rationales for the 11 that I was notified of on my talkpage + another 20 the bot didn't even notify me of. I would have liked to contribute to the encyclopaedia this evening but I had to trawl through bot edits instead. Perhaps you could run it at a slower speed next time, I mean most editors are going to give up if they see more than 10 or so aren't they? English peasant 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my attempt to explain that concept above. MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hahn / Rome Sweet Home

Since I happened to notice that you asked for one I've just added a free-use rationale at Image:Home-rome.jpg for its use as an illustration in Scott Hahn. I didn't upload it, but I happen to have bought a copy of the book recently, so I could supply the details required. But as I say, I have no idea whether it suffices and am not convinced the article would suffer unduly by the image's absence. I'll remove the bot-tag anyway, just so it doesn't get auto-deleted in a few days. You can re-tag if you think it necessary. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

Whether or not an image may be used in a forum such as Wikipedia is not something I wish to challenge. If we want text only and no images, then that's okay with me. No hard feelings or anything... but I simply want to contribute to make this a better resource for everybody. I understand my weight in this forum (or lack thereof) and will simply abide by whatever decisions are made by TPTB... but I will also consider whether my time and energies are better used doing something other than contributing to this forum.

Again, no hard feelings -- it simply is what it is...

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

Dwacon, we welcome your contributions, since the bot flagged some of your images please do not be offended. there are just some issues with the images you uploaded. please see this guide on writing rationales for images and our non-free image policy βcommand 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved warning



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

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

Question

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

Salute!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For continuing to enforce the policy set forth at WP:NFCC and putting up with those editors who would blame you for enforcing it, rather than the policy writers or the original image uploaders, I award you this barnstar. Please keep up the good work and don't let the naysayers deter you - for every editor who complains profusely about your warnings, there is an editor who learned the FURG and has benefited from it. JPG-GR (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now with extra nose oil, to keep it running smoothly! -- SEWilco (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMF deadline and Betacommandbot (discussion notices)

Hi Betacommand. Please see:

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betacommand&oldid=191824368"