Jump to content

User talk:Betacommand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dharmabum420 (talk | contribs) at 07:58, 9 June 2007 (Just stop...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 fair use 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.



betacommandbot adding {{lake project}}

I fixed a series of banners placed on unrelated articles, e.g. Talk:Mount_Tallac. It looks like it's mainly articles in categories such as Category:Lake Tahoe. -- User:Docu

daniel dicriscio

you mentioned self links . Which links are you referring for deletion. Thank you.

You know what to do

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/nufu.txt

Messages

As I have told you before do not leave me messages.

Nicole Wray's Album Covers Images

Please do not leave me anymore messages. Also, the Nicole Wray album covers where upload with the album covers license. Please do not delete the covers for it is legal and not uncatergized.


VandalProof

Hey Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot), I just got a notice that the user list is corrupt for VandalProof and will not let me sign on. The notice says to contact a VandalProff moderator. Congratulations….I picked you. Let me know what you need me to do. Have a great day. • ShoesssS Talk

Thanks guy, do not know what you did, but everything is working fime now. Have a great day. • ShoesssS Talk

Again VandalProof

Hey Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot), I just got a notice again that the user list is corrupt for VandalProof and will not let me sign on. The notice says to contact a VandalProff moderator. Congratulations….Once again, I picked you. Let me know what you need me to do. Have a great day. • ShoesssS Talk

Tagging of Irish Defence Forces pictures

Your bot recently hit Image:LÉ Banba (CM11).jpg. This is tagged with Ireland-IDF which clearly states: "This work is copyrighted. This image is a work of the Irish Defence Forces (IDF) or an IDF employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. Reproduction of material from this website (www.military.ie) is authorised for personal use. Reproduction for other uses is permitted, provided that the source is acknowledged. See the IDF copyright policy for more details." The source is acknowledged by the template and the image is therefore fully authorised. -- Arwel (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same comment applies to your tagging of Image:LÉ Macha (01).jpg, Image:LÉ Deirdre (P20).jpg, and Image:LÉ Cliona (03).jpg, all uploaded by the same user. I am removing your tags as clearly in error (and yes, this is an Administrators' decision). -- Arwel (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot message to pages using Template:Loire-geo-stub

Your bot left messages on a large number of pages that link to the Loire-geo-stub template, because that template uses a possibly non-free image. Imo it is completely sufficient to leave such message on the template page itself, as none of the other pages need to be modified if the image is removed. --PeR 07:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, The image wasn't even tagged as "fair use" in the first place! When your bot added a tag asking for fair use rationale, the image was tagged as "PD-flag" (public domain) [1]. You better fix your bot! --PeR 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message left on talk pages by the bot regarding non fair use images

... "Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy" ...

This should be "ensure", not "insure". Neil ╦ 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's blatantly wrong anyway, since WP:FURG is not in compliance with the policy. See the village pump (policy). Malc82 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pointing out a typo, not making a policy judgement. Keep your angry emboldened words away! Neil ╦ 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing your bot's operations

I appreciate your attempt to clear up some of the fair use mess on Wikipedia, but your bot's current mass taggings are generating a great deal of acrimony and it would be a good idea to stop for now. There is currently a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#BetacommandBot. We all want to make sure Wikipedia's content respects fair use rules, but it might very well be true that groups of images, such as album covers and logos, can simply use a template for fair use rational, as they will all have the same reasons for use. With the arbitration case about earlier bot activities just recently closed, it is a good idea to err on the side of caution and suspend your activities until some consensus is reached on these issues. - SimonP 11:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the large number of complaints, and no response to my request to pause your operations, you seem to be continuing to run the bot. I've thus blocked it for 24 hours. Please try and address the concerns that have been raised on your talk page and at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) prior to recommencing operations. - SimonP 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An even more general discussion can be found at the VP (policy). Malc82 12:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concerns have been addressed. Several people, including myself, continually monitor what the bot is doing and people's responses to it. If you want to suspend CSD I6 while people add rationales, fine. But, suspending the bot achieves nothing. This is a serious, law violating situation that must be addressed. --Durin 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is being discussed, I also suggest this bot be temporarily paused. If consensus is on templates being able to provide a generic rationale, undoing all the tagging will become a hassle. --soum talk 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how blocking this Bot is appropriate. It was performing its a approved task at an acceptable speed. Anything tagged by it could not under policy have been deleted for 48 hours after the uploader was notified, giving the community plenty of time for discussion. The reason given in the block log is particularly odd: "Bot not responding to criticisms". WjBscribe 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just received a message from you bot about the Leicester City badge and it not being free. I'm no image law expert but can you explain why every other football, rugby, american football in fact all sporting clubs are ok to use but not Leicester's? Jimmmmmmmmm 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about these picture laws I readthe page and my head implodes could someone please just check it out and sort it out for me. Jimmmmmmmmm 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's heads implode when the look at the fair use pages. People get worked up about copyrights and it detracts from the overall aim of Wikipedia. Yes copyrights need to be adhered to, but the pages and pages ruined by legal jargon are astounding. The Hurball Company 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to make a Free Encyclopedia so we do tend to take copyright seriously. It's at the core of what we do here. If you seriously take issue with that then you might want to rethink why you're here and contributing to this project. --ElKevbo 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo, let me direct you to a blank page. It infringes no copyrights, so I think you'll be perfectly happy there.The Hurball Company 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was that a bizarre attempt at a personal attack? If so, please desist. --ElKevbo 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty funny meself, and when people start considering slight digs as full blown personal attacks then something's going wrong with the world The Hurball Company 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an easy way to solve that: don't attack editors. I don't appreciate even "slight digs" from people whom I don't know and whom I know don't know me. There's no reason for it and it leads to an atmosphere of hostility. Just be nice to people (unless they truly ask for it - and I don't think I did), okay? --ElKevbo 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no harm meant. Each to their own, you stand by Betacommand's copyright war, I think it's unnecessary. The issue will pan out in due course The Hurball Company 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry - Leicester City's not being discriminated against, the bot is going through logos all over the place, it just hasn't reached most of them yet. I notice it's tagged most of the League of Wales teams' logos, and various Albanian ones too (as the person who created a lot of articles on teams participating in the UEFA competitions, I have most of them on my watchlist, and it's horrifying watching this bot work its swathe of potential destruction through the Wikipedia). The idea that it's a good idea to tag thousands of images and give people only a week to bring them into conformity with the policies is wholly unreasonable to my mind: while it may surprise the deletionists, many of us have responsibilities and lives outside Wikipedia and not be able to devote time to sorting out this mess - my mother's been in hospital for the last 8 weeks and is not expected to survive, so I have other things to do at the moment. The most sensible thing to do is stop the bot and suspend all image deletions: it seems nonsensical to insist on an individual hand-crafted rationale for all images when they are logos or badges of an institution illustrating the article on that institution; if policy actually requires this - rather than it just being someone's interpretation of policy - then that policy should be changed. -- Arwel (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for several images

Are the images listed below OK now?

Image:TVR1.jpg, Image:TVR1.jpg, Image:TVRi.gif, and Image:TVRCultural.jpg.

ES Vic 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stop this stupid BOT!

OK, this bot it totally full of crap. It deleted four of my images that I tagged appropriately and now some of them are gone!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Angel_of_Darkness_Cover.jpg&action=edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dragon_knight_3_Cover.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Angel_VHS_Cover.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Metal%26lacelogo.gif

This bot is going crazy and someone should stop it.

Firstly, the bot can't deleted images - it only lists them deletion, secondally, your images were not tagged correcty, they lacked fair use rationales, thirdly, the bots not running at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the enforcement of "fair use" by non-attorneys to kind of humorous and sad. Seems this process should be limited to folks with a legal education and experience in IP practice and/or litigation instead of zealous, but well-meaning, lay folks. IzaakB (my Talk)contribs 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. This is not the enforcement of "fair use" in the legal sense. But "fair use" in the sense of the Foundation and Wikipedia's policies on unfree content (which are much stricter than the law of fair use). We have set the bar higher because we are not just trying to create an encyclopedia that is free to read, but one that contains free content. The policy should clearly be enforced by Wikipedians, not lawyers... WjBscribe 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to give adequate and good discographical information without scans of covers and labels. If you are (as in the case of pages I helped to edit) deleting or preparing to delete the pages - stop it and place a discussion with the relevant groups who work on music inside Wikipedia.--Reinhard P. Braun 05:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat Messages

Why are the bulletins been posted twice, It's giving me too much to read. Am quite busy with exams at the moment, and only have limited time to read my msgs. Sorry, I can understand that you need to go through the process, but please undestand it from my p.o.v. DannyM 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand: Is it possible to parse if you've previously posted the same message to a talk page just for a different image, so that the latest addition will be a shorter version? The condensed version can say concisely that "The description page of [Image] has no rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. Please provide one and refer to Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and a similar message I posted above for more details." And something similar for the invalid fair use message. This would be more user-friendly and perhaps get people less annoyed by the numerously repeated boilerplate messages. –Pomte 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch

I got a warning regarding Image:Armageddon score.jpg, I provided a fair use rationale, did you even BOTHER to look at it as I reworded the uploading text and added a fair use rationale templete Douglasnicol 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it seems to have reappeared, I wondered because I had put a rationale on it. Douglasnicol 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who can I bitch at?

I realize that you are just the guy with the bot. But this whole fair-use thing is a tiresome waste of energy that makes Wikipedia worse. Where and to whom can I bitch more effectively? Dybryd 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation? Whoever first had the idea to build a free content encyclopedia rather than just one that is free to access? The idea is that material here is resuable by third parties for any purpose - fair use is clearly problematic with reagrds the goals of the project and should therefore be kept to a miminum. WjBscribe 18:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to ban fair use, ban it.
But you don't want to ban fair use. There are many, many articles that can only be reasonably illustrated with fair-use images (such as book covers like the one for which I received the rude bot message).
That being the case, the decision to harass good-faith editors with threats of deletion of their appropriately uploaded and tagged images unless they jump through one more idiotic hoop after another has nothing to do with advancing the goal of keeping content free. It has everything to do with the personality type that is attracted to volunteer breaucratic positions.
Dybryd 02:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your personal attacks elsewhere; they're not welcome here. --ElKevbo 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's so terribly sad that good old Don't Be A Dick has been offloaded to a meta. Dybryd 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot ignores public domain template?

Hi Betacommand. I've got another one for you. It appears that the bot ignores the template {{PD}}. At least, it did with Image:Suchon2.JPG. Granted, this is a deprecated public domain template, but that's not the same thing as having no fair use rationale. Can you program your bot to avoid tagging images with this template? Thanks, GentlemanGhost 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a further look at this, maybe the problem was that the image was tagged with a public domain template AND a fair use template. Clearly, there was some confusion on the part of the uploader as far as which template to use. Doubtless, my commentary here will get buried beneath the avalanche of people complaining, but nonetheless, when you have the time it might be worth looking into. Hopefully, the bot doesn't ignore {{PD}} when it is not contradicted by another template.
As a side note, I'm changing the heading of this section so it doesn't look like just another person complaining because your bot is "broken" when in fact it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune.jpg

HMS Neptune was scrapped in 1922, as the picture of her afloat with all her armaments intact this picture was taken at least a year earlier, in any case this picture is at least 85 years old and by US Copywrite law (65 years) out of any copywrite protection. Tirronan 19:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for reducing repetitious text on talk pages

Might I suggest that rather than putting a single blob of text repeating everything but the image name each time the bot finds an image, it puts the fixed text once and just adds a list of images that it pertains to below? I'm sure it would help reduce the complaints to the bot. I saw one talk page with 200+ topics all with the same repeating text except for the image name. I understand what you are trying to do but annoying tons of users in the process is not the best approach IMHO. Yes, they should have put the rationale on the image description page but cluttering talk pages with huge blobs of repeating text is not a very user-friendly approach. RedWolf 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a "Book Cover" permitted image.

Hi. About your comment here - I didn't understand what's exactly the problem. The image is a BOOK-COVER image, in an article discussing the specific Book. Danny-w 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your Bot and an image

I just got a message from Betacommandbot that I put an image with unclear fair use. The image is Image:Henchrat.gif and though it carries my name as the one who uploaded it, I can assure it wasn't me since it doesn't appear in My Contributions list. --Shadowy Crafter 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively minor contributor - surprising multiple idiotic bot messages

Clearly this bot is causing way more harm than good.

I have uploaded many images over the previous several months.

All of them are justifiable per WP policies.

However, I am away from the Internet for a good proportion of the next few coming weeks.

Yes - believe it or not - many human beings spend time away from the computer.

All the bot-messages suggest I need to supply a rationale within 2 or 7 days...

I am perfectly able to do so - in the cases that are highlighted to me.

However, I cannot remember exactly when and where I uploaded all such images. I am not quite so anal.

Nor can I predict when or where this idiotically indiscriminate bot will start the clock ticking re any given image.

I cannot predict when or where your badly programmed bot will pluck out one of my (validly) uploaded images for immediate scrutiny, whether I am on the Algarve or Amazon for those 5 (or 2, or 20, or 100) days or not.

Hence an utterly laughable state of affairs, of obvious practical detriment to Wikipedia. Your bot cannot discuss!

Due to the real-life activities of the real-life-human-beings who edit Wikipedia constructively (bots, for your information, do not edit WP constructively, by definition) AND due to the inconvenient non-Wikipedia-related activities of those selfsame real-life-human-beings, your bot will actively and with no real-life human justification whatsoever cause the potential deletion of very many genuinely justified image files from Wikipedia, simply because your idiotically mindless, context-less and inhuman bot cannot tell the difference between a genuine image issue under contemporaneous HUMAN (i.e. non-bot) review, and an (incredibly rare) case of a genuinely abandoned and long-forgotten image requiring dumb-bot attention.

Wikipedia is a HUMAN resource - not a resource that exists purely for the play of robots and the "people" that evidently enjoy creating robots, to the exclusion of the greater good.

I now have the laughable position that your bot will idiotically identify cast-iron and "obvious-to-any-human-being-alive-but-not-a-badly-programmed-bot" valid images as "no rationale - delete within 2/7 days, lest the world of copyright fall down on our heads" items - and that this idiotic bot will randomly pluck out these items for scrutiny whenever the hell it feels like it - with no human intervention, thought, or logistical consideration whatsoever.

If you carried out your professed intentions as a rational human being (not via a bot) - i.e., pointing out these transgressions normally in real time, as a normal human obviously would in each context - then I would respect your efforts 100%. But, writing as a human being, speaking to you as a human being, you would surely not be such an idiot as to call down random 2- and 7-day deadlines without the opportunity for human response - would you? As a human being?

As it is, you actively and deliberately ignore any such human considerations, and you defend your actions with a robotic appeal to guidelines against any such human concerns.

Hence I feel - personally - that you represent everything that Wikipedia should actively aim to utterly reject and destroy.

Regards. --DaveG12345 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an incredibly rude, insensitive, and needlessly aggressive post. If you have something constructive to suggest, please do so. Otherwise, take your misguided and inappropriate rancor elsewhere. --ElKevbo 08:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A response concerning requests to make BetacommandBot less disruptive?

I've posted a few commends on User talk:BetacommandBot concerning suggestions to make the bot less disruptive while still carrying out the same tasks, and now see that there are several comments with similar suggestions here, but I have not seen any response from you regarding these requests - I assume they have been overlooked, as the number of pointless and poorly informed complainants on the two talk pages is staggering.

While I agree with what the bot is doing, it is going about the notifications in one of the most disruptive ways imaginable. I have seen talk pages with over 150 comments added by BetacommandBot in less than 24 hours, making the pages so long that loading times can become annoying; editors, especially vandal fighters, who have little relation to the images are being bombarded with what could be construed as accusations of ignorance of policy, complete with bright red boxes, images, large text, and their own sections for nearly identical repetitive boilerplate. Some talk pages affected by these edits are nearly unusable, with the bot drowning out other editors. If I were to start doing this with my communications, even if my comments were perfectly justifiable, I would probably be blocked for disruption. Thus, please consider the following suggestions:

  • As another editor suggested above, it would not seem very difficult to modify the bot so that, instead of adding a new section to an editor's talk page with the same boilerplate for each image, it could simply append a note about another image to the first comment it makes. This would not require the sort of memory or database that my earlier suggestion would have required, and would solve one of the most disruptive behaviors that the bot has.
  • Consider using different text for editors who simply edited an image. They might have no idea what the justification could be, in most cases probably don't care about whether the image is deleted, and as can be seen by the numerous complaints, are quite confused by the notification, which incorrectly addresses them as the uploader, and accuses them of being ignorant of policy. Something along the lines of "Hello! Since you edited X, I thought you might be able to justify..." would be far better than the current generic text, and would greatly reduce the number of repetitive complaints you receive concerning this particular confusion.
  • Try to make the generic notification somewhat more pleasant and less offensive and accusatory. In many cases, you are notifying users who followed correct policy many years ago, and are responding to them by treating them like people ignorant of policy, with "Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page", "Please read carefully the instructions at ... why you think the image qualifies" ("you think"? "read carefully"?), and quotation marks around fair use implying that the editor is mistaken. The text should explain that policy has changed, and that justifications that were originally valid may no longer be sufficient. Assume that you are speaking with a good editor, not a poor one.

If you could please respond to these, and consider them, it would be greatly appreciated. I believe that such changes will result in considerably more support for your bot. The first suggestion is the most important, however, as the number of comments being left on some talk pages is truly disruptive, and I will otherwise be forced to consider partial reversion of the bot's edits on any talk page I need to edit for other reasons in order that my comments will not be drowned out. --Philosophus T 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use question

I largely support your push for fair use justifications. However, when it comes to logos the boilerplate crowd have a fair point. Really, logos and software screenshots are the only things that you can slap a boilerplate fairuse license on. Album covers, on the other hand, need a fair use criteria. Could I respectfully ask you to stop adding logos to IFD if they have a fair use logo boilerplate? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as album covers are low res then there is no problem with a template for their FUR. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 12:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maurauth, templates are NOTvalid FUR. so the images still need rationale. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm putting this back. You didn't answer my message! You aren't ignoring me are you? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FURG is not Wikipedia policy.

Just for everyone's information, the page WP:FURG referred to by the bot is not policy, it's just a guideline. So nobody has any business threatening deletion of content on the strength of it.

Dybryd 12:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

FURG is a guideline on how to follow the policy. The policy requirement was there looooooong before the guideline was. A fair use rationale is a policy requirement, make no mistake about it. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coast guard flag.gif

Your bot has tagged a free, public domain image (Image:Coast guard flag.gif) as fair use with rationale disputed. I've tweaked the license, but it was tagged public domain at the time the bot tagged it. You may want to figure out why, so this doesn't happen again. Thanks. --Dual Freq 13:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is under public domain not fair use. Joe I 07:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. The image is public domain, no rationale needed. --17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC) So, would the responsible bot owner please remove the templates added to each talk page each article using the Coast Guard flag image? There are over 100 affected articles. --Pesco 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot owner needs to remove the offending templates from all talk pages attached to articles using "Image:Coast Guard Flag.gif" per the above mentioned reasons. --Maxarre 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what caused the problem: image was tagged as fair use, which caused the bot to add the tag. Only then did yall mark the image as public domain. This is not a fault of the bot, but of the person who tagged the image in the past. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) The tag was replaced with a PD PD tag (as opposed to a 'non-free PD' tag as was there) BEFORE the image was tagged by the bot. Is the bot going to go through every image that has ever had a non-free tag on and tag that as needing a fair-use rationale despite its status now having been ascertained as being free? b) When the tag was added, it did what it said in the name - the flag is public-domain, and is a flag. So you can't blame the person who added the tag in the first place. Is the bot going to find all images that ever had a tag on that is now classed as non-free despite it being free at the time, and has now been reclassified using a free tag, and tag THOSE as needing a rationale, too? BTW, the bot should distinguish images which have tags beginning with PD and use a different boilerplate. FWIW, I think that whilst this bot is a good idea in theory, its current implementation is causing an unacceptable amount of collateral damage. Stannered 22:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to worry. This case was an unusual one. The dataset the bot was working from was probably just a few hours old and hadn't picked up the change. Cases like this should be few and far between. The amount of collateral damage here is minimal. --Durin 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't only mean collateral damage in that sense. I also meant collateral damage in that many active Wikipedians are resigning from the project. We avoid blocking IPs (particularly shared IPs) for more than very short periods and bend over backwards to help anyone stuck unfairly behind such a block, despite the fact that very few of those anonymous IPs would go on to become regular contributors. Yet we are (or BetacommandBot is) alienating large groups of Wikipedians through this heavy-handed (some would say cack-handed) approach to fair use rationales. See Timothy Titus's message below. Stannered 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durin, you say that the collateral damage is minimal. Does this mean you will fix the collateral damage and remove the template from the 100+ articles tagged, or that you feel it's too minimal to bother fixing? Maybe it wouldn't seem that minimal if every stub article in your area of interest was incorrectly tagged. --Pesco 04:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
up until ~30 minutes before my bot tagged the image it was improperly licensed. Since the concerns raised by the bot have been handled, you can Ignore the message since it has been fixed. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image wasn't improperly licensed, but it did have an old Public Domain template (PD-flag) that needed to be clarified. If any human eyes actually looked at the image before 100+ talk pages were tagged, anyone would have realized that it was a public domain image. Anyways, the template you added was inappropriate, since the existing image template didn't call for a fair use rationale. It's understandable that mistakes happen, that's why bots have a shut-off button. After a mistake does happen, the appreciated response is to acknowledge it and correct the damage done, in this case remove the template from each affected page unless it's been responded to. WP:B says that it is the responsibility of the bot owner to fix damage, and I strongly feel what your bot did qualifies as damage. For years people are going to scratch their head when they see the template, and frankly it shouldn't fall on someone else to say "please disregard" after a message your bot put on a lot of pages. --Pesco 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want!

Yeah thats right...delete that image you crazy bot. I don't fucking care anymore about this shit site.Victoria Eleanor 16:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this site has turned into quite the piece of shit. I'm done with it. I'm trying to figure out a way to delete my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowTapedR (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascistic removal of images.

If you want to keep removing images that I uploaded in good faith under the Wiki rules about free use then I can't really stop you I suppose. I followed the rules, as I thought, but if you disagree and think that it is smart to apply your authoritarain judgments to these images I haven't the time or the instinct to try and stop you. That you haven't better things to do with your time is sad. But go ahead - and don't bother to keep notifying me.. I couldn't really care less. PaddyBriggs 16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting off a conversation with "Fascist" is not a way to go about getting someone to come to consensus with you. If you simply mean to insult this bot (I don't know why; it's a bot, not a human} please see WP:NPA. As for you acting in good faith, nobody is saying you are not. The bot simply tags images that lack a fair use rationale. All fair use images here on Wikipedia must have a fair use rationale for each intended use (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #10(c)). For assistance on crafting a fair use rationale, please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. If you require more assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks, --Durin 16:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the Wiki rules. The Bot is questioning images I uploaded for which I always gave a fair use rationale. It is just not true that no rationale has been given. You will find one for every upload of an image I have ever made! Facsists cannot blame their tools. It was not Hitler's Panzer tanks who took the decisions - it was his Generals! PaddyBriggs 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you had provided a rationale the bot would not have tagged the images. where do you think the bot made an error? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paddy, I'll cite two examples. Have a look at these images which you uploaded, in the versions you uploaded before this bot touched them; [2] and [3]. Both images are tagged with a licensing tag, but neither image has a fair use rationale on them. Note that in both tags it says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline" You did not do this. Thus, this bot appropriately tagged them as missing a fair use rationale [4][5]. --Durin 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • this bot is crazie and is attacking corporate logos on the wikipedia page describing the corporation. absolutely insane. i agree with everyone on here that this bot needs to be shut down until it can generate more specific messages as well as pointed at clear copyright violations rather than minor omissions when tags are already in place. Randella 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A licensing tag is not a fair use rationale. Please see WP:FURG. Note that licensing tags ask the uploader to provide a detailed fair use rationale. A bot enforcing that policy is not "crazie". --Durin 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • uh, it is when there is obviously a fair use tag already in place. it may not be complete with a rationale, but it should be acceptable enough not to immediately delete. a suggestion would be more appropriate. also, please explain why i was tagged for this image when i did not post it and i'm not on the history for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fallfestival.jpg. Randella 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you give an example of the case you're highlighting please? As for Image:Fallfestival.jpg, the bot informed the uploader [6], and not you. The only image it informed you about was Image:Dillards logogif.gif, which you did edit. --Durin 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • my mistake. was looking at the talk page for that article and got it confused with my own. sorry about that! Randella 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • No worries. We all make mistakes. :) --Durin 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed. This bot is completely out of control and is correcting that which by law is not in violation. Album covers in articles on albums is fair use under federal copyright laws. There is no violation of US copyright law when displaying an image of said covers in an article specifically about the album. In other words, technically this bot is doing the "right thing" under wiki guidelines, but it is also wasting a lot of time when it could focus on blatant violations that actually ARE in violation of copyright laws. Durin obviously does not understand the arguments of anyone here or elsewhere. This bot is wasting a lot of time for people. (Mind meal 07:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
              • yep. i was tagged for yet another corporate logo... one i edited but did not create. so i just put in some generic 'rationale' to back up the tag. a bot should not attack logos being used in the info box for that corporation. i'm sure there are other very obvious fair usage instances that this thing is attacking. program in some exceptions or kill this thing. just look at all the complaints. will be funnie when wikipedia shuts this bot running amok down. Randella 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Can you please point to where in "federal copyright laws" it says that "album covers in articles on albums is fair use"? I seem to have missed it. Thanks! --ElKevbo 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive behaviour

If you can not work out for yourself why a picture of soldiers fighting in the Battle of Berlin in the Battle of Berlin article is fair use you really should not be running a bot because it is a waste of time for everyone else. If you had bothered to read the image page you would have seen: "It is believed that the use of this work in the article "Battle of Berlin" : To illustrate the object in question, Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information".

Consider this a warning, if this bot is used to disrupt the project the account will be blocked. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not take action to remove your threat edit to Image:Polacy Berlin1.jpg, I will take that to be an indication of further disruption. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused are you a bot or a human? If you are a human then what do you understand the words in the template (licensing tag ) that I have quoted above to mean? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between WP:FUC and WP:FURG

I just added this to the Village pump (policy), but also wanted to add it here, as it includes a critique of this bot.:

As I already mentioned 2 days ago on the village pump (misc), the guidelines at WP:FUC and WP:FURG don't have the same standards for fair use rationales.

WP:FURG only asks for purpose, portion and replacability

By the way: the last requirement Any other information necessary to assist future Wikipedians in determining whether this image qualifies for fair use is just plain stupid. Why not just write "A fair use rationale has to comply with WP-policy" then.

WP:FUC requires much more, incl. a rationale for why there is no free version (which is totally obvious in most cases), minimal use, previous publication and significance (although there seem to be various interpretations of the last one).

FUC 6 is only a link to other guidelines and essays, including one to meta:Avoid copyright paranoia which includes this great statement:
  • "As a practicing lawyer, I hate all the incredibly over-the-top "copyright paranoia" as you've so elloquently put it. I've taken copyrights, I've taken trademarks, I've taken international IP (so a bit of patents ;-) ) all while a law student. Infringing uses are easy to see and easy to remove on Wikipedia --yet people here get caught in such absurd legal minutia, seriously compounded by their often half-baked legal knowledge, that has such a small likelihood of becoming a problem. And what's the biggest joke of it "becoming a problem"? Simple: any of us can "erase" the problem material in a few keystrokes. Honestly people, to quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002). --Bobak 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)"

What's even more confusing is that Betacommandbot's example of a good fair use rationale ([7])is absolutely generic, while User:Durin, who seems to be the defender-in-chief for Betacommandbot, constantly argues that FURs have to be unique to each specific use in each specific article they're used in.

As long as there is no clarification as to what's the policy, what's the use in tagging thousands of images.

Malc82 09:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that betacommand simply made a mistake when defining his rational. In any case no rational is not a good thing. —— Eagle101Need help? 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting no rationale, but before a bot stirrs up thousands of Wikipedians, it would be nice if the policy would be clear. Btw, would you mind if I copied your response (and mine) to the VP. I think this is a general policy issue. Malc82 11:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FUC is a policy WP:FURG is a guideline. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing your bot's operations

Despite the large number of complaints, and no response to my request to pause your operations, you seem to be continuing to run the bot. I've thus blocked it for 24 hours. Please try and address the concerns that have been raised on your talk page and at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) prior to recommencing operations. - SimonP 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns have been routinely address by several people. Betacommand specifically asked a number of people, including myself, to assist in monitoring operations and responses knowing that there would be significant discussion. We've been doing this, and if I do say so myself we've been doing a bang up job of responding in a timely manner to people. Features have been requested and added, people have been responded to, policies have been pointed to. This bot is more closely watched than probably any other bot out there. To say the administration of this bot is not responding to concerns is absolutely incorrect. The bot is not what is in error here. --Durin 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I look forward to you acting on my comments above in #Disruptive behaviour. But for the time being I support SimonP's decision --Philip Baird Shearer 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have answered peoples complaints just saying that they are wrong and very little else. You have kept claiming that templates cannot be used for fair use rationales, even after many people told you that is just not true. The actions of this bot is causing a lot of stress and disruption for very little value. Even is the bot is following the rules: 1) Those rules are currently under review 2) This is the wrong way to enforce the rules. You have to spread the meaning of the policies and build up an understanding for them in the community. Not violently enforce with a bot. You may be angry at the lowly ordinary editors who don't follow every paragraph of the policies, but please show some restraint. --Apoc2400 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but the rules are not under review unless the Board of Trustees is planning or is currently discussing new resolutions to modify the existing one. --Durin 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Stop giving me everything! I'm not the only one who upload images and you're giving me stress! I don't care! Delete them if you will! Cigammagicwizard 13:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check image

I figure that this bot will get around to it eventually, but I'd like to know before I go on vacation or something. Is Image:Harley-Davidson.svg properly decorated with fair-use rationale and attribution and whatnot? Specifically, will the bot flag this image in the future? —BozoTheScary 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fool

Don't you understand you idiot!!!!!!!!!Delete my images. Or if you're still not satisfied then delete all the images on wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!! But then...you'll be so bored(sigh)!Victoria Eleanor 15:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of using a bot to make judgemental calls is too much. If "adding" articles and images is not trivial, neither is "deleting". How about just unlinking it from articles until fairuses get fixed? I don't see what harm an image could possible do if it was just sitting on the server with nobody using it. Benjwong 17:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot is not making judgment calls. It detects if a fair use rationale has been provided, and if not tags it appropriately. There's nothing subjective about it. It's a yes/no proposition. --Durin 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An old Asian saying

Let me put it a little milder as Victoria Eleanor above: In Germany there's an old saying: 'Tue, was Du nicht lassen kannst' [in English: If you must you must]; myself I prefer an old Asian saying: 'Tue nicht, was Du auch lassen kannst' [in English something like: Don't do what you just as well can avoid doing] StefanWirz 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove my comments from this page

This bot is garbage and I have the right to voice that opinion. It is tagging every album cover and logo, which are obviously fair use for deletion. This bot is crap and it should die.--E tac 18:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images that it is tagging are missing fair use rationales. Such rationales are required by policy. I'm sorry you do not like this, but the reality is this is policy. --Durin 18:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, the only other comment you've made on this page [8] was not deleted. --Durin 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must have missed it, and so what if it is a policy, let the admins deal with it rather than a retarded bot that tags thousands of images per day. Better yet why don't you be proactive and provide rationales for the images this thing is tagging.--E tac 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I don't know under what concepts each image is being used under fair use. The person who adds the images to the articles knows. I am not a mind reader. --Durin 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't know because it is a bot doing the checking and not a human, it is pretty obvious on a band or album page that the image in the infobox is the logo or the album cover. Like I said this bot is stupid, and this work should be done by humans and not a bot that does not know how to use common sense. I am not arguing the policy and I have no problem with it, but I do with the way this thing is doing it.--E tac 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is, of course, bureaucratic rubbish because the rationale will be exactly the same in each and every case for album covers. No mind reading necessary, only a sense of constructive contribution. – B.hotep u/t• 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just have a stupid view on it. you guys who are so gung-ho about having having personalized ,typed out fair use templates even gave us a list to type out for every one:
"* It illustrates educational articles about the band's body of work
* It represent the primary means of the visual identification of this work.
* It is a low resolution image.
* The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
* It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
* The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original.
* The use of the cover illustration is in good faith, and its inclusion enhances the quality of the article without reducing the commercial value of the work from which it was drawn."

Now, you just stick that in a template, and badda-bam. What do you know? Violask81976 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Newmoon2.jpeg

I beleive I have added a fair use rational, please correct me if I am wrong. -Bella 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reword warning?

I think the boilerplate warning that's going out may be a little complicated and alarming for the average person who's just uploaded a photo. Here's a suggested reworking:

Thanks for uploading Image:X. Although it may already contain a fair use template, it also requires a custom fair use rationale. The image may be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion if this is not added to the image description page.

For further reading on Wikipedia's image policy, please visit Wikipedia:Non-free content. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Norvy (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent suggestion! However, Betacommand didn't create that template; he's merely utilizing it. It might be more worthwhile to discuss this at the {{Missing rationale}} talk page. --GentlemanGhost 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First person

If you're a bot, why are you talking about yourself in the first person? AIUI bot status is reserved for non-sentient entities. –EdC 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

I have put the fair use template into the page - Image:sfxlogo2.jpg. I have also fully entered all required information. Check it out and delete the deletion template please, thanks! DrizztJamo 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns

Instead of posting a notice on my talk page, please go ahead and delete all images. If you can't provide something more specific (and I have gone back and added information only to still have it removed without warning), then delete it outright and skip notifying me. I will ignore it and remove it from my talk page. Thank you. Squad51 03:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions needing answers

Could someone (maybe User:Durin) answer the following questions for me?

  1. Do you agree that all album cover images (not any images; just album covers) are protected by "fair use"?
  2. If yes, then why wouldn't a generic template be sufficient for the rationale?
  3. If not, what examples can you give of album covers that are not covered by "fair use"?

Again, I am only referring to album covers. --Thorwald 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes the images are fair use, the issue is not whether or not the image is fair use or not. The issue is explaining why wikipedia needs the given image. A rationale is an explanation of why that image should be used, where it can be used. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't fully answer my questions. If, as you concede, all album covers are covered by fair use, then why can we not have a generic template and rationale as to why every single album cover can and should be used? As far as I can tell, they are all being used in the exact same manner: In the "infoboxes"-type scenario of the artists and/or album articles. These album covers are being used in a consistent manner for the exact same reasons (or rationale) in every single instance. Get it? --Thorwald 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
then the images shouldnt be used in those pages per policy critical commentary is needed about the Image on the cover, you cannot use it just to ID the image. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That didn't make any sense. Why, if the exact same policy, rationale, reason, place, usage, etc., etc. is used can we not use it for every album cover? Where are you getting that we can not use the above reasons "per policy"? Am I just being dense here, or are we going around in circles with this? What on earth do you mean by "critical commentary is need about the [album cover]"? Wouldn't every "critical commentary" be identical for every album cover? How can we have different rationales for two different album covers? --Thorwald 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is suggesting that the album article in which the image is used should contain "critical commentary" about the cover specifically. My understanding is that although this would improve the fair use case, it is not in fact required for fair use. My understanding is also that this is not required by policy on the English language Wikipedia. There are, however, a number of editors who would like it to be. You may wish to look at/join the discussion on the talk page of WP:FUC. Good luck. -MrFizyx 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I understand that User:BetacommandBot is suggesting "critical commentary" for every single album cover. My question was, Why? If I copy the same rationale someone else used for their album cover and it is accepted by this bot, then it follows that another user could do the same ad infinitum until there would be no difference in all the rationales used by all the album covers. Thus, we should be able to have a generic template using a generic rationale that covers every single album cover automatically. Am I missing something? Please, someone tell me. This all seems insanely easy to fix. --Thorwald 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certianly agree with you. There are, however, many opinions on this. I gather the discussion has now moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG. Regards, -MrFizyx 04:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bogus argument being made about critical commentary on the exact "image" itself, as the same cannot be said for biographical articles containing fair use photographs of people. Fair use in that instance is used as a means to illustrate, beyond words, what that person looks like. The same rationale can be applied to album covers. If every article on an album "critically commented" on the image, that would in 99% of all cases be very silly and read in an abnormal manner. The image is intended to illustrate (beyond words) the appearance of the album, and is educational for readers. This is crazy talk, saying we must critically comment on fair use album cover IMAGES (which appears to be the argument!). Given that logic, we would have to apply the same for absolutely every fair use image on Wikipedia; meaning, fair use is pointless because photographs typically are meant to depict a person, place or event. The photographer is usually not the center of the story nor the point of the photography. Unless photographed by a famous photographer, there really is no critical commentary to be had about images. Now I see all the more why Betacommandbot must be shut down. In my view, permanantly. (Mind meal 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • You're not alone in your opinion. There are also quite a number of people who feel the opposite. As to the original poster in this thread and his question, please read my comments here. --Durin 18:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jawol, mein Fuhrer!

  1. You are not an admin, and thus should not be trying to act as one.
  2. Your behavior has been disruptive.
  3. I am sending a notice to the admins to try and get you blocked.

POWER TO THE WIKIPEDIANS!

Tom Danson 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin, is it really possible that you imagine what you and Betacommand are doing constitutes civil discourse? Can someone be so self-blind? Dybryd 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several other people took issue with Tom's comments above. Calling someone a Nazi is hardly productive. Encouraging them to read the governing policy on this is not out of line. I'm sorry that you feel it is. --Durin 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FURG still isn't policy!

I just think that this fact should be kept in the public eye. Betacommand is acting the strutting martinet on the basis of something that...doesn't even have consensus yet.

This really could not be more uncivil, poorly planned, and destructive to Wikipedia.

I'll put my non-policy up against your non-policy: WP:DICK trumps WP:FURG!

Dybryd 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Hi, Betacommand! You're sure getting a lot of hostile response from the Wikipedia community, aren't you? Do you think that your own incivility may be contributing to the hostility you're encountering? For example, look at the box at the top of this page which greets visitors to your talk page. Was it necessary to take such a high-handed, aggressive tone, and to accuse people who disagree with you of "whining"? It probably wasn't. Dybryd 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that page is relevant, particularly this section:
"Often, a user will go out of his or her way to game the system, making changes which are against the spirit, if not the letter of the law. This user will, often purposely, goad other Wikipedians into response with an aggravating propensity to bend the rules, and will of course immediately accuse the other Wikipedians of incivility.
Dybryd 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a lot of people seem to be mistaken in the same way at the same time. Dybryd 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying everyone ELSE is mistaken? Fascinating! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misread my sarcasm. However, I apologize for the sarcasm. Dybryd 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify (with less sarcasm, which I agree is probably not helpful), I don't particularly think Betacommand has been incivil. The box at the top of his talk page is, IMO, curt, but not agressive ... it is merely a collection of FAQs. I understand that other users may disagree, but I don't think we need to go about acussing others incivility ... as that is, inherently, incivil inasmuch as it produces an accusatory environment. --Iamunknown 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will say I've seen curt writing, bordering on uncivil & arrogant, by Betacommand. When it's not curt, it's an offhand dismissal of that person's issue. Perhaps that's because bot owner has to answer the same questions 1,000 times. Of course, 1,000 questions or rants are to be expected when the bot adds umpteen thousand templates to talk pages. Honestly I think the bot shouldn't work any quicker than it takes the bot owner to give a thorough, helpful, friendly response to every inquiry posted on the bot or user's talk page. --Pesco 06:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of fair use images

Your bot Betacommandbot keeps telling me that my images don't meet the criteria to be used as logos, but as no-one has shown me where to add a fair-use rationale, I haven't added any to the images that I have uploaded in the past. Please could you explain to me how to do add the fair-use rationale to my images to my current images and for any that I upload in the future. Thank you, Dreamweaverjack 21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure no-one will mind me pointing you to WP:FURG for some help. Since it looks like you are interested in football, take a look at what I wrote for the Hull City badge too. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE UNDO YOUR MODIFICATION TO THE HASHTGERD ARTICLE NOW

You did not respond to my last request which was made over a month ago. You have made an invalid edit to the HASHTGERD article, based on Faulty site blockage information - the blockage information is incorrect. Either UNDO your edit or, if you have access, REMOVE the CAIS link form the block list as it has been mistakenly added and several editors are requesting it be removed immediately so they can reinstate its usage in other articles. CAIS is a reputable reserach institute which has been around since 1988. It is NOT a spam site!!! Mehrshad123 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed way forward

Eagle101 has suggested a proposed way forward at WT:FAIR#Way forward; (other admins have made similar suggestions at WP:AN/FURG)

  • we start work on correcting the currently tagged images. Be that leave them be and let them get deleted (some may have to go this route), fix up the images that are being used correctly, or add some critical commentary about it, and then fix up the rational. I would suggest that if we take this course of action that a proposal be made (or effort go to supporting a current proposal if there is one), to hold off deleting the currently tagged images for 2-3 weeks. By that I mean extend the tag's time period from what it is now to 14-21 days. After this timeperiod ends and the image backlog returns to normal (admins get a chance to review all of these) we turn betacommandbot back on. The bot would be to run at tagging 300 images a day. Thats managable. (as opposed to the literally thousands tagged daily).
  • scanning and tagging could continue for new uploads

Would that be acceptable to Team:BetacommandBot ? Jheald 00:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (followups to WT:FAIR)[reply]

300 a day is way too low. At that rate, it would take over a year to get everything processed. That's unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is delete everything and take a year adding it back? --BigDT 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-ups to WT:FAIR#Way forward please Jheald 00:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another request for a response

Despite the fact that some of my requests have been archived without a reply, and a variety of the usual complaints have seen responses, I have still not yet received a response concerning my suggestions for making the bot less disruptive. Since the bot is currently adding hundreds of copies of text that is mostly the same to talk pages in new sections, I think that it would not be comparatively very disruptive if I were to ask a third time for a response to my suggestion earlier on the page (User talk:Betacommand#A response concerning requests to make BetacommandBot less disruptive?). --Philosophus T 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. 2 above Ive answered this before. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's over 600kb of text, and it is absurd to expect everyone to read through it. Would you at least post the source for the bot, so I can try to change that instead of having to remove the spam manually? --Philosophus T 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the Templates that i use are all on wiki. now i will not be a broken record again see the archives Ive explained this all before. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not msg me using the bot

Please do not msg me using the bot. I am not interested in automated communications. If the images I uploaded are to be deleted, so be it. Paranoid 19:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot continues to complain about my logo uploads

Your bot continues to flag my tell me that Logo images that I have uploaded (such as this one) are Non-Free. I know this. They are logos. I also know that Logos clearly fall under Wikipedia's Fair Use Policy. Could your bot please refrain from bothering me about Logos. --Munchkinguy 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't uploaded files correctly then you're not in a position to complain about being notified of it. -- Ned Scott 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

album cover fair use rationale

My talk page has been hammered recently with warnings that images I uploaded, all album covers, are tagged for deletion. According to WP, use of low-res images of album covers is acceptable fair use under copyright law. Since you've been quite bold about tagging these images for deletion, please apply your boldness in providing the appropriate fair use rationale to the image pages themselves. Thank you, Alcuin 01:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read #6 in the template at the top of the page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 03:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop...

spamming my fucking talk page about the Pink Floyd audio clips. You're posting them to the Floyd's talk page, fine, but leave me the fuck out of it. I'm sick of seeing this shit when I stop by occassionally to see if old friends are trying to contact me. dharmabum 07:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betacommand&oldid=137000139"