User talk:Betacommand/20070501

Earthworm Jim page - Fan sites

Why did you remove links to two of the Fan sites on the Earthworm Jim page? I am referring to 'Rocket Worm' and 'Robert's Earthworm Jim page' Changes were reverted. They are useful external resources to fans, and people seeking information on the subject.

Regards.

ArenaFan.com is not a fan site

ArenaFan.com is a legitimate media website with player and coach information that is not included in the wiki pages.

Bot problem

Hi Betacommand - there seems to be a problem with the newsletter bot task: [1]. Could you take a look please :)? Kingboyk has blocked the bot - feel free to unblock when you;ve fixed the issue. Martinp23 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That was AWB it was choking on that page for some strange reason. Ive unblocked. First time AWB has ever done that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I added a skip page if [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] is detected should prevent further errors. Thanks for bringing it up. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had to pop out and didn't have time to alert you and ask questions :) --kingboyk 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem but Like ive said before you dont need to block it, it shuts down when it gets the orange bar of death that we all know too well. thanks for making it AO otherwise you would have gotten me in a lot of trouble. :) parts of it run off the Toolserver. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kingboy truncation error fixed that was my fault I had a copy paste error. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you redo the ones that are messed up, and also the people who want subst delivery? Much appreciated, thanks for all your help. --kingboyk 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The subst deliveries haven't got done. There's not many so I'll do them myself by hand. That's job done, then, I think. Cheers. --kingboyk 12:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Criterion collection essays

Would you mind putting these back? There's nothing wrong with them. They're all written by professional film scholars or critics, or filmmakers, and are thus highly suitable links. Cop 633 23:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Please restore all of the Criterion essay links you've removed. In the vast majority of cases they contain more information on the films than the articles. Doctor Sunshine talk 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. I just read another one you deleted without reason, which adds a lot to the article that can't be said in the article, i.e. scholarly POV on the quality of a film. Bruxism 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, it is inappropriate to label such changes as minor. --Mathew5000 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted all of your edits on these, since it's easier to do now when most of them are still close to the top. Please discuss somewhere before making sweeping edits on hundreds of articles, that really make very little sense (how's an essay by Federico Fellini not relevant to 8½?). - Bobet 08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to expand on this. I did indeed remove the rule from shadowbot (although it did get spammed throughout wikipedia by unestablished and unregistered editors), but I still believe that the links do not comply with WP:EL. There is no direct relationship between the essays and the subject on the pages. As on videodrome, also on 8½ (on this page except for the Federico Fellini essay) the essay on the movie by Tullio Kezich does not tell about the movie, it tells more about Federico Fellini. Also, there are now 4 essays in the external links sections (WP:EL prefers using external information as references; some points in WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided might apply as well), and wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Also I concur that the links should be cleaned drastically, and then maybe some should stay. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

<de-indent> I removed the links for 2 reasons I saw it was being added so I did a linksearch. I got 96 results, a few hours later I repeated the same search I got 248 hits, over 120 were added by the same IP. in any case that was spamming. I repeatedly removed up to 4 links on a page. There is NO reason to have that many links to the same site. <instert Beestra's reasons here too> so why link to poor very POV sources? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for your first point is that the url for criterion collection's website changed (from criterionco.com to criterion.com), the anon just fixed the existing links to point to the correct page. Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Criterion Collection links for more (and answer there) so the discussion won't get forked. Thanks. - Bobet 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WPBeatles newsletter

Hi Beta, would you be willing to send out the WikiProject Beatles newsletter please?

It needs to go to everybody on this list, including inactive - Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Participants - minus anybody on this list, which I will take care of manually - Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/SpecialDelivery.

The message:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 012}} <sign>

Please let me know either way. Thanks. --kingboyk 12:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you did a few test deliveries. I think you need to add a section header, apart from that it looks great. Get delivering please, bot! :) --kingboyk 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Header added. The bot should have done them all it hit a nopage error and crashed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh! You're not having much luck lately. I hope that changes for you! Thanks for doing this job, much appreciated. --kingboyk 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Lists

Could you make a bot that not only attaches Template:WPLISTS to the talk pages of all articles that start with List of or Timeline of, but also looks through new pages and tags any new pages that are created with those beginnings? Im pretty sure not all lists and timelines have been labeled with this category and it would help get the project off the ground. The Placebo Effect 01:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ill work off Special:Allpages for those prefixes as for watching new pages I dont have a tool for that but I can re-run this task at a later date skipping the pages that are already tagged. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ummm. your bot tagged redirect pages, is it possible to avoid this? The Placebo Effect 13:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

it should have skipped those. /me adds another security feature. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Project banner BEFORE adding any more templates. This is something that definitely needs to be discussed. -- Ned Scott 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging articles as apart of WikiProject Lists

BAD BAD idea. Please stop now. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Juro, User talk:Juro

The user Juro, who you previously blocked indefinitely, but who was unblocked recently is engaging in repetitively disruptive behavior. Please consult his contribution log for edit warring, refusal to discuss changes, "ownership of articles," removal of legitimate warnings on his user talk page, adding the warnings he removes to the user talk pages of the editors who placed them there, uncivil communication with fellow editors, three revert violations, and etc. FEastman 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RCI Fan links.

There have been links to RCI Fan under pages related to RCI ships for over a year, and when I go into the pages to update them, make a single typo which plants the wrong URL, somebody cuts the link, then starts sending some bot of yours to remove them as I go into the pages to correct them. Now they are removing links that are several years old, and it is getting annoying since the site contains RCI related history, information, and resources for people that are looking for information. Kindly figure out that this isn't a spam attack and fix the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NWLB (talk • contribs) 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

WPMCR Bot

It'll be delivered on the 30th of every month (not including this one). You can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject My Chemical Romance/Outreach. Thanks! mcr616 _Speak! 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

mis-tagged

Bad robot. Go to your room. You mis-tagged a movie article Armored Personnel Unit as a computer article. -Arch dude 12:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

list of DS9 episodes

Please do not remove pictures from the list of deep space nine episodes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_episodes I reverted your edit, the pictures are all within proper use and are reasonably small scale to load fast, the pictures are also part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek. So do not remove them. Jernejl 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

guide

can you please link me to guide based on which you removed the fair use images? thank you.

Jernejl 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

there is not a guide, Wikipedia does have a policy regarding those images though see our Non-free image use policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof.js

Hello, Betacommand, I really want to ask you about the monobook ValdalProof.js. I've never seen the monobook that I've mentioned before. Is VandalProof.js only used for reverting vandalisms? Hope you can understand my questions, and respond in my talk pages. Thanks in advance. Daniel 5127 06:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams removal

Can you please explain why you protected Gerry Adams and then immediately removed a large section of text supported by multiple sources? I'm not familiar with this article but those sources do appear to be reliable. I understand BLP concerns but removing well-sourced information from an article you just protected strikes me as odd. --ElKevbo 14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

actually I removed the material just prior to protecting but was reverted. those sources are not reliable and are anti-adams POV/slander sites. That information is OR and speculation, and doesnt have support from unbiased third party news/reporting services. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all comfortable with how you have done this but I'll AGF and go about my business. Please ensure you are participating in the article's Talk page and other discussions (I'm sure you saw this pop up on ANI). Best of luck! --ElKevbo 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources are more than reliable. If you had taken time to properly investigate the situation you would have seen exactly how many reliable and independent sources say exactly the same thing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the four books? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When you get a chance, Betacommand, I, too would appreciate an answer to the above question. It would also be very helpful if you could post (perhaps moving this entire thread) in the article's Talk page. Thanks! --ElKevbo 19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing on Talk:Gerry Adams. Feel free to answer the questions, instead of ignoring valid points and covering up your mistakes. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

When deleting images en-mass, it is good etiquette to fully modify the pages so as to make them presentable in the absence of said images. failing to do so creates work for others that they did not request. Policy is no reason for poor manners.

It is also requested that instead of pointing towards a policy, you point towards the page where the changes that you have made were discussed and agreed upon.

perfectblue 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Betacommand's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

64.252.187.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

You blocked 64.252.187.120 for 31 hours, but the user made only 1 edit. I don't think that we should block for a single edit, per WP:AGF, would you perhaps reconsider? Prodego ^talk 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Normally id just revert and leave a template, But the user threatened to vandalize unless we broke the WP:NOFREE policy and allowed images on episode list. that threat is why they were blocked. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just came by to say thanks for your long and continuing service to Wikipedia. Please let me know, either on-wiki or by e-mail, if there's ever anything I can do. Chick Bowen 04:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Invite

You are cordially invited to List of Kim Possible episodes, where it has been requested that you "finish" the tables for seasons 2-4 so that they no longer have placeholders for the pictures that you removed.

Creating formatting problems and leaving them for other users to fix is a disruption of Wikipedia.

perfectblue 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I cant edit the page, you might ask a admin to edit it or ill fix it when its unprotected. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The images were added months before it was decided that they were not allowed to be there, and at a time when many such pages existed leaving the users with clear reason to believe that they were carrying on a permitted activity (many were novice users at the time, and so can certainly claim ignorance). I'm afraid that you can't simply pass the buck. You started an action but did not complete it.

"also don't accuse me of disruption as that could get you blocked per", WP:NPA requires that I make an attack, which I have not done. I have used no bad language, issued no physical or wikirelated threats, have not inpunned your character or integrity, or even questioned your motives, I have merely expressed concern that you're edit has had a derogatory effect on a particular page and requested that you complete the task that you started earlier. I did so civilly and without prejudice.

You will also notice that the page is protected. Put simply, neither I nor any of the other regular editors of this page can clean the page up. Therefore it must fall to somebody with a higher set of user permissions. I am therefore quite within my rights to request that you, as somebody who actually can, do something to resolve the issue.

perfectblue 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said I CANNOT EDIT THE ARTICLE I am not an admin, or I would fix the mistake, but until the page is unprotected I cant touch it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, your page was displaying admin credentials when I posted the original request.

perfectblue 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Talk Pages ==> skip pages containing {{ & prepend the rest with {{WikiProject_Computing}}

Category:.NET framework
Category:.NET programming languages
Category:.NET programming tools
Category:.Net Object-relational mapping tools
Category:.hack
Category:2600: The Hacker Quarterly
Category:2D Animation software
Category:3D Scenegraph APIs
Category:3D computer graphics
Category:3D graphics software
Category:65xx microprocessors
Category:68k emulators
Category:68k microprocessors
Category:A/UX
Category:A/UX people
Category:A/UX-capable Macintoshes
Category:ACM
Category:ACM Special Interest Groups
Category:AIM clients
Category:ANSI C standard
Category:ANSI standards
Category:AOL
Category:ARC
Category:ARM architecture
Category:ARPANET
Category:AS/400
Category:ASCII art
Category:ASP Accounting Systems
Category:ATI Technologies
Category:Academic computer network organizations
Category:Access control
Category:Accounting software
Category:Acer
Category:Acorn Archimedes
Category:Acorn Computers
Category:Active Directory
Category:Actor model
Category:Actuarial science
Category:Ad hoc routing protocols
Category:Ada programming language
Category:Ada programming language family
Category:Adaptable robotics
Category:Adobe Creative Suite
Category:Adobe Flash
Category:Adobe Flex
Category:Adobe Systems
Category:Adobe software
Category:Advanced Micro Devices
Category:Adware
Category:Aftermarket firmware
Category:Agent-based programming languages
Category:Aim for the Top! images
Category:Ajax (programming)
Category:Algebraic information theory
Category:Algorithmic information theory
Category:Algorithms
Category:Algorithms on strings
Category:Alpha software
Category:Alternative DNS roots
Category:Amazon.com
Category:Analysis of algorithms
Category:Analysis of variance
Category:Animation software

--Khunter 17:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot

Given the recent arbcom case against you for mis-using bot tools, you running BetacommandBot is highly inappropriate, no matter what BAG says. I request you cease using your bot or I will ask the community to do it. Nardman1 13:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw my objection per discussion at ANI. Your bot needs to look for synonyms of {{not orphan}} such as {{notorphan}} to work properly though. Nardman1 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

hey

Hey, You were approved for 100 edits and you now have 400. Plus, you are mistagging images marked as {{tl:notorphan}}. Nardman1 15:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot is malfunctioning

The bot is malfunctioning. See WP:ANI#User:BetacommandBot. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember to leave a message

Until the current issue of the Signpost, I was unaware of the whole controversy about the use of non-free images in episode lists. Thus I was puzzled at (but did not revert) your removal of images from List of Nikita episodes. The edit summary you left, "rm non-free images per policy" was not very good because I remembered seeing such images on featured lists. Thus I was left guessing whether this was a good-faith edit. It would be useful if next time you gave a link to the relevant discussion (sine the policy is ambiguous), or better yet, dropped by the talk page and left a note. (By the way I agree with the position that these images are cosmetic and not good fair use). Thanks, nadav 08:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone's complaining about you on ANI

WP:ANI#Removing extenal links in the article on Hasan Taqizadeh. I had to go into the article history to figure out who he was talking about. Maybe you can mollify him. --Dynaflow 19:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It seems the problem is resolved. It seems to have been over this edit of yours [2] --Dynaflow 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about page deletion

I was notified that the page Student doctor network was deleted from the Wikipedia under CSD guidelines by yourself in March of this year.

As an online information provider, we absolutely understand the need to prevent unauthorized advertising. However, the page was created by members at our community that wanted to share the definition and history of the site. So, I guess I'm wondering where the line is drawn between promotion and information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leeburnett (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Misidentified orphan

You bot recently flagged Image:Vastolorde-full.jpg as orphaned while it was still in use on the page Image:Vastolorde.jpg. Diff. Just letting you know. :) –Gunslinger47 23:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not enough. Fair use images are allowed only in articles. Therefore any use outside the main namespace doesn't count. I am reverting back to revision by the bot. Миша13 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User notification

I'm glad to see a bot working on orphaned fairuse. My understanding (although I haven't been able to find the policy in the last 20 minutes of looking) is that you also need to be notifying the uploader(s) of the images so that they are aware of the issue with their images and can address it. ~ BigrTex 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

to my knowledge that doesn't apply to ORFU. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Lakes

This bot seems to have added all articles about lochs in Scotland to this project. Unfortunately these include many sea lochs which are saltwater and better described as either estuaries or fjords. I am now removing these, but please don't re-run to add them back. --JBellis 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi thar - You've been Reg'd

Thought I'd pop by and let you know: you got mentioned in this web article and a little in this article. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 13:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex episodes

I'm hoping you can help me -- I've got a formatting problem I can't figure out how to fix with the List of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex episodes article. Some time ago the article was altered into a table. Whoever did this, however, did something wrong. There are images in the article, but not one of them is showin! They're there, in the coding, but they are not showing. This has resulted in BetacommandBot listing virtually every image in the article as orpahaned and have been put up for deletion. I experimented in the sandbox with it, but I have not been able to figure out how to fix the problem. What can I do? --Jason Palpatine 13:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NONFREE we cant have images in those list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

MotherLoad

I noticed you recently deleted this article. The reason you provided was "Deleting candidate for speedy deletion per CSD." May I ask what tag had been applied? Although I have not viewed the article recently, I know that it had been in existence for more than six months and been of moderate length, which would in my mind make it more appropriate to prod it or send it to AfD. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, Dar-Ape 21:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot problems

Hi, I noticed that BetacommandBot is now doing BJBot's job. However, it's having some of the same issues that the BJBot initially had. First, minor bot edits to talk pages do not trigger the "new messages" banner. It may upset some users that they are not receiving proper notification because of this. Second, I was notified for the image Image:Digg spam.png. It would have been better to notify the original uploader, Lorian. Third, the bot should leave a blank line before the section heading when leaving a comment on a talk page. This helps keep comments separate in the underlying Wikimarkup.

Please fix these issues. If any of this wasn't clear to you, don't hesitate to drop me a note. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent upload..

I think his edit summary needs fixing, as apparently an image I uploaded over a year ago was a "recent upload". Shiroi Hane 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pavithrotsavam ritual.jpg

Hi., i understand the reason why you tagged it, but can you postpone the date of deletion to give me sufficient time to write the article. My HD crashed a couple of days ago and there was some info on the topic that might take time to put out here. Else, i can create a stub wiki article and remove the tags. Leave me a comment. Kalyan 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

xyz

How are you? Matthew 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop spamming :p Matthew 20:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your bot is harassing me, it's naughty... Matthew 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Uploader notification

Shouldn't the bot be notifying users with {{subst:Orphaned|IMAGE NAME}} ~~~~ when it inserts {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} on image pages? The instructions say to do so on the template. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

image tagged

I plan on expanding the article Honeywell 316 (Kitchen Computer) and will use Image:Honeywell316.jpg to illustrate both the kitchen computer and the version used for Interface Message Processor, which the image shows. Right now I am looking for reliable sources for the text that I plan on adding to the article. --mikeu 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps...

... they're orphaned at the moment.. but I don't plan on letting them be orphaned for very long.. oh, and my watchlist works fine, thanks! Matthew 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Concordmills.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Concordmills.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The original uploader of the image is UNCCTF; I only converted it to PNG from the original GIF. Just asked them about this image. --Fibonacci 04:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Issue with Betacommand bot

I recently finished working on a bot that fixes misplaced infoboxneeded tags and looking through some of my bot's logs I see some articles your bot automatically misplaced (it placed them on the talk page of the article instead of the article itself). The most recent misplacement of the tags I remember seeing was about late Febuary of this year, so I'm not sure if this has been fixed or not. This isn't anything urgent, since my bot's sole purpose is to resolve this issue, but I'm just giving you a heads up. --Android Mouse 06:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Stco23

You put a fair use thing on both my pictures after someone by the name of Toons4youtv took my pictures off that page when I had them on that page first. They are of fair use. That user if he does it again will be told to stop or he will be reported to the vandalism page where he will be blocked. Thanks for your time. By the way I did not know he put his photos and took out mine back in February 28 2007, I would have changed it back to the pictures I uploaded a long time ago.--Stco23 06:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The He-Man Season 1 DVD's that I uploaded at one time, Delete the image because I did not put information down about the season 1 DVD's when I should have. Someone already has images of them separate with information about the DVD's. Sorry I could not get the He-Man information sooner. Thanks.--Stco23 11:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem

Something seems to have gone wrong here. The user didn't upload either of the images, and the new messages have written over other ones. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:BisphamHighlogo.jpg

Hi, your bot today placed a message on my talk page about the above. I had forgotten that the image was still on wikipedia. And it needs deleting, thanks. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln Heights Images

They are orphaned because this account removed them. I am not sure what category screencaps of tv episodes go under. if you could please help, that would be great --dputig07 00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Custom Bot

Hi, if I wanted a custom bot build for a wiki-project that I am involved with, where would I go?

In brief, we'd like a bot that can scan through all pages and images with our project tag, and several associated categories, once every few days, and then generate a list of the ones that have Afd notices against them. At present, we're doing this manually and it is a chore as many pages are now old and aren't being watched by active members any more.

perfectblue 08:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Your recent Non-Free image upload?"

Why do you classify a 2005 upload as "recent"? --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof queue

Hi AmiDaniel/Betacommand/PS2pcGAMER. There's quite a queue building up for authorisation to use VandalProof. I'm hoping someone's going to be available to go through the list and grant/refuse permission as necessary. Cheers, A bit iffy 11:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pavithrotsavam

article created and subsequently for the 2 images that were tagged as orphans, i have removed the tags. Pls lemme know if you any issue. Kalyan 13:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your bot messed up my talk-page

Hi! Your bot messed up my talk page - it actually removed all other content and posted false messages about images that weren't uploaded by me. Please fix it. It was right about the first image, though if "orphaned" means an image not used in a real Wikipedia article, only in an article I have in my userspace.--Wormsie 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Orphan tag

Image:Brahma and Shiva as cow and calf.jpg was tagged by the bot. I have linked the image to the relevant wikipage. Pls remove tag. Kalyan 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned pictures

Thank you for telling me this, but I am already aware of this. I uploaded these pictures to expand a couple articles but I was opposed as people were saying that it clutters the page. I was outbidded and gave up. Now I cannot delete these pictures myself, so I didn't delete them, but I am okay with the fact if they are. Sith Penguin Lord 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bcc.gif for Speedy Deletion

Thanks a lot for telling me WHY the image was orphaned - it is in fact replaced by Image:Bcc.png. Go ahead and delete the image. Mathieumcguire 21:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Change automated edit summary

The whole "recent uplaod" thing, it's not working out for you. Also, one templated notice per image is enough. El_C 21:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:BottledBeerlogo.gif

Not a problem. It can be deleted. SilkTork 22:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong user to contact over this issue

• Orphaned fair use image (Image:DadMomTwin2.jpg)
• Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cory In The House Logo.png)
• Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cory In The House 101 0002.jpg)
• Orphaned fair use image (Image:Boy Meets World S05E11.JPG)
• Orphaned fair use image (Image:American dragon s01e07(2).jpg)
• Orphaned fair use image (Image:American University College of Science and Technology.jpg)

This is a response to the message I got. I did upload American University College of Science and Technology.jpg with my old username, but I did NOT upload the ones mentioned above. Someone else did. - Omar 180 08:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep targetting my pictures? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed...

Hi! Your bot messed up my talk page - it actually removed all other content and posted false messages about images that weren't uploaded by me. Please fix it. It was right about the first image, though if "orphaned" means an image not used in a real Wikipedia article, only in an article I have in my userspace.--Wormsie 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

MotherLoad DRV

I have created a deletion review for MotherLoad, which you deleted. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Dar-Ape 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wantagh-SOB Interchange(MSBA).JPG image solved?

Yes, I see how you solved the problem with that image. Is it okay that I framed it and moved it to a more appropriate section? ---- DanTD 00:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure I dont really care I was just showing you how to de-orphan. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Standard cover image

I think I fixed the fair-use Image:The Weekly Standard March 6 2006.jpg and I restored the image you removed from The Weekly Standard. You might want to take a look to see if I've done it right. Thanks, Noroton 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah you just forgot the tag that i added. Ive fixedBetacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is your robot running amuck and tagging non-fair-use images?

AnonMoos 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why have you left a mostly usless remark here? Please provide difflinks. --Gmaxwell 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

OK, you really really don't want to get in a revert war with me. If you think you know something about postage stamp copyright, then feel free to try to convince me, otherwise leave well enough alone. Stan 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok dont threaten me, 2, that image lacks both source and fair use rational, you have to clearly provide both of those you havent done so yet. (C'mon people, the source of a stamp published by the USPS is - the USPS. What is so hard to comprehend about that?) completely and utterly fails both of those. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where this this latest crazy of robotic source enforcement come from? ... It always was sourced, ... via the template. It's from the USPS. The purpose of our source requirement is because we need to specify the copyright holder. Often finding the actual copyright holder is too hard for the typical uploader so we'll just settle for whom they got the file from if thats all they know. --Gmaxwell 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The fair use rationale rule you're referring to is only for new uploads - it's *not* to be applied to old ones yet, and the source of the image is documented in the template, that's one of the reasons we have the template. You want to discuss stamps fair-use rationales, great, but you don't have any authority for unilateral action. Stan 03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so why don't we provide some fair use rationals and be done, its a plus if we have it :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot running amok

Your bot is tagging as "orphaned fair use" images that are clearly free. For instance, any orphaned picture with a {{Money-US}} tag is being marked falsely as orphaned fair use (see, e.g. [3]), even though all the ones I've seen so far are of non-circulating US coins whose designs are PD. Also, some {{Free screenshot}} pictures are being marked as nonfree for no reason [4]. Please either fix your bot to not mark free images, or stop running it. *** Crotalus *** 04:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Add {{free-game-screenshot}} to the list of inappropriate images being tagged [5]. *** Crotalus *** 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Free screenshots of video games is in Category:Screenshots_of_video_games which is in Category:Screenshots_of_software which is in Category:Fair use screenshots, which is in Category:Promotional images, which is in Category:Fair use images. Free screenshots is obviously a subset of video game screenshots ... but screenshots of video games can't be removed from fair use screenshots without leaving a lot of video games image with no category based identification of their non-free status. ... As I've said before, our category system is broken, and any expectation that you can use the hierarchy for anything is totally wrong. --Gmaxwell 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If this categorization system is broken, he shouldn't be using it to decide what images to delete. *** Crotalus *** 04:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he shouldn't. The bot is on hold right now and he's changing it to use the recommended method. --Gmaxwell 05:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

About Orphaned fair use image (Image:Coat of arms of Bulgaria Еnd of the 14th century.jpg)

This orphaned image was replaced by new one with better quality. It can be deleted. Best wishes, Jackanapes 14:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A mess

I checked my talk page and you did a mess there. There's an argument I don't understand about topics I never wrote about. What's going on that all my previous messages were deleted? Regards Luis María Benítez 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:WxWidgets.png

You tagged Image:WxWidgets.png as an orphaned non-free image, when in fact it is a free image and has no non-free (or fair use) templates on it. Why might this be? Cheers, Stannered 00:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's in Category:Logos which is a member of Category:Fair use images... This highlights the foolishness of trying to use categories to identify non-free images. ... It's why we've changed the tagging standards so that it's possible to use the tags themselves to detect. If you remove Logos from fair use images many non-free logos will not be categorized as non-free anymore. So the best solution is to not use categories for this purpose, ... but currently that will still miss a large number of non-free images. --Gmaxwell 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My NON-Orphan images.

You keep insisting that the images I post aren't used in any articles. Well, you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wantagh_State_Parkway#References

Stop tagging my images as orphans, when I know they're not! ---- DanTD 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My orphaned images

Regarding the images I have uploaded that you have tagged as orphaned...what happened was they were inadvertently deleted due to rampant vandalism on the pages that they were supposed to be used in. Check the history logs if you want to.

You can go ahead ahead and delete them if you want...along with my user page. I stopped editing Wikipedia back in January. I really don't care anymore. Doberdog 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting stops the bot, right?

It's tagging non-non-free images as being orphaned. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a question....

You recently left a message for the user DarthRahn saying that Free Use images may - I quote - "only be used in the mainspace" - unquote - but are you sure this is right? I have many free images (including photos) that are in my userspace and are Free Use. Please explain...

Booksworm Talk to me! 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Never Mind. I finally understood the problem...

Booksworm Talk to me! 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged images as per template

• I tagged these 2 images as still in-use, like you had told me in the past, but they still keep coming up by the bot. This one, and this one. I would most appreciate it if you could check into this. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

where are they being used? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment they are being used within citations at the articles mentioned in the template I had added to each image page, but they will most likely be utilized elsewhere soon as well. Smee 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

How are you linking? i cant find any refs of them being used. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not know how to link to them inside of a <ref>, without displaying the entire image on the page, so I just used the entire hyperlink. Smee 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

that be why its saying its orphaned. try [[:Image:The Bridge film 1hr05min21sec.jpg]] that links and de-orphans the image. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Okay, thanks! Smee 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

VP Approval

Excuse me but I asked Daniel how often VP approval bot runs and he said that he isn't able to run it and that another modererator can, do you know when a moderator will next run the approval bot? ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why was I declined? Which criterion did I not achieve and need to work on? ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanking your talkpage and attempting to endorse WP:KEYSPAM. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you archive a talk page, I couldnt get any of the scripts to work. Also, it's not KEYSPAM for supporting the inclusion of 090F into the article, which now has been done. ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, another VP turn-down

...which is okay, really. But in the message you left, I was encouraged to apply again "soon". Any guidelines on how long I should wait? I plan on reapplying, but I don't want to look like a creepy stalker. Thanks. CSWarren 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

2-3 weeks Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphan image

Thanx for giving me the advice about the File:Piperblowdemon.JPG, but don't worry. I uploaded the image that replaced that one in the Molecular Combustion article. Thank you so much for worrying, but everything is OK. Answer me in My Talk.

22:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Starob

Image:Tarutaru.jpg

Just wanted you to know that I am not the original uploader for this image, I am only the last person to do a revert on it due to vandalism. You might want to contact Seancdaug, the original uploader. -Krellion 14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hamumu.PNG

Thank you for the message, Mr. Bot, but you have to understand that this image was used in an article, but the article got deleted. PK 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken...

Why is this bot tagging non-orphaned images, as well: orphaned? Matthew 18:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

its not, if you think it is please provide some diffs Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"its [sic] not": It is, I can see at least two images. Must be crappy coding :P. Matthew 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

do not insult me, either shut up and go away or explain yourself providing links to the edits in question. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Does messaging this bot stop it? Matthew 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

if I wasnt watching the bot closely yes. but since you insist on bullshitting around and wont answer the questions I have not stopped it (or allowed the autoshut down to happen). please stop fucking around and explain yourself. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What is it miss tagging Mathew? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's BC's job to debug it... but see below for the more interesting stuff. Heh. Matthew 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok first those errors were fixed last night, second I couldnt have fixed it without knowing where it made an error. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:RuneScape process.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:RuneScape process.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello operator of Mr Bot, I think you'll find that this image is not a fair use image, but a Free image. --Tene 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Preview.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Preview.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello operator of Mr Bot, I think you'll find that this image is not a fair use image, but a Free image. --Tene 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Miranda 3.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Miranda 3.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello operator of Mr Bot, I think you'll find that this image is not a fair use image, but a Free image. --Tene 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In Search of Lost Time

There might be a bug in the bot programming as I had to revert your edit to In Search of Lost Time (diff of BetacommandBot edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Search_of_Lost_Time&oldid=130809794). Good luck on the debugging... B.Wind 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline?

I recently applied for Vandalproof and was declined. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but what was the reason? I seem to meet all the requirements. --Catz ^{[T • C]} 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Am I going to get an answer? I seem to meet all of the requirements, I have been actively editing for more than a month, I have more than 250 mainspace edits, I have never been in an edit war or content dispute, and I don't have a history of vandalism. Please, respond to this. Thank you. --Catz ^{[T • C]} 19:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

VP decline

Hey I was wondering if there was any specific reason/s for my VP application to be declined? Nothing person,just want to know how to improve to I will be more comfortable reapplying. Jerm 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

eh? Jerm 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello betacommand! Enjoy wikipedia! Your --83.191.160.95 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Just a heads up that your image tagging has been brought up at AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot problem

Please don't tag images with {{PolandGov}} as no source, the source is given in the template. The bot should either be adjusted to recognize those templates or disabled until such time it learns not to tag good sourced images.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

that template doesnt cover the lack of FU rational that I also tagged the image with. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This is not a fair use image, this is a free image - released under a free license by the copyright holder (Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

please read the template, its not a public domain image, its a limited release of the rights of the image.

They may not be used by Polish and foreign natural and legal persons for obtainment of financial gain.

that means Fair use. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) PS that is not a free release. as not everyone can use the image. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with Betacommand. That template does not mean the image is available under a free license. We have two broad categories of images at Wikipedia; free license and non-free. If it's non-free, it must have a fair use rationale. There's no middle ground. --Durin 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• {{PolandGov}} has been deleted anyways. It's an inappropriate license tag. --Durin 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it was an old permission/NC license, as such indeed obsolete. I will see about getting in touch with Ministry to convince them to drop NC stuff, so hopefully in a few weeks we will get a free license for their collection; as the talk correspondence show they want their images to be used on Wiki so it's just a matter of goint through bureaucracy. Since it is likely we will get such permission, deleting and undeleting images seems counterproductive, I suggest creating a fairuse in / permission / built-in rationale for historical photos with MoFA copyright / etc. template for now, that we will be able to convert into free licence once all the details are worked out with ministry. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't any reason to create a second template. This template was mostly redundant. Just re-tag the images as appropriate, and remove this template from them. Once you've obtained release under a free license, then they can be re-tagged away from fair use. --Durin 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • At the very least the template is useful as an attribution template, giving credit and allowing easily to find images from that source.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture Removal

Excuse me, why are you removing my pictures from their pages. They are the only ones available for the bands and there is no reason to delete them, as I own them. Cnota 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

can you please be more specific? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you've got the wrong licensing on the images so they are about to be deleted. (this might clear things up Beta). Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

No offence, but I'm relisting myself at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. You didn't leave any rationale for your decision - so it seems rather arbitrary. I meet the stated criteria and I hope this tool will help automate some of the vandal smiting processes that currently quite a lot of my time. I'm coming in via a painfully slow connection from the developing world. Cheers. Paxse 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please come back in ~3 weeks, I see that most of your contributions are within the last 30 days. we dont like approving relatively new users Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Polska Flaga Berlin.jpg

Hi, I think your bot went astray, deleting the Image:Polska Flaga Berlin.jpg image, which it believes has no fair use. Can you have a closer look at its actions please. --Lysy^talk 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That image is a non-free image. Works from the Polish government are not "free" images. No inspection is necessary. --Iamunknown 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is fair use. Read the explanation provided in the template. --Lysy^talk 19:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, all non-free images must have a detailed Wikipedia:Fair use rationale for each use, which this image does not. Secondly, the source (i.e. the URL) is not given ... those are the exact reasons for which Betacommand tagged the image; I don't understand the tags were or are incorrect. --Iamunknown 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But in this case both were in the template that the bot deleted. Also, I did not claim it was a "free" image. --Lysy^talk 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A fair use rationale, separate from the text included in the image copyright tag, is required for each use of the image; see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline for the details. I misunderstood your original statement, I see now that you did not claim it was a "free" image. --Iamunknown 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anheuser-Busch

Your last edit messed up the page pretty bad, but I don't know how to fix it without deleting the image entirely or allowing it to display again. You might wanna take a look at it. Cornell Rockey 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. I just removed it. --Durin 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Logos

Several images I've uploaded have been tagged as baid fair use by the bot and edited out of articles. When it comes to Category:Political logos the source is in 99% of cases the websites of the concerned party and the fair use rationale is that the image is used to illustrate the article of the party in question. --Soman 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rsflogosml.jpg

This image was created by me and is not currently used as I reloaded it as Image:Rsflogosml.png, so the jpg file can be deleted.--padraig3uk 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image from Polish Armed Forces in the East‎

Hi Betacommand, instead of reverting each other over the image on Polish Armed Forces in the East‎ why don't you just ask Lysy on his talk page and sort it there.--Britlawyer 00:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Iraq football logos

They are logos so what is the problem? Why are you not removing all of the logos of NBA teams and such likes? The logo copyright template explains it so what are you doing? Chaldean 02:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Brands of the World logos

Betacommand - You've tagged Image:Barclayslogo.png‎ and Image:Atlassian.png‎ as having no source information. Both pages include links to the source at http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/. If there is some other problem here, please let me know. - Crosbiesmith 06:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I also tagged them as missing their Fair use rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The rationale is that these logos specifically identify the firm concerned using the brand they themselves use to uniquely identify themselves. Where you find brands used in this way, please note that on the image page. - Crosbiesmith 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Notices

The messages are so close to looking like spamming. I got 2 in a row (maybe 3 could not tell) asking about rationale. Please don't spam talk pages with many messages. One will do. It's highly annoying and inappropriate for massive messages. - Mike Beckham 06:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WROG-FM/WEEL-AM Logos

I have added fair-use rationale to the WROG and WEEL logos and readded them to their respective page. Sorry, I don't normally add fair use rationales to logos I upload. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (formerlly User:Orangemonster2k1)

Actually, I did right after messaging you. Take care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 08:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:2007ClaxtonShieldLogo.JPG

if in future you are going to tag an image like that its common courtesy to inform the uploader you are doing so. --Dan027 07:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bradford City A.F.C.

Hi, I see that you have removed the club crest from this page due to lack of fair use; I was wondering what I can do in order to allow the crest to be judged as fair use and consequently reimplemented. Thanks, GiantSnowman 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NHL Logos

Thank you for helping identify the NHL logos which where not properly tagged. I have started correcting them, see Image:Calsealslogo.gif and Image:Calgary Flames.gif. Feel free to jump in and use those as examples to correct the tags, instead of removing the images. Thanks! — MrDolomite • Talk 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you want to put the brakes on your bot there? The use of sports team logos in this context is longstanding and well-known, and it doesn't help matters that Wikipedia keeps changing the notifications and text required on the images on a periodic basis. Warning of correct tags is one thing, but summarily removing them without warning is unacceptable.  RGTraynor  17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A note on articles' talk pages would have been a far more sociable way to accomplish the same goal, without cluttering up the history of main articles with a removal/rv sequence. Not to mention that, as can be seen from your talk page here, this is disproportionately affecting non-U.S./Canadian articles whose contributors have less familiarity than North Americans with U.S. fair use requirements. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

CDA Logo fair use

Hi, I'm new at making the fair use rationale, I took it off the ISO wiki as the objectives are pretty much similar, is it okay for the picture? Gsingh 17:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dr31

Something seems to be going awry with each of your edits to User talk:Dr31. Any clue what's going on there? This edit for example seems to enter the entire user talk page of someone else (Soman) into Dr31's talk. Metros232 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It just happened again here. It appears that you're notifying Dr31 of fair use removals of images that he didn't even upload and replacing his talk page with the talk page of the user you should be notifying. Oddly, this isn't happening with any other user, just Dr31. Any clue what's going on? Metros232 17:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I just noticed...this is only happening anytime you go to do this with an image that ends in FA.gif. Metros232 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is still happening, see here. It's replaced his user talk page with the warning that's meant for another user. There have been 2 subsequent edits to it where the warnings have been replaced by new warnings for other users. Once again the FA.gif issue holds. Metros232 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

dammit I thought I fixed that.... Ill try another method later. Im off for a while. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:RupertMillard

I do not appreciate you thoughtlessly sending boilerplate messages to me. The second one is largely superfluous and they both concerned the same image, which was uploaded over a year ago, when I was newer contributor to this website and when it was easier to not notice that one had to provide a fair-use rationale for each use. It is also impolite (and factually incorrect!) to put "you must" as contributions to this encyclopaedia are voluntary. I think you would be better employed determining whether images are fair use or not yourself, rather than ordering another volunteers to do it. Finally, please sign your posts on talk pages. I'm surprised that a self-appointed policeman such as yourself does not already do this. Thank you. RupertMillard (Talk) 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

deletion-addict

Why are you nominating everything for deletion? TThese images are fair use, as they are television logos, or road signs posted by the Province of Ontario. Why not just go ahead and nominate Main_Page for deletion? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why did you copy and paste someone else's talk page onto my talk page? I was very confused at first. Thanks.--milk the cows (Talk) 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unspecified source for Image:Connacthrugby.png

This Image has been replaced by a new one where the Status and Source is specified... Delete away Stabilo boss 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot edits

You're not running automatic scripts on this account, are you? This seems quite suspicious, especially with the <!--BetacommandBot Message top--> comment. And this seems like an unlikely mistake to be making by hand. —METS501 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

its not a Bot, I have created a script for reviewing Fair use images, tagging as needed and notifying the original up-loader. its a python script kinda like AWB built for images. as for the notes on the image page. those are their for by bot when it does ORFU checks. the Milk the cows edit is a glitch that i cant figure out, Im not sure how that is happening. Im reviewing the code in a few minutes to see if i can isolate whats causing the error. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

University Logos

I've noticed you are removing Iranian university logos.

I think they conform to WP laws as do other logos such as [6][7][8][9] and [10], which all use the same tag.

Please give your reason for erasing them. Otherwise please restore them back.--Zereshk 00:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1067fox.gif

Hi... I added a fair use rationale to this image which also includes the source. I'm no legal eagle so I hope it's enough for this simple image. If the rationale is good enough I will go ahead and take care of the other radio logo images that I have uploaded for various radio articles. Also, a bot keeps changing my non-free "radiologo" template to a generic one. I'm not quite sure why that keeps happening. Also, regarding some of my other uploads, what do I do if the source website is no longer there (mainly old radio logos where the station changed formats and thus changed the website)? Should I just name the current website even though the logo is no longer on there? Thanks. RobDe68 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

sports logos

Why are you nominating all the sports logos I uploaded for deletion? They are just normal sports logos that are used on the team's page. All other sports articles on wiki do the same and they don't have their logos deleted. Thanks. Nokhodi 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to see the images deleted, but per our Fair use policy we have to source and provide rationales for every image. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nokhodi; Betacommand is correct. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. --Durin 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now going after Speedway Team logos. There is no problem using speedway team logos, same as any other Sports logo. A sports club logo in low resolution. If it concerns you so much about these rationales then why not source them yourself instead of deleting them. This is why Wikipedia loses regular contributors yet vandalised pages are left. Hammer1980 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I still find it strange, considering Iran has completely different copyright laws than the United States. Nokhodi 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello?

Hi... I don't mean to be rude, but could you please see my comment (titled "Decline?") above? I would appreciate an answer. Thank you! :) --Catz ^{[T • C]} 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

in the last four months you have made less than 100 edits. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but is there a rule that says I have to have more than that in the last 4 months? --Catz ^{[T • C]} 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block of a user...

I recently received an e-mail from a user called Wikcsb (talk · contribs) whom you blocked - however, this person had only undertaken two edits, but is that really good rationale to block the user because of two spam edits?

I think - rather I know - that there are accounts that have been created that are far more abusive towards Wikipedia. I think you ought to unblock the user and we should teach him/her how to behave correctly on Wikipedia,

Booksworm Talk to me! 09:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Discogs.Logo.png and other FU images uploaded before 4 May 2006

Concerning Your tagging FU images uploaded before 4 May 2006 with {{nrd}}, per the template message: This image or media, uploaded after 4 May 2006,... {{nrd}} is not applicable to those images. Please remove those misleading tags or replace them with appropriate ones. Also please do not rm. the images from their respective articles, instead add - {{speedy-image-c}} or similar to the image captions. Thanks, feydey 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a problem. The image is missing a fair use rationale, and in any case is orphaned. When it was uploaded is not particularly relevant in this case. --Durin 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

added article - Abhideyaka Abhishekam

i have added the article mentioned above and linked it to 3 images - Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam.jpg, Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Diamond).jpg, Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Gold).jpg. hence i removed the orphan tags on the image desc pages of these three articles. If you have any issues, please do let me know. Kalyan 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a fair use rational for the use of Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Diamond).jpg in *that* article? Thanks —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Organization logos

How is displaying an organization logo, when the subject of the article is the organization, not fair use? Quatloo 13:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

the image is copyright, to display non-free content we must provide a Fair use rationale for every page we want to use it on.

Fair Use Rationale for <article name here>

1. The material should not be used in a manner that would imply endorsement by or for the logo's respective company
2. No free equivalent will ever be available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
3. The image is of low resolution, which does not interfere with this logo by its respective company in trade
4. The image used for educational and informational purposes by Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization.
5. <why should we have the image in the article>

that is a simple fairuse rational that would work for most logos. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot think of an instance where the use of a logo would not be fair use, in that every logo in Wikipedia would either (a) illustrate an article for which the entity using the logo has some relation, or (b) some artistic discussion of the logo itself, or the logo's creator, etc. This would not apply to other images, just... logos. Yet you seem to be targeting logos? Quatloo 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

that is just where I started, im going to be expanding. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you start with the LEAST PROBLEMATIC IMAGES? Quatloo 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Composure

I know how hard it is to keep composure when threatened, that's one of the objections editors have raised with me. I edited your comment on BetacommandBot's page, you might want to re-edit it again to remove my commentary. Cheers, and keep up the good work. Nardman1 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you, Matthew's repeated comments and post are veiled, personal attacks, saying that I cant program, that I steal others code's and other attacks that are completely out of order. the reason that i think that he is doing this is because Im one of the people who removed the Fair use abuse in the list of .. Episode pages. and I also am cleaning out our fair use images that are against policy. My choice of words are specific This is to-date only the second time Ive had to use strong language. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

error with this bot? (Image:Cambodiaflag emblem map by Melanochromis.jpg)

I'm removing the bot's tag on this image for the second time. This image is fair use and is not orphaned as it is currently used by portal:cambodia. I think there might be an error with your bot as it cannot detect uses if images by portals. --Melanochromis 08:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's no error. Fair use images are not permitted outside of the main article namespace. This prohibits their use in portals. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9. --Durin 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why...

Why is your bot mass tagging images as having no fair use rationale? Do you really want countless fair use images to be deleted from Wikipedia because no one has yet written a rationale for them?

Also, why did you tag Image:101.5 CIL-FM logo.png and Image:1050 ESPN logo.png with the "no source" template? The source is the companies who made these logos and the copyright status is clear. Isn't the "no source" template for when there is insufficient source information to verify the copyright status? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No rationale == deletion plain and simple per policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a hike.

You're tagging logos of public corporations where the logos are easily accessible? This bot should be dismantled. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear you're wrong and he's right - David Gerard 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• On Betacommand's behalf, why thank you! Hikes are very refreshing and good for your heart health. All fair use images need a fair use rationale for each use on the project, per our policies. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #10. Enjoy, --Durin 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • For logos of companies, would it not seem more productive to provide a fair use rational instead of just in essense throwing it away. I am not an expert on images, and correct me if I am wrong, arent corporate logos commonly used under appropriate fair use critera? If this is the case, find a way to tag them appropriatley instead of tagging them for throw away. Just a friendly suggestion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The more global issue here is what the logo contributes to the article, with respect to fair use claims. In the vast majority of cases, the articles that use a company logo do not discuss the logo in any way. They use it only for decorative purposes. This is one way of responding to that; if you can't provide a reasonable fair use rationale on why a corporate logo should be on an article that doesn't discuss the logo, then delete. --Durin 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • logo can stay if the article "discusses the logo" - one of the most stupid things I've heard.

Logos are a key part of the identity of an organization and something readers can generally relate to quite easily. I would hardly describe their use as being "decorative" given their core function is to create a visual identity for an organization and speak to people both inside and outside the organization about the organization. The argument about articles "not discussing the logo" reeks of hairsplitting nonsense. Wiggy! 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What this guy's doing is nonsense. Blueshirts 22:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think so, you must review your knowledge of out policy on non-free content. To include a non-free image on an article one must prove that it satifies all 10 criteria mentioned there. Also, any fair use template, such as the generic {{restricted use}} one speaks along the same lines that "...the use of this work to illustrate the object in question ... qualifies as fair use...". Does an article on a corporation always discuss the logo? I don't think so. Now, is it still nonsense? Or would you prefer to see Wikipedia being shut down due to copyright violations? Миша13 22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Policies are made by humans. Policies are made to be changed. This silly bot is defecating all over Wikipedia in cases that don't warrant it. Logos of organizations discussed in Wikipedia articles are obvious fair use. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlicensed image

Thanks for the heads-up on the image at Covenant Life Church. As of now, this is an outdated logo whose source on the Web is no longer valid, so I think it can be safely deleted. I may look for an updated logo if I have the time. --Tschel 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Croatian football club logos

It's not right to remove the logos from those articles; it's fairly clear that the logos come from the clubs themselves and that they qualify under fair use guidelines, so the only problem is the omission of an explicit source reference by the uploader. You should fix that problem by asking the uploader to fix that; not by going over the top and removing images. --Joy [shallot] 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sports club logos

You've got a page full of comments and complaints about your bot tagging sports logos. If you're not gonna rein in that gizmo it might be in order (and probably generally acknowleged as a civil thing to do by legions of other editors) to provide some clear, simple instruction as to how you expect these types of logos to be tagged or point to an unambiguous reference on how to do that. Wiggy! 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, take some of your own precious time and contact relevent wikiprojects about the status of images rather then let a bot run amok. While ensuring that images are properly tagged is the right thing to do, your methods most certantly are NOT the right way to handle it. Work with other editors to fix problems, don't hide behind a technicality to commit what is, frankly, vandalism. Resolute 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hay, I notify the the person who uploaded the image finding wikiprojects is not my responsibility. as for this being vandalism, its POLICY so quit complaining and follow it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And if the uploader of the image has left the project or is otherwise unavailable? I do not accept your excuse for letting a poorly designed bot run around vandalizing articles. You have taken on the responsibility to deal with a problem, but you simply do not want to do the leg work to fix the problem.

You don't want to search for wikiprojects? Fine. Tell your bot to post an message on the talk page of any article with an affected image. That would give more visibility so that anyone watching these pages can address the problem quickly. Tag the image for deletion within 48 hours per policy, but leave the image alone on the articles. Dont waste our time by making us revert your edits once the image is properly sourced/rationalized. I have also been working to address the issues with the images themselves, but do not appreciate the damage your bot is doing to articles. As I said, your goal is good, your methods are not. Resolute 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

the method that I am using has the best results of any method. Ive done the other methods or seen them done, they are just not as effective. (and Im not a bot) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And would my suggestion be any worse? Have you tried? Heck, what have you tried? You have a page full of complaints that argues very strongly that you are causing a major disruption. I would suggest figuring out a way to work with others while still accomplishing your goal. I have offered a suggestion, but I am sure there are other ways. Please have the courtesy to consider them. Resolute 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

those other methods have been tried and failed. the complaints are unfounded whining against policy. they need to get over the policy and actually follow the rules. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What other methods? I am not arguing policy, I am in full agreement with you on the need to enforce this policy. I am arguing cooperation and compromise. It is very disappointing that you are so obviously unwilling to work with others in this regard. Resolute 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

people have tried wikiprojects, leaving notices on the talkpage's, and notifying the uploader. separately they have all been very ineffective. I am working with others. I will not compromise with people who have no understanding of policy. you are one of the very very few who understand it and are not supporting my actions. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't support your actions because it flies in the face of collaboration. But, whatever. It is obvious you are not interested in changing. All I ask is that you stop hiding the logos in the National Hockey League and Western Hockey League team articles. I am working to source all of them, and really do not want to waste more time than I have to cleaning up the damage you do to the articles themselves. Resolute 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Various logos

Please stop removing logos from articles about the companies or groups the logos belong to. I could understand removing them from articles that are not about those companies and groups, but the logo tag on the image clearly states that the logo falls under fair use when used in the article about the company or group that owns the logo. As evidenced by the multiple complaints above, it appears you are going beyond acceptable bounds here. Please stop now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, please read our fair use policy, every fair use image MUST have a specific individual rationale, no template can cover those grounds. If not they need to be removed and deleted. its that simple. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then be a little more productive and toss in a simple fair use rationale rather than wasting everyone else's time in something you could have easily fixed without all this extra hassle. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The burden of providing a fair-use rationale MUST lie with the contributor or someone actively editing the article. Betacommand has no way to read your mind. I disagree with him on plenty of things, but this is not one of them. The uploaders/editors who are not properly adding a rationale are the ones wasting time. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All I'm wondering is why he's wasting everyone else's time when he could just as easily pop in a fair use rationale himself in the same amount of time it takes to have his bot go through tagging everything. They are all logos, so the fair use rationale would be exactly the same for each one. And many of these logos where uploaded long before the current policy revision was enacted. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, if he's too "lazy" to put in the fairuse rationale, why not add a deletion warning below in the image in the article mainspace? This way, at least there's a chance that some editors might come by the article and add in the rationale. Then maybe after a week or two he can go through the list again and delete them, sine apparently he's got a lot of time on his hands. The way he's handling this right now is really stupid and counterproductive. Blueshirts 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil when disagreeing with people. We're all volunteers here, and your characterization of him as "lazy" and his action as "stupid" don't help healthy discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are these logos valid fair use though? I just had a look through and very few of these company articles contain discussion of the design of the logos. They mostly seem to be used to decorate the articles. The fact that we have an article on company X doesn't mean that company X's logo is fair use in that article. Hence why we need more than a boilerplate fair use rationale. It seems to me that there has to be some critical comment about the logo. WjBscribe 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

some dude in a previous section already points out that a logo is part of a company's identity and what the people associate with. It's more than "decorative". Honestly I don't know who make up these rules. Blueshirts 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Per fair use law it is decorative, per foundation policy

identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)

for images, does the text of the article support critical commentary? If a image doesnt have a FU rationale it takes a good 20-30 minutes for someone not involved to research the usage and write up a good rationale, while someone involved could write one in about 2 minutes. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

arbitration

I just came across this Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. I haven't read over the details but "image deletion" came across quite a number of times. Are betacommand's mass taggins a violation of this arbitration? Blueshirts 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, if you invested a minute to read the findings, you would have been able to answer the question yourself without creating the (completely coincidental, I'm sure) appearance of grand-standing on BC's talk page to further a point you're making above. No, the image tagging, unlike the things he was sanctioned for, is completely appropriate and supported by the foundation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, HELL no. that was one incident over 6 months ago. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, obviously) If you "haven't read over the details" the I suggest that you do and do it thoroughly before starting to toss accusations around. Also, I'd like to note that you have done your posting as if this page was an open noticeboard of some sort. This is Betacommand's talk page, for queries addressed to him, yet this seems like a call to the community at large. Regards, Миша13 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree - you should have read the details. While some may not like or agree with Betacommand's current activities, they differ significantly from the activities mentioned in his ArbCom case. In fact, I'd say that his current activities are quite commendable in light of the findings of the ArbCom case. Not only has he directly replied to the "image deletion issue" in his ArbCom case by communicating with other editors, he has continued to stick around after what must be a painful and embarrassing series of incidents and is still working for the good of the community (even if some members of the community don't seem to get that). --ElKevbo 23:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work Betacommand, your image work is certainly correct - it's about time someone got fair use images with no rationales sorted. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop tagging my image.

It's a logo, a logo for a game that was added to the article corresponding to that game. I don't know what it is you want from me. - The Norse 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spin Doctors

Just an FYI. This should have been your approach. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:why

Because they can be used under fair use, and you are removing them from related articles. Besides, Argentine money are free images. --Mariano(t/c) 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

per our policy and the tagging of that image that is not true. the image needs a Fair use rationale. if the images are public domain then please re-tag as it fits. As the license stands it needs a rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? the image belong to a note bill, and thus can be used as per Fair Use. Read carefully: This image depicts a unit of currency. Some currency designs are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Others are copyrighted. In these cases, [when copyrighted!!!] their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself

You've been deleting such images from articles such as Argentine peso, where the use of such images is granted by fair use. Even worse, you've been tagging all bill images as no source information: it's money, man, it's source is the entity that prints them in each country! You are going to have thousands of valid images deleted because of this insanity. --Mariano(t/c) 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

you say the images are fair use? that proves my actions correct. may I quote the template that you are using? 'To the uploader:' please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. you have failed to do so. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of mobius strip image

Can you please explain these edits: [11], [12], [13], etc.? Paul August ☎ 03:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake and didnt notice it was on commons. thanks for catching that and reverting me. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging

1. Why are you (or your bot) applying the {{no rationale}} tag to images uploaded before 4 May 2006?
2. Why are you (or your bot) only contacting the original uploaders (and not subsequent uploaders, whose sources might differ)? —David Levy 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was notifying, the other uploaders, but I got many complaints about them just reverting the image version, croping ect, and I decided to only notify the original. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And the answer to question 1 is...? —David Levy 03:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry was getting a quote, Per our non free image policy An editor uploading copyrighted material must provide a detailed "fair use" rationale, or the uploaded material will be deleted. that line doesnt give a date and is the only line in the paragraph on the policy page. In regard to older images we dont have a tag for them specifically and they are violating policy so i chose the tag that best fit.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't. That template explicitly indicates that the image was "uploaded after 4 May 2006." For images uploaded before that date, this tag should not be used. Instead, you should use the {{non-free use disputed}} tag. If no fair use rationale is added within seven days, the image can be tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-badfairuse}}. Please go back and fix any remaining improperly tagged images and compile a list of images that were deleted less than a week after you improperly tagged them. —David Levy 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to address this issue, or should I begin rolling back your problematic edits? —David Levy 14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am working on fixing but I will have to sign off shortly and will not have time to fix for ~12+ hours Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interim, your incorrect tags might mislead sysops to improperly delete images too soon. I'll begin rolling back the edits, and then you can insert suitable tags when you have the time. —David Levy 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When I saw how many images you'd tagged and that almost all of them were uploaded before 4 May 2006, I stopped checking the dates before performing the rollbacks. Therefore, a few images uploaded after 4 May 2006 are mixed in.

I attempted to avoid rolling back the insertion of the {{no source}} tag alone, and I self-reverted upon realizing that I had.

When you set up your bot to insert the correct tags, don't forget to replace the lists of pages from which the images were removed. —David Levy 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you once again applying the {{no rationale}} tag to images uploaded before 4 May 2006? —David Levy 22:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't unless I made a mistake but I have been using the {{non-free use disputed}} along with the {{speedy-image-c}} in the captions. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You applied the {{no rationale}} tag to the following ten images uploaded before 4 May 2006 (six of which I'd already reverted):

1. Image:Haider busy.JPG
2. Image:11th asiad.png
3. Image:120px-Home Radio Mla Logo.jpg
4. Image:125698.gif
5. Image:125HSM logo.JPG
6. Image:125YearsJoeys.jpg
7. Image:0739aa.jpg
8. Image:0741aa.jpg
9. Image:Aliaenor.JPG
10. Image:Alarma.jpg

—David Levy 23:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for catching my errors I will be more careful. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please listen to David's advice and correct the tags. And also please do not rm. the images from their respective articles, instead add - {{speedy-image-c}} or similar to the image captions so people are aware of the no source/no FU rationale issue and can correct the issue during the week. feydey 09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, lay off the damn tagging already. Please do not urinate or defecate outside the toilet. 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Album Covers

The bot is removing fair use album covers. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

yes I am removing Fair use images without rationale. read the fair use policy and get over it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using your automated bot on my talk page. I have a separate page for image inquiries. --Thorpe | talk 10:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mobutu Sese Seko

Hi Betacommand,
I undid the commenting out of the picture from the bill. Either remove the picture if not appropriate, or leave it until the status is known for sure so the person who’ll erase the picture can see what pages are using it. When it is commented out, there’s no way to track it down. --moyogo 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

see above re:why section. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi ...

... you have cluttered my talk page within a period of two hours with an impressive 80 (eighty!!) messages about images I uploaded. Most of them are screenshots in film articles or book covers in literature articles. Could you please stop that activity which, as far as I'm concerned, borders on vandalism: All those notifications of yours say the same, and I do get the message after the first couple. My talk page is no longer manageable, and I've even missed out on one or two real messages due to that pointless inundation. Don't tell me it's a bot: If it is, it's a very silly one. Best wishes, <KF> 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken orfud

FYI, in working through the deletions, I came across Image:Logo of Hampshire County Cricket Club.gif, which BetacommandBot tagged here on 9-May. According to the history of Hampshire County Cricket Club, that image was in use at the time the image was tagged. ~ BigrTex 14:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I told him of the bug. I expect the code is plagiarised, hence why the bug is not fixed (owner doesn't understand it, etc.) Matthew 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

matthew shut the fuck up, I wrote the code my self thank, using the pywiki framework. as for the error Im looking into it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Folsom Field images

All the images have a source. In the tag, the very first part has: "This image (call number Rh-1840)" where "Rh-1840", in this case, is linked to the source website. I've removed all the ones that you marked like this that I could find. Further, it's not appropriate to mark images no source and not notify the uploader on their talk page. If you're marking a lot of images (which it seems you are) then you can install this tool to mark the images, notify the uploader and any other needed items for many different options like no source, no license, IFD, etc: User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. If I've missed more than the 4 you did, please undo it or let me know and I will do it. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Université de Sherbrooke coat of arms

Could you explain your removal of the coat of arms of the university from the article on the university? Logos (which a coat of arms of a university would be equivalent to), are always considered fair use in articles on the entity the logos represent. Fair use rationales are not needed for such use of logos—only use of logos in articles other than the one the logo is directly related to need a fair use rationale. Lexicon (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion above with another user or two about this, and I must agree... the convention on Wikipedia has always been that logos do not need the fair use rationale, simply because it is obvious what the rationale for a logo of an organization is. Your efforts would absolutely be better spent elsewhere, in particular because you are actually causing trouble by doing what you're doing, since the correct thing to do, if Wikipedia really required a fair use rationale for the inclusion of logos in articles on the entities that the logos represent, would be to simply add the rationale, as it takes no skill or knowledge of the entity or logo whatsoever to do this (and that's why we've never required a fair use rationale before). Instead, by tagging a logo as having "no fair use rationale" and removing it from the article it is used on, you are causing unnecessary disruption. Lexicon (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ßetacommand

Would you mind redirecting User:ßetacommand and User talk:ßetacommand to User:Betacommand and User talk:Betacommand, respectively, to avoid confusion? Thanks. —METS501 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that was Beta? Looks like an impersonator to me. Prodego ^talk 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um that wasnt me :P yet another vandal impersonator. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your rewards

3 barnstars for you:

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless work dealing w/ images -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being bold dealing w/ images' issues -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		And this for your bot! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

warning

Instead of removing images from the article, why don't you add {{speedy-image-c}}? Is there any particular rule governing this? Blueshirts 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Proof

I am truly at a loss as to why my application for Vandal Proof was denied for a second time. I was denied the first time for not having 250 edits. I made a plea to User:Daniel as to the quality of my edits and the time I have spend editing, and he replied that without 250 edits, there was nothing that could be done. I make the edits necessary, and I am denied again. Please let me know why I was denied a second time. Thank you. Eleos^Prime 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Beta: Note this, to make sure any confusion caused by quotes out of context is dispelled. Cheers, Daniel 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I can't help but feel like I might be walking into a hornet's nest here, but could I get an idea of why you rejected me? I told Daniel I got some insight from his talk page, but I would like to know the reason. Thanks, Eleos^Prime 03:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Can't wait to get started after a good night's rest! Eleos^Prime 04:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Northern Territory crest.jpg

You're not seriously asking me to identify the source of Image:Northern Territory crest.jpg are you? I'll give you a clue: it's a unicameral parliament which was granted in 1987. We didn't have fair use rationales, {{logo}} or indeed any policy relating to the use of coats of arms when I uploaded it, and I honestly have better things to do these days than try to work out the proper tag to put on it. -- Tim Starling 14:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot error...?

Your bot added an orphaned template to an image (edit) that already had an orphaned template present. I thought I would let you know. --Tom (talk - email) 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It repeated this action here and here as well. --Tom (talk - email) 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a user talk page

If you have a moment, can you take a look at this page [[14]], and tell me what went wrong? The welcome template seems to be broken... Thanks. ---Cathal 04:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Cathal 05:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad Bot

The bot is removing fair use album covers. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Logos again

I am going to ask you to please cease tagging logos as lacking fair use rationales. As has apparently been mentioned to you several times now, logos are the least troublesome fair use images on Wikipedia, and the convention has been to not require fair use rationales for use in the articles on the entities the logos represent. And as I mentioned to you above, it is also disruptive to Wikipedia to tag/remove/notify when it is easier to simply add the rationale (since all that would be required would be a boilerplate rationale, if it were argued that a rationale were needed). Lexicon (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

please note per policy: boilerplate rationale are not valid fair use rationale. thus every image MUST have a personal rationale that says why we have to include that image into wikipedia. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note: Every logo has the very same rationale, therefore, every rationale is equal to boilerplate, and therefore, there has generally never been a need for a rationale to be listed. You do understand the logic behind this, right? Lexicon (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

not true. I understand your logic, but policy says otherwise. see WP:FU and WP:FURG rationales cannot be boilerplate yes they can be similar but they cannot be the same. please read what a rationale needs to have. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The "policy" is shit, and not thought out very well when it comes to logos. There is no word that would possibly need to be different in a rationale except the name of the organization/entity/whatever that the logo is a representation of. All use of logos is the same—a visual representation of the thing in question; reason the logo exists is equal to the reason we're using it. Lexicon (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

get over it, ITS POLICY so quit complaining about it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, Betacommand, are you ever going to realise that any policy is man-made, not God-given? Who appointed you willing executioner of other people's contentious commands? <KF> 03:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Um the foundation has made these rules get the fuck over it. They dont want to get sued and be shut down Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So you resort to profanity rather than questioning what is going on around, and inside, you? <KF> 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

why not read the policy and FOLLOW IT. just because I am enforcing policy that the Wikimedia Foundation as set you cant accept their directions? they say that FU images need a valid fair use rationale. you basically say "screw the policy I dont like it so I dont have to follow it" and yell at the people who attempt to enforce it? that is what im seeing from you, a inability to accept the Foundations Legal policy. Ive said this and so has other people all it takes is one half-ass lawyer to shut the WikiMedia Foundation down permanently, as they dont have the finances to handle the judgment against them when they are sued for copyright infringement. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Beta, the issue is quite simple, really: Are you helping by tagging, notifying, and commenting out, or would your time be much better spent copy-pasting an obvious rationale instead? I think anyone with half a brain realizes it's the latter. Lexicon (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would not be possible. Every fair use image used on Wikipedia should have a separate, unique rationale indicating why it may be included in each article which it is found in. Logos are no exception to this rule. One cannot, and should not, claim that the rules are stupid, and decide to override them off one's own back - the rules have been dictated by the board (or under their auspices) of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is in the position to make the ruling on all content and policy decisions, across all projects. A few disgruntled editors on one project cannot go against this. I would suggest that rather than staying here, lambasting Betacommand for all the good work he is doing here, you go and add rationales to the images, where required. Thanks, Martinp23 17:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I second Martin's comment. Betacommand is doing necessary and thankless work. Leave him to it. WjBscribe 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Could each of you explain what the separate fair use rationale for a logo would be, please? People are saying that fair use rationales need to be unique, but nobody has yet to actually explain what makes a fair use rationale for one logo different from that of another. The crux of the issue is that all logos are added for the exact same reason. Logos are different from other fair use images, because logos are always fair use because they are visual representations of the organizations that the logos belong to. Someone can add a "unique" fair use rationale for Image:San Jose Sharks.gif but it will convey no information that is really different from Image:Apple-logo.png. All logos are fair use in the articles on the organizations they represent because they are fair use because they're logos. That is, they're fair use because they're presented as visual representations of the organizations they belong to—the same reason all logos exist in the real world. Lexicon (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

North by Northwest

What the heck are you trying to do to the image? Whatever it is, it ain't working. Clarityfiend 05:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already gotten heat from it, but how about trying to actually contact people and fix problems on talk pages? You're acting like those people who think that the point of AfD is to delete the article, when the best thing that can happen from an AfD is for a bad article to be saved and changed or merged into a good article. Same with Featured Article Review. I understand the fair use policy, but don't you see that if an image can properly be justified, the best result would be for that justification to be added, not for the image to be deleted? The rate you're going at will make it extremely likely various proper images will slip through the cracks. So could you please slow down and drop off warnings on talk pages of affected articles? And preview the results before you save so that you don't break article layout? SnowFire 06:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Manic Street Preachers discography

I've reverted your edits again, since they're not very constructive. If you want the images speedy deleted, then follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/media, and please replace the images in the gallery with Image:Nocover.png to leave it intact. Thank you. PC78 10:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Destructive edit to Talk:Let It Be… Naked/Temp

I didn't think a bot username could screw up an article. The album cover is now way too big for the infobox so I have to revert the edit. Steelbeard1 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for edit codes showing up in articles such as with 1 (album). Steelbeard1 10:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot screwing up

Your automated modifications of fair use image transclusions have screwed up all sorts of unconventional uses of them. A number of Album infoboxes don't show the notification because you attached it to the image, not the caption slot, and discographies that use galleries (not good in the first place, but still) have been broken so that nothing shows up because you screwed up the syntax. Notifying people that their images are likely to be deleted is good, but doing it in an automated fashion with reckless disregard for breaking syntax is not. Please clean up some of your mess so that everyone else doesn't have to. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You've already been desysopped for actions that included the reckless use of bots. There was no authorization for the use of automated tools here, as far as I can tell, and your widely broken edits make it clear that this was done in an automated fashion. You're treading on thin ice here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed this in several of your "commenting outs" as well, which shows that you are obviously not looking at what you're doing. Please cease until you have made sure you know what you're doing. Lexicon (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest having your bot/yourself rolling back the damage done in the mainspace when "adding {{speedy-image-c}}". feydey 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hey. Please take a look at the bottom of my talk page - several people are saying that the userlist has become corrupted. Can you do anything about this? I have no clue. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Could you please take a look at the Real Classic Rock page I just made. For some reason the "edit" links that are at the side of each header at side-by-side-by-side each other and are under the text. This is really annoying and looks weird and I am unsure how to fix it. Thanks....NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Misdirected message

re: Image:JohnnyHallyday.jpg -- Y not? 18:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I had and error with my script. you caught me before I could fix it. thanks for the revert. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 04:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message about unfree images

Thank you for your message. However, you got the wrong person. I did not contribute those images (Image:Authoritative Calvin and Hobbes.png and Image:Its A Magical World Clavin and Hobbes Book.png). I only converted them from BMP to PNG and uploaded the converted version. The upload summary would have told you that. — Timwi 10:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

{{non-free use disputed}}

I have reformulated the disputed fair use categories into a dated template system so that we actually have some hope of digging through the backlog. When you're tagging images, if you use {{subst:dfu|reason}}, it will categorize the image into a dated category so we can see when 7 days has expired and we can examine the claim of fair use. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Still having problems

Many of your tags are completely invisible, others show the tag but remove the image, and still others mess up syntax completely and do either. If you wouldn't mind, please look at the result of each of your tags before moving on to the next. Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy-image-c

Something seems to be wrong with your script. Its adding the template to the article twice. See this diff for an example. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And this one too.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And here, it added the tag to the same image for a third time. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Relating to this, you appear to have warned a user about the same image twice: here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please undo your edit to"Hashtgerd" article

You seem very confused in your edit of the Hashtgerd article. You have mistakenly blacklisted a valid source link and you have attributed an edit that I had made to another person whom you refer to as "Unreliable" who has never edited that page before. PLEASE REMOVE THAT LINK FROM THE BLACKLIST IMMEDIATELY. Mehrshad123 01:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Without taking sides here, Mehshad, I think you'd be better served contacting ParthianShot about this edit. If you convince him about this source, then come here with your petition & maybe Betacommand will revert himself. -- llywrch 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm..why do I need to "convince" a user who has been PERMANENTLY BANNED from Wikipedia for repeated abuse, falsified information, POV agendas, vandalism, threatening lawsuits etc.? :-) Mehrshad123 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I cant remove it from the blacklist sorry. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

Please, stop tagging images under fair use for deletion as you did with Image:Cybersix.jpg. You are getting valid images deleted with this disruptive activity. I understand you are trying to do what you think is best for Wikipedia, but there's no concent in Wikipedia that supporst your behaviour. I suggest you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright. Yet I know you've being tagging images for deletion not only from comic books, which can also be used under fair use. I trully hope you understand you are not helping Wikipedia, but actually quite the opposite. --Mariano(t/c) 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The consent is called Wikimedia Foundation policy, per WP:NONFREE - David Gerard 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I pinted out before, all low-res comic strips images can beused under fair use in their own articles, thus tagging images as for deletion is highly disruptive and has little to do with the WF policy. --Mariano(t/c) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I think you need a refresher course in policy please read WP:NONFREE all images that are not free must have a fair use rationale see WP:FURG on how to write a correct fair use rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My complain is not that the images must have a rationale, but that you tag them for speedy deletion just because the rules have changed. One thing is letting people know that those images must be updated with a rationale, but you can't expect 5 years of fair-use images to be updated in one week. There are thousands of users who uploaded such images and now don't log into the wikipedia anymore, and your taggings will make images uploaded by them gone in a week just like that. Tagging images for speedy deletion instead of trying to find the rationale whenever possible seams highly destructive to me. --Mariano(t/c) 12:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No fair use?

I'm not sure why you marked every Ottmar Liebert album cover that I uploaded as not having a fair use rationale. The justification that's been put for these images is the exact same as on every other album cover image I find on Wikipedia. I would presume that album covers in general aren't going to start being deleted en masse from the site, so then what should I do about these images? AdamSolomon 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will tag them for deletion if they fail the Non free Image policy or they dont have a valid fair use rationale. if the image is up to policy standards I have no problems otherwise yes the images will be tagged for deletion. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But you won't add a fair use rationale? You'd rather delete than help build? Strange attitude to bring to a collaborative encyclopedia... I mean, even the folks at Wikiproject Deletion say: "Whenever possible, FIX. Whenever possible, SOURCE. Whenever possible, FIND THE NOTABILITY." And these are the hardcore deletion folks! But that's too much to ask of you? Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Phi Psi Crest not a Logo?

Whats your criteria for proposing the Phi Psi Crest for speedy deletion? Samwisep86 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

see our non free image polciy it is a fair use image without a rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What could it be classified as? Have any suggestions? Samwisep86 06:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just write a rationale for it. see our rationale guideline on how to write a proper rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Rex Allen - fair use rationale added (I hope!)

Hi. I did my best to all a fair use rationale to Image:RexAllenalbum.jpg, with further detail on the image's talk page. I also went into the Rex Allen article, added detail to the caption, and tied it in with the article's text about the cowboy star's singing career. I hope this is sufficient to justify removing the speedy tag, since a free image is extremely unlikely for an actor-singer who died in 1999, and whose heyday was decades earlier. Thanks! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 08:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

West Perth Football Club

Umm...as far as I know this is a single fair use logo for article....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:RCMP logo.gif

You know, I have to wonder how long it will take for the ridiculously obvious -- a logo is a bog-standard acceptable fair-use as a representation of company/organization whose article it appears in -- will sink in, especially when there's already a tag that says this very thing.

Is there a point to this crusade, other than annoying people and wasting their time? --Calton | Talk 08:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Silver_Sonic_from_Death_Egg(Sonic_2)

Hello. I am sort of questioning the tagging of Image:Silver_Sonic_from_Death_Egg(Sonic_2).gif for speedy deletion. Image:MechaSK.PNG has not got a speedy deletion tag, yet it's got the same copyright tag as the former, not to mention that it's also a screenshot of a game that's from the same line of games. Just my two cents. Thanks! カラム 08:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Using {{speedy-image-c}} for album covers

Hey there. Changes such as this one break the page. Since this means the image isn't shown anyway, it might be better if you just removed the image from the page instead. --PEJL 08:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Same as above, see this diff. Stop Your bot messing up the pages please. feydey 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And here, it is hard to WP:AGF when You are vandalizing pages like this. I strongly suggest reviewing and reverting Your bad edits. You have been warned about this before. Consider this as a {{test2}} warning. feydey 10:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

fair use rationales

I notice you went on some kind of image tagging spree... It would be much more helpful to Wikipedia if you actually added fair use rationales yourself instead of wasting other people's time with your copyright paranoia. Just a suggestion.  Grue  09:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. If an image obviously qualifies for fair use it is unproductive to threaten to delete it simply because it doesn't have a fair use rationale. Rhobite 11:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This person is completely out of control. I think that Betacommand should exercise some personal restraint and actually LOOK at what his idiot bot is doing. This sort of thing makes one seriously consider leaving Wikipedia. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the above comments. You came to my notice when you tagged Image:1pound2000back.jpg in Pound sterling - it is carrying fair use rationales to absurd degrees to demand a rationale to show a picture of an object produced in the dozens of millions (the reverse of the 2000 UK £1 coin) in an article discussing the currency. What is far worse, this bot is breaking the links to tagged images in infoboxes and is leaving the tagged images as orphans, and subject to being deleted by Orphanbot - THIS IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AND THE USE OF THIS BOT SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED IMMEDIATELY, which is why I have hit the bot shutoff button. -- Arwel (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, Image:1pound2000back.jpg doesn't have a fair use rationale; probably why the bot tagged it as such. --Iamunknown 17:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above カラム 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WolvesBadge.png

The image Image:WolvesBadge.png now has fair-use rationale added. Please can you confirm that you are happy with what has been written, or else provide some guidance as to what might be missing. Thanks. --Jameboy 12:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Notifying users

I have received a number of notifications regarding logos, but I am not the original uploader, I merely fixed the images (usually adding transparency), and don't mind if they are deleted. You must modify your script to notify all contributors. ed g2s • talk 12:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

You really shouldn't go around marking album covers for deletion. It's well established that fair use rationale is implied for all album covers, if for no other reason, do demonstrate the work in question. There is well-established consensus on the US Wikipedia concerning album covers.

Furthermore, I must agree that this crusade of yours seems to be borderline trolling. I see you're a student, a trekkie, and into sci fi. I think you need to put down the books, turn off the Sci Fi channel, and log off Wikipedia. Good. Now, walk outside of your dorm building. See that big thing shining up in the sky? That's called the sun. Pretty isn't it? Now, go get a life. Try getting laid once in a while. It's good for you and might make it so that you don't have to get your rocks off over seeing how many speedy delete tags you can place on images in a 15 minute period.

Just to appease you, I added fair use rationale to the images in question, but just know that the consensus regarding album covers is very well established. If you get on a crusade against album covers, you'll lose every time. Cheers! --Analogdemon (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pls-logo.gif

I am unable to understand all the legal jargon regarding the "no fair use rationale given". Oldfarm 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The syntax for {{speedy-image-c}}

The syntax for this template is that it should include the date, and that it should follow any caption. It is not suitable for use in infoboxes as in your edits to, for example {{Nevis national football team]]. Kevin McE 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Your response in this AN/I thread was unwarranted and incivil. Please use better judgment when registering concerns in the future. Personal attacks are, as you well know, absolutely inappropriate without exception. It doesn't matter if the person making a mistake is an admin, the gross assumption of bad faith you made was not a good response and reflects badly on you as both an editor and ex-admin. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

game screenshorts

Hi, I noticed you tagged Image:MechaSK.PNG, a video game screenshot, with a no fairuse rationale. But this image already has a {{non-free game screenshot}} tag in place already. Should you have added a no fair use tag? If not can you roll back on any similar edits, thanks. Blueshirts 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

that is NOT a fair use rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask what would be the proper fair use rationale for the image than? I hope that I added the correct tagging, if you could please see the image above. I also tried to tag some similar images. It would be most appreciated if you could take a look -- I haven't ever really tagged images before so it would help me a lot. Thanks, MrMacMan ^Talk 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, more specifically here or here. Again, all much much appreciated. MrMacMan ^Talk 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Red alert box.jpg looks good I made one very small change though. But Image:Silver Sonic from Death Egg(Sonic 2).gif's rationale isnt right. you dont state why you need it or where your using it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

Instead of commenting out images in radio and television station articles, why not notify me of which offending templates you find, so i can put the source in and proper tags, rationale for fair-use, and other information? It would at least save you from having to comment-out everything. As well, sorry for blowing up last time. i just got a bit annoyed from seeing my talk page flooded with image questions :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please fix your bot

If you choose to go on another image tagging spree without fixing your bot's use of the speedy-image-c template, I would view this behavior as disruptive to Wikipedia. Your bot added this template incorrectly to a large number of articles such as Greatest Hits (Bob Seger album), Dick Morris (where it added it in the middle of a sentence), etc. Rhobite 01:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

re:deletion notification of Image:23fournier-toratorapa.jpg

Hi, it may have been your bot (or maybe there's no way around such things) but I just got double slapped with deletion notes for an image I orphaned, tagged and listed for deletion myself. Nothing very serious, but since I suspect my other deletion request might come up soon, is there a way I can be spared the grim notes? Thanks, Murgh^disc. 23:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see you have retagged the image and extended the delete-by date. I don't understand why, but I'm sure you have reasons. If I used the wrong template let me know, I thought I was taking out the garbage by the instructions. Murgh^disc. 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Markup problems with some of your warning tags

Some of your taggings are faulty. Just some of the warnings. Please leave the Wiki tidy. — mholland (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistency Theory image

As per your request, I have added a fair use rationale for this image. If you feel that it is not sufficient, please let me know. Euryalus 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Betacommand. What does this page of numbers do? User:Betacommand/Sandbox --HappyCamper 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

dont worry about that Im just testing some bot stuff. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm asking the wrong question :-) Some chemistry pages link to it, most notably this one. I can't seem to figure out what the page used to do, so that's what I'd like to find out. I'm hoping that somewhere in Wikipedia-land there's something that replaced the previous function of that page. That's all :-) --HappyCamper 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

/me slaps forehead, and fixes. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oooooh......it all makes sense now. Super. This deserves a thanks! --HappyCamper 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for Image:AClashOfKings.jpg

Hey there, I've added a relevant fair use rationale to CyberGhostface's Image:AClashOfKings.jpg. If you are in a position to remove the tag you've placed, please take a brief moment to re-assess the image. Best Regards, Darkbane ^talk 04:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:2079b.jpg

Your bot is faulty. I have uploaded images of the same copyright tag, yet they didn't get this tag. Your bot is going on a tagging rampage on falsely accused images, and I suggest that your bot be shutdown until these problems are fixed. Thanks! カラム 05:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thug World Order

In this edit you placed the speedy notice within the image, making a bit of a mess I'm afraid. I've found that the only way to handle this is to add a new "caption" line to the infobox; even when no such line exists in the template, the result is acceptable. There might be a better way, but I've not been able to find it. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:A Final Hit.jpg

I don't quite get your reasoning behind trying to get the above image deleted. It's Licence even before The fair use rationale I've just added is a perfect reason for it's usage, so many albums have images to show the cover why is this one any different? Chappy • T • C • 14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot leaving malformed code

The bot you wrote to tag images without a fair use rationale doesn't work correctly. There appear to be typographical errors in your code that leave malformed template tags on talk pages. Respectfully, I think this creates a huge problem for the editors of affected articles because they won't know that you've tagged articles for speedy deletion unless they take the time to deconstruct what your bot posts were supposed to say. See my post for more details. Anson2995 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

CD Covers

I'm a little confused with your messages on removing CD covers. Images of CD covers are fairuse, regardless of the source, and I'm curious to know why you are trying to have all the La Toya Jackson album and single covers removed. Do you basically want a message on every image page saying "This image is a scan of the original cover"? Please explain. Rhythmnation2004 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:1090317722-00.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1090317722-00.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again operator of Mr. Bot. Alas, I am not the uploader this time, either. The person you should set your bot on this time is Retro junkies. --Tene 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Not sure if you are aware (you probably are), but there's a discussion about your tagging of album covers on WP:ANI. You are entirely correct, mind you, but Wikipedia's fair-use policy is something many editors (and too many administrators) do not understand. --Yamla 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Melechesh logo

This is the band's official logo, I don't get the problem. Kakun 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your hard and often thankless work in cracking down on orphaned fair use images and those lacking fair use rationales (essential work in building a free-content encyclopedia). Much appreciated, WjBscribe 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

The fair use policy explicitly states that album covers are not replaceable images. Bearcat 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Album cover" is entirely sufficient and not disputable as a fair use rationale. If you intend to revert this again, provide an explanation of why you view it as unacceptable, else I'll simply revert back. Bearcat 04:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Like hell it is, they need rationales see our guideline on how to write one and also read WP:NONFREE Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Like hell it isn't. An album cover is, by definition, entirely impossible to replace with a free alternative, and hence they automatically fall under "no free alternative possible". Bearcat 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

why dont you read the policy before making an ass of your self. it might be fair use but it still needs a valid Fair use rationale. "album cover" doesnt cut it. so fix. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about blocking you indefinitely for intentional disruption of Wikipedia project. Your only contribution is tagging perfectly valid fair use images for deletion, which wastes a lot of time and effort, which would've been better put to improving articles. Please quit the project, you're not welcome here.  Grue  08:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And if you do, I will have him unblocked. He is carrying out the Foundation policy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no foundation policy to delete album covers. This guy is a troll. He should be permablocked and banned, for his presence only harms the project.  Grue  08:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

He is not a troll, he is dealing with stuff most users do not care about or do not have knowledge with fair use. He should be thanked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Repectfully, though, he could do it with less belligerance. When affected users are confused he can help them to understand what he is doing rather than calling them names. And also, it's disruptive to write a bot that leaves malformed template tags and refuse to fix the problem when it's pointed out to him. The author of a bot, especially one that tages thousands of files for speedy deletion, has some responisbility to the community to ensure that his actions have the intended consequence. I'm all for the idea of requiring all Fair Use images to be delted if they don't have a rationale. But what betacommand has done is to tag thousands of images for deletion for violating the policy without notifying page editors that the images on those pages have been tagged. There's little difference between doing that and simply mass deleting the images. Anson2995 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanked for what? Removing loads of FU images from articles and in doing so, not notifying relevant image/page maintainers, and destroying the flow of the article as he does it? Surely if it's his bot doing all that, he can include into the script instructions of how to put a fair use rationale in, and a template for it on the page, wouldn't that make it so much easier for newer users who are getting bitten by the random removal of their input into articles? And that's just the problems with how he does, not the problems with WHAT he's doing. Time would be much better spent if he wants to disruptivly remove FU images on things over than logos and album covers and the like, as they're always going to be falling under FU anyway. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 08:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, he is using his main account to make the bot edits. That by itself violates our bot policy and enough to warrant a block.  Grue  08:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not for Logos and Album Covers just have the bot place:

User:Betacommand/FUIR

I have placed <pre><nowiki> tags around this page as it was showing up in the speedy deletion categories. Hopefully, that doesn't cause problems for you. If it does, you can remove, but please find some other way to de-categorize it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:702 No Doubt.jpg

I have added a fair-use rationale to the image page and request review and removal of the disputed fair-use tag. - cgilbert^{(talk|contribs)} 15:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Maurauth, templates are NOTvalid FUR. so the images still need rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Capitol Albums, Volume 2

The Capitol Albums, Volume 2 is a box set containing four separate intact albums in their original formats. The album covers for these individual albums are necessary for this article. What if someone does not know the title of the album, but recognizes the album's artwork? Steelbeard1 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Improper tags on Image:AAJ TV.jpg

As I was going through images tagged for review and possible deletion, I came upon Image:AAJ TV.jpg. Your program tagged it with {{No source}} and {{No rationale}} tags, but these were improper, as the file was uploaded before the dates for which the tags were intended. For the no source tag, per the NFCC non-compliance policy, it is to be deleted after seven days, not two, as you have tagged it; the image was uploaded before July 13, 2006. Also, for an image without a fair use rationale, deletion after seven days only applies to images uploaded after May 4, 2006. For images uploaded before, the uploader is to be notified only; see the "No rationale" discussion page. Since the image was uploaded April 21, 2006, I have reverted your tags, although it is also my intent to provide a fair use rationale for the image.

Please modify your tagging program, as you are tagging images that shouldn't be tagged. Thanks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if you provide a rational, I do not see a source for the image. Did it come from the official website of the TV station or somewhere else? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:AOH shield.gif

Regarding this comment by your bot. The user concerned was indef blocked some time ago, for copyright abuses. IIRC, all his image uploads should have been removed. Andy Mabbett 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

33-snowfish

Why is this not fair use as it is a book cover? Tony 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Tony

I now see you have done the same on other blook covers: A Boy's Own Story and A Good Start Considering. What is your rationale? Tony 11:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Tony

it needs a Fair user rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

After The Fire

No, not a complaint! Just, did you copy your "deletion warning" on the Talk page of the User who uploaded the JPG in the first place?—GRM 12:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

of Course. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use cats

Why did you remove CAT:ORFU from Fair_use_images? [15]? You also changed {{logo}} to use All non-free logos and Non-free logos if a more specific category is not used. I don't quite get the point of the all cat, but you only moved one(?) of the sub categories and left tens of them under Cat:Logos still. How did you invision the structure for them? Why is Cat:Non-free icons now under logos? [16] Sure, many of the icons are logos but an icon does not have to be a logo. I'm all for moving the fair use and other categories around as they are a complete mess and a pain in the ass, but can we overhaul them all at once--or at least all of a branch at once? 50k out of 800k images not under Images_by_copyright_status surprised me. Kotepho 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

what?? Sorry I dont get what your asking. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, many things. You appear to trying to move non-free media out of Category:Logos (which includes articles and free logos too) to either Category:Non-free Logos or(and?) Category:All non-free Logos. Which categories should say {{Radiologo}} use, or is the idea to replace all of the specific tags with {{Non-free logo|Category:Radio logos}} with Category:Radio logos under Category:Non-free Logos? Kotepho 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am Working on isolating the Non-free images and cleaning up Category:Fair use images that was just one step in a larger cleanup move that is on-going. Im attempting to seperate Free and non-free images in our category structure. In regard to ORFU i just removed it from both a parent cat and a subcat. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that and I believe it is much needed. I am trying to figure out how you believe they should be laid out and if at all possible to work in either small, complete steps (preserve existing structure as you go and/or take a category and rearange it and all sub-categories at the same time) or make a plan and do it all pretty much at once.

In regards to Category:Orphaned fairuse images, Orphaned fair use images are fair use images still so I think it makes sense for it to be a subcategory of Category:Fair use images. Kotepho 23:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My main goal was to remove the free images from Category:Fair use images and ORFU was in both the FU and Category:Unfree images and to assist in bot operations I removed it from the sub cat. In regard to the other cats, that is a mess that Im going to start on in a week or 2. (its not going to be easily sorted out by hand) Im working on a few tools to examen that messy structure and clean it out. (this will be a lot of bot work) that is why ive been putting it off. (people abuse templates that have no clue how they should be used in regard to templates). Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions‎

I am a good faith editor—please don't revert me without explanation. What is your explanation? Would you like it if I wrapped "archived" tags around discussions on your talk page? This is the same thing. –Outriggr § 01:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A.) Ive done the exact same thing before on my talkpage. B.) Raul is the chief editor of the signpost. he says you have no chance in hell, Listen. If he says Archive it, let it go, or take it somewhere else. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Me? I have nothing to do with the article. You are conflating issues here to your advantage. I don't give a god-damn if the article makes it to the signpost. I didn't contribute to it and care very little, but it's not about that. Adding purple templates to a conversation that isn't in a procedural space (FAC, AfD) basically says "I own this page, so stop talking." –Outriggr § 01:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well he does own that page, he is the signpost. Look at WP:AN/WP:ANI the same archiving happens there too. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agrippa

Howdy. I saw the request, and added a fairuse summary to Image:Agrippa-cover.jpg, but (first one for me) I'm not sure if I did this correctly/sufficiently. Could you give it a glance? Much thanks. Reply here or anywhere. :) --Quiddity 04:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Close, Just state exactly what pages and why they are used there. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is "for informational purposes only" too weaselly? I took from Image:SurferRosa.jpg which seemed like a potentially good example. Thanks. :) --Quiddity 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

that is too vague, Instead, look at Image:B celeus obrieni.jpg (even though I disagree with #3) it clearly states what page Fair use is being claimed on and per #2 clearly why the image is needed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I added "It adds significantly to the articles because it illustrates a rare and handmade book, and is one of the author's notable collaborative works.". Thanks again for your help. --Quiddity 05:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)