User talk:Betacommand/20071201

Am I approved?

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

photo rosie

Hi,

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

photo rosie

Hi,

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

Message from LDEJRuff

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

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

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

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

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

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

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

Just curious, how do you get Toolserver access? DREAMAFTER ^<TALK> 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a well known bot operator and programmer (the first 80,000 bot edits) that was working off dailup at the time. I made a request at m:Toolserver, and I made a solid case about my tools/bots should be hosted. I was contacted later saying that I was approved. β^_command 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 02:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free-Use Rationale

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

Image:Winged Dragon Of Ra.jpg

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

Image:Yubel.jpg

Image:Yugi muto.jpg

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

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

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

Articles by length

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

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

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

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

Fair use orphans

It would be so much more helpful if you would tag fair use orphans as fair use orphans rather than as images failing 10c.[1] Please? Haukur (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

My compliments

I noticed your bot has been placing fair use deletion warnings on article talk pages: [2] - very nice! It's quite likely that people interested in articles will also be interested in the deletion of images used in them. I don't know if this is a new fix, but it's appreciated. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

VandalProof approval list at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval

Hi Betacommand,

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

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

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

You are a liar

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

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

Bullshit. there are tens of thousands of NFC images with problems, (when I did a count in July I found somewhere near 180,000). Writing a proper rationale for an image that you do not have any prior knowledge takes about 20-30 minutes per rationale. for someone who is involved with the image it might take 5. Wikipedia's policy is clear, we do not have to make a point of why material cannot be included, we make the point of why it should. the responsibility of writing rationales is up to the people who upload/use them. Not mine. also bots cannot write valid rationales. also 6 and 7 are not in conflict. Policy clearly places the responsibility with the uploader. β^_command 16:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re fair use of provincial flag

I've read your warnings, etc., but I'm still confused. Pardon the pun, but you flagged the image of the Nova Scotia flag I used in my profile, but none of the other provincial, state or national flags. I haven't been online in a while, so you've since deleted the one I was using.

I'm curious as to why that one flag would cause concern when the others wouldn't. I was using an image of the NS flag that existed in other areas of Wikipedia as well.

This isn't a complaint; it's a newbie's wonderment as to why that one was different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zatota (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-free content such as that flag can only be used in the mainspace. there are some flags that are free content and can be used anywhere but the one that you were using was non-free. β^_command 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understand now. I've gone back to the image I had originally used. It was taken down at some point for some reason, prompting me to use the one I had been using. Zatota (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Pirates

Please look at Image:Penzance rfc badge.png I believe that this DOES have a fair use rationale, contrary to the asserton of your bot. DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the version of the page that the bot tagged did not have a rationale, But that has been since fixed by another editor. β^_command 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I approved? (Again)

(Hi, I think my question, below, was lossed in the clutter. I need some help with using VandalProof, I would appreiciate it if you can provide some--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Betacommand, I'm glad somebody takes the time to moderate the VP approvals page, but I'm wondering if I've been approved yet. In the Recently Approved section, it shows my name, yet I haven't been told that I've been approved, nor does VP work when I try it. I hope you can help me clear this problem. Thanks.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oh_Starry_Night.jpg

I changed my copyright to be in accordance with the Wiki website. Please help. Am I doing something wrong? Reference article -- Fandub (Oh Starry Night image). Thanks! Qtktbug (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Qtktbug (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cartman-go.jpg

Can you please explain in what way the rationale provided does not comply with the fair use rationale guidelines as I was lead to believe that it was an acceptable template that I was using and the image clearly relates to the article it is used in. Dan arndt (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you linked to the wrong article. the image is used on Go!(album) but you linked to Go! (album) β^_command 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General problem with the operation of the bot WRT tagging FU images

There have been a couple of problems which, if fixed, would solve a LOT of the problems this bot is experiencing. I support the mission of this bot, but it does seem to have a large number of "false positives" which would seem to hinder its usefulness. The biggest problem seems to be when the Fair Use Rationale is not specifically formatted in the way the bot can read it. For example,

The rationale does not link the article (there is no requirement in the guidelines that it does, only that it name the article)
The rationale links to a redirect rather than to the specific article (this is most likely due to article moves which have left the image Fair Use Rationale pegged to the old article name).

The second problem is the bigger one; if unnoticed it could lead to properly used and tagged images getting deleted for a minor technicality. While I would agree that in the strictest sense of the word, the image is not SPECIFICALLY linked to the right article, it is something likely to get missed, AND the bot could and should either a) be coded to bypass redirect pages to check where the redirect leads and b) if it does so, to update the link RATHER than to tag the image for deletion. I understand that creating rationales out of thin air is not the purview of this bot or its operator, but in such cases it would merely be performing a repetitive and easily automatable task, essentially updating a wikilink after a page move, which IS the sort of thing bots are for. Any ideas? Small fixes to the operation of this bot, such as described above, are likely to reduce the number of false positives, and thus also likely to reduce the bad blood this bot is spreading among many people, which would only improve its mission. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the issue of redirects is not an issue, it was fixed several months ago and there was only one run with an API error that caused it to not see redirects. as for false positives there are very few of those. β^_command 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

really, because it missed Wake County as a proper redirect in the image [3]. I have seen this happen several more times. This was fixed by someone else, and I have seen several more false positives, almost ALL related to the redirect problem (i.e. the image page DID have a proper rationale, but the redirect seemed to lead to a false-positive). You may want to double check this occasionally just to be sure. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the issue with that image was not the redirect it was an old error with {{logo fur}} that I have fixed a while ago. It was not seeing logo fur as a rationale. β^_command 06:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... Thanks for clearing that up. Still, it is not a bad idea to spot check the bot as it runs. The wide variety of rationales, from template derived to hand-written, is likely to be a complicated issue and something that a human would have much less problems with than a bot. The bot is doing a worthwhile job, but the complexity of the job may be done better by a human for some very good reasons. Still, this one issue seems to be fixed for now. Keep up the good fight, but also keep an eye on the bot, and continue to improve it so it does its job better. Later. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use for Image:Gold Greatest Hits.jpg

This is an appropriate image for Wikipedia. I don't see why it's up for deletion for the millionth time. It is meant for the article Gold: Greatest Hits (DVD). Other DVD covers haven't been taken off, and other CD covers haven't been taken off, so why is this one any different? Please take it off of the disputed rationale. If the rationale is disputed, then change it! Do something, but don't get rid of the image! --Cuyler91093_{contributions} 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need a rationale. β^_command 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one for him. [4] --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your bot keep protesting that the music samples that I upload are not valid under fair use rationale??

Your trigger-happy bot (or you) keeps tagging audio samples I upload as having an invalid fair use rationale. To the best of my knowledge I'm complying with the fair use policy for audio samples as set out by Wikipedia. Rather than dumping in some vague, standard spiel disputing the rationale and instructing one to "read the fair use policy carefully", why don't you identify what it is in particular that is in dispute, or even better, fix it like the person above has suggested??? It's extremely frustrating and discourages me from wanting to upload more samples and improve articles when you keep running into these walls unnecessarily. Fix your bot or decommission it. PLEASE. -- Schellack

The bot is doing its work perfectly correct. E.g. Image:Girls Against Boys - Super-fire.ogg does have a fair use rationale, but it does not state for which page. That is one of the requirements. That is not something the bot or its operator can correct, as they don't know how if you meant the fair-use rationale for that specific use. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image mistagged twice

What's up? Image:CM LittleIsland.jpg has been mistagged twice now. Is the bot malfunctioning? --Knulclunk (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AH! Reading up into the discussion page, I see that if the image links to a redirect page, the bot gets confused. I fixed the link (which was going to a disambig page) and will look for that problem in the future. Thanks.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a redirect issue it had linked to The Little Island which is about a animated film, while it was actually being used on The Little Island (book). its a linking error not a redirect error. β^_command 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rainf.gif

The fair use rationale was provided when the image was uploaded some time ago. I've changed the rationale, however I shouldn't have had to do that. I understand the nature of this bot's work. However it has gotten it wrong. Ozdaren (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the bot is correct. You have indeed provided a rationale, but have not stated for which page (where the image is shown on) the rationale is valid for. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where do I provide that info and why? (It's use by Wikipedia is allowed by the Australia Govt.) Ozdaren (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a section for each use, and provide a link to the page where the image is used in each header (e.g. ==Fair use rationale for use in [[page]]==), then all should be OK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SRK&Kajol.jpg

Hello, previously when I uploaded the image I had included everything, right from the summary to the fair use rationale as well as the licensing. A user with the IP address 82.93.168.113 removed it for no apparent reason. You can also check the history of the image if you want. I added the summary back for the image. Is it because of that you placed the image tag? Please let me know. Best Regards --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale does not describe for which page the fair use rationale is valid. That is why BetacommandBot is tagging the image. If you include a wikilink to the article where it is allowed to be used in the section header all should be fine. Hope this explains! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've included a wikilink in the section header of the fair use rationale. So it means now that the image is acceptable. Right? I also wanted to know if I am allowed to remove the tag or someone else will. Thanks --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you correct the problem the tag is there for, the problem is fixed, and you can remove the tag yourself. Everyone assumes you are doing so for the right reasons, especially if clearly fix the problem and you note so in your edit summary. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Juan Bimba.gif

Hi, I added the fair-use rationale to Image:Juan Bimba.gif. Knowing the image and it's historical representation, I think the template I chose fits the criteria and the correct rationale. Check it please, when you have a minute. Kindly, --Bobjgalindo (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this myself. It looks fine now. I removed the deletion tag. In the future, if you can correct the problem the tag is complaining about, you can remove it yourself. There is no problem with that. Removing the tag WITHOUT fixing the problem may be considered a bad idea, but if you fix it, then go ahead and remove the deletion warning. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six Feet Under

1) "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I'm not doing something like adding deliberately false information or replacing the page with swear words. It's not vandalism.

2) Read WP:NFC#Unacceptable_images; "The use of non-free media in lists... usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable." Not always. I believe the images meet the criterion for #8; if you disagree, put it up in discussion. --DrBat 17:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

been there done that, six months ago. NFC in list of.. pages is not allowed en-mass. β^_command 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot error (no, really this time)

Per this warning and this tagging. The image is still in use on the article, and has been at least since the last edit was made to the article in September.

I'm going to revert the bot's tagging. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug?

I got this message claiming orphaned FU, where it clearly isn't. Can you check? Thanks, Crum375 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback's in order. It's tagging non-orphan images as orphans. --DeLarge 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bot is Broken. Take it offline, please, now.

It is claiming images are orphaned when they are not and leaving annoying false Talk messages. Please take it offline now. Hu 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its offline and Im looking into the errors. β^_command 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chokecvr.jpg

BetacommandBot recently tagged an image I uploaded, Image:Chokecvr.jpg, as orphaned, which it isn't. The image page clearly shows that it is used in the article Choke (novel), and I can tell you, since I watch that article, that the image has not recently been removed, or removed and replaced. I have removed the orphan template from the image page, but I'm wondering why the bot thought the image was an orphan in the first place. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind--I see I'm not the only one. Just a little glitch, I guess.--ShelfSkewed Talk 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image is being used in an article but bot tagged it anyway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ThrobbingGristleIrc25.jpg

i removed the tag, note: the image was used in the article at the time of tagging. --AlexOv Shaolin 20:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

Hi BC, just to let you know that your bot is tagging fair-use images as orphaned, when the image page shows they're in use, e.g. here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to complain as well Bot tags non-orphan images as orphan. I just want to add my complain to the stack. Magioladitis 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken bot left another wrong message

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevinalewis&diff=174904988&oldid=174902706 Hu 20:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. While it was helpful in me cleanign up the extra Sumamry section and adding the article line to the rationale box, can you please fix the bot so that it doesn't target images that are still being used on pages on Wikipedia?--293.xx.xxx.xx 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - getting really, really tired of getting these damn messages--Jtomlin1uk 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot blocked

I blocked the bot, I've placed a quick block message on the bot's talk page because people are leaving messages there, and I've started a thread at WP:AN/I. If this is overkill, put it down to ignorance. The bot is tagging used images as orphans. Hiding T 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unblocked. Thanks for the civility there pal. Hiding T 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see #Your Bot is Broken. Take it offline, please, now. the bot was shut off and Im trying to figure out what happened. the bot stop a while before you blocked, there was no need for the block. Im sick of admins who dont think before they act. β^_command 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of over-zealous bot owners who do not monitor malfunctioning bots. Your bot malfunctioned, first, and you didn't adequately control it, first. Just cool off and try to get along with people and a little more civility, please, regarding your edits here Hu 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the bot talk page and saw nothing. I went to the bot user page and saw a notice which told me to block it if it was malfunctioning. Maybe it is all my fault, but maybe you could have placed a message over on the bot talk page. I was trying to do the right thing, I'm sorry that offended you. Next time you want to call someone stupid, think twice. We're all supposed to have the same goal. Good luck fixing it. Hiding T 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aahh, now, are you going to go ahead and have those TPS reports for us this afternoon? SQL ^{Query me!} 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And next time you claim it was offline before I blocked it, check the timestamps first. Hiding T 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Timestamps:

(Block Log)
# 15:32, November 30, 2007 Hiding (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs) ‎ (per the fucking owner)
# 15:23, November 30, 2007 Hiding (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "BetacommandBot (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Bot malfunctioning:) (Unblock)

(Bots last contribs)
# 15:19, November 30, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:PDTantisocial‎ (your Non-Free image upload)  (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
# 15:19, November 30, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Image:Doggy's Angels Pleezbaleevit.jpg‎ (tagging Orphaned Non-Free image see Wikipedia:Non-free content/orphans)

For a bot that usually edits at 40-50epm, that's 4 mins without a contrib. It was shut down, at the time, it appears. Also, don't you think your unblock summary is unnecessarily harsh? SQL ^{Query me!} 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the edit summary is not something I'm proud of. I was trying to delete the word fucking and hit enter instead of delete. As to timestamps, I'm referring to conversation. There was nothing here or at the bot page that stated it was stopped. The bot was still editing at the start of my investigation into what to do. I didn't block the bot straight away, I actually thought about it and looked for discussion. There was none, so I blocked it. I apologise for the edit summary, if I could change that I would. My anger got the better of me for a second or two, and it left me stabbing at a keyboard in the wrong place. Hiding T 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIC, I didn't realise that the "bot stopped" message didn't go until after the block. Sorry, about sorta jumping on ya :( SQL ^{Query me!} 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I didn't know the bot had stopped when I blocked it. I told Beta to put it down to ignorance he did. I think the main issue is getting the bot fixed, and maybe we should all lay off beta and let him do that. Hiding T 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple notifications

BetacommandBot seems to have bee a bit overzealous in reporting on Talk:Time Machine (Apple software) (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff - note that those six were all straight after each other; no-one touched the page in between). I can't see any reason for the bot listing Image:TimeMachine Logo.png mutiple times, and although the bot is perhaps justified in re-activating after well-meaning but misguided reverts on Image:Timemachine gallery windowsquicklook20070611.jpg, would it not be possible to stop it slapping another warning onto the talk page? --Scott Wilson 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken bot. Again. (Image:RedRobe cover (Amazon).jpg)

Image:RedRobe cover (Amazon).jpg is not orphaned. Fix your bot, please. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NIC-Logo.jpg.

Betacommand, your bot incorrectly tagged Image:NIC-Logo.jpg as orphaned, which it is not. It currently links to North-American Interfraternity Conference. I thought you might want to know, just in case the bot needed tweaking. But thank you for doing the underappreciated work of tagging images. Happy editing! —Scouter Sig 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though it was tagged incorrectly, your notice did make me realize I hadn't put up a FUR correctly, so at least I'm saved doing that later! —Scouter Sig 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cifra 3 clock 2006-07-07.jpg)

I got a message from your bot saying an image I uploaded was an orphan. As far as I understand the term orphan I dont think it is, it appears here. Please elaborate --Trounce 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimeStamp Error in BetaCommandBot

It looks the BetaCommandBot (when it was running just recently) has another bug. It was timestamping comments with UTC times that were one hour off from the real time. Perhaps the bot operator has not properly updated her or his computer after the shift back to Standard Time in November? Hu 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a warning I got

Not sure what's going on, but I recently got a warning from this bot telling me that I had an orphaned fair-use image, but the image is used, and looking at the history of the article it is used in, the image shouldn't have ever been orphaned. I don't want an error to get the image accidentally deleted and I just thought I'd let you know. --Will Mak 050389 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is malfunctioning

I have also received an orphaned image tag for an image that is used in an article. I can see this is a recurrent problem from the above messages.--Opark 77 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And me, for Image:Tribune flier 1941.jpg, which is not orphaned. Rwendland 23:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem?

What's the problem with this page? Image:UDFlogo2.png?? I got a tag when it's perfectly fine, am I missing something? This bot is a Nazi. --Petrovic-Njegos 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot needs fixing or ditching

Image Image:50millElv.jpg is NOT orphaned I'll thank you to remove any 7 day warning on it. If it does get deleted, it will get reuploaded. Jcuk 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image incorrectly claimed to be orphaned

User:BetacommandBot said that Image:Ephraim Katzir.jpg was orphaned. In fact, it is used in both Ephraim Katzir and President of Israel. Ephraim Katzir is unmodified since September 17, 2007 so I don't know how the bot got confused. Superm401 - Talk 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Madonna Crazy For You 1991 Cover.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Madonna I'm Going to Tell You a Secret Album cover.jpg
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Madonna Justify My Love VHS Europe.jpg
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Madonna The Ultimate Collection DVD Box Set.jpg

I am concerned at why these images are not fair-use, they have detailed description of what they are and are depicting the DVD or VHS. I have also detailed the websites they were downloaded from and I simply do not know why they are to be deleted? JWAD

they need a non-free use rationale β^_command 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kumamoto gakuen logo.png

If I understand correctly, the problem with this image is that it is linked to my user page rather than to an article. If there is a problem beyond that, please let me know. I haven't removed the deletion tag as this is my first go with images, so I'd appreciate someone else checking it and either removing the deletion tag or letting me know what else needs to be done.

I did this because I am working with my (Japanese) students to create the article, which was being constructed in my user page. I have moved the article to Kumamoto_Gakuen_University, which I hope will fulfill the requirements but I'm hoping to have students work on Wikipedia in the future and would like to have them work on the article in their user space in order to understand the markup and the copyright issues involved. Is there some way to mark images that they are using in this fashion so there is a longer time limit? Thanks Tomeiter (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things you can do, Method one use free images, and there will be no need for rationales. If you must use non-free media please upload it just prior to the move into the article space. and in the meantime just use a place holder account. Also remember that ever student needs their own account. Users are not allowed to have shared accounts (it is a GDFL issue). Thanks for getting students involved in a produtive manner. β^_command 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've gone ahead and removed the deletion tag, please let me know if there is anything else that is necessary. Appreciate your time and efforts on this. Tomeiter (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT??????????????????

I put that Image:Carter real estate.gif was a logo of a company and said the site it came from so why is it on the criteria for speedy deletion, I've uploaded other logos using the same thing and that was fine so why not this? Meckstroth.jm (talk) 19;43,29 November 2007 (UTC)

All images must have a rationale β^_command 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

policy vs. what the bot says

I see you get a lot of comments. I appreciate your taking the time to reply here.

I don't see that you are correct, though, looking at Wp:csd#Images_and_media 6: Non-free images or media claiming fair use but without a use rationale may be deleted seven days after they are tagged.

You are wrongly referring (I assume) to images of this sort that fail the criteria for being on Wikipedia, in which case the policy is that they may be deleted 48 hours after notification, providing it's new-ish, that is. Your bot isn't analyzing all these images against this criteria before it leaves its comments. Even if it was, it would still be misstating things as if they were policy.

There is a lot of confusion in this area, as I'm sure you're all too aware from your work in it. Should your bot's comments be adding to this?

Apologies if I'm missing something. It wouldn't be the first time. 86.42.83.73 (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the bot currently only tags images that have been uploaded after January 1, 2007. which can be deleted in 48 hours, (I give them 168 hours). That is policy. What the bot does say is policy. β^_command 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bot comments on user pages

Is it necessary to put so much on a user's talk page? It would be far less time consuming if this robot could simply indicate the image in question with a link and refer to another link which has the repeated text over and over and over and over and over and over.... etc. No wonder this robot is still BETA. --Theeuro (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WTBC logo.png, Image:WWIL logo.gif, and Image:WZANLogo.jpg have been tagged with a fair-use tag by this bot citing WP:NFCC#10c.

2 of those have been tagged multiple times. All of these images are properly tagged.

you have rationales for the wrong pages. β^_command 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:42 (Doctor Who).jpg

Why was this tagged as orphaned? It's currently being used on two pages, and it has done for six months. Will ^(talk) 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing just happened with Image:Ep09.jpg; the image is in use and the article is noted in the image description. Is this a flaw in the bot, or is something wrong with our image description pages? Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rollbacking the edits. They are marked as vandalism reverts as that's faster. Will ^(talk) 20:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oberon_Confederation.gif was also marked orphaned, plus a wonderfully verbose block of text was tossed onto my talk page. Would the author of this bot please reconsider these actions? Ronark 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Scottish Government logo.png

Image is being used in the Scottish Government article bot is malfunctioning --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

~~|This bot has been blocked from editing until it is fixed in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for bots. Hiding T 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

Image:Ultra Hi-Res Cube Demo.gif

This image was incorrectly tagged as orphaned fair use. In fact, it is used on MOS Technology 8563 and was not removed at any point. The image has a detailed fair use rationale. Is the bot acting up again? I've had trouble with incorrect tagging from BetacommandBot before. *** Crotalus *** 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it's apparently been fixed. Hopefully this will not recur. *** Crotalus *** 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just chipping in -- the bot incorrectly flagged a couple logos of mine just now as being orphaned, when in fact they appear in articles. Huwmanbeing ★ 21:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-orphaned image tagged as orphaned

I got a message this afternoon from the bot saying that Image:MGM Grand logo.png was orphaned and it was tagged for deletion. After checking the the image page, I saw that it was, in fact, noted at the bottom that it was currently being used in the MGM Grand Las Vegas article and was not orphaned. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect orphan assessment of Image:CatsRugbyClubLogo.png

Hi! Received this notification (at 7:18 on December 1, after bot was supposedly fixed?) that Image:CatsRugbyClubLogo.png was orphaned. However it is used on Lions (Super rugby franchise) and has been for.. well, years. The article hasn't even been edited for a month and a half so it certainly wasn't temporarily orphaned. --Stormie 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect orphan assessment of Image:Imxi.jpg

I received this warning stating that the image Image:Imxi.jpg was orphaned. It is currently being used on IMx (album). It hasn't even been temporary orphaned. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 00:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect orphan assessment of Image:Bitoy Album.jpg

Your bot told me that the album cover was orphaned, but it isn't - it is currently being used on the Michael V. article. No offense, but I think your bot's going crazy... Blake Gripling 00:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-orphan Image:Shaw Communications logo.png tagged orphan

At 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC), BetaCommandBot posted to my talk page that Image:Shaw Communications logo.png orphaned when it was not, and tagged the image "di-orphaned fair use". It has been used in Shaw Communications in the normal way continuously for the last 13 months except for 1 minute 34 seconds on 2007-10-12, over a month and a half ago, due to vandalism. (It does not have a fair use rationale — it was posted shortly after the FUR rules went into effect, so will have to fix that — but it's clearly not orphaned.) Why did BetaCommandBot do this? --Closeapple 02:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor technical problem, now fixed. Nick 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned images

there was an error with the API, all images have been reverted, please dont post further complaints.
β^_command 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again

I'll ask my question again, since I got no answer and my complaint was deleted by this thing. Why do I keep getting the bot's spam on this image: Image:UDFlogo2.png when I provided a rationale and everything. Same problem for this one Image:Mrp.png

Please answer this time, I'm not a fan of asking twice. --Petrovic-Njegos 13:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fair Use Rationale is missing a link to the website(s) from which you took the images, it's not a big problem, but we are legally obliged to note from where you sourced the images. If you could link to the site(s) from which you took the images, that should satisfy the bot. Hope this helps. Nick 15:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I replied to Petrovic-Njegos' concern on his page by the way! The Rambling Man 15:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot and PNG crusade bot

I was looking at something that Remember the dot's PNG crusade bot did and noticed on its talk page that your bot is sending it a lot of notices. You might want to exempt it as a special case - as noted on that user page, "Images uploaded by this bot will have its name as the uploader instead of yours, so you may not be notified if there is a problem with the image, such as being nominated for deletion.". Even better might be to go back one revision in the history and notify the previous uploader, but I have a pretty good idea how hard that would be :-) Anyway, nice job! RossPatterson 15:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going back one uploader isn't that hard. OrphanBot manages to sort through lists of vandalism, reverts, minor adjustments, and the like without too many errors. --Carnildo 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

Can you point me to the policy which says that images lacking a free use rationale can be deleted within 48 hours of being uploaded? Thanks for your time. 86.42.83.73 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chrysler's Eagle logo

I have complied with all of Wikipedia's regulations for Image:Chrysler's Eagle logo.gif. I did not "simply insert a template"; the reasons I put down apply, as does the summary, source, and type. I don't know what more you want me to do. Bavaria II 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there were a few problems with that image, but I fixed them β^_command 20:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sportscenter Brasil.JPG

Is it correct? Thanks! Rafamaxpires 22:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I received this?

Can anyone explain me why the bot wrote on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crazy_Murdoc If it is related to the userbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazy_Murdoc/Userboxes/scp) that userbox hasn't the picture in it for one year... Crazy Murdoc 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually there was an image add and removed to that page [5] β^_command 23:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hadn't noticed that someone edited my userbox to insert the picture... I'll add it to my watchlist to make sure nobody else will edit it without me noticing... In a day or so I'll remove the bot post from my user talk page :) Crazy Murdoc 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poke

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK in that case, dating is indeed not necessary. What about WP:COPYEDIT and Wikipedia:Transclusion, and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/proofreading? Many thanks, Happy‑melon 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill look into this. β^_command 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - give a post here if/when you get anywhere. Happy‑melon 12:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Your Bot

I would appericate if you and your bot would kindly not post on my talk page anymore. I don't care to hear from you or your bot. Both cause me nothing but trouble and I have no interest in dealing with things that cause trouble. If you wish to speak to me, talk "through" an admin. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators don't have a bigger or better mouth. Betacommand may be more polite then me at times. Regards, Nathan 02:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't permit BetacommandBot to post on your talk page, then you run the very real risk of being blocked for image copyright problems, and it seems unfair not to make you aware of these problems and let you rectify them, but if you aren't going to do that, you might end up being blocked I'm afraid. Nick 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, making me aware of them and attempting to correct them (and I thought I had already) is what got me a nice three hour block.....and Betacommand being polite...all I can say is "no comment". Either way, I would perfer not to have to deal with any of Betacommand's posts or his bot. When something annoys you day in and day out and the bot owner gets you blocked for 3 hours....that's not helpful, that's just annoying. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there was clearly an issue with the image in question not having a rationale, the bot tagged it, you reverted. I saw that there was a problem and tagged it. instead of trying to fix the issue you just 3RR'ed over the removal. dont blame me for your errors, also see WP:OWN. β^_command 02:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cite policy at me. You "saw there was a problem and tagged it". Did you think to stop and actually talk to me? Maybe tell me how to fix said F-UR? No, you thought it better to edit war too and then get me blocked. Real big of ya. Again, though, don't post on my talk page (if you need to talk, talk via an admin) and don't have your bot post on my talk page either. I have asked nicely. I wish to have nothing to do with you nor your bot. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the bot left you a notice saying what was wrong and pointed you to WP:NFURG which explains how to write rationales. If I or the bot find other problems we will post them to your talkpage. please dont attempt to have me blamed for you not reading the messages that were left on your talkpage. β^_command 03:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS see [6] and [7] are three messages on how to fix the rationale. β^_command 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotsa legal jargon no one reads....and even if you use the "correct" rationale, your bot still tags (yet the bot is running "correctly")...so what's the point? If you put the jargon in easy to understand words for us people who get bored after the first two sentences of crap, then I might understand...and if you fix your bot so it doesn't still tag those with "correct" F-URs, I might actually care.

But you still just went off and reported me, didn't stop and actually try and talk to a person. Remember, not all of us actually get the whole legal mumbo-jumbo crap. Ya actually have to stop and show us. Sometimes it helps, sometimes people actually appericate it when people take that extra step. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show an example of a time where you added a correct fair use rationale and the bot then tagged it anyway? Can you also please show an example of a time where you asked Betacommand or any other user to explain the legalese terms that you didn't understand? Metros 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros, why should I have to? Why put something into such legalese that you know people aren't going to read it. Put it into words people can get! Also, take a look at the last 15 times an image has been tagged at BCBot on my talk page. All have rationales, all somehow "wrong". I really don't need to show diffs on a bot that has been blocked some 25 times for massive errors.

But that is not really the point....something both you and Betacommand are missing. If there is a problem with someone, most are too quick to just slap a warning on a talk page or instantly report them. Most admins are too quick to block that person and move on. In most cases, it's needed, but in some, why not ask them..."OK, what's the problem...how can I help?". When it is a vandal, yeah, that's a block. But when it is a person who doesn't understand that is teh same as a vandal? That sounds like never never assuming good faith on anyone. All I asked was someone to help me understand the damned things. Someone to show me how to write a F-UR that won't still get tagged by BCBot. Try starting a conversation, not putting all the weight of showing something on the user and try getting along with the editors....you might actually keep an editor or two. It sure as hell hasn't been tried yet. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have nothing to do with this, but aren't you guys being a little uncivil? --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there goes another user that Betacommand and his bot have driven off. Keep up the work, maybe if you're lucky you can be the last Wikipedia user left after you drive everyone else away. 71.213.130.239 09:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(u) ~~Wow, what a brave person you must be... Had to log out to make your attack?~~ SQL ^{Query me!} 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Struck, not helpful :/ SQL ^{Query me!} 14:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, to let everyone know, the Anon post was not me. That post came from Qwest in Colorado (I use Comcast and am in Virginia).

Anyway, I wouldn't be incivil if Betacommand would have stopped and actually talked to me. Asked me "OK, what is it you don't understand...how can I help?". No, I just got reported and blocked. More and more people, myself included, are too eager to slap a warning on someone's talk page and report them to AIV. In vandals cases, this is necessary...but in most, it isn't. If people would actually stop, talk, assume some good faith, and chill for a second...99% of all disagreements could be solved without anyone getting upset or anyone getting blocked.

What also upsets me is that BetacommandBot continues to tag "valid" (according to Betacommand) fair-use rationales and he refuses to fix his bot. This doesn't give me much incentive to put "valid" F-URs on my images, if they will be tagged anyway. Also, what is wrong with the way I write them now? No one will answer my questions. So, if I sound incivil...I'm not, I am disappointed. Disappointed in the direction Wikipedia is heading. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at Image:Wvbug.gif which is one that Neutralhomer and BC reverted back and forth. The version before BCB tagged it the first time: here while having parts of the fair-use rationale, fails to address all parts, and that's why in this revision, BCB is complaining, specifically: "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use." If you turn to WP:NFCC#10c, as stated there and BCB's most common complaint, each use of a non-free image needs a separate rationale (which you have for 2 of its uses, but not all 4) , and that you need the exact name of the article that the image rationale applies to. You do not have this for either of the 2 rationales you provide (the images are used on WVPR and WVPT but those names do not appear exactly in your rationale. If "West Virginia Public Radio" and "West Virginia Public Television" were redirects to the respective pages , then they would be ok, but neither of those redirects exist. And of course, there's use in WVEP and WVPB that is not accounted for.

All you need to do is to add for all 4 articles a rationale (you have it for 2) but make sure the article name is clearly and exactly indicated. It does help but not required to use {{tl:Non-free use rationale}} template that has a lot of delineated fields for a fair-use rationale.

That's all pretty easy to fix, the problem is that BetaCommand gets dozens of these complaints a day - he cannot stop to handle each one separately - the warning message BCB posts points to several places where help is outlined, and the most common issue (exact name of article used) is stated both in the warning and at several pages. Removing the warning without doing anything about it, however, is a problem. --MASEM 20:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in this case is the same as in most cases of complaints about BetacommandBot - the user sees this large notification message, and rather than take the time to read the message through, and do a little research (i.e. read the provided links), it's easier to complain that the bot is running improperly, the policy isn't fair, etc. I personally have had many images tagged by the bot this week, as when they were uploaded I was unaware of the FURG. I took the time to familiarize myself with them, and now all those images are properly tagged. It's not Betacommand's fault for not taking the time to explain this every time to every user - it's the users' fault for not taking the time to read the explanations provided in the first place. JPG-GR 20:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Public Radio is a statewide network of stations. Because most editors don't like articles about a dozen-and-a-half stations under one heading, I made individual articles. The stations still go under the branding of "West Virginia Public Radio", not "88.9 WVEP". The stations are a network, just individual articles. The same goes with West Virginia Public Television, three full-power stations (several translators), but all under the branding "West Virginia Public Television", not "WNPB-TV 24". - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However you have the articles set up is fine. The key point is that for each article that that image is used in, the exact article name or a page that directly redirects to that article, has to be there. That's what BCB is looking for. However, based on what you state, you also will likely want to mention that this is the logo for the full name "West Virginia Public Radio" (etc), so that it's clear what the acronym stands for, as if a human ever attempts to validate the rationale and you only use the call letters, they may call it into question. --MASEM 03:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is what I am talking about. Needless circling of F-URs. It's maddening monotony! - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one ever said copyright law was a big ol' party. I know it can be tedious, but Wikipedia requires it for compliance with U.S. law, which it is subject to due to the fact that the servers are in Florida. --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)I'm on editor review! 04:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the network is called "West Virginia Public Radio" and there are no "independent" stations under the logo, then you should have to add a dozen and a half stations to a F-UR. "West Virginia Public Radio" should be enough. I personally would create an article titled that, but it would almost certainly get moved to something else (hence the individual articles).

But if you want to make it even easier, just look at the bottom of the homepage for West Virginia Public Broadcasting......"The WV logo is a trademark of West Virginia Public Broadcasting". That's it, nothing more is needed, just "The WV logo is a trademark of West Virginia Public Broadcasting". See, it can be a "big ol' party". - NeutralHomer ^T:C 04:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

CVA-01

I suspect that your annoying, althogh admittedly accurate, bot has got it right about his photo. I asked someone else who uses it, and he suspects that it isn't, strictly speaking, in the public domain. Having said that neither is the Royal Navy White Ensign, which is used throughout wikipedia. I leave it up to you to have the final word, since if the CVA-01 picture doesn't count as public domain, then neither does the ensign. --J.StuartClarke 00:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it on the User's talk page and added a FURG. Woodym555 13:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion

Two users have requested my input regarding removal of their posts from this page and related issues. Their posts and my response are on my talk page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

theeuro was removed for personal attacks and POINT, he labeled his comment Request to not post further complaints is denied. he clearly saw #Orphaned images which at the time was posted on the bot talkpage. users who make threats and ignore my request, and basically violate CIVIl are not worth my time. as for Trounce I pointed him to the same section about not posting orphan issues. β^_command 09:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my page then you know I already studied this in some depth. It is quite clear that Euro did not understand much of what was going on, that Trounce was not informed by information only placed in an edit summary, and that handling this in a different manner than rolling back euro's edits and identifying them as vandalism would have avoided time here, at my talk page and elsewhere.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complains about your bot's edit on Image:Kelly_Rowland_Daylight.jpg

Hi there! It seems that you (your bot) put a tag for disputed non free use ration.

But did you check that someone edited the file's history?

There is an edit summary that shows what it previously contained

uploaded a new version of "Image:Kelly Rowland Daylight.jpg": == Summary == The CD single cover for Kelly's single "Daylight" (2008). The copyright of the CD single is owned by

but when you try to restore the version, it is empty

vandalism?

if someone edit a previous version through file's history the original content is erased

I've restored its content now...

Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 images marked as "orphaned" in error

Your bot notified me on my talk page, saying 2 images were orphaned and would be deleted within 7 days. This is wrong. Both of the images are (and always have been) used in articles. Please remove these images from your orphan / speedy delete list.

Gram123 20:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#Orphaned images β^_command 20:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Miss Something?

I do believe I said I wish to not recieve any further posts on my talk page from you or your bot....and yet, I did. I have asked nicely...no more posts from you or your bot. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter...NeutralHomer ^T:C 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd rather see your images being deleted when their fair-use rationale is not according to our guideline? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would rather not get blocked again because of an editor who thinks it's better to report someone than stop and help a fellow editor write a "correct" F-UR. Less annoyance and blockage that way. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your current disruption does not really help. As I said, the guideline on non-fair use is clear enough, it exactly tells you what you should include, and I have not seen the question from you 'what is then missing in my images', they are obviously not correct when compared to the guideline I mentioned. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have questioned, many a times, just no one seems to pay attention. Oh, and "disruption", if this is what you call a disruption, well, I can't help ya. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!

I wish NOT to recieve any further posts from your bot or you. I have asked nicely and even warned your for vandalism. I will not hesistate to report you. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and you will likely be blocked. fix the images and dont just revert. β^_command 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be blocked because I don't want to recieve your posts? I highly doubt that. Recieving your posts is what got me a 3 hour block the other day. Unless you want to, politely, show me how to write a "correct" F-UR (cause I ain't reading legalese...I have a migraine already) then we have nothing to talk about. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained: for each article the image is used in, you need a separate rationale, and each of these need to state explicitly the exact article name the rationale applies to -- copying and pasting from the article titles will make sure you get the exact name. Don't assume that it's something "close" to the article name that a human can understand - it has to be exactly the same name. Should take a few minutes of work at most per image if not less. Once you've done that, you can then freely remove the warning BCB puts on the image and it should never bother you again for that image. --MASEM 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert my edits as vanda

Also, don't copy and paste a standard form reply to my talk page. VX2 has been reverted since it will have a valid rat as soon as Mythsearcher adds it (which should be as soon as he's online), and in the meantime I don't want it speedyed. Jtrainor 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-add it, he has seven days to fix it. removing templates without fixing is vandalism. β^_command 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betacommand/Sandbox 4

Whats up with this page? I thought that it was a more updated version of this... <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history, and get what you need from there. β^_command 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Suit Gundam: Gundam vs. Zeta Gundam

I have expanded the article. See if it achieves WP:HEY now. Question: How can a video game be considered fancruft?--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

All the images you tagged

Bot dude. I have corrected the fair-use rationales on all the images I uploaded that you tagged. I also removed your notice of dispute. Don't remove the images, please. Vantelimus 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a Company LOGO image, but your bot has a problem with it

If your bot were smart he would have noticed that I uploaded a company logo for Reflections Interactive and correctly stated it as such.

Your bot for the second day says that the company logo is going to be removed. It's a company logo therefore there should be no arguing about it.

Uploading images is getting very bureaucratic, now not only I have to post a template with its licensing I now also have to post this fair-use rationale...whatever I found one and I'll use it.

EconomistBR (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommandbot Talk page

Just a quick FYI it looks like your automated archiver removed your notice that the bot error re: orphaned images had been corrected. You might want to put it back up if you haven't already done so. Thanks for the reply on it. 23skidoo 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommandbot removing birth/death/&c. categories

Hi -- can you reverse the Betacommandbot removals of birth/death categories that were empty at one point but really should be created/recreated? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have list of that. β^_command 20:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, can you at least remove, prospectively, any rules in the bot's behavior that would cause it to remove such categories in the future? --Nlu (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommandbot is destroying Wikipedia (Part 2)

Remember this? Now take a look at this. Please elaborate. .:Alex:. 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When BCB added the tag to the image (this edit) the FUR lacked any mention of the article it was being used in, this being Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto). A user has already fixed it. This is a proper instance of BCB tagging. --MASEM 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite statements about ORFU images:

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)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WJEC.png

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WJEC.png has a perfectly good fair use rationale. The problem is that someone else has moved the article from WJEC to Welsh Joint Education Committee. But, because this is Wikipedia, it is my fault that the the user who moved the article did not update the image's fair use rationale, in just the same it will be my fault the next time someone decides to update the fair use rationale guidelines, making all images I've uploaded in the past invalid.

I wish bots would spend more time fixing this easy problem rather than shouting at users who have done everything right (again).

I've not updated the image's fair use rationale. What's the point? Later on someone will just change something and I'll have to change it again. What a waste of time. - Green Tentacle 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about fault. The goal is to get someone familiar with the image, to fix it. It's also not shouting at you. It's asking you for help. This is one of those things, that takes a human to fix. There's no point in getting upset with the bot owner, he didn't move the page either. I notice, however, that he did go and fix it for you. SQL ^{Query me!} 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase 'there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid' definitely points the finger of blame at me. I did everything correctly. I'm sure if a bot can be made to notice incorrectly tagged images and post millions of talk page messages, a bot can be made to notice when pages have been moved and update fair use rationales appropriately. It was nice of Betacommand to fix the image (though he didn't tell me he had). It's stupid Wikipedia policy (again) that's the problem, but bots like this blindly re-enforcing it help no-one at all. - Green Tentacle 20:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the message akin to you turning in a test paper, forgetting your name on it, and the teacher, as you are turning it, states "I'm considered that you didn't put your name on your test paper", allowing you to quickly put your name on it and get the credit. BCB is doing the same thing - the last thing BetaCommand wants to see is come April 2008 (when all non-free content must have correct rationales or will be deleted on sight, as stated by the WP board), any appropriate non-free image be deleted, and thus the bot's warning to "hey, this rationale you gave doesn't jive, you probably want to fix it" is meant to help you prevent that image from being deleted. It may sound a little heavy handed, but if it was in a lesser tone, I have a feeling many people would just completely ignore the message and then come and complain later when their images suddenly got deleted. --MASEM 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To continue your metaphor, I did put my name on the paper. I did everything right. The article the image linked to was moved by someone else. It's akin to the exam board changing the rules after all the papers have been marked and then failing everyone because they haven't followed the new rules. I'll return to my original point: why can't someone make a bot to fix these things? Why is it my job to clean up after people who break my contributions? Those in power at Wikipedia always state that no-one owns their contributions. When it suits, however, it seems that they do... - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the person who created the DaB page should have fixed that, as part of the process of creating a DaB page. But since they did not, you are the fall-back person. β^_command 17:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bot is anyoing

He keeps targeting this image Image:The Inquisitors.jpg .However,there not only IS a fair use rationale writen just beneath,but also an explanation why the image is used and a full licensing,PLUS the source.This is actualy more then many un targeted free use images.I PLEA to you to either tell me WHAT MORE do you want or stop that bot,its done it 4 times already. User:New Babylon 2

Did you read the concern? "This image or media has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use." I've fixed it for you. [8] SQL ^{Query me!} 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what should one do if a Public domain picture is put under fair use rationale requirements? Such things are not required, and putting an answer in the block would be less than honest. the article on Count Orlock from Nosferatu is dealing with this at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.49.201 (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale from User:Schellack

(Editor note: removed full repetition of standard BCB note duplicated 8 times for sound clips:

each posted with the following same message:

Please explain what the concern regarding the rationale is exactly. I have read the guidelines and complied with them. Please explain and I will fix it. I am getting really, really tired of this.

All 4 sound clips fail at WP:NFCC#10c as stated in the warning tag on those pages - they do not state anywhere in the rationale the exact name of the article that the sound clips are being used it. Make sure to add that, and you should be ok. --MASEM 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal proof

Hi there, my username has been changed from User:Woodym555 to User:Woody. Could the VP approval list be updated to reflect this? Thanks. Woody (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snowolf has done it. Thanks. Woody (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmartTags

Hi - your bot flagged Image:Smarttags.PNG as needing an appropriate non-free fair-use rationale template. The instructions say to go to the image page and add such a template -- but the image already has one (the Non-free web screenshot one), and it seems to clearly meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images, item 6. I'm not sure what more I need to do. Thanks -- --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is failing, as the warning message noted, at WP:NFCC#10c that states that the exact article name that the image is being used in must be contained in the rationale. "Smart tag (Microsoft)" is not listed in that rationale, and needs to be added to be correct. --MASEM 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I have added it and will keep that in mind for future images :) --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 00:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A (very) minor complaint

BetacommandBot is leaving out the "y" in "notifying" when it leaves edit summaries. :) Kafziel ^Talk 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dam you prefectionist. :P β^_command 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand2 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Disputed fair use rationale from User:Schellack

Moved issue to BetaCommand's talk page --MASEM 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale from User:Pokemon subtitle.jpg

Please remove this image immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonghyunchung (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to do this right, how about you?

I have read all the links, tried to understand what you want, done all that you demand, and yet you still keep removing images I put up. What really is annoying is the feeling of programmed arrogance, in that you complain, yet refuse to give any clues on what magic words you will deign to accept as a proper rationale.

I am trying to insert lo-res CD album covers of size 200x200. The latest one is Image:Nothing At All 200x200.jpg. Just what in blue blazes do you want, or is the rationale even read by a human?

Neither the artist nor the labels will sell lo-res images. The idea is show others what the albums look like. The posting of the lo-res images is not a for-profit action on my part.

All this utility is doing is convincing me that trying to make Wikipedia better is a waste of my time. Instead of help in making sure I am following the rules, I get arrogance from a program that seems to say "I know what I will approve, but you try to guess, Loser, nyah-nyah!"

LMB02 (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you just need to pass NFCC#10c

invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

hopefully that will help you. β^_command 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand2 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Contributions tool

Regarding your tool that gets a lot of information about a user's contributions including all pages thay have created, could you run it on me? I haven't tracked this stuff and belatedly realize that it might be useful to do so. User:Wtmitchell -- pseudonym : Boracay Bill (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use images

Oh my God! I have violated your fair-use policy! And what purpose does the fair-use policy serve? Does it fulfill the purpose of the policy when I add a rationale to images that do not need them?

I understand it's very easy for you to delete the work of others. Just try to remember that rules are not ends in themselves, but means to a end. This isn't a video game.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:missing rationale2

I've been querying with you the comments your bot makes, against what policy is. [9]

It's been proving harder work than I anticipated. I still can only see that policy states images without a rationale can be deleted a week after tagging: WP:CSD#Images_and_media 6.

Policy also states that images failing the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia can be deleted 48 hours after notification of the uploader WP:CSD#Images_and_media 7.

Yet you say images without rationales may be deleted 48 hours after being uploaded, but you give a week after upload out of grace. What's your basis for this view? 86.42.83.73 (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP fungi award

I award this fungal barnstar to Betacommand for adding something very useful to WikiProject Fungi. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate, very useful indeed.....now if you have time, the last - WP:MABS may be the toughest of all....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic used by the Bot

May I ask what BetacommandBot is looking for when checking images for a fair use rationale? I don't mean WP:NFCC#10c; what is the actual logic as programmed into the bot; I'm considering writing a simplified version of WP:FURG (a how-to, if you like) that your bot could potentially link to, making fixing things easier. I suspect you'd get far fewer hostile responses if, instead of just throwing problems at people, the bot did its utmost to make it clear how to fix problems. It'd also make false positives less likely in the first place. --Scott Wilson (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by...

...but I really don't care if you delete my image. See User:Afabbro for why. Afabbro (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletable image-caption

This bot DOES NOT add a template:deletable image-caption in the articles where discussed images are used.

Rjgodoy (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, too many templates and other things tend to break when that is done via bot, instead the bot leaves a note on the talk page. β^_command 00:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding[reply]

unsigned comment added by Betacommand2 (talk • contribs)

Renegades Logo

Fair use has already been established and is documented. This is the 2nd time image has been tagged and was taken care of then. Werecowmoo (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wrong, did you even read the tag on the image? it clearly states what is wrong,

invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

Maybe that will help. β^_command 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand2 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I fail to see the error. I see source, I see clear usage rational, and i see link to the article at the bottom of the page. Maybe you can enlighten me as to where the problem is.Werecowmoo (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the file links section is not part of the image description page, it is auto generated by mediawiki. the link to the file needs to be in your rationale. β^_command 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list at the bottom of the page is the articles the image is being used in. What the policy requires is a separate list of which articles the image should be used in. --Carnildo (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot and the vandal, a parable

Hi. Your bot left me a message today, saying that an image I uploaded several months ago was up for deletion because it lacked a direct link back to its authorized article. I always put in a link, so I checked to see what the bot was talking about. I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:SFPD_Patch.gif&oldid=176015981, which was a result of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:SFPD_Patch.gif&diff=prev&oldid=150473991.

Is there any way the bot can be more tolerant of vandalized images by, say, looking through the history of the image page to see if there was an article link at one point in time, and perhaps roll back to that revision? The potential for abuse for abuse otherwise is enormous. --Dynaflow babble 01:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really as it is not a easy thing for a bot to check, Diff parsing is not easy. Just flagging it for humans to check is all it can do. β^_command 01:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand2 (talk • contribs) [reply]

My image is getting deleted?? Why!?!

The image,[Image:Ritz bits small.JPG] shouldn't be violating the wikipedia rules. I took the picture in my kitchen and uploaded the image to the Ritz Cracker article almost 2 years ago and has never been a problem untill now. I cropped the picture to not show my kitchen in the background.

It needs a rationale β^_command 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS that was not uploaded 2 years ago. it was uploaded less than a year ago, 14:14, 8 March 2007 to be exact. β^_command 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Fever 8-track label image

This Saturday Night Fever various artists image is from an old broken 8-track tape that I had, so I decided to add it to the Saturday Night Fever page because I don't think there's any other label like that around around anymore! I couldn't even find it over the internet, so this is why I decided to upload it on wikipedia since there's no other website that may or may not accept it. I don't know the copyright from the Saturday_Night_Fever2.jpg image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webfan29 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warring?

Your bot is warring with me at Image:Slraposter.jpg. How is it that the bot makes this check? It doesn't seem to be working. Staecker (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The description page did not mention the article where it was used which is required by WP:NFCC. I have fixed it. Rettetast (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks- I forgot to change it when it was disambiguated (I think). Staecker (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed vs none

You were asked here, here, here and here so I'll try to ask in a different way; is there seriously no way to check if an image has no rationale as opposed to an invalid rationale? This has got to be confusing for a lot of people. Saying that an image has a rationale that is disputed implies the image has a rationale. Btw #1: your bot is awesome. Btw #2: is the brown shading here meant to be there? The whole rest of the page is shaded. --Geniac (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no simple automated method of seperating no rationale from invalid. the shading was fixed. β^_command 15:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my image alone

I took it myself OK [10] AJUK ^Talk!! 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As annoying as it is, you must add a rationale per WP:NFCC#10c. It's really simple, and once added, you will not be troubled again. Jack?! 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you added is not a proper rationale, and saying "if you think anybody will sue for this, you're a moron" doesn't fix anything. Nobody said that, we just want you to add a rationale. I would do this except I don't know the exact details of the image. Jack?! 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the page with {{PD-self}}, since the picture was taken by the user. I left the Currency-UK tag as secondary. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommandbot Requesting things that do not make legal sense

hey man, quick note:

This picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orlock.jpg

got tagged for fair use rationale, but it is in public domain. Therefore, fair use is not a qualified request, either as a legal requirement, or as a possible reason for deletion. Suggest you update the Bots software to detect things like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.49.201 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is on Commons and has never existed locally. The only thing I can find is Image:Nosferatuisabauskinski.jpg, which was deleted on 14 November for invalid fair use rationale. Are you perhaps referring to this? --Dapete ばか 09:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. Bot is requesting a delete, however, image is from silent movie Nosferatu, released circa 1922, and is thus in Public Domain. The request for rationale is pointless. comment added by 198.146.49.201 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did that image not give the publication date or indicate it was PD, it had a {{Non-free film screenshot}} tag on it. Mr.Z-man 08:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image page has notice it is in PD, gives notice of Publication Date being before 1923, and has a huge tag as such. I recommend bot be programed to find the tag, since it appears to be on several public domain images.198.146.50.24 (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has missed PD templates before. I suggest that you remove the warning or ignore it. A live person would have to delete the image, anyway. That person will recognize that the bot tagged it incorrectly. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Hi Betacommand, I have some concerns about your bot. As I have uploaded many fair use images, i get lots of deletion warnings from it. While this is irritating, I accept that I have to add the title of each article (per 10c) that I have added the image to. However, I also get warnings because other users have included the same image in articles that I did not intend it for. I upload a lot of fictional character images. For quite some time I have been including the name of the character in the FUR, but other editors come along and include the same image in the actor's article too. They don't update the FUR, so my images get tagged for deletion and my talk page gets spammed by your bot continuously. This can happen repeatedly with the same image: it's removed from the actor's page, the tag is removed from the image, then another user adds the image back, and the bot tags it again.

I can't control how the image is used by other editors, so what do you suggest I do? Should I be adding an additional FUR for the character's actor to every image I upload, just in case some other user includes it there in the future? Copyrighted images of fictional characters aren't necessarily fairuse in actor's articles of course, but at least it will stop this harassment from the bot.

Another issue is page moves and redirects carried out by other users. I might include an articles name in the image FUR, but then other users merge, move or rename pages, and the bot doesn't recognise redirects. One character article that I provided an image for has been merged and separated from a list about 4 times by other users, and each time my images get tagged for deletion. Hardly fair is it? Gung adin ♦ 20:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, it's grossly unfair because the pages you write FU rationales for could be moved to other pages, turned into dabs, and worse, your FU image could be used elsewhere without your knowledge. However, BCBot is simply telling you the truth. The alternative to attending to BCBot's notices by adding FU criteria is to just either remove the uses of images which aren't covered by your FU rationale, add or correct a rationale that isn't there or correct, or ignore the warnings and see the images deleted. It's not fair but that's fair use for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCBot does not tag images with valid rationales. If the image is used on 4 pages and only has one rationale BCBot does not tag it. As for DaB's it cannot be helped. But in regard to redirects BCBot sees those and follows them. β^_command 23:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about your stupid robot tarnishing human users as spammers. Anton Mravcek (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the bot does not call anyone spammers. β^_command 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RNHAlogo.jpg

Your bot has flagged this image again, despite my attempt to comply with your automated request. Now, would A REAL LIVE HUMAN please take a look at this image and its associated page, and tell me in plain language how it is NOT in compliance at this time? Thank you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there was a typo of the article name in your rationale, I fixed that for you. β^_command 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no need for incivility and shouting, Realkyhick. It doesn't help anybody, and it probably makes the situation worse, and no one is to be blamed if they don't want to answer to such demands. --Maxim_(talk) 12:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BetaCommand is a man on a mission

I can understand your concern, but each logo image is accompanied by a license tag beneath it which states that the images in question represent a company, in this case specifically record labels, which perfectly compliment encyclopedic documentation. As long as the image is labeled correctly, which it is, it is fair to use it as representation, and nothing more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviantMan (talk • contribs) 05:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof

Betacommand, I don't know how precisely I've failed to meet the standards for use of your personal anti-vandal toy, but I'm a 3-year editor and CVU member in good standing, with a squeaky clean record and over 2,000 edits, most of which are anti-vandal. I meet (and exceed) every single standard listed on the VandalProof page.

Furthermore, you did not deign to leave so much as a hint of a rationale in your edit summary or on the application page (much less a note on my talk page).

I would appreciate a response, since I consider your actions to be unnecessarily dismissive and disrespectful. I am not a newbie or one of your unfree-image gripers and I don't appreciate being treated like one. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently have access to my toolkit and records. Give me about 6-7 hours, hours and Ill be back at my personal computer. If what you said is true, (I cannot double check/and or access my records). You not getting approved was an error. β^_command 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check?... Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 09:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got your confirmation message on my talk page. Thank you for your efforts in resolving this mistake. I'm off to patrol. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject ratings

Hi there! I noticed that your bot automatically assessed this article as Stub-class for WikiProject Pakistan. Where can I go about requesting that your bot run its "stub check" for unassessed articles on WikiProject Universities? We've got some 1100 unassessed articles, and just having the ones that are easily sorted as Stub-class done "automatically" would be a big help. Apologies if the answer is in an obvious place and I just missed it. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 20:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use images

Hey Betacommand, I have found some pictures with questionable fair-use claims, and since this seems to be one of your expertises, I was wondering if you could tag them with the proper tag if needed. I still haven't mastered Wikipedias image policies. The images are Image:Older helmet.png, Image:SeattleSeahawks 1000 reversed.png and Image:SeattleSeahawksOld1976.png. Thanks for your help.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned images check throught Category:Digimon media

Would you consider having BetacommandBot run an orphaned images check through Category:Digimon media (< 1000 images)? After the deletion (soft redirects) for the underlying article at Category:Digimon by level, there are a lot of orphaned nonfree images out there (I've personally gotten about 30 myself fairly quickly). There is also a problem is almost of them in regards to the article backlinks but the orphaned images are enough for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Approved for VP but can't login

Hi I was approved on the 24th but can't login. Can you check I'm on the list please. --Breno ^talk 11:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed my post the other day. Could you check please. Many thanks. --Breno ^talk 08:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done β^_command 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I declined?

Yesterday I registered for Vandal Proof after my 250th mainspace edit, out of ~620. I am just wondering why I was declined, seeing as I have over 250 mainspace edits and I haven't been involved in edit wars and neither do I have a recent history of vandalism.

Thanks very much! Blake 01 17:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here! I just want to know why I was declined, so I can improve on what I need to. Thanks! *Mind storms Kid* 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just come back in a month, I prefer to see a stable editing pattern over a period of time. This is nothing personal. β^_command 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vp list

Why wasnt I approved? I met ALL the requirments.Jayson (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you did not follow the instructions on applying, malformed request are ignored. β^_command 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report from archive

This got archived before you had a chance to make any reply, so I'll re-post it:

May I ask what BetacommandBot is looking for when checking images for a fair use rationale? I don't mean WP:NFCC#10c; what is the actual logic as programmed into the bot; I'm considering writing a simplified version of WP:FURG (a how-to, if you like) that your bot could potentially link to, making fixing things easier. I suspect you'd get far fewer hostile responses if, instead of just throwing problems at people, the bot did its utmost to make it clear how to fix problems. It'd also make false positives less likely in the first place.

--Scott Wilson (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

Hope that helps. β^_command 16:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? I presume there's more to checking a valid fair use rational than that. Also, if the bot finds a link missing, could it perhaps search for the article name in the text, and stick some square brackets round it if it finds them. That way, a fair number would get silently fixed without anyone having to bother. --Scott Wilson (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about a link. β^_command 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

use of SmartGuns.jpg

Hi Im not the uploader of the image used in [M56_Smart_Gun] but i tried to tag it properly with the non-free fair usage requirements. Im not sure hwever about what it refers to as 'source' and have merly put the film it was taken from - is that sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.200.90 (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I don't know English.. I know very little, I dont understand your message. Ok? Levent Abi (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Purple_dragon_book_b.jpg

What is your basis for saying that Image:Purple_dragon_book_b.jpg may not meet the fair-use guidelines? Within the field of computer science, the incarnations of the Dragon Book cover are indisputably iconic images. -- Skaraoke (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Middle-earth opt-in

Could you please notice image issues at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images/Disputed images? The template used on article talk pages is Template:ME-project, or do you need a separate one to be used on image talk pages? Thanks. Súrendil (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my user page alone

Opinions are hardly a personal attack, especially if the people on the list have not complained. I have even given those two users a specific chance to, and if they complain, then their names will be removed. Until then, go away. Jtrainor (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that NPA does not require the user to complian. β^_command 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incivil remark telling editors to go away is duly noted Jtrainor. — Save_Us_229 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found another copyvio guitar image

Image:SunburstEsquire.jpg, which is used as the main image in a Wiki Project template, is a stolen pic taken from harmony-central.com. The uploader claims to have taken a picture of their own guitar. But you can easily notice the exact woodgrain pattern from the harmony-central image that the uploader simply did a copy/paste of the guitar onto an ugly colour background to try and hide that it was stolen. I will stick a PUI template on it although the last half dozen images that I've tagged have slipped through the cracks are are still on Wiki... as far as I can tell... . 156.34.208.51 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear War screenies

Hello there, whomever may be the pupper master behind the bot :) What is the issue in this case really? Arguably a heap of screenshots is a bit of overdoing it, still I see no issue in having some there for illustrating the thing. Low-res, not challenging sales etc. Cheers, 88.148.207.23 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NFCC #3 and #8. Rettetast (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit arbitrary? At any rate, I do agree that those not showing the UI and such are a bit superfluous, still, no reason to remove the lot. 88.148.207.23 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it is, if there is not critical cometary there is no need for the image. β^_command 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case then, quite pointless to revert back and forth with you folks, though I do object to the complete removal of all images illustrating the user interface. Perhaps you'd want to put the images in question up for deletion lest a hapless editor might get funny ideas and using them in articles... 88.148.207.23 (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleting refs

Why are you deleting refs and citations from ACW bio articles? I don't care too much about the gratuitous spacing changes, but you need a better rationale than 'clean up' to change refs. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that site is spam, and is going to be blacklisted as soon as we remove links to it, there has been a massive campaign of spamming it please see WP:ANI β^_command 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of source link from Ferdinand Magellan

In this edit you removed a link being used as a source, with a reference to WP:ANI in the edit summary. I don't see what you are referring to that justifies the removal of the link. Could you please explain your justification? -- Donald Albury 02:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. -- Donald Albury 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing images that are not orphaned

Your bot has a bad habit of speedily deleting images that are being used on articles and claiming that they are orphaned. I have received several notices on my talk page showing that images I have uploaded that are being used and have valid fair use rationales are being deleted. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

example please? β^_command 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heart Don't Lie 12 Single - Front.jpg. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that image never existed. β^_command 03:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then please explain why I received a message on my talk page stating it had been deleted. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was a weird formating error the image in question is [[Image:Heart Don't Lie 12'' Single - Front.jpg]] I cannot seem to link that image properly β^_command 01:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a link [11] Regardless, why was this image being nominated for deletion when it's being used in Heart Don't Lie (song)? Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the image is not tagged for deletion. β^_command 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletion of source

I see that the on-line text of Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89 is blocked as "spam" at Wikipedia. No point in questioning this action, I see from the posts above. This diff shows you how I've made a footnote to credit the source of some of the article's information. A much more stylish way of going about it, though I doubt, judging from the complaints above, that you care one way or the other. This is strictly for your information. Please don't contact me on this matter. --Wetman (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Since I know you had the countdown at the top of this page for the fair use issue that's going to be imposed on the project in 113 days, you have a link to where this was originally said by Jimbo? I just wanted to read over it cause I never read it. — Save_Us_229 20:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

famousamericans.net thread is on WP:AN not ANI

Please read the WP:AN thread here to understand why the links were removed--Versa geek 07:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you've been systematically removing famousamericans.net as a reference from many articles I started or contributed substantially to, and that I keep an eye on. Just wondering what's up with that? In several cases, especially colonial-era people, that's the only decent ref I had. Here's one, John Guest (jurist), in which it was the only reference listed, and now the External links section is empty--doesn't look good.--BillFlis (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whats up. If it was the source for the article, it should stay. Whats the reason behind removing it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attempt to purge WP of "spam" to for-profit sites. In some cases, a link has been added in the "external links" section, which is considered to be "spamming", but in other cases, the link is within a valid reference. For example, in History of Minnesota, the reference in question was added at least a year ago, prior to the article achieving FA status. Personally, I'd rather see a statement sourced by a for-profit site then unsourced (the same argument could be made for newspapers, magazines, and other news sources). I would ask Betacommand to refrain from deleting references such as this. Thank you.--Appraiser (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just spam, but its a un-reliable source. β^_command 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read that over, and there hardly seems to be a consensus for what you're doing. Also, I object to your editing of my user page. If that's spam, what about Find-A-Grave and IMDB, both of which have established templates to make it easier to reference them here? Also, what makes you think it's unreliable? Sure, it seems to have been scanned, with the expected OCR errors, but that doesn't make it useless.--BillFlis (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, thanks for your help in removing these links, but please slow down. The right way to do this is to figure out how the link got there and what text it's supporting. Please find a new source or add a {{fact}} tag to any now-unsupported text that's relevant to the article (frequently the text is not relevant and was added as an excuse for a link). Your speedy link deletions using semi-automation are giving the a lot of editors fits. Please see these complaints:

--A. B. ^(talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So here is one part of our case, close to a thousand references of Virtualology content cited with no "spam" claims whatsoever were removed by this editor. How can you just unilaterally do this to content that has been referenced by Wikipedia as Virtualology's for so many years? This is more grievous then our recent errors A. B. deemed Spam as you know better, there is no Spam here. As for the claim it is an unreliable source, bull.

We did our homework, despite some editors above maintaining the contrary. Without giving away too much, There are 202 known fictitious biographies such as Pierre de Vogué (http://famousamericans./jeanpierredevogue/) and Vicente y Bennazar (http://famousamericans./andresvicenteybennazar/ ) from the research Virtualology has done on the Encyclopedia. It was traced to one employee who was paid by the article and thus his work has been thorough researched over the years turning up the 202. Most importantly, the BULK (approximately 180 of the false sketches) found are written on obscure European scientists who supposedly travelled to the America’s to study natural history. Examples of sketches include, the biography of Charles Henry Huon de Penanster, (famousamericans./ charleshenryhuondepenanster/) identified as a French botanist, whose bio parallels Nicolas Thiery de Menonville (whose genuine biography also appears in Appleton's). Nicolas Henrion's, (famousamericans./NicolasHenrion/) a French scientist listing reports that he arrived in South America in 1783, when Asiatic cholera was in full bloom. The epidemic first broke out in South America only in 1835. Miguel da Fonseca e Silva Herrera, (famousamericans./ migueldafonsecaesilvaherrera/) supposedly was a gold medal Brazilian historian, from the historical institute of Rio de Janeiro in 1820 but the society was not founded until 1838. Some good references on the topic are: Barnhart, John H. "Some Fictitious Botanists." Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 20 (September 1919): 171-81. Dobson, John B.. "The Spurious Articles in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography—Some New Discoveries and Considerations." Biography 16(4) 1993: 388-408. O'Brien, Frank M. "The Wayward Encyclopedias", New Yorker, XII (May 2, 1936), pp. 71-74. Schindlir, Margaret Castle. "Fictitious Biography." American Historical Review 42 (1937), pp. 680-90. The rest of the boigraphies are IMPORTANT historical accounts of exceptional men and women whose deeds in the Americas were notable at the very least. These are a exceptional additions to the Wikipedia Project. It is wrong to blacklist these sites PS YOU HAVE TO ADD THE NET TO THE LINKS AS THEY ARE BLACKLISTED --97.97.197.9 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I know they are SBL'ed the site is known not to be reliable. end of story. quit attempting to BS us. β^_command 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BS BS Kettle calling ...

Not following this is BS --

“Say where you got it

It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.

When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. The edition of the book should be included in the reference section, or included in the footnote, because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.”

To Answer this question:

According to the Virtualology site, which is a copy & attempted revision of the notoriously unreliable Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, its revised biographies are arranged separately, as explained there "If you would like to edit this biography please submit a rewritten biography in text form . If acceptable, the new biography will be published above the 19th Century Appleton's Cyclopedia Biography citing the volunteer editor." from, e.g. [1] However, I see no firm indication that this is in fact the case, and would like to see some examples of this. Ones directly from Appletons are not copyvios. Ones modified from Appleton's are copyvios, because the Virtualology site is copyrighted. Unfortunately, the original ones are also known not to be reliable or accurate.( It is additionally plagiarism to use them with just the tag at the bottom, without indicating that the entire article was copied and what the exact source is.) I therefore doubt that any material from this site can ever be incorporated in Wikipedia. If unmodified, they are not reliable. If modified, they are not public domain. DGG (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few Cursory Edited Samples

John Baptist Lamy Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnbaptistlamy/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.jhectorstjohndecrevecoeur/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Johannes Megapolensis Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johannesmegapolensis/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Mary Odin Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnmaryodin/ - 27k - Cached - Similar pages Manjiro Nakahama Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.manjironakahama/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Charles Francis Baillargeon Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons charlesfrancisbaillargeon/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Finley Rathbone Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfinleyrathbone/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages John Taylor Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johntaylor3/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Cornelius O'Brien Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons corneliusobrien/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Louis Amadeus Rappe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons louisamadeusrappe/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sister Margaret Bourgeois Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons sistermargaretbourgeois/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Lucretia Maria Davidson Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.lucretiamariadavidson/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Ximenes Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscoximenes/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Francis O'Mahony Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfrancisomahony/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Adams Webster Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnadamswebster/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Flores Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseflores/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Jarque Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscojarque/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Michael Joseph O'Farrell Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.michaeljosephofarrell/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Caballero Y Ocio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons juancaballeroyocio/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Garcilaso de la Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons garcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sebastian Garcilaso De La Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.sebastiangarcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Maria de Salvatierra Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanmariadesalvatierra/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Diego Garcia de Palacio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons diegogarciadepalacio/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Edgar Philip Wadhams Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons edgarphilipwadhams/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Agustin Davila Y Padilla Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons agustindavilaypadilla/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Andr6s Avelino Caceres Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.andr6savelinocaceres/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Paul de Chomedey Maisonneuve Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.pauldechomedeymaisonneuve/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Escalona Y Calatayud Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseescalonaycalatayud/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Lorenzo Hervas y PANDUR0 Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons lorenzohervasypandur0/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Anne Joseph Hyppolite Malartie Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons annejosephhyppolitemalartie/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Mother Marie de L'incarnation Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.mothermariedelincarnation/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Atahualpa, Or Atabalipa (ah'-ta-oo-al'-pa) Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.atahualpaoratabalipa/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Dred Scott Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.dredscott/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages John Joachim Zubli Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnjoachimzubli/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Elzear Alexandre Taschereau Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons elzearalexandretaschereau/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Joseph Kain Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnjosephkain/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Felix De (ath'-a-ra) Azara Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.felixdeazara/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Felipe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons felipe/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages Santa Rosa OF Lima Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons www.santarosaoflima/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco De (cor'-do-vah) Cordova Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscodecordova/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Frederic Auguste Bartholdi Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.fredericaugustebartholdi/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Bernardo Diaz Del Castillo Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons bernardodiazdelcastillo/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Malta Capac Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.maltacapac/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Miguel Grau Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.miguelgrau/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Orellana Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.franciscoorellana/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Nepomucene Neumann Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnnepomuceneneumann/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages Alvar Nufiez (kah-bay'-thah-de-vah'-ka) Cabeza De Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons alvarnufiezcabezadeyaca/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Apostolos Valerianos Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.apostolosvalerianos/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdez Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.gonzalofernandezdeoviedoyvaldez/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages --71.42.169.223 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are three of the hundreds of Heavily Edited Appleton's

http://www.famousamericans/arthurstclair/

http://famousamericans/williamrandolph/

http://famousamericans/fernandomagellan/

We understand you being upset BUT your complete deletion of the source material's references is unprofessional at best. Doing it under the guise of Appleton's being an unreliable source is sophomoric, not scholarly. This is BS in its worst state, justifying one's mistakes. Virtualology admitted they followed an external link model of find-a-grave sidetracking their original effort to correct improper citings on Wikipedia. They erred and sought to correct it, still do as evidenced above providing information requested by one of your Adminstrators.

--71.42.169.223 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable or not, edits like this where you removed other sourced statements (and an inline citation for a different source) should not be done, and as someone else pointed out, a citation needed tag is the appropriate course of action, not the removal of the content, unless it is a WP:BLP. Again, though the source may be unreliable, a reliable source may be found, including in this case the other source you removed. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you also left an empty citation from the above edit. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

appleton's cyclopedia

Please keep your hands off my user page. your edits are unwarranted and not welcome. Thank you. Glendoremus (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Vaughnlogo.jpg

Sigh... Why has your bot tagged this image? It has a FUR! Exxolon (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore - I've been off wikipedia for a week and forgot I added the FUR after the tagging. Exxolon (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a minute

Could you review the additions from this user. Most/all of these images are copyvio uploads with sources like 'metal-archives.com' or pics taken directly from artist websites that have no release permission given. It's quite a slew of copyvio and it's scattered across many articles. Hard to tag them all. Any assistance would be great. Thanks! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

none were copyvio's,. there were a lot without rationales. and some were replaceable, Ive looked through them all. β^_command 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VP application

Hi betacommand, I was just wondering if you could provide a reason why my VandalProof application was rejected so I know what I need to improve in. Also could you also tell me why it said that I was approved here. Thanks.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 02:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill look into it. β^_command 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 22:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what happened. But the reason that you were rejected is your userspace to mainspace edit ratio. I Prefer to see users who dont have about a 1:1 ratio. userspace should not be as active as your mainspace/talkspace. β^_command 16:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

You deleted a previous version of Don Page (Don N. Page]] with an edit summary of G8--but it wasnt a talk page. I suppose that was a slip, for G7, but the article certainly asserted notability as a coauthor with Hawking. Perhaps you could restore the last version under the name Donald N. Page, as that's his full name and there's another Don Page. I'll then fix it. alternatively, I will just make another at the right name. He is actually quite as famous as the article says.DGG (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand's not an administrator, and, therefore can't restore it for you. Also, G7 is 'Author requests deletion'... Probably meant to delete it under A7 - 'Notability not asserted' :).... Either way, you're an admin.... I don't see a problem with you restoring it... SQL ^{Query me!} 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be any more vague?

I'm trying hard to be compliant and then I get stupid messages like this one from you:

Thanks for uploading Image:imagename.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid.

Invalid how? The templates I'm applying are in widespread use and have been acceptable to this point and now they're no good?! And this has got to be the third time around for this nonsense. How are users supposed to keep up when you keep fine tuning your bot and make compliance a moving target? I'm trying to be a good citizen and I'm more than a little frustrated over this. Wiggy! (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is not with the templates, but instead how you are using them. if you link to an image where you have questions Ill tell you what you are doing wrong. β^_command 16:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As User:OsamaK attempted to explain before you removed the tag here, the given source URL is inadequate. JPG-GR (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears the image in question came from here. Not sure what it is about, but the link wasn't that hard to find. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 images I see when I look at the 2 links in this section do not display the same image. --Onorem♠Dil 03:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was close :) Plus, I haven't the slightest what I am looking at really. Just trying to help. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam report

Why did you do this? [12].--Sandahl 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need for you to tamper with the logs, those are in fact just logs. β^_command 17:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tamper with it, I removed my name from the spammer list. My name is whitelisted here [13] and I assumed elsewhere.--Sandahl 17:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

being on that list does not make you a spammer, if you are whitelisted your name will not be reported. β^_command 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so's I now, where would said report be?--Sandahl 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what report? β^_command 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diligence!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your unwaivering determination to ensure that the fair-use guidelines are followed, despite the fact that many editors do not understand them (or choose not to understand), often resorting to attacks, personal and otherwise. Keep up the good work! JPG-GR (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, love you zealots. How about some good code that works for everybody and then give him a barnstar for that. What don't you guys understand about the fact that I understand what he's trying to do, he's just being unnecessarily sloppy and high handed about it and treating other users like they're complete retards as a bonus. Teach 'em how to fish, my ass. I wouldn't accept a blank ticket from a cop from either. Sheesh. Wiggy! (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing rocks at my head

Deliberately tracking down images I've posted and gratuitously tagging them as copy-vios is an utterly classless act - but why am I not surprised? Our argument/discussion is here and its about your bot, so make your point here, not by trying to intimdate me somehow. Stop being a dick. Wiggy! (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I reviewed some of your images. you cannot claim GDFL for an image you do not have the rights to, that is a copyvio. β^_command 06:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now show your stuff. The team is gone. There is no successor organization. I prepped the logo from an old photo of the team. The copyright is long dead. You know the drill forward and backwards. Besides tagging and deleting the image - which you state above in your preamble is not one of the objectives of your effort - what's the answer? Wiggy! (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the group is no longer active does not mean that they released the image. Unless otherwise asserted Assume that they (or the company that bought them out/took over) still have the copyright, until PD-old would take affect. β^_command 06:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be any more vague?

I'm trying hard to be compliant and then I get stupid messages like this one from you:

Thanks for uploading Image:imagename.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid.

Invalid how? The templates I'm applying are in widespread use and have been acceptable to this point and now they're no good?! And this has got to be the third time around for this nonsense. How are users supposed to keep up when you keep fine tuning your bot and make compliance a moving target? I'm trying to be a good citizen and I'm more than a little frustrated over this. Wiggy! (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is anything like my experience with asking Betacommand a question about the bot, it's probably been answered before in one of the archives, even though expecting you to read through all of them is absurd. However, in your case, it seems that you just had generic templates before being notified by BetacommandBot, a situation that is no longer considered adequate by general consensus (not just by Betacommand), and after being notified, it appears that you added specific rationales to each image. Isn't this exactly what's supposed to happen with BetacommandBot? As for the unhelpfulness of the template, see Template:No_fair, and feel free to improve it after reading up on current opinions on the matter. Unfortunately, that reading tends to take an absurd amount of time, and the whole matter is terribly complicated. --Philosophus ^T 04:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my objection is that that it should not have to be so complicated. This is literally the third time some of the images have been tagged. And I can foresee Betacommand adding more hoops to jump through and having to modify the rationales a fourth or fifth time. That's an incompetent implementation. Hash out the requirements and then run the bot. I have other stuff to do besides chasing after this week's flavour of bot.

Further, the message is useless. "May be invalid"?! So it also may be valid. The bot isn't sure, so what is an image poster supposed to do if the bot itself doesn't know the rules? And all the while under threat of the image being deleted. Where is the user-friendliness and presumption of good faith editing in that?

I understand the need for proper fair use tags. But I'm puking tired of stuff being repeatedly tagged as the rules change or because bot designers value zeal over common sense and a genuine sense of community and team work. Wiggy! (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont insult me, the rules that govern BCBot have not changed in a while (~6 months). Im sorry you cannot write a valid rationale. the reason that it says may be invalid. sometimes an image has a good rationale except for a typo in the article name, or it might link to a DaB page instead of the actual article. In those cases yes the rationale is not valid but it is just a very minor fix, compared to others who's rationales are complete bullshit. β^_command 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can write a rationale just fine, thanks. The target keeps moving. Not changed in 6 months?! That's utter crap. I understand the need for the rationales, I'm just appalled at the lack of consideration consistently demonstrated toward other users. If an image is tagged may be invalid, that has to be based on some RULE, otherwise its just a useless act of harassment. If the bot can be made to recognize a "breach" of the rules, it can also provide an appropriate error message that corresponds to what it identifies as a "problem". That is better and more useful than may be invalid. That's good programming AND basic civility. And it doesn't seem to be particularly hard thing to do. Wiggy! (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you did not read the tag on the image then. it clearly states what is wrong. β^_command 18:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. It invites me to thrash around and have a guess at what the problem might be. There is nothing explicit about it. Wiggy! (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#10c

The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item,
and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.
The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.

did you meet condition one of NFCC #10c? β^_command 01:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are single use images. And NFCC#10c was not specifically cited. As near as I can tell I've gone through all the hoops ...again. The message was ... you know ... vague ... Wiggy! (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10c was cited when the bot tagged the image. β^_command 05:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not. The warnings are still posted on my talk page in their original state. I have not changed them and they do not specifically cite any problem. They are fuzzy "You are a bad dog for some reason but we're not sure why." messages. Wiggy! (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this which is the tag that the bot left. it states what is wrong. β^_command 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you given further consideration to having the bot use {{Di-missing article links}}? It seems to me that the more detailed wording in that template would greatly reduce the number of complaints. --Carnildo (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the bot tags images citing NFCC #10c for when it finds fair use rationale templates that have not been updated to include the recently-created Article parameter, even if the article is explicitly stated elsewhere in the FUR. This is what happened the last time it notified me of an invalid fair use image. Frankly, it made me quite upset, not unlike Wiggy. Because the message wasn't specific, I thought that the bot was critiquing the validity of my wording of the rationale, not that the bot merely didn't understand for which article I was specifying fair use. I don't know if that's what happened in this case, but it wouldn't hurt to be more specific about which aspect of the fair use criteria is not being met. That might help prevent hotheads like me from blowing their tops. Just a suggestion. :) Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through images, tacking on the required article parameter - which was added, by the way, after I had started the work of updating the fair use tags the first go around. In any case, that's not the issue here because its a clear citation of the problem that lends itself to a straight forward easy to undertand fix.Wiggy! (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually the bot does not look for that parameter. it does look for the article name as part of the rationale. β^_command 04:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then for some other reason, it missed that the article name was specified twice in this rationale. [14] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no you linked to the wrong article, you linked to The Mummy Case while the image was used in The Mummy Case (Hardy Boys) please note the difference. I hope that helps. β^_command 05:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That finally makes some sense. Too bad it's my fault. ;) Sorry about that. I do still think that your message could be more specific, though. I was indeed confused that it was disputing my rationale, not the backlink to the article. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: My edits to the RfA Report

I am not a bad user, just testing how that blink thing worked in IE and combined with Wikisyntax, around that box there. I forgot there was a place for that. —/* aba dafa */ +C0 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted what you did, I understand. β^_command 19:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my edits.

Hi, I am really sorry for my edits. Actually I was testing open proxy web site. My IP is a web proxy servers IP. I can using http://www.cloak-me.info, can report it admins to block it. I have tried abut 35 sites before it and any one does not work saying it is blocked. But it is working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.200.52.180 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iapt.gif)

I am in the process of updating the article which will use this image. This is why it is orphaned. If the bot (and its user) will be patient, then the image soon will not be orphaned. Please see my sandbox. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cbs.com screenshot confirms bb9.JPG

Can you read the summary of the image please? Is that not acceptable? The deletion notice clearly states "...Unless some reason to retain it is given, the image will be deleted after...", and I've given a reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images must be used in article space otherwise they will be deleted, there is no exceptions for this. If you are using the snapshot of the website as a reference, then there is nothing wrong with using the {{cite web}} template to point to CBS.com and using an accessdate to say when you got it ; yes the site will change, but good faith should allow people to trust what you saw. Alternatively, I see several possible articles that can be also used to confirm the show instead of relying on a screenshot from a website. --MASEM 01:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable would be from CBS itself, obviously. It is being used in the article, just not in a way that we are used to. Also, I cannot use citeweb because it is not a current screenshot of the website. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that. I understand what you mean now. There's the problem with the unhelpful bot. Thanks for your help, - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, can you just go ahead and delete the page now then? I've taken care of referencing it otherwise. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rphaned non-free media (Image:Cover-UnJourDEte.jpg)

You wrote: Thanks for uploading Image:Cover-UnJourDEte.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cover-UnJourDEte.jpg is now being used in Un Jour d'été, with appropriate templates included. Karol (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the screenshot of Photoshop CS3

My screenshot of Photoshop CS3 is already replaced by other people in Wikipedia. You shouldn't ask me for it.--Meow ✉ 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I know you get a lot of questions, so I'll keep this short. The bot tagged Image:Eminem Infinite Cover.jpg as having an invalid rationale. The uploader claims the rationale is ok. I have no opinion either way, but I'm just bringing this here to see if the rationale is valid. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Images

Go ahead and delete them. --Coconutfred73 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media

Thanks for the notice. All of the images you flagged can be safely deleted. I replaced them all with freely-licensed images on Wikimedia Commons. Huidafa (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Warning...

Regarding the warning you gave me on my talk page, I'm not really that sure on how to add images to a page. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Larry_Lurkington_and_User:Betacommand. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

short question

I was looking over my watchlist when I noticed the VP waiting list. I see you did'nt approve me, and I assume I was'nt picked because of my edit count (I think it was about 900 edits). I've added myself again, as I have 2300 edits and I have seriously started contributing to the wiki, by reverting, adding, tagging , warning etc... so a quick question, do you think I would qualify now?

thanks, cf38^talk 19:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval backlog

Just a heads up that there's several waiting for approval over at that site. Thanks. SkierRMH (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobots

How do I get this bot to respect the nobots template on my talkpage? Skomorokh ^incite 21:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobots is not a mandatory standard, many anti-vandal bots, for example, do not allow opting out, for obvious reasons. This bot ignores it for the same reasons. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 03:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the {{nobots}} on my page primarily because of this bot - I think it's great and useful for others, certainly, and agree entirely with its purpose. However, I downsized a couple hundred fair use images according to fair use regulations, and I keep getting messages when those images are no longer used or when they are put up for deletion. They are NOT my original images and I don't claim responsibility for them, as that lies with the person who uploaded them in the first place. Thus my getting messages is exceedingly annoying and happens often; which is why I added the template to my talk page.
If this bot isn't going to respect the template, could you at least fix it so there is an opt-out for users such as I (I've never uploaded a fair use image of my own, nor will I) or have the bot look at the original uploader via the upload history? I spoke to you/bot owner/Betacommand about this on IRC some months ago, and was told I'd be put on a whitelist or something and wouldn't receive messages any longer - but I did until {{nobots}} was added and now am once again. I'm wary of downsizing more fairuse images if I'm going to be constantly flooded with messages when I'm not around much to remove the notices, it's rather a pain :/
Many thanks! -- Editor at Large • talk 04:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor at Large, Ill double check the list, and if your not on it all add you. β^_command 15:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup bot

As per my previous requests, please add a cleanup function to your bot. I've just had another 8 noticed placed on my user page after a user blanked an entire tier of a page. I'm having having to spend my time removing notices that your bot placed on each image when I really should only be pressing a button to do this. Please either add some oversight to your bot or add a cleanup function. bots are meant to make our lives easier not harder.

perfectblue (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a {{will not fix}} β^_command 15:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,

Won't fix is a perfectly good template that even works :) --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to warning

The image isn't being used directly on an article, but it has been used in discussion of an article. Removal of the article destroys evidence in the discussion. The image is not orphaned. Alyeska (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worklist

Regarding this comment, there ought to be a way to figure out the worklist so as to avoid retagging an image a couple times. People will, after all, tend to fix an image shortly after it is tagged. How many items do you grab from the transclusion of {{non-free media}} at a time? Gimmetrow 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It rarely happens as the list it uses is updated fairly often. β^_command 02:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it happened here some 4 hours after the problem had been fixed. Is there anything you can do to account for this? Gimmetrow 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

*Poke!* Care to update the list the next time you feel like wasting half an hour? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 09:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit really neccessary

[15] , the user is indefinately banned. King of the North East 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how is the bot supposed to know that? β^_command 02:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the bot knows it or not, this sort of notification is important. Most of the time I find out about a problem with an image only because β-bot dropped a message on a watchlisted usertalk page. Some of those users are indef-blocked. Gimmetrow 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what Betacommand meant to say is that the bot doesn't check if users are banned, as that would require an extra edit for each image, causing considerable server load and bot speed issues. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mehrunes Dagon.jpg

Go ahead and delete it. Peter1968 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot mistakes and stupidity

Someone please get this bot under control. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bot has been blocked for one hour for mistakenly identifying good faith edits as vandalism. [16] This is annoying to me and doubtlessly will be to other good-faith editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hay fucktard Im not a bot. and read our policy. β^_command 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the abuse please. I have read the policy, I have provided the necessary justification, and I have included the image in an article. This complies with the policy. Please explain where the vandalism occurred. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the removal of templates without addressing the issue is vandalism, when I opened the page the image was not used. β^_command 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was addressed. I tried to reach you/the bot twice and received no response. I explained both on the bot's talk page [17] and my own talk page [18] about the draft that was happening. You then accused me of vandalism, reverted the edits without discussing the matter with me at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You pointed to a Non-free image being used outside the mainspace, per WP:NFCC#9 that is not allowed. I removed it, you violated policy and re-inserted it. I checked that image and it was orphaned and the tag had been removed. I reverted it. As for drafting a new version of the article, you have seven days to use it, before its deleted. you should not remove it because it will be used, that is not a valid reason. the only reason that you should remove a ORFU tag is when it is used. β^_command 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But instead of responding to me politely, you chose first to communicate via vandalism templates [19] and now wikilawyering. Perhaps next time you discover a problem, particularly with a user that has shown a willingness to communicate, and who has asked for a bit of patience on your part, you can show that patience? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am following policy, the tag in question gives you seven days of patience. Im sorry but dont attempt to make your fuckup my fault. you violated WP:BLOCK along with our NFC policy. β^_command 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the policy. As I read it, it gives me 48 hours unless the image was loaded before 2006-07-13. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice does not check dates, instead it gives all image related deletions seven days. go ask any admin working on images. also check the date on the tag, it says December 22. β^_command 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps the policy page should be corrected to match practice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right ladies, chill out for a sec. Betacommand, you shouldn't be reverting those edits as vandalism - they weren't, if you revert in the future, please use a more descriptive summary. EncyclopPetey, that was a bad block and you should think about things before acting in the future - but there's no real harm done, and the block log has been annotated - now, let's leave each other alone and move on please. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Ryan, seems both of EP and BC escalated this very quickly, when it would probably do everyone well to calm down and think about things for a second. What's the big hurry? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still blocked Betacommand when you should not have. I think you should apologize for that. Prodego ^talk 21:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, calling someone a fucktard when they come to you with a legitimate concern is completely inappropriate. I'm sure you know this already. If you can't respond to problem reports in a mature manner, you should probably just turn off the bot for good. Friday (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday when he blocks me for following policy and ignoring my comments I get in trouble that makes no sense, Sorry If I get offended, but stupid actions by supposedly experienced users, that are newbie mistakes piss me off. I expect some respect, especially from long term users. β^_command 21:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right.. well, I'm not saying he did the right thing. I just noticed the name calling and thought something should be said. Friday (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Betacommand, above where I pointed out your mistakes (no real apology from you on that) regarding some of your edits regarding the famous americans fiasco, could I have called you a fucktard? Your responses to people on your talk page here continue to show a lack of respect and civility towards others. Please consider calming down and addressing things in an appropriate and calm manner. Name calling is a personal attack. We all make mistakes, as you pointed out, but name calling is not the proper action. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, you know full well that your bot has pissed a lot of people off. And it doesn't matter what the rationale is or how well-supported it is by policy. Referring to editors as "fucktards" is not going to endear you and your cause to anyone, and simply using the excuse that he has pissed you off and you're annoyed at such behavior from a long-term editor doesn't excuse your behavior. Disagree all you want, but keep things civil. And that goes for the people bitching at you, too. Using terms like "stupidity" and the like are pushing it on their part, too. 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have been as pissed of if EncycloPetey had blocked the bot. EncycloPetey blocked me. that is what caused my outrage about an un called for block. β^_command 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if it is possible for people to make this mistake, you perhaps need to clarify this somewhere DGG (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what's wrong with this image now

Why is the bot tagging images with only PD templates for fair use issues? Gimmetrow 01:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you had recently changed the status of the image. It was still listed as FU for the bot. β^_command 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was some hours ago. You're saying the bot doesn't read the current version of the page before tagging? I realize this saves a ton of page loads, but shouldn't it check the current page status? Gimmetrow 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it gets a list of pages from {{non-free media}} and then works off that, due to the length of that list, ~305,000 so working thought that does take some time, along with the fact that non-free media is not trancluded directly makes it harder to track. β^_command 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a sufficiently major bug that the bot should not be running if it can't deal with page changes in a timely manner. OrphanBot's solution is to check the image description page of each image just before editing. --Carnildo (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been playing with the settings and this should be avoided in the future. β^_command 15:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg

Pity this bot can't read... Here is the summary I included immediately on uploading with relevant phrase bolded here: Summary - Frontispiece with initial "B.R." credit; caption (incorrect): "The famous L.N.E.R Pacific class locomotive 'The Flying Scotsman' in Hind J.R. "The Book of the Railway" (Collins clear-type press, London & Glasgow, UK). No Publication date, but certainly around 1935/6. Request inclusion in LNER Class A1/A3 article (image temporarily downloaded to User:John of Paris/sandbox 6) as book is long-since out of print and no free licence image adequately represents this famous locomotive type in its best-known form. New version of article is almost complete and it will shortly be transferred to WP main space.--John of Paris (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace does not count as an article. WP:NFCC states that non-free images cannot be used outside of mainspace. The bot is correct. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This just means that the policy is too rigid and WP is over-policed - and as usual over-policing mainly hassles people acting in good faith.--John of Paris (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Fair use in the U.S. only really covers educational usage. Since userpages aren't articles, they aren't being used for educational purposes. Just wait until the article is ready for the article mainspace, and then upload the image. There shouldn't be a problem after that. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CVG

Please move them back. Computer games are not video games! Actually, video games should have VG, while computer games should have CG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyano czespony (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to explain your request...BetacommandBot doesn't move anything, perhaps you meant to ask the operator, User:Betacommand? Otherwise, we'll need a link. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is talking about a wikiproject that merged a month or so ago that BCBot helped with template transfering/renaming. β^_command 15:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering

When are you going to be able to pass the people in line who want to be able to use VandalProof? Redmarkviolinist ^(talk) 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Notre Dame Leprechaun.png

This image meets Wikipedia's standards for fair use. The Notre Dame Leprechaun is an important symbol of the University's athletic programs. The Leprechaun with his fists up ready to fight is an image that one immediately associates with Notre Dame. As such, it is placed in the infobox for the article, showing the reader that he or she has found the correct article. It is used in its entirety, to the specifications provided by the University's style guide. It is big enough to be recognized, but not unnecessarily large. Please inform me where this rationale falls short and I will provide it. Plenty of other college athletics logos are hosted on this site, and are not subject to your bot's attention. If this image does not have the proper rationale, then please delete every other school's logo in the Big East Conference.

--Pgp688 (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, be aware that non-free fair use images cannot be used in User: space - the Leprechaun is being used in both your user page and a userbox of yours and they must be deleted from there (however, these are not why you received the warning). As for the warning BCB put on your page, you have a correct fair-use rationale for one article, Notre Dame Fighting Irish, but it is also being used in University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, and Notre Dame Leprechaun, and there are no separate fair-use rationales listed for those. You need a total of 4 rationales for that image. --MASEM 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VPApproval.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VPApproval.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Nazi

Ever get tired of deleting pictures just because it's not fair use? Who really cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.193.36 (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the copyright lawyers. Woody (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The owners of the copyrighted materials? SQL ^{Query me!} 12:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, Betacommand tags images because they are fair use. I personally care more about education than whether an image is fair use or not.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Image:Greek-English Lexicon.jpg, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Gnfgb2 (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heard of WP:3RR anyone? I have fixed the rationale now. Woody (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not apply for me, please see WP:3RR reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies;, β^_command 11:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a general note in case Gnfgb2 was watching here. There is also no excuse for it really. Would it not have been easier to put the link in? Woody (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you and I both hit his talkpage, at the same time, it seems. SQL ^{Query me!} 12:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TCSL.JPG

Thanks for the reminder. I have removed your speedy delete template after adding a fair use rationale.. -- Anshuk (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE - Image:It's Immaterial.jpg

Your Bot's tag advised me to contact you to discuss the rationale. Later today I'll provide a better rationale. If that is also inadequate, any advice would be gratefullly received. Yozzer66 (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image fine

Image:Welfare Park.jpg for copyright purposes. Thanks. Sunder land 06 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Paul Flynn Image

I believe I have covered all the criteria needed for this non-free image for Paul flynn.JPG I've provided link to the original image, a link to the one page that the image is being used on and 4 reasons for its usage including the fact that it is a low quality image. Your bot blieves I've just put a template without any reasons what so ever. Under this I believe the image shouldn't be removed. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the image is that one cannot claim fair use for a living person. A picture of a living person could be replaced if anyone took a new picture of that person and agreed to liscence it compatable with GFDL. In order to claim fair use, one must be able to claim that a free version could not be created. That is clearly not teh case with this image. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation required.

Hi,

I've been given a warning on my userpage regarding a picture and it's free usage. Thing is, I'm unsure as to exactly why I've been given a warning as I don't have a picture on my userpage other than userboxes which I've grabbed from the userbox list maintained by Wiki.

Can this be explained so I can remove said warning which doesn't relate to anything I've actually imported onto the site?!

Thanks in advance Drivenapart (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too have a message regarding use of an image, it appears to be the coat of arms for Greater MAnchester in one of my userboxes- should the image be used in a userbox? Hiddenfromview (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings comrade- from several watchpages, I see that there is an objection to the Coat of Arms of Greater Manchester. A fair use rationale has been added so if I am right- the objection can now be removed. I have a few questions.

Who is supposed to remove it- will it automatically disappear from the 96 sites that use it (random number-lifes to short to count)
Is the objection to a coat of arms being used?
Is the objection to this particular rendering of the coat of arms?
If User:AN Other re rendered it as a svg- would that be acceptable to w:en:?
If User:AN Other re rendered it as a svg- would that be acceptable to :commons:?
You have found Gtr Manchester- but does this apply to other coats of arms not yet found?
What is the status of photographs of village signs in situ, but containing a 2D representation of the shield or coat of arms of that village, erected 25 years ago, or 75 years ago?

ClemRutter (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images cannot be used in userboxes, or anywhere outside articles. This likely applies to all coats of arms with extant holder, regardless of copyright status, as they constitute logos. See template:non-free symbol, which is transcluded on Image:Greater Manchester County Council Arms.png.

As for the photograph question, if the shield on the village sign is merely incidental, freedom of panorama may apply, but will not if the photograph is being used to take an end run around the copyright of the symbol. HTH. EdC (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why your bot thinks the image should be deleted

This image First Things First.jpg has been tagged by your bot as not qualifying for fair use. I am using an album cover image in the manner specifically allowed as per the discussion at the links you provide. I am using the standard template provided for use by album covers. If there is something else wrong then you need to tell me specifically what needs to be corrected. Christopher Rath (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Jayron32 has edited my post to remove displaying of the image; which I understand. What I don't understand Jayron32 is your comment that the problem has been corrected. Yes, I removed the spurious text inserted by the bot, but I still have no idea what the bot thinks was wrong with my use of the image and/or the rationale I've provided.

I ask again, would someone---preferrably the bot's owner---please explain why the bot is complaining!

Christopher Rath (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale needs a link to the use of the image: no redirects, no disambigs, the exact page it's used on. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Image:Birminghambullslogo.GIF]

Hello. Thank you for notifying me about my lack of rationale for the image [Image:Birminghambullslogo.GIF]. I have added the requisite rationale, and the image should therefore not be deleted. Thank you. Man from the Ministry (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:407guydenning.jpg

I trust this has been tagged in error. It is an artwork in an article about the artist. It cannot be replaced by a free equivalent or an equivalent made by a wikipedia editor. Tyrenius (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to create a bot

I'm planning to make a new bot to help the featured portal candidates but I don't know how to get started. I'm planning to use AWB for this bot. (For details, see Wikipedia talk:Creating a bot#Planning to make a new bot) I hope you can guide me through the process because bot is not my specialty. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polbot

"....your bot is making a huge mess" - Doesn't that sound familiar....like something YOUR bot does on a daily basis? "....butchering rationales, its adding wrong rationales" - um...no, it isn't. It is adding the exact rationales that you demand.

I find it quite hysterical that when someone creates a bot that adds fair-use rationales to images, you are the first one to complain about it. You should be thrilled that someone has created a bot that will make your job easier, instead of complaining about it. Hysterical at it's best, I tells ya. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WBE

Just a friendly poke as requested here. JPG-GR (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have the bot check this page out:

The Impressions has image copyright issues. You may want to check it out. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alec.jpg

You're going to have to explain this one for me. This isn't the standard use a fair use image in a biography case, this is an instance where we're discussing an artist, so we are using an instance of his art within context within the article. I don't want to tag war over you on this, but in this case the use of the image can be justified. Hiding T 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOWN discussion of Image Bots

Hey BC, would you be able to have a quick look at WP:BOWN#Coordination between fair use bots -- maelgwn - talk 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of animals in The Simpsons

Get over yourself, it is hardly vandalism. Show me where it says we can't have ANY images. why don't you contribute to wikipedia more constructively then going around deleting images all the time Ctjf83 ^talk 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its been discussed before, as for contributing to wikipedia I have over 9 times your edit count so I dont want to hear that crap. you need to comply with our WP:NFC policy. β^_command 18:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DUH, your edits are all removing pics....i said SHOW ME, where it say in policy we can't have a few images. just because you, and a few other anti-image people say we can't, hardly means it is policy Ctjf83 ^talk 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

read the signpost and other previous discussions about it (ANI had one) please, It was decided over 6 months ago about images in lists. β^_command 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't linked me to any of it, how am i suppose to find this "sign post". thats what all you anti-image people do, you never link to specifics Ctjf83 ^talk 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation β^_command 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with you, you don't want to link to OFFICIAL POLICY so i'm done...some user's talk page, a retired one, who was probably tired of dealing with you isn't good enough Ctjf83 ^talk 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand, you need to chill...the user asked for a link to official policy, it ain't that hard to link to. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed the user to the best resource available. the issue is policy interpertation, which per previous discussions dont allow NFC in lists. if Ctjf83 read what I linked he would understand why its not allowed. β^_command 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, you have to remember, Neutralhomer doesn't like to read things. You have to spell things out letter for letter for him. Also, it's funny he accuses me of stalking him, but he just keeps popping up to join in on conversations on your talk page like this, oh what fun it is to have double standards. And no, Neutralhomer, I did not follow you here, I only came to comment because I saw "List of animals in The Simpsons" and thought that was an odd section title. Metros (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...and I have this on my talk page. Odd isn't it? Also, as soon as I get done typing this, you will receive a warning for personal attacks. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros stick to topic...ya, well it's not listed here so i don't care what you, and your anti-image buddies decided before i even knew about wiki Ctjf83 ^talk 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please continue the discussion here. It's just better than having loads of different discussion all over Wikipedia. .:Alex:. 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

real low, what is that for Ctjf83 ^talk 03:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your conflict with User:Ctjf83

Betacommand, following Ctjf's newest WP:AN posting, your problems with Ctjf83 sound like they have reached a point where they would best be resolved through the Dispute Resolution (WP:DR) process. Might I suggest you begin a Request for Mediation (WP:RFM) or post your concerns specifically regarding the Simpsons articles on the Third Opinion board (WP:3O). It appears to me that these are the next logical steps in resolving your conflict. Best of luck, --CastAStone /^/(talk) 04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no harassing, Ctjf needs to understand and follow policy, not make personal attacks and un civil comments, I kindly show him an answer to a question and refuses to read it. Policy is not a dispute. all he is doing is throwing up smoke. β^_command 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. He does not interpret the policies in the way that most Wikipedians do, and I thought that an authority with some oomph might bring resolution to that. Also, it might resolve the problems that have been on WP:AN for two days. However, this post on my talk page indicates to me that this point might be moot [20].--CastAStone /^/(talk) 04:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wikipedians by edit numeber

[21] ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm working on it myself, I hope to be able to do it ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Autodesk logo.png

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixedSpitfire (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragonology

Hi. Since one unidentified user has made a comment (and one that appears to know next to nothing about dragonology) I decided to come here to ask you a favor. See, most of the material in the "Species" section has been plagarized straight from the book, and seeing as I have better things to do, I wanted to come here and ask you if you could reword it. Please respond on my talk. Thanks, --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 15:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marvin Monroe.jpg

what do you want me to put to get rid of the tag Ctjf83 ^talk 01:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you need a rationale β^_command 01:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uhh...it had 10 things before you just deleted them Ctjf83 ^talk 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that was a rationale for a different article. β^_command 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well at one time it was on that article, before you went on a deletion binge...i'll fix it Ctjf83 ^talk 01:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont just copy/paste other rationales. the one you copied is not valid. β^_command 01:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ur just splitting hairs to piss me off...it is valid, who cares if it follows the same rational as another pic Ctjf83 ^talk 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is not valid. and I dont care if making you follow policy pisses you off or not. Also this is the English wikipedia please use English and not net speak. β^_command 01:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'll get right on that...what do u want me to put to make it valid Ctjf83 ^talk 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE USE ENGLISH, and see this guide β^_command 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid rationale. There are still thousands of fair use images with no rationale whatsoever, why don't you track those down instead of purposely trying to aggravate users? Seriously, you're starting to border on harassment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry that you consider enforcing policy is harassment. but the rationale on that image is not valid. β^_command 02:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've been wikistalking Ctjf83. You're a former admin, you ought to know better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if I was stalking him I would go over every image that he ever uploaded. Im just spot checking BCBot. the rationale for Image:Marvin Monroe.jpg is not valid and I will re-tag it soon if its not fixed. β^_command 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this where he and I were having a despute and you just showed up out of nowhere and reverted his edit when you knew that he already had 3 reverts and one more would be a 3RR violation? And then it's a bit fishy that you are giving him grief over this image, when most of the images for fictional characters use a similar rationale. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if he follows policy I have no problems. But in regard to Image:Marvin Monroe.jpg, it has an invalid rationale plain and simple. β^_command 02:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the image? What is basically that rationale is used on several FAs and GAs. Is it that there is no source? Either way, tell me exactly what is wrong with the rationale rather than just repeating that it isn't valid. And you should be aware that I am strongly considering reporting your harrassment of Ctjf83 to the ANI, because a former admin should not be doing things like that. I hate to break it to you, but a LOT of images use a cut and paste rationale, so why are you going after one that he uploaded? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

take me to ANI, Ctjf83 tried to claim harassment and was proven wrong just yesterday. Also see number 10 in the template above. The image has an improper non-free use claim, on how and why its being used. β^_command 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the improper non-free use claim? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion fill out {{non-free rationale}} without looking at the copy/paste rationale and you should fix it. β^_command 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, why do you continually harrass editors about adding a "proper" rationale when there are tens of thousands of images with none whatsoever? And don't just add some generic response, I'm genuinely curious. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont harass users, I work on enforcing policy, as for your statement see 10 in the template above. I just have not gotten to all the images yet. β^_command 04:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I discovered the problem with the rationale (It identified the character as Agnes), now why couldn't you have just explained that in the first place, or have fixed it yourself? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is not why I tagged it. β^_command 05:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're obviously not going to specifically say what your problem is, so I just uploaded a screenshot. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request...

Will you please tweak your bot to add an exception for me about warnings regarding to unused/disputed/etc non-free images? I have re-uploaded possibly hundreds of these in reduced resolution (as per WP:NFCC, but since the original versions were deleted, your bot thinks that I am the original uploader and, hence, it warns me about them. I'm really tired of getting these warnings and that has completely put me off resizing any more. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done β^_command 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, that's fast. :) Is it possible to make your bot check the page history instead of whatever it's doing now in order to find the original uploader? Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 02:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No as it would create too much extra load on the server for very little gain. β^_command 02:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 03:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Beaver

I took these photos, or they were taken by my staff members, and are open use for anyone that wants to use them AS LONG AS they have the logo in the image. --Ryanjcole (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong template

The change here was incorrect. There was no rationale to begin with. I fixed it. --Rockfang (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why your bot thinks the image should be deleted

This Image:First Things First.jpg has been tagged by your bot as not qualifying for fair use. I am using an album cover image in the manner specifically allowed as per the discussion at the links you provide. I am using the standard template provided for use by album covers. If there is something else wrong then you need to tell me specifically what needs to be corrected. Christopher Rath (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Jayron32 has edited my post to remove displaying of the image; which I understand. What I don't understand Jayron32 is your comment that the problem has been corrected. Yes, I removed the spurious text inserted by the bot, but I still have no idea what the bot thinks was wrong with my use of the image and/or the rationale I've provided.

I ask again, would someone---preferrably the bot's owner---please explain why the bot is complaining!

Christopher Rath (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale needs a link to the use of the image: no redirects, no disambigs, the exact page it's used on. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally added the rationale, the link to the page was not ambiguous. Sometime since my update, other contributors added WP entries with the same name as the original page I had created. I appreciate the tip from User:ST47. Thank you.

The tip from User:ST47 uncovers a problem with the bot: the bot should have told me that the link now pointed to a disambiguation page intead of telling me that the image was being inappropriately used. I realise that to do a proper job of this would require that the bot maintain state information (something that will probably never happen); however, there is a simple solution that would improve things: have the bot begin its spam posting with a paragraph that lists situations where an image may have previously checked-out but now fails the bot's tests. One example of such a situation is where the link to the image's use now points to a disambiguation page.

Another improvement that should be made to the bot is that it should include in its posting text which tells the user which internal bot rule the image failed. If the bot is properly coded this is a trivial change to the programme and I believe it would greatly reduce the anger level contributors feel when this bot spams their contributions.

Christopher Rath (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Betacommand, why no response to my suggestions?

Christopher Rath (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ST47 was correct per WP:NFCC #10C you need to state what article the rationale is for. the bot was looking for this and did not find it and it tagged it. β^_command 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware that ST47 was correct, and I stated that earlier in this thread. I then went on to suggestion two methods by which you could improve your bot. It is those suggestions I was expecting you to comment upon (since everything had already been addressed). Christopher Rath (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the rule that the image fails is a regex of page names that few would understand. also if you read the tag on the image you will clearly see that it requires the article name. β^_command 19:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you haven't actually read my posts. You continue to provide information others (including myself) have already provided. Christopher Rath (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why was Image:Full Disclosure.JPG tagged? Lampman (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have the rationale link directly to the actual article(s) it applies to: in this case, Full Disclosure (The West Wing). EdC (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple suggestion regarding the bot

When tagging for non-free, you may want to bold the Media copyright questions page. It should provide those who get the message focus on that page rather than yours. Just a friendly suggestion to hopefully make life easier for all. Happy Holidays! spryde | talk 12:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Droit

Just so you know. [22] Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you block me for telling you what you are, there will be a holy war, I promise you that. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself. --Ryanjcole (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanjcole, what a stupid and utterly dumb comment that was from yourself. Before jumping in head first like a total clown, actually have the full facts of the situation first. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirected pages

While this Bot is providing a valuable service in keeping everyone honest in their image use, it could be made better. When the page mentioned in the image's fair use notice goes missing because the page was renamed or merged elsewhere could a more helpful notice be posted instead of the fair-use dispute notice? This condition would be easily detectable by the bot as the page listed in the fair use notice is replaced with a redirect. If the bot could follow that link, verify that the image is still there, and update the fair use notice with the new article title where the image is being used that would be even better. This would be a bit friendly and certainly more useful than the "tag 'em all and let the editors sort 'em out" approach.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC) BCBot follows redirects. β^_command 20:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

How I delete an image from wikipedia, Could you tell me please? Thanks,
Omar otiniano (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized article

You've put an advice on the John Norum video-discography page I've written. I don't know how to categorize it... I think the right category is Discographies, and the main page is John Norum but I don't know how to put the right template. Could you help me? Many thanks, F. --MusicIsMyLove 02:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Commons duplicates

I recently spotted Image:Caleb Cushing.jpg, and I can confirm that the image on Commons is the same as the one here. What else do I need to check for, and what should I do next? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also randomly going through the category of dupes, and noticed that Image:Fortaleza.jpg had been deleted on Commons, but was still tagged here as a dupe. I'd be happy to do some work on that category, but what is the right thing to do here? It was deleted on Commons for lacking essential source info, but I can't see whether it was the same image or not. I don't want to get too bogged down in assessing the appropriateness of individual images, but more confirming dupes and removing images from Category:Images with another image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons if the page no longer exists on Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot malfunction

The bot's ignoring redirects again: [23]. Are you going to fix it, or do I need to block the bot? --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Angyali udvozlet.jpg

Publicity image for The Annunciation (film)

I feel I am unable to comply with all the requirements you have imposed on Angyali udvozlet.jpg, despite the fact that the image has been up for nearly a year with no complaints.

Please feel free to delete it.

Ganymede 901 (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Briarrpb.jpg

I'm not sure what the concern is here; I think I've met the criteria for non-free content, and seeing as the two covers are quite different, it seems appropriate to include an image of both. The image is in very low resolution, is used minimally. Please advise. _Jame§^ugrono 12:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iamthemovie.jpg

Your bot has repeatedly complained about Image:Iamthemovie.jpg
I have done everything in my power to explain it and justify it's use, what more does it want? -- ZookPS3 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a casual observer: you're providing a rationale for a page that the image isn't used on (you're citing I Am the Movie, whereas it is used on My Favorite Accident). Your image appears to be a duplicate of Image:Motion City Soundtrack - I Am the Movie.jpg (albeit clearer and slightly larger). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arg. Ok I'll let it be deleted since there is already another version. -- ZookPS3 (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giano_II. John254 04:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furry critter size articles

It would consist of everything in Category:Mammals but excluding Category:Fictional mammals and derivatives. If you had time to set this up I'd be very appreciative (and I think Tim'd be too) :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivate this bot now!

Obviously it doesn't understand what is a "fair use rationale".

It wrote in the talk page of Basque Country (autonomous community)

Image:Euskadi escudo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The image was later deleted.

Yet no human would have ever done that. As it was self-evident that the schuteon was appropiately placed in that page.

Destroy this bot before it does more damage. --Sugaar (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you actually read Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as the bot suggests before ranting like this? If you did, you'd know what it meant under "no explanation of rationale". Non-free content can only be included on Wikipedia under very strict rules. Миша 13 11:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help from BetacommandBot

Could you get your bot to help remove about all links from this linksearch, excluding the links on the Administrators Noticeboard and the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard? Theres about 156 links total to be removed, so a bot and/or AWB would be perfect for this. Thanks! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCBot cannot remove links, But I cleared that spammer out. β^_command 17:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for removing them! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nada Surf Lucky.jpg

The use of the licensing

This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers

solely to illustrate the audio recording in question,
on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.
Fair use

To the uploader:

Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
For example non-free use rationales, see Wikipedia:Use rationale examples.
This tag should only be used for covers of audio recording releases.
Either of the following may be helpful for stating the rationale: Template:Album rationale or Template:Non-free use rationale album cover.

To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.

seems to follow the wikipedia guidelines.

I have added the source of the image. Nadasurfan (talk)

Please read that template:

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. For an example fair use rationale, see here.

β^_command 13:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk [[]] 00:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:Logo-peterborough.jpg

Please do not delete this image, which includes the following fair use rationale: "The exhibition of low-resolution images of logos, to illustrate the subject in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell product or said image. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The further use of this image on Wikipedia is not believed to disadvantage the copyright holder in any way." Use of the logo of Peterborough City Council, in an article on elections to that council, is fair, within the meaning of the Copyright Act 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107. Chrisieboy (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a rationale, please see this β^_command 16:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up my orphaned fair use uploads, BetaCommandBot! You are an efficient and effective artificial life form. —Burn Down Babylon 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot problem?

Not sure if this is a problem - but the bot just posted a message on Talk:Pura Cup regarding fair-use of Image:Pura Cup logo.jpg. The image description page already has a fair use rationale on it? If this isn't a bot problem please let me know on my talk page incase I miss the conversation otherwise. -- Chuq (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot tagging disambiguation articles as uncategorized

BetacommandBot has been marking articles as uncategorized when they have a category. Disambiguation articles such as Chasers (disambiguation) and ZJ were tagged with {{uncategorized}}, but they were already in a category. When articles are tagged with {{disambig}}, it automatically puts them in Category:Disambiguation. This is an appropriate way to categorize disambiguation pages. Please modify BetacommandBot to ignore disambiguation pages when checking for a category. Thank you. --Mysdaao ^talk 13:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering

Hey, when are you going to get to approving the people on the waiting list for VandalProof? The list gets bigger and bigger every day. Thanks, Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:Eagle 101/SpamInDabs

Why was the unlinking done in this edit? --Geniac (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that was me, there was an issue with the IE, I was removing extra links to wikipedia. Im trying to clean up our article space self links and that page was adding thousands of un-needed links. β^_command 16:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]