User talk:Betacommand/20070601

Rationale of fair use for Article Name

1. No free or public domain images have been located for this album.
   
2. The image is of lower resolution than the original cover.
   
3. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the single in any way.
   
4. For an article about an album, the cover artwork is very important and adds significantly to the article.
   
5. The image is of lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, and could not be used as artwork on illegal CD or vinyl copies of the single.
   
6. This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is. The cover is being used for informational purposes only.

{{Non-free album cover}} rather than all the hastle it causes? Stolen from your page heh, but it's a nice template for all album covers, and edit it slightly for logos. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 08:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not the admin's job to fix what the uploader should have done ages ago. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the admins job to break articles when tagging things willy nilly either. Still, why can the bot not place that on album covers, and an edited version on logos, it provides a simple rationale that is correct for every album cover, and could easily be placed into the code. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not? The folks at Wikiproject Deletion seem to have a different view: I mean, even they say: "Whenever possible, FIX. Whenever possible, SOURCE. Whenever possible, FIND THE NOTABILITY." And these are the hardcore deletion folks! But again, that's apparently too much to ask of Betacommand and his bot. It does however, suggest a new marketing campaign: "Betacommand, and the Betacommandbot - More Delete-y Goodness than than those slackers over at WikiProject Deletion!"  ;) Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Upload disagrees :P User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when? Most of these images were uploaded ages ago. Betacommand could've easily fix them with his bot, yet he uses this bot to annoy the hell out of wikipedians. I find it ridiculous that you even try to defend this worthless waste of time.  Grue  10:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And just how is Betacommand supposed to know that the criteria presented above are actually true for a random image? Stop asking us to be psychics and making unreasonable demands of editors. The only ones who can really know if those criteria are true are the original uploader and maybe those who are intimately familiar with the subject. --ElKevbo 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1 - No such thing as a public domain album cover.

2 - If it's smaller than a 4" square then it's low res.

3 - It doesn't limit them, infact it helps them by giving them more "publicity".

4 - Obvious.

5 - See 2.

6 - This is going to be the case in about 99.9% of the time, due to sites like last.fm, amazon. etc

That's how he's going to know. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 09:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are a whole bunch or unproven or outright wrong assumptions. --ElKevbo 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How so, would you explain what is wrong with those? ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 11:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Grue Im not going to go into a rant about your actions here. (even though I have solid ground to do so). If you think complying with US law is a waste of time I suggest you leave the project. and a bot cannot fix FUR as every image needs its own individual rationale for each use on every page where its used. Its impossible for a bot to do that. My stance with Images is either make them comply with policy or delete. I dont care which happens. I ask that images be brought into compliance with the policy. As per policy either they have a valid FUG or they get deleted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're full of shit. Complying with US law doesn't require any fair use rationales (last.fm doesn't have them, does it?). It is entirely possible for the bot to generate fair use rationales for each and every album cover, and you know that. If you don't care if Wikipedia is well-illustrated and has cover images for album articles, then it is clear to me that you have no intent of improving the project and your sole purpose here is trolling and wasting time of contributors. This is Wikipedia, and common sense trumps policy in the cases where the policy is poorly thought out. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have any of the aforementioned common sense. I see you used your main username again to do the bot edits. Now, that is a policy violation that is grounds for blocking you. So, cease now, this is your last warning.  Grue  08:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Grue, Please refrain from attacking other editors and use good faith. Thank you.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Grue, Ive proven this is not a bot thus I should be using my main account. so there is no policy vio so get over it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		No matter what the critics say, it's truly a brilliant bot, and you should be commended for it. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Company logo - source to be added.

Hi Betacommand

You (or some bot of yours) removed the logo from the infobox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondeca. I guess I understand why, but since IMO this logo really belongs here :) I added a fair use rationale on the image page, although I'm aware this is not enough yet because the source is not quoted. Actually the logo used to be downloadable from Mondeca's web site for such uses, but is no more so since the company has refurbished its web site a few months ago. I'm enquiring if a new logo source is available. universimmedia 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I Like seeing properly sourced/Rationaled images. as for the source all you have to do is put down were you got it from say; Image was retrieved from www.mysite.com on Blah blah date. or even around Blah blah date. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK all fixed now, thx universimmedia 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:10 Heller Note.jpg

Please see the note that I left on your bot's talk page. Thank you. J Are you green? 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You have ...

... a real hardon for removing all images from Wikipedia, don't you? You have removed, or tried to remove, numerous Major League Baseball logos that have been released by MLB for the expressed purpose of fair use, such as newspapers and websites.

I guess this is just how you get your jollies, making more work to clean up after your mess. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Im getting no "jollies" Im just enforcing policy. either it complies or the image is deleted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Image:9107 cover.jpg

Hi. Your bot tagged Image:9107 cover.jpg as orphaned fair use. Here's the thing ... the "File links" section of the image page is empty. However, if you go to the page Samantha Dorman, you will see that the image is there. Click the image and you are taken to the image page. Click "edit this page" on the article and you will see that the image file name matches. I don't think that this is a bot malfunction, but ... what gives? Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what the problem was with this (and a few other images). In the article, the image was linked to as Image:9107_cover.jpg. I'm guessing that the presence of that underscore was reponsible for the problems. I'm currently fixing the issue for a few of the images, but you may also want to briefly check some of the other images that your bot has tagged as "orphaned fair use". Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

must have been a server side error. (its fine now) Not sure what happened. (the underscore shouldnt effect it) Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Behold a Pale Horse cover.jpg

OK, I thought the "DVD cover" tag that explains the fair use rationale was enough. What else has to be done? Murderbike 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Azam_Ali_-_Portals_of_Grace_Albumcover.jpg, in the licensing box, the only item there IS the fair use justification.

What am I missing? - BalthCat 02:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, licensing tags do not provide fair use rationales. Fair use rationales must be made for each fair use image for each article that they are used in. See WP:FAIR for more information. --Cyde Weys 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Transcluded images

Howdy - Overall you seem to be piloting a great bot, but I'd like to point out a fairly serious flaw: When an image is transcluded in many articles via a template, it is not useful at all to leave messages on those articles' pages regarding that image. Specifically, I just cleaned up a bunch of messages about Image:Atlanta city seal.png (see my edit history). In my opinion, you should modify your bot to stop when it gets to an image with 10 or more links, or to ignore article uses when an image is also used in a template, or something along those lines. Thanks -SCEhardT 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale use on pagename

   # It is a low resolution copy of a CD album cover.
   # It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the CD album in any way.
   # Copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
   # The image is itself a subject of discussion in the article.
   # The image on the cover is significant because it was made by a famous artist, name for their album of pagename

in every single album cover on here? Or you're just going to trash them? That seems very unreasonable to me. Can't you just automate the first criteria (low res) anyway? That would take care of the vast majority of them. Otherwise it just seems like the lovely world of red tape that manages to ruin every great thing that's ever become worthwhile. Gamiar 01:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it work better i hope that clears things up. Oh and that rationale is only good for the album's page. other uses require a different rational, Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Concrete examples of album covers with adequate rationale & sourcing?

Could you please point me to some specific, real examples of album cover images currently in Wikipedia with fair use rationales etc. that you consider sufficient to put them "in the clear" as far as you and your bot are concerned? It would be extremely helpful to me. I think that such guidance would also be appreciated by the many other editors who have had their images challenged/purged and are trying to make them comply. Thanks, InnocuousPseudonym 00:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adam Faith.jpg has an ok rationale, Image:Al Jolson Jazz Singer.JPG is a good example of a rationale. and see this for a general outline. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those two general image examples and the model rationale for logos. Can you recommend any examples of adequate fair use rationales for album covers specifically? Again, it would really help. I'll try to make this the last question I ask on the subject. InnocuousPseudonym 03:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Atlanta-stub and Image:Atlanta city seal.png

I recommend that you make a couple of alterations to this bot if you can. I just removed the non-free fair use image Image:Atlanta city seal.png from Template:Atlanta-stub.[1] But I noticed that the bot unnecessarily posted a message about its usage on every article that has this stub template transcluded on it.([2] for example) Granted that it may be hard looking at the file links to determine which pages are the result of having a particular template on there, and which pages have the image directly (I sometimes have this problem as well). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Barareh 817 0001.jpg

Please take a look at this image and its fair use rationale. Nokhodi 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Amc united kingdom.jpg

I've added fair use rationale for the images that the bot tagged but I removed the no fair use rationale template for three of them because I'm a bit thick. The other two are Image:Amc sanfrancisco.jpg and Image:Amc restlessstranger.jpg. Let me know if I need to put the template back what it is if that makes your job easier Sfgreenwood 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. --ST47Talk 09:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked

I'm posting about my blocking of your bot over at User_talk:BetacommandBot#Reason_for_block. Maybe we can have a conversation about this. Samsara (talk â€¢ contribs) 16:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot problem

Hi Betacommand. I wanted to let you know that your bot recently overwrote Missing Wikipedians. [3] This appears to be because the user you were trying to warn, User:Nathanlarson32767, redirected his user page and talk page to "Missing Wikipedians". I'm not sure if this is something you can program your bot to avoid doing in the future. Fortunately it isn't likely to happen often. But, I thought you should know. --GentlemanGhost 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

Instead of tagging all these covers for deletion, why not simply have the bot add Template:Non-free media rationale to the image page and instruct the uploaders to complete the template? I would imagine that most uploaders thought they were in compliance already by using standard templates and this would provide them with an easy way to quickly get into compliance without needing to plow through confusing policy pages. This would seem to be a more productive use of everyone's time instead of deleting images which will just have to be uploaded again by other users. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the archive Ive answered this several times before. Bots cannot write rationales. so quit complaining, and follow policy. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've had to discuss this before, but that certainly didn't merit such a rude response. You don't even seem to have read my comment so how could you know if you have answered it before, because nowhere did I suggest that a bot write a rationale. If you are feeling like being civil, perhaps you actually answer my comment or direct me towards the specific discussion in your archives. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding uncivil, Adding that blank template is not a good Idea, as that hinders my ability to identify images without rationales and many users will see that template and remove the tags while failing to fill in the templates. Cheers Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well that seems a reasonable reason not to have the bot employ the template, as I'd imagine we'd just have a bunch of blank templates. Might I then suggest a slight alteration in your message to the uploaders? It currently directs them to Wikipedia:Non-free content, which is an overwhelming amount of information, much of it unnecessary in the cases of simple fair use claims. If you directed them to the template and simply said "fill this in to be compliant", I imagine there would be a much higher rate of compliance and the rationales would be fairly standardized, accurate, and complete. If you are amenable we could hammer out a simple message pretty quickly. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

when notifying users I use {{Missing rationale}} Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked that template a bit. Let me know what you think. Do you use the same template for the notifications on article talk pages? Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

when notifying talk pages, I use {{Missing rationale2}}

I've edited that one too. Thanks for your assistance. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr31

Okay, so the problems with tagging and notifying User:Dr31 for images that aren't his is still persisting. See this edit by your bot. ONce again it appears to be with images ending in FA.gif. Metros 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And again. Metros 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It just happened again and oddly this wasn't an FA.gif one. Odd. Metros 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

fair use book covers

I do not understand why your bot has identified these images as in any way not fair use:

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:33-snowfish.jpg

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Abomination.jpg

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Alter-boy.jpg

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Allan-stein.jpg

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:All-american-boy.jpg

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Avoidance.jpg

Tony 23:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Tony

It did identify them as Fair use, the issue is it needs a rationale, see WP:FURG Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot suggestion

Hi Beta! Remember me?  :)

I have a suggestion for bot improvement. I reverted vandalism on many hundreds of images late last year--maybe over a thousand--from a kid in upper New York State who replaced the images with crud he found on the internet. The bot is tagging my page with the fair use rationale warning, but in no case am I the original uploader--I merely restored a previous non-vandalised version, and deleted the vandal revisions, since the kid's MO was to re-revert to his vandalised version when no one was watching. Could the bot possibly be changed to warn only the original uploader? Cheers and keep up the good work, Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot win, When I was only notifying the original uploader, I got yelled at for not notifying every one, now It seems to be the reverse. On a side note you know that troll One Elephant came out to play or what ever his name was? I username blocked him before he could become a troll but some other admin reversed it :( Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

alternative logo template

I did an test alternative logo template at User:Soman/test-template. The idea would be that the template could added as {{test-template|name of organization}}, and the variable of 'name of organization' would appear in the template, identitying exactly which organization's logos is portrayed and that the article is only fair use in that specific article. Thus it would be possible to discovered non-fair use by bots. --Soman 06:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All my images?

Hi! I have a question. Your bot seems to be going after every image I've ever uploaded and saying that there is no fair use rationale stated for that image. I have mainly uploaded album covers, and have tagged them accordingly. Do you know what's going on? Some of my images have become orphaned in favor of new, better ones, but I don't understand what's going on. Thanks! –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 11:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NONFREE and more specifically WP:FURG Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 12:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. So if the article about the album has no "critical commentary," the image of the cover of the album may not appear? –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

correct Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

... is going over 20 edits/minute. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I want to get this task done sometime this month. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a non-urgent task not requiring more than 6 edits per minute. Editors should be allowed a choice to review bot edits. Your kind attention – [4]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

it is a important task. per WP:NONFREE its a copyright violation image issue. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an important task, but it's not a task of such urgency that ignoring requests to throttle it a bit is appropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(Quick followup) You acknowledge that your bot has had errors before, yes? Also, that the task is complicated enough that there's room for occasionaly whoopsies? With that in mind, please understand that there's a group of folks who have volunteered their time and effort to follow your bot's trail to QA its work and make sure everything is kosher. These folks are asking you to make their jobs a tiny bit easier by throttling it back a little. I think the thing that's missing here is that you may be viewing their request as an imposition when in fact it is they who are doing you a favor. Remember, thou art mortal. Thou art mortal. Thou art mortal. It's the most important concept in professional software development, and the job of the QA manager to whisper into the ear of the developer. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ive run it at a slower rate manualy checking it, and approving it on my account and I have debuged it. and everything is kosher. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Betacommand. While I agree that this is an important job, and that you are an exemplery bot-creator for Wikipedia; it is nevertheless, a non-urgent task. There is no impending legal-doom over copyright issues on the Wikimedia Foundation, nor is their a politico-legal sword hanging over our heads. The copyright complaints and issues are swiftly dealt through the OTRS. Wikimedia is a not-for-profit organisation that allows any user to edit and upload images, the US courts do understand, rather than delve on mere technicalities. Allowing one user's bot to make fast edits sets a bad precedent for others, and eventually becomes a server hog when all of them want to run their bots faster than the acceptable norms. Could you perhaps link me to the discussion where Cydebot was allowed to move at ~50 epm? Best wishes, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox question

Betacommand: you do good work for this encyclopedia, even if some think it's a bit controversial!

One question: how did you do this to your Sandbox?? see here.
If you could do it to User:SunStar Net/Sandbox II - that would be good. Keep the good work up! --SunStar Net ^talk 21:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

that was a copy of the results from one of VoA's javascript tools, I just parsed them into wikisyntax. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll have to try that js in my monobook. Thanks for the explanation. Anyway, what articles are you working on at the moment?? I'm currently doing anything and everything, if you want me to help you with anything I'll be willing to. --SunStar Net ^talk 21:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry most of what im doing is creating work for admins. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:10 Heller Note.jpg

I was notified that 10 Heller Note.jpg was to be deleted. The image in concern is tagged as a piece of currency, which can or cannot be held under copyright. I believe this particular example to be in public domain. Would you mind giving users of the currency template the benifit of the doubt and only listing obvious violations for deletion? J Are you green? 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

if its a free image tag it as such. if its tagged Fair use, its not my responsibility to see that. If its tagged Fair use I treat it as fair use. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is properly tagged as currency. The tag states "Some currency designs are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Others are copyrighted." It is not tagged as fair use. With the current tag, it can go either way. Please give users the benefit of the doubt and allow your bot to deal with certain violations. The currency tag does not necessarily indicate that the tagged image is fair use. J Are you green? 04:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

that currency template is a non-free base, check the name: {{Non-free currency}} its classified as fair use. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the name matter? Apparently, I missed that {{currency}} had been replaced by {{Non-free currency}}, but that doesn't really matter, does it? It's the text that counts. I see from the categories that, yes, you are right that the template gives the image "fair use" status. To be honest, I think that this should be worked out somewhere else. I'm going to remove the deletion tag until this can be worked out. I cannot seem to find who the creator of this note is, making it hard to provide a definitive copyright status, but I don't think anyone is going to claim copyright for an 85 year old unofficial, isolated emergency currency. J Are you green? 14:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is that image? what is it? Im looking for a template but i have no clue what country printed that currency. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow the link to the reference desk at "File links" for a more detailed description. Briefly, it's from a commune in Austria. J Are you green? 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then {{PD-Australia}} should cover it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Austria not Australia! Minor difference... J Are you green? 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

then {{PD-Austria}} Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't trace the author, so I don't know that it's been 70 years since his death. I also do not read German (the link to Austrian copyright law), so I can't see if there are any provisions on currency, etc. This is far more trouble than it's worth, and I doubt that this image will ever be used on Wikipedia. Would you mind just deleting it? If need be, I can always upload another scan, but for now, I think it would be best just to delete it. J Are you green? 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for block

I've indef-blocked this bot for now. Two reasons:

1. I noticed that it sometimes seems to label things as "no source given" when the source is simply a bare URL. This could potentially affect a large number of images and lead to unnecessary spamming.
2. I'm not convinced that images that are already labelled as copyrighted and fair use need to have source information. Maybe you can explain this to me.

It is possible that I am simply misunderstanding what your bot does, so please explain it to me if you think this will help.

I'll post a link to this message on BetaCommand's talk.

Regards,

Samsara (talk â€¢ contribs) 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

its tagging Fair use images without rationale, I forgot to change the line about no source. Im fixing that now. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, is it fixed then? Prodego ^talk 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with what you are doing with your bot; however I have a slight problem with handcrafting a rationale for every single book cover and album cover. These seem very safe instances of fair use, and the rationales could surely be boilerplated and included in the template. I also share Samsara's doubt about the necessity of providing a source for this type of fair use image too. What difference does it make legally or ethically whether I copied an image from Amazon, got it elsewhere, or scanned it from my own copy of the work? --Guinnog 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the rationale see WP:NONFREE and WP:FURG for what kind of rationales needed, and why they cannot be template'd. As for source it shouldnt have been tagging as that. And yes it has been fixed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, bot unblocked. Prodego ^talk 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken bot message

Hi. I just received a message that an image I uploaded, Image:Adair.jpg, is in danger of deletion. The only problem is, I didn't upload that image. My contribution is the second in its history. I don't know if there's a bug or something, but you might want to look into that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope bot is operating fine, its a feature. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the message says "thanks for uploading" an image I didn't upload. That seems a bit odd, but whatever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

you are part of the file history and thus a "uploader" I hope that helps you understand Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess. My definition of "upload" involves me having something on my computer, and then actually uploading it. I suspect such a message is likely to confuse people besides myself, but it's not a terribly important issue. I'd change the wording to "an image you uploaded or edited". Maybe I just have the wrong working definition of "upload". -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GTB. IF I edited it, it's pretty stupid to tell me that it's copyvio or whatever. I hope it at least notifies the original uploader too, but you should take his wording suggestion, as I can tell from this page that many people are confused by the message. pschemp | talk 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

it notifies all users in the file history. If there are suggestions to the message feel free to change it to make it clearer see {{missing rationale}} Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AHardDaysNightUSalbumcover.jpg

This album cover is necessary for the article A Hard Day's Night (album) as the American version is significantly different compared to the British version. Steelbeard1 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That should be included in the image's fair use rationale then. ShadowHalo 06:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arnold Layne.ogg

BetacommandBot left a warning on the Syd Barrett talk page about how this image Image:Arnold Layne.ogg doesn't have a fair use rationale... only problem is that it's a sound recording. Not sure what's going on here. The Parsnip! 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That sound file is copyrighted, and per WP:NONFREE requires a rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this too, Parsnip's not arguing about whether or not a sample needs a rationale, it's just that the Bot's/templates wording is only relevant to images but is being applied to sound samples. Maybe a new requires rationale template needs to be created and applied by the bot. (Or better still turn the blankety blank thing off forever ;) Megamanic 04:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Almaty2014.jpg

The bot has tagged the image Image: Almaty2014.jpg. Are you sure that the template {{Olympics-logo}} does not provide the right fair use rationale ?Hektor 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates are not a valid Fair use rationale see WP:FURG for what a rationale needs. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• • So why do they exist  ? what can i write except copy word for word what is in the template ?Hektor 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Olympics-logo}}

Please read WP:FURG that tells you what you need in a rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I keep thinking that the template is useless then.Hektor 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

that template gives the copyright status. But because its a fair use image it needs a rationale too. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to put a fair use rationale. Could you be kind enough to check it and tell me if it is ok. If it is ok I will go ahead and remove the tag.Hektor 18:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

all you forgot is to say what page that rationale is for. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Album Covers

This bot has been deeming album and single covers as misused fair use images and threatans to delete them. Please look into this. Thank you :)! Jgcarter 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I programed it to do that. most lack valid fair use rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I get it now...thanks for the clearup. BTW, you may want to change the wording on the warnings, I found it a bit confusing at first :) Jgcarter 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So you expect one of

Image:Atlanta city seal.png

I'm removing this from IFD. There is a perfectly reasonable fair use criteria. Your bot picked it up, heavens only knows why. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. My mistake. A valid fair use criteria got added later. Apologies, I didn't look carefully enough at the history. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle Natural Bridge Flag

The rationale for the above image is on the discussion page (Battle of Natural Bridge is this not sufficient? Noles1984 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

it needs to be on the image page itself. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

I've noted that this bot has, on several occasions marked images that have a valid fair use rationale. can we get this fixed, or should we shut it off? McKay 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

links? examples? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Two examples:

• Image:Beast Eggs.png
• Image:Bomberman Story DS.jpg

I'll bet there's a bunch more. These were just notified on a couple of the pages I watch. McKay 16:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

the bot was correct those copyright tags are not valid fair use rationales please read WP:NONFREE and WP:FURG Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beast Eggs.png is using {{Non-free game screenshot}}, which says quite clearly "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Image:Bomberman Story DS.jpg is using {{Non-free game cover}}, which says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.". Neither image has any such information provided. Stannered 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Best of Monkees cover

Why is this being brought up as questionable for fair use? It is the image of a CD cover as stated in the template. What other information needs to be provided? Squad51 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

please read WP:NONFREE and WP:FURG as the image needs a rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul Bunyan's Axe

I will try to write out a fair use policy in the next couple of days (I've never done it, I'll have to read the fair use policy to see if it can be done for this image), but please note that deleting only that image gives more weight to Minnesota in this article about the Minnesota-Wisconsin rivalry, because it leaves Minnesota's mascot up. If one goes, both go, fair use or not, simply for a balanced article.Polkapolkapoker 11:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There. Is that all I need to do? Is that sufficient? I checked a couple of other university mascot illustrations, and none seem to have a fair use rationale either, so there was nothing off which to base it (I won't complain about that per your explanation at the top of the page)..Polkapolkapoker 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

that rationale is too broad, you need a separate rationale for every use of the image. and the image should only be used if absolutely needed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I realize it's not your obligation to train me or anyone else on how to do this, but I'll try to take a look at other images. I stand by my original point about either they both stay or both leave. As for "absolutely necessary," it seems a rare image on wikipedia that is "absolutely necessary." I changed it a little bit. When I have more time, I'll try to figure it out. Thanks for your patience.Polkapolkapoker 20:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BuckyBadgerGraphic.gif That's better. Once I get it good enough for this article, I will try to fix it for each use. I DO appreciate your efforts to improve wikipedia and help save it from legal issues, etc. Is this good enough? I looked at a couple examples you have given on this page, and it seems to me to do about the same.Polkapolkapoker 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A bicycle

I read the latest jeremiad by an editor angered at your work, and wanted to counter that by expressing my approval of your essential contributions in the strongest possible way. This is it. It may not look like much, but it's the only award I ever give and I've only given it to two other people and one of them is Kelly Martin.

The bicycle award, granted to Betacommand by Tony Sidaway in recognition of his unparalleled and essential work on automatic image tagging.

--Tony Sidaway 13:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images set for deletion

Hi there. I'd like you to explain to me what else exactly is wrong with Image:Barryallen-kitson.JPG, Image:CYC 2007.jpg and Image:CFZ Rio.jpg. Regards —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 13:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

see number 5 in the above template. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What about now? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no change. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No change? But it's just like tons of others. So would you please show me nice examples for a competition logo and for a club crest? Is this a nice example? And what about this one? And this one? Aren't these fine? —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

of the images you gave the only good rationale is on Image:UEFA Champions League logo 2.svg. and please see #10 at the top of the page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks. I'm being extremely polite to you and I expect the same treatment. If you are upset with this job you'd better leave it to someone who's not. Till then I expect to be treated with the proper decorum. I'm not whinning. I'm simply trying to understand what's wrong with those images and what am I supposed to do.

Well, if Image:UEFA Champions League logo 2.svg is fine, now Image:CYC 2007.jpg it is too. Funny thing is that admin Ed_g2s is extremely vigilant regading images issues and Image:Fc barcelona.png was uploaded by him. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if i seemed uncivil, well Image:Fc barcelona.png was uploaded before the policy changed. and that might be why its not compliant yet. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot Feature request

Hi BC
I was hoping when your bot notifies talk pages about missing fair use rationale, that it wil also put the notice on the talk pages of associated wikiprojects.
Best regards and happy editing. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 14:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

your not the first to ask, But if i knew a simple way of doing it i would. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot sucks

I want you to program your tbot to stop nominating images for deletion that are either public domain or already have VALID IMAGE TAGS! This is highly annoying. Look at my talk page for all the images your bot is doing this to. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 16:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry my bot rocks, What images do you think its miss tagging? because I know its tagging images properly. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I Agree this bot rocks. Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 17:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It rocks. Tony says so. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New job for your bot

Perhaps you could get approval for your bot to tackle the job at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual in regards to Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships? Basically, the job is add {{DANFS talk}} to any article containing {{DANFS}} and ensure that no article is manually transcluded in the category (I found a few of those). It would be appreciated. -N 20:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of the categories mentioned on that list need to be done. The associated templates also need to be edited. -N 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear rationale

Your rotten bot has tagged a lot of album cover images for deletion, when they are clearly marked as being fair use on pages discussing the album in question. Please self-distruct ASAP. Camillus (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

that means its doing its job. those images are tagged as fair use, but do not have a fair use rationale. see WP:NONFREE Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples of album covers with adequate fair use statements?

Thank you for responding to my earlier message. You gave me two general examples of images with adequate fair use statements image examples and linked to a model rationale for logos. Under the circumstances it would be extremely helpful to have some examples specifically of album covers with adequate fair use statements.

I posted this basic question once before and it was moved to User talk:Betacommand. That notwithstanding, I will try to make this the last question I ask on the subject. But I would appreciate a response. InnocuousPseudonym 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the same issue with a magazine cover image for Briarpatch that I uploaded last year that this bot marked for deletion. I appreciate the effort to bring things in line with the requirements, in fact, I found it difficult to find a good example, and instead took a stab and hope it is good enough. If it is, can someone remove the removal request template?

As more people who upload images provide fair use rationale, the easier it will be for others to follow the lead. --Delzen 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again

Attempting to respond to Betacommand and BetacommandBot's proliferating requests, I have busied myself adding fair use rationales; I know that many others who sincerely want to follow the rules are also doing so. I have uploaded images of many album covers. While some (not all) of the tags BetacommandBot has posted point editors to relevant (but lengthy and complex) policy pages, I am disappointed that Betacommand will not point out even a single example of an album cover with a rationale he/she considers adequate. I and many other editors trying to provide rationales for album cover have no way of knowing if the fair use statements we are frantically composing will reliably protect them against semi-arbitrary deletion. Giving at least one example of an album cover with an effective fair use rationale, just to show that it can in fact be done, is a truly minimal consolation to expect from an editor who is requesting hundreds if not thousands of man-hours from other contributors who are trying to follow the editor's requests. And if Betacommand doesn't believe it is possible to compose a valid fair use rationale for an album cover (notwithstanding the obvious examples of amazon.com, allmusic.com, etc.), it is unforgiveably evasive for him/her not to come out and say so when others are trying to satisfy demands that he/she considers impossible.

Betacommand, my question again: Granting that some elements of an image fair use rationale must be unique, can you please direct me to an example of an album cover image with an adequate fair use rationale so I and others will know what an effective one looks like? And if you don't know whether any exist, or believe that they don't exist, please say so. Truly, your guidance would be appreciated. InnocuousPseudonym 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Since the original question has received no response for some time now, I have moved it down the page.)

I provided a template rationale for you. I will look for a valid FUR on an album cover. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

After looking through ~100 images, some had a rationale for one page they were used on but were used on more than the one page the rationale covered, or having no rationale. I found one Image:AliceinChainsDirt.jpg Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My sincere thanks. I appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia in this area. InnocuousPseudonym 01:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians

Hi, could you have a look at what your bot is doing to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians please? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• The bot isn't capable of determining when it has reached a page after a redirect, and wrote to the wrong page. Betacommand really ought to fix that. -N 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But it wasn't just that the bot posted to the wrong page. It also deleted the entire contents of the page — twice. ElinorD (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I brought this issue up a few days ago, but received no response. Any chance that this will be looked into soon? Cheers, GentlemanGhost 01:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

it should be fixed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 01:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dreams So Real

Hi, your bot was saying my pictures of the band was not raionable, im not sure what that means, but i actually am connected with the band, as i run there myspace over at www.myspace.com/dreamssoreal1, and i have there blessing. I mean what do i really need to do? i mean im not sure how else i can prove that they are real or whatever lol.--Dr. Pizza 05:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

please read WP:FURG that explains what is needed for a rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion

Hi, is there a way I can exclude my talk page from receiving messages about fair use rationale? I'm semi-inactive at the moment and won't be adressing any of these images for the moment, and I don't really care if they are deleted. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-06-3 11:53

done Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2007-06-4 18:22

Best of the Monkees image

What additional information is required regarding the fair use rationale behind this image? The template clearly states all the information, yet your bot continually notifies me it violates fair use. Would you please inform me what additional information is required? Squad51 15:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:FURG that explains what a proper rationale needs. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ki Longfellow book cover

I admit right now that the following could be construed as a whine: per above. But even with all my reading of fair use and wiki rules, I still don't know what the problem is with using a book cover image on this article about a writer. And if I could defend it on the grounds that it's everywhere, on many many pages selling the book, or displayed in bookstores, and in effect a poster in order for the publishers to sell the book (which means I imagine they would pleased to find it reproduced anywhere), I don't know how to get into the image page again to relabel it. I'd hate to see the image removed, but I feel helpless to stop it, even though I believe there is no problem with it. I can see from others, they too have difficulty with what is fair usage and what is not. I can also see many just give up and let the image go. Shanalk 18:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see this Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

HEY!

I don't see problems with this picture, which is actually the logo of Caritas, a international charity organization, and its logo is in fair use here. Thus following template is applied: {{Non-free logo}} Please stop your deletion at once, and stop disturbing my talk page with the stupid and senseless warning. Thanks -- Jerry Crimson Mann 03:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the second paragraph of that template. Specifically, read the part in bold. --ElKevbo 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot notification for reverters?

Hi B- Thanks for your great work with the bot. Maybe you could supress your user notifications for image reverters? I've gotten 4 notes in the past few days about images which list me in the history because I reverted them. Maybe the bot could read the upload summaries, and just exempt any uses with Reverted to earlier revision as summary? Not a big deal if it's a real hassle- thanks again for the work with the bot. Staecker 03:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ill add you to the ignore list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates on Public Domain image

Hi. About your bot tagging Image:Coast guard flag.gif. As noted on your bot's talk page, it's a public domain image as a work of a U.S. federal government agency. It doesn't need a fair use rationale. Please take the template off the 100+ talk pages your bot tagged, or make an additional comment on all of them to ignore it. Turns out that image is used in the Coast Guard Stub template. --Pesco 04:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Small bug with BetacommandBot?

It tagged this album cover as not having a fair use rationale (which I'm fine with, it does need a rationale adding), but never notified me on my user talk page that it had done so. It's certainly notified me of other album covers that I uploaded which needed a rationale, so perhaps this is some small glitch? I thought I'd better let you know about it here anyway.

Oh, and good job tagging all these images. Someone needed to do it. =) -Panser Born- (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I just thought of something — could it possibly be due to the colon used in the image name? -Panser Born- (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind, the message is there, I can't have noticed it. I blame the fact that I'd just woken up! -Panser Born- (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your bot, until standard rationale templates/text is available for standard use cases.

You've made your point. Now please stop your bot until standard rationale templates/text are available for standard use cases.

Where there is a strong chance that the image use, by the image's very nature, is likely to be falling within a fair use class, eg particularly notably for album covers and logos, please take this into account.

Please stop the bot on these classes, until standard boilerplate per-use fair-use rationale templates/text are available.

When per-page use falls into a standard class, it is far preferable for templated text to be used, which is (a) standardised, and (b) can have instances listed by "what links here"; rather than have a multitude of different homebrew, possibly legally insufficient, texts added willy-nilly. Jheald 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, clearer messages please

You're bot is currently putting the following warning text on pages:

there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

What I think you mean is

there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use.

Making this distinction more clearly could lower the stress level this bot is causing, and focus users more direxctly on what it is that needs to be fixed. Jheald 14:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording of the Infernal Bot

Doubt you'd want to change the wording that get's posted when your bot deduces an image to be not of fair use, but at present it makes little sense at all. An Explosions in the Sky album was just tagged, and only after sifting through the (numerous) complaints on this page did I find a template to apply to it to make it "legal". The bot posts legal mumbo-jumbo which unfortunately not everyone will understand, and surely the amount of complaints you've recieved about it highlights this... The Hurball Company 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Being productive and cooperative

Hello. I do apologize for addressing an issue which has already been brought up before, but I promise to make this short. I very rarely upload images, but I still help to provide the proper tags and fair use rationales for them. That's called being cooperative, friendly, and productive. It is not solely the uploader's responsibility to provide proper rationales and tags, but rather, just like everything else on Wikipedia, it is the collective responsibility of all involved to help the project grow and improve; that means you. Getting your bot (or AWB) to run around and tag things accusatively is helpful in its own fashion, as it makes problems visible and helps people like me know where action is needed. I invite you to join in solving problems and not simply tagging them for others to deal with. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Village pump (miscellaneous)

I just went to Wikipedia:Village pump and posted some comments about the issues being caused by this bot. --evrik ^(talk) 17:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Feature request

Hi Betacommand, sorry if this has been asked but I didn't see it anywhere in your archive. Can you make it so that the Image:blahblah.jpg part or your edit summary is linked to the image itself? When I see your bot's summary, I'd prefer to be linked straight to the image than having to go through a talk page to find the notice. Thanks, and nice bot! Cmprince 18:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NewCIULogo.gif

I have updated the fair use rationale for this image. Please review the image status. Thank you. -- jackturner3 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

This bot is driving everybody insane, including myself. I'm not trying to sound unpolite or something, but I just can't stand logging into Wikipedia and coming across millions and millions and millions of messages about this whole "fair use rationale" thing! And I'm sure I'm not the only one displeased around here. Funk Junkie 19:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're getting a bunch of these messages, then you are doing something wrong. Your actions are endangering the project and you must stop. If you're continuing to get these messages, that means that you're continuing to upload material without proper licensing. Consider this a formal warning, if you are and continue to violate our licensing requirements, you will be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution to the problem your bot is fixing

Hey there, you are getting a lot of people upset about what your bot is doing - tagging images without fair use rationale for deletion. I agree that this is something that needs to be fixed. But why has it happened at all? I found out why when I looked around. Rationale is supposed to be given in a specific form (found on Template:Non-free_media_rationale), or it is preferred if it is given in that form. When you look at the "upload file" form though - it is so overcrowded with stuff that people just don't even read it, but just skip straight to where you fill in the forms. They only look at the heading for each one. One of them says "summary", and it is often just skipped because it doesnt seem necessary. What should be done is that if an image is uploaded with the "fair use" template selected, it should bring up another page to fill out the fair use rationale (asking if its low resolution, etc.). This would make it so that hopefully, your bot could become superfluous at some point in time. What do you think? SECProto 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a brilliant suggestion. Many people (myself included) think that selecting "album cover" from the drop-down menu is enough to make the image a fair use one. In fact, to make an image "legal" much more work is involved, seeking out certain templates among the deluge of legal stuff on the fair use pages.The Hurball Company 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship

Please explain your revert here. As far as I understand, only obvious vandalism is supposed to be reverted without any comments. Okay, even if you don't follow this practice, I still fail to see what exactly you did not like there. Alex Smotrov 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

the phrasing of the changes gave it a negative POV tone. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well, then just fix it yourself any way you like it, because the link to Arbcom decision should not just say "Arbcom", that's a bit misleading (and when I moved the link to "lost his privileges" I ended up with two link visually merging, that's why I rephrased it). And please restore the other link as well. Alex Smotrov 04:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not post no fur notices on non-uploader pages

Please do not have your bot post the missing fair use rationale messages to users who did NOT upload the fair use image. See Image:JudasPriestPriestLive.jpg or Image:Judas Priest-Jugulator.jpg for examples. I only reverted to an earlier image, please change your bot to take this scenario into account. RedWolf 06:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading?

Are you reading the talk page of your bot and the relevant Village Pump discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#BetacommandBot)? It's been requested that your bot stop tagging images until we can make standard fair-use rationale templates for some types of non-free images (album covers on pages about that album etc.) Also, nobody is answering questions now. --Apoc2400 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since standard fair use templates can not exist, by definition, this is no reason to stop. --Durin 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki stress

You bot is making you few friends. I understand the fair use rationale thing but this is too much work too quick. I am a serious hardworking contributor to wikipedia. But this is just too, too much. I have upload plenty of Book covers over a number of years and to get nearly all of the them challenged in a short space of time it utterly unreasonable. I have tried to provide rationales to suit and now even getting these thrown back at me. I think fair use for covers is fair use. I have tried to work with this but I am about to give up - I just don't have them time. You are making me think of you as a vandal, and I know that is not your intention. Please give some people to some time to work on these, this is an avalanche of work to do all at once. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:EdithNesbit ThePhoenixAndTheCarpet.jpg

And why mught that be may I ask. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe you answered your own question by providing a fair use rationale on the image. --Durin 21:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass image tagging

Why don't you add fair use rationale yourself with the aid of your bot rather than ask every uploader of every non-PD image to? Do you think this copyright crusade of yours is doing any good in the larger scope of things? - Diceman 14:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because he can't. Read the discussions above and elsewhere as you are far from the first person to ask this question. --ElKevbo 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a total pain in the ass and I ask you to stop the mass copyright crusade of yours. IT FLOODS MY FRIGGING TALK PAGE!--Jack Cox 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're getting a bunch of these messages, then you are doing something wrong. Your actions are endangering the project and you must stop. If you're continuing to get these messages, that means that you're continuing to upload material without proper licensing. Consider this a formal warning, if you are and continue to violate our licensing requirements, you will be blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:National_Front.gif

I have removed the disputed fair use tag your bot added to this image. Your bot claimed no fair use rationale existed for the image, but political campaign posters are specifically included under fair use guidelines. That explanation had already been provided at the image page before your bot took action.

Please modify your bot to accommodate this type of situation. A quick scan of this page shows that you've gotten multiple complaints. Although I advocate and encourage adherence to copyright law, this bot appears to be creating needless work for people who have already abided by both the law and site policy. Durova^Charge! 18:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Political campaign posters are specifically included under fair use guidelines" — are you sure about that? Can you point me to somewhere that says that? As far as I know there are no exemptions to the requirement for each image to have an individualized fair use rationale for each article that it is used on. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, Durova. The template clearly says to "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use" and there is no such rationale on the page. --ElKevbo 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:ABCwelknoids082.jpg

I received your message concerning the picture in question, and I did review the fair-use rationale guidelines, however what exactly is your issue with the photo? It is listed as a TV screenshot and consistently meet it's guidelines....plus it properly displays the subject for in which the wiki page is intended.

Please respond back with your explaination, and some suggestions so that this issue can be resolved in an orderly fashion. Burnwelk 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• The license tag on the page specifically states "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use". There is no fair use rationale on the image. For instructions on how to create one, please see WP:FURG. Thank you, --Durin 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have added the fair-use rationale, to the best of my knowledge, the info to the photo in question, I hope it qualifies for the standards set forth. Burnwelk 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

If you could please explain to me why you're threatening to delete my uploaded images when I'm only following guidelines I was given by another administrator.K d f m 18:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: It seems you're becoming the bane of many an existence here. I hardly think this is what Wikipedia's all about. Maybe it's time to rethink your tact.K d f m 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Betacommand's bot is acting entirely in accordance with policy. All images must have a fair use rationale for each use. If you disagree with this, you might wish to contact the Wikimedia Foundation regarding this issue. --Durin 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem user

Your bot is picking up a ton of rationale-less image additions from User:SportsmasterESPN, which are then being over-written by the text "Adds to article" (see for example, these diffs: [5], [6], [7]. Etc. Is this one of those one-click rollback jobs on most of his contributions? I'll freely admit that I don't want to wade into licensing hot-water where it is unnecessary for me to do so.

For quick reference, his image-related contributions are here. Is this a blanket-revert job? Bobo. 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you don't know

(because I'm too lazy to search through your talk page, which is full of complaints) Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#BetacommandBot Slash|Talk 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot sent me an irrelevant message.

I got a message from your bot about the image being used for Dino Rossi's article. I didnt upload this message, and although I use a shared IP with my family, I know my parents dont use wikipedia, and my brother doesnt even know how to use a scanner or upload an image, and there is no one else i share my IP with. Crd721 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You got messaged because you reverted the image once. Everyone who has either reverted, uploaded or cropped/resized the image is getting messaged by the bot. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of this damn bot NOW!!!!!

And stop being such an image Nazi! These images are posted to add to the quality experience, so if you don't like it, you can always leave Wikipedia. And if you want so much control, request to be an admin, OK? Tom Danson 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not demand for stuff to happen and please do not flame. Oh yes, and if the bot is wreaking so much havoc, you can always make a complaint. カラム 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Betacommand. It's not a complaint about your bot but about one of the images it marked for deletion, and is now deleted. I think I have a qualifying fair-use rationale for it so am I able to reupload it if I have one? Thanks! カラム 07:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Irritating, redundant, pointless, alienates good-faith editors

What exactly is the purpose of duplicating the content of a fair-use tag in paragraph of "fair-use rationale"? Your bot has left me a message about it. Dybryd 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Regd your bot

Is there any way to opt out of being informed by your bot that an image uploaded by me has an invalid Fair Use Rationale? It is digging up stuff I had long forgotten. All other images (I hope so!) have a FUR, and those that I have forgotten probably shouldn't have been here in the first place. I would like to let them be deleted without being nagged about them. Is it somehow possible? --soum (0_o) 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:CSS.JPG

The bot left a notice saying, "no fair use rationale given" on the page. But, clearly on the page, the template Non-free game cover|Windows states it's fair use clearly. Can the deletion notice please be removed? Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 12:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The template states what constitutes fair use, not why the image in question is fair use; there is no rationale given for the image. From the template: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Neither of these is given. Stannered 12:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 19:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Babelgum_Logo.gif

Over zealous bot... I don't mind people creating bots to help keep Wikipedia tidy/legal but wasting people's time by tagging images that are already compliant is stupid. Build a review list with the bot if you want but give the final decision to a human please. --Bleveret 13:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Message

You seem to have deleted my message to Tuf-Kat on his/her discussion page. There was no image involved with this message. What's going on with that? Pkeets 01:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:DFA1979-headsup.png

The fair use rationale was already included in the Albumcover template i.e. 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 album 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 United States copyright law. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

your wrong, that is not a rationale. that is a fair use claim. if you actualy read the template that you were using you would notice that it also states To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. that template is not a rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the point in this? I've got about 5 requests for album art rationales already up to the letter 'e' and I can only imagine there will be quite a few more. The thing is the fair use rationale for each of these is going to be EXACTLY THE SAME, so why can't it just be covered by the boilerplate text? This bot is a waste of time and could be doing something far more useful. I feel sorry for the uploaders who will have created hundreds of album pages. --Iae 11:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

PS the rationale that you added is not valid please read WP:FURG Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chika with high commissioner kolade-1- (2).jpg

what is this problem about?(Motegole 07:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Can someone deactivate this stupid idea of a robot

Pointless, deletes perfectly legal images daily with the correct references and permissions. pathetic wiki invention. First it deletes the Vassilios Tsiartas than the image on the ergotelis page, both of which have all the permissions. Reaper7 14:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But the images do not comply with policy. The Images do not have a fair use rationale. {{sofixit}} Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the tsiartas picture myself when i saw him train and picked the option, 'this work is my own bla bla bla.' What is the problem? Reaper7 12:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is insanity, you said it. "But, you need a fair use rationale for your own photograph!" Well yes, but um...why are you wasting everyone's time? That is the question. How many images that you have tagged so far actually VIOLATE a copyright law? One percent? Two maybe? Fair use for this album, fair use for your own photo! Where is your rationale for creating a useless bot beta? (Mind meal 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

HEY!

I don't see problems with this picture, which is actually the logo of Caritas, a international charity organization, and its logo is in fair use here. Thus following template is applied:{{Non-free logo}} Please stop your deletion at once, and stop disturbing my talk page with the stupid and senseless warning. Thanks -- Jerry Crimson Mann 03:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read that template you would notice it said This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So I DID say it the logo of Caritas, a international charity organization, and its logo is in fair use here. I will add the source back though. Just cut off the trouble would you? Thanks. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this bot really owned by a student?

OK - we all accept that this bot is unpopular, and we all wonder why its owner bothered inventing it, but the question in my mind is whether its owner is really a student, as claimed. He/she appears to have no understanding of grammatical or syntactical basics such as capital letters and punctuation. (For example, see the answers to DoubleBlue above).

The delightful little three-bullet-point clause on the bot's userpage looks like this:

• This is a bot run by Betacommand used for automatic substing templates, Working on WP:CFD/W and other task
• BetacommandBot is a automated bot but may also be run by Betacommand manually
• BetacommandBot will be an ongoing bot, run when ever I can run it, or feel like running it

In line 1, the word 'working' does not require a capital; there is also a word missing from this sentence; additionally I believe the final word (task) should be plural. In line 2, the word 'a' should be the word 'an'; also, a comma should precede the word 'but'. In line 3, the words 'when ever' should be the single word 'whenever'. Each of these three lines currently lacks a fullstop.

And what on earth is going on at the head of this talkpage? "Favortie statement"?! What is a "favortie"?

I don't intend to be cruel, but this bot is clearly upsetting a great many people (just read the comments above), and maybe its owner should be a bit more careful himself/herself before sending out a manic bot to accuse other people of a lack of care? Timothy Titus 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor. It is evident that Betacommand does not have the best spelling and grammar, but we do not need to go around picking on him for it. —METS501 (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Titus, you are a student also. everyone is a student until they die. a student doesn't mean someone in school. A student is someone who is learning, and everyone learns up until they die. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is just a blatent and ridiculous personal attack. Just because you may dislike a bot does not mean you need to insult the owner's intellect. -Panser Born- (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Although at the same time, claiming to be a student when you are not actually a student in anything other than a philosophical sense is misleading, like that young man that claimed to be a religious expert, but turned out to be an unemployed drop out. JayKeaton 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Good point Timothy Titus. The grammar is that of a 12 year old, not a student. The bot is brandished as if by a child with a gun. Naive and dangerous. I am sorry but i am not politically correct in this matter. Also I am a man that believes someone commenting on someones poor grammar and poor use of a bot does not equate to a 'personal insult.'/ Something is seriously wrong with this whole bot/page and the 'student' who runs it. Reaper7 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cut the personal attacks. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not a personal attack. If those issues of grammar appeared on any other page they would have been corrected - but here we respect the policy of not editing another user's UserPage, even that of a bot! So we merely draw attention to the issues. However, they are listed here deliberately to draw attention to a more serious problem.

Wikipedia relies heavily upon consensus, and there is a clear consensus that something is wrong with this bot - therefore it should be stopped. Maybe the bot is performing the wrong task, maybe it is performing the right task in the wrong manner, or maybe it is just leaving the wrong messages on pages it tags - but whatever the problem, there clearly IS a problem, because a large number of editors are getting very upset. It is terrible to see editors resigning from Wikipedia over issues of over-zealous people (or their over-zealous bots) causing upset. The post (above) from Victoria Eleanor is a case in point - I don't endorse her rather extreme use of language, but the point is that she is an editor we have lost from the community, because she has felt let down. When large numbers of people raise a concern about an issue, that issue should be taken seriously.

Just read the comments above and below - so many editors feel that this user and/or his bot are causing more harm than good. At the very least I would hope that the bot's owner would stop it, and re-examine the way it is designed to work. Timothy Titus 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

KIJHL logos

Hello,

Your bot is overzealous in performing work based on the logos for the Kootenay International Junior Hockey League. Because this league doesn't have national reknown, though, and the team logos are not found in very many places, are low-res and hence provide a distinct representation of the team, I was wondering if there was a way to batch update this rather than go through and delete a whole bunch of talk page spam created by this bot. Thanks! SportingFlyer 07:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the bot's fault that US law, and in turn WP policies are a bit ridiculous on this matter. All you have to do is to provide a short fair use rationale for all of these images. see WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale for a guide. Malc82 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Question (and not a complaint)

I am actually happy that this bot is cracking down on rationales (had to always mention it in the Peer Review), but is there any way to browse these by vague topics? I can easily add fair use rationales to video game related images (I can spot the context easily), but cannot find them effectively. I highly doubt this possible, but it was wishful thinking to save a few images.--Clyde (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the bot, for standard use cases, until standard rationale templates/text is available.

Please stop this bot until it can be made more selective.

Where there is a strong chance that the image use, by the image's very nature, is likely to be falling within a fair use class, eg particularly notably for album covers and logos, please take this into account.

Please stop the bot on these classes, until standard boilerplate per-use fair-use rationale templates/text are available.

When per-page use falls into a standard class, it is far preferable for templated text to be used, which is (a) standardised, and (b) can have instances listed by "what links here"; rather than have a multitude of different homebrew, possibly legally insufficient, texts added willy-nilly.

So please stop the bot until standard rationale text is available. Jheald 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Boiler plate fair use rationale can not exist, by definition. Each fair use must be explain relative to the article it is in. Simply displaying an image in an article is insufficient, as doing so adds little to the article. We tried for an excessively long time to encourage people to add fair use rationales. It didn't work. The bot will continue. --Durin 15:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Wrong. Boilerplate fair use can exist, and in this case it is appropriate. See ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that you feel this way. Yes, there has been discussion about this. However, it is blatantly clear from the guideline at WP:FURG that a boilerplate fair use rationale can not exist. For example, a boilerplate fair use rationale can not answer the question of what purpose the image serves in the article. Each use is unique. It takes a human to understand how the image contributes significantly to the article, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8. --Durin 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very good, but the fact is each use ISN'T unique, which is what jheald is saying. Album art will nearly always be used in exactly the same way apart from the fact it will be used in a different article, which can be sent in as a parameter anyway. If the album art is being used in a way that is different from normal then, of course, the boilerplate cannot apply - the element of human decision is never removed --Iae 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think perhaps I've not been clear. If you simply toss a fair use album cover into an article on that album, fair use has not been met. Simply displaying it on the related article is insufficient. If the album cover were actually discussed in the article, then fair use is met. Yes, this does mean that one heck of a lot of album articles are in violation of fair use. Now, to create a fair use rationale one needs to describe why using the album cover in the article is significant; "This album cover is historically significant as it deviated from all prior album covers, and this deviation is discussed in the article". Just an example. --Durin 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, and that your views certainly don't reflect consensus in WP:Albums. The important thing is that the album itself, or body of albums, must be the subject of the article's criticism or review. As WP:FURG puts it "If the image is a CD album cover, then only a very small portion is being used": the album image is considered for WP:FURG as part of the whole work. The cover image will pass WP:FAIR if (but only if) the work is the subject of critical commentary. Jheald 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:ALBUMS is neither policy nor guideline. --Durin 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy is not paramount: consensus is. Where written policy lags behind consensus, consensus trumps it. Besides, I don't see that policy supports your statement of 16:49. Presumably, nor do you either, or you would have responded on that point. Jheald 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Much needed debate, could one of you copy it to a more suitable page? Malc82 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't a debate. Jheald disagrees with the policy established by the foundation. It's being explained to him, and how he might go about changing it. --Durin 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jheald, the Wikimedia Foundation is paramount. They've established this policy. If you do not like it, a thousand people saying it's wrong is not going to change it without appealing to the Wikimedia Foundation. Their rulings do trump consensus. Sorry. My lack of response on a given point is not tacit acknowledgment of agreement with that point. I will thank you for not putting words into my mouth. --Durin 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No. What Wikimedia Foundation have issued is a resolution, Resolution:Licensing_policy. That resolutions identifies as a ground for use "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". That is exactly what cover-art thumbnails do. The fact is your extreme position is not supported by the resolution, nor I would contend even by policy. Jheald 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think perhaps you should read the part about rationale. I invite you, again, to take this issue up with the Wikimedia Foundation. No effective change will occur by your actions with respect to this bot or my responses to you. All the best, --Durin 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What part about rationale? Can you give a link to precisely what it is you think you are relying on to support your assertions, and why you think your interpretation is mandated by the Foundation? Because I think your wrong on both points: I don't think anything the Foundation has issued mandates your line, and I don't see that it is actually supported by policy either. Jheald 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Would you please approach the foundation about this? You've very adamant about this and insist that others who disagree with you are taking an extreme position. You're not going to get the resolution you desire here. Thank you. --Durin 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but are you accepting that there is no document you can cite to support your position of 16:49 ? Jheald 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Again, please approach the Foundation about this issue. Calling people who disagree with you as holding an extreme, unsupport position is not likely to give you the closure you'd like. --Durin 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not meaning to call you anything. I'm calling your position extreme, because AFAICS it goes beyond anything mandated by policy. And I'm asking you what documents you believe support it, in case there's something I have missed. That seems a not unreasonable precaution, before going and bothering the Foundation. Jheald 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I fail to see a reason to continually repeat myself. I've cited the policies. You disagree with them. Take it up with the Foundation. Thank you. --Durin 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't cited any specific lines or paragraphs of any of the policies to support your position, nor any document to indicate why your position is mandated by the Foundation, so why it would make any sense to go bothering them. I reiterate: I do not know what lines or what paragraphs of what policies you are claiming support your extreme interpretation, specifically that a generic template-able fair use rationale cannot be made for album articles which include a cover thumbnail, and I would appreciate the citations. I would also appreciate the citations for your assertion that such a line is mandated by the Foundation. Is that really so much to ask for? In a content article appropriately detailed citations would be a basic requirement. Surely here all the more so? Jheald 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You've cited the policies but have apparently, from my point of view, taken meaning from them that isn't there. You have been requested three times now by jheald (starting in his comment at 1815) to backup a specific claim you have made, which as far as I can see is not supported in the links you have provided. I am genuinely confused by some points you are making so would like to second (or fourth) jheald's request, only because it is coming across like you believe it is a failure on jheald's part in not understanding what your position is based on. Only if it transpires that you are correct and that WP:ALBUMS and others' have adopted incorrect interpretations is it necessary to contact the foundation. I don't see what doing so now would achieve. --Iae 19:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've done as you suggest multiple times. I've repeatedly cited the policies and guidelines under which we operate in this realm. You disagree with my interpretation of it. Fine. But, best practices at Wikipedia have continued to support the position I have; that's where I got the position. You apparently are not reading the citations I have given you. I'll give you another one that I've not given you before as this one comes not from Wikipedia but from U.S. copyright law. Title 17 United States Code Section 107 says, in part, "the purpose and character of the use".
• Wikipedia policies on this subject are a superset of United States copyright law on fair use. We do require a specific rationale for each use on how and why that image use in that particular case constitutes fair use under U.S. law. Boiler plate templates can not do this, as a boiler plate template does not address specific uses. Each fair use rationale must be crafted for the use it is intended. I'm sorry (honest, I am) that I've been unable to convince you this is the case and that you describe my position as extreme. You can not use boiler plate templates. I'm sorry. The reason Wikipedia policies are a superset of the law is that fair use law is deliberately ambiguous. Wikipedia therefore firmly establishes itself well above the requirements of the law to prevent being dragged into court over the use of fair use imagery. --Durin 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still not providing me with line-cites. WP requires a specific rationale for each use on how and why that image use in that particular case constitutes fair use under U.S. law. That is not in dispute: it is very sensible. But, as seems to be accepted on Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline, given the reasons I posted there, as a class, the use of thumbnail images of album covers on articles devoted to those albums fall within what constitutes fair use under U.S. Law. Therefore a standard text expressing this rationale can be constructed for per-page image uses in this class. Boiler-plate templated text can do this.

I put it to you that your actions rest on your interpretation of WP policy, rather than directly on U.S. Law. It is therefore not unreasonable to ask for line-cites to which parts of policy you think your interpretation rests on. Jheald 19:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I am not going to keep doing this with you. You might enjoy dancing in circles. I do not. Good day. --Durin 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it then that you are refusing to give line-cites to policy to support your interpretation? Discussion continued at

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#The case for a standard rationale for album cover-art thumbnails. Jheald 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No you just don't want to read what we are linking to. Its in the policy, go look. :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, STOP until clearer messages please

Please also stop the 'bot until you have tweaked the message you are putting on talk pages -- something I asked you to do three hours ago, which you have not responded to.

At the moment your bot is putting the following warning text on talk pages:

there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

What you mean is

there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use.

This distinction is important, because the image pages mostly already contain a tag giving a general rationale as to why its (appropriate) use in Wikipedia articles might constitute fair use. But the current sentence above sounds as if that is what you are asking for -- no wonder people get confused and then angry.

Please stop the bot and fix this. Jheald 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering your lack of understanding for the issue, I don't think you are in a position to make such demands. -- Ned Scott 19:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read his links, and if you wish to have the policy changed, bring it up on the fair use policy talk page. Regards. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what? In the end, I found out which template was being used and fixed it myself. Jheald 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've made your point, but is it worth it?

With all your talk about policy above, and what should and shouldn't be done, how fair use is abused, etc, perhaps you should take a few minutes and consider if your disruption of Wikipedia to make a point is worth it.

Thank you, and have a nice day. // laughing man 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since the bot was approved by WP:BAG for precisely this task, it is not disruption. --Durin 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because the bot was previously "approved" does not mean that this bot is not causing a disruption. And just for your information, this comment was not addressed to you but to the bot owner. Based on your comment Durin, perhaps you should review and contemplate the guideline as well. // laughing man 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, so responding to you on this talk page constitutes a disruption of Wikipedia then? Interesting interpretation. As for responding in general, the bot operator asked me to keep an eye on this page, along with a couple of other editors as well. This is a good thing as the bot operator can not be around at all times and this provides faster response to user concerns over the operation of this bot. Disruption indeed. --Durin 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not all, you have completely misunderstood me. I think you need to take a couple of steps backwards and look at the big picture here, and not take my comment so personally, especially since it was never directed towards you.

I'm talking strictly about what this bot is doing, and what has transpired so far. When I said you need to review the WP:POINT guidelines also it was because you responded essentially was saying "everything is ok since this was approved" but just because it was approved, does not mean that right now, this bot is causing a disruption, and will continue to cause a disruption for the WRONG reasons. "For quite some time, we have attempted to encourage people to provide rationales. The results of this effort have been dismal at best." ... so instead have a bot cause tons of work for all Wikipedians (editors, as well as deleting admins) just to prove to them what Fair Use Law is and what WP Fair Use Policy is and force them to shape up? This I think is very fucked up, and a waste of all of our valuable time contributing to Wikipedia. // laughing man 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, can you please refer me to the "approval" of these "Fair Use Image actions" this bot is taking? I'm curious what the communities opinion on this is, and perhaps would be more valuable if I was able to contribute to a discussion amongst a larger group of editors then on the bots talk page. Thanks! // laughing man 20:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple, the bot is doing what humans would ordinary be doing under our current policy. I'll go find the BRFA. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here we go :) Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BetacommandBot_Task_5, there is not much talk there, but the consensus has already been established at the policy page. This bot is doing nothing more then ensuring that policy is met. If you wish to object to the policy then please do so on the policy talk page. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not questioning the policy, I question the process. Quite frankly, one Wikipedian's approval does not seem to be a community consensus for this bots actions. Unfortunately, I do not have the time or energy to pursue this right now, but I have faith that the Wikipedia community will sort out this mess, thanks for the information Eagle. // laughing man 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how could it be done better? Humans have been doing this for 3 years! Ideas are certainly welcome :) Keep in mind that we have 300,000+ fair use images, so its not a task that even a group of editors can tackle easily,.. or even at all. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. It's only now, that a bot is going around doing a massive amount of work on this that has needed to be done for a veyr long time, that people are getting upset about it. This policy exists for a reason. That thousands upon thousands upon thousands of violations of it exist is not a reason to not enforce the policy by means of a bot. Frankly, I am not concerned that people are upset by the actions of this bot. It is acting clearly within bounds of policy. If people are unwilling or incapable of uploading images per our policies, then (barring efforts to educate them) I'm not particularly concerned if they are mad about it. Maybe that's callous, but we've tried the manual way and it failed miserably. People just don't care enough about this policy to upload images properly. It's long overdue that we properly enforced this policy. --Durin 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I simply think this bot is being a dick. // laughing man 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so no new suggestions? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, read my post and links. // laughing man 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Right do you have a suggestion as to how the bot can work better? Every effort is being made by the bot op to notify as many people as humanly possible. The bot goes beyond the call of policy and guidelines and posts a request to article talk pages requesting rationales. If you can think of other things the bot can be doing, please suggest them. Also keep in mind that just because the bot tags them, they won't get deleted in 5 days, its making a backlog for us admins too. :( —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys love to post here don't you? If you read my posts above (which based on your response, you obviously didn't) you'll see that one my points is this creates too much "bullshit"/busy work for regular editors and admins for something so ridiculous and is justified by quoting "policy" when if you take a step back and really see what's going on (which is what many here have hard time doing) you will realize that the whole effort is just a waste of time and resources, and really is not really doing anything positive for Wikipedia. In any case, I'm not wasting another minute responding to those who simply respond like bots themselves. Have nice day. // laughing man 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I read your post, I was asking how the bot could work better. Or policy mandates that there be fair use rationales. If you can think of a better way to do it then vie bot let me know. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot Issues

Your bot is putting speedy criteria on my TrainWeb images, such as this one. カラム 18:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• The license tag {{trainweb}} is listed as a non-free image copyright tag. The license tag probably needs to be improved to indicate that a fair use rationale needs to be stated. Alternatively, proof must be provided that trainweb releases its rights as described in the template. I don't see where there is evidence of that. The bot acted appropriately; its a non-free image that lacks fair use rationale. --Durin 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• After reviewing this further, trainweb does appear to release their material (generated by them, not outside sources) as available under a license compatible with our policies. I've modified the template to indicate this. --Durin 19:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll add a rationale later. カラム 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't need to add rationale for these, as they are legitimately available under a free license. If you find an image legitimately using this template (confirm the image is from their site, and not an image provided by a third party but from their library alone) that has this warning template, then feel free to remove the warning template. --Durin 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:FlamingLips_Shambolic.jpg

Betacommand has flagged this album cover. It's already tagged as an album cover and is therefore compliant. If Betacommand is efficient, this could signal the start of widespread album cover tagging. I'll give you some time to respond, but them I'm deleting the template from the album cover page. --Eitch 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on this page a bit above, various discussions here, and an ongoing discussion at the village pump for some information on the issue. Be warned, it's rather contentious right now. --Iae 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• The image in question had no fair use rationale. It had a license tag, which explicitly request a fair use rationale. None was present. The bot acted properly, and within policy. --Durin 22:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:IBM_logo.png

This is a good one to add the fair use rationale tag to it. Does not have one currently. --Mikecraig 05:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to the operator

Dear BetacommandBot Operator,

Regarding the above claim:

• The creator of this bot has come under fire for performing this work manually. One of the main complaints is that the effort to tag images could just as readily be spent providing rationales. This is not the case; the uploader and/or user of each fair use image is the person who should provide the rationale. A non-involved editor can not know under what principles the user of an image intended such use as fair use.

I don't quite buy into this claim. If an album cover is uploaded with a tag such as {{Non-free album cover}}, and the image only appears within an article about said album, then the fair use claim has essentially been made within album cover template and any editor can fill in the gaps.

The same can probably be said of {{Commercial logo}} images used only on pages that describe a particular corporation. I'm sure we could find other examples where the use is obvious... To claim it is not possible for someone other than the uploader to know the intended use is non-sense—isn't that what is being expected when complaining editors are being asked to "adopt" images?

I appreciate the fact that you have switched to posting warnings on talk pages rather than "orphaning" the images. That was an improvement. It seems to me, however, that you are tagging at a rate that is likely to exceed the willingness and availability of volunteers to salvage the good faith work of others. I expect many images will be removed despite the use being obvious and reasonable. I believe that many editors intended to properly upload images, but failed to understand what was once an obscure bit of policy. And I do wonder that there isn't some more constructive exercise you could be doing to fill your free time? Regards, MrFizyx 05:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the problem with boiler plate rationales is that it needs to state why the image contributes significantly to the article. This information is different for each article. Now something I am willing to create is something like {{partial boilerplate for logos|<insert reason why use is needed and significent in that article>}} . I'd not worry about the images getting deleted all that soon, the backlog is already pushed to 12 days, and its not going to improve for a while due to the sheer volume. I would suggest that you read WP:FUC, specifically point number 10 (c). Really all of point 10 is useful. Would you like me to work on making those partial boilerplates? Thats something I'd be willing to help with. Please keep in mind there are free alternatives to using cover art. We could make use of free fan art. That would actually be rather cool :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The rationale is about the same for all CD covers, game covers and company logos, so why isn't it included in the template? --Apoc2400 06:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Apoc. If the image is, for example, an album cover being used somewhere other than the album article, I suppose one should expand the general reasoning, but often album images are simply being used within an info box that has information about the artist and record company who are likely to hold the copyrights. Maybe you could make a broilerplate with optional parameters.

When I can, I like to include the name of the artist/photographer/designer with the image too, but this probably exceedes what is needed for fair use criteria. I still haven't seen anywhere that describes exactly what is desired for various types of images.

Also, I don't see how free fan art could reasonably relpace an album cover. Most likely such art would be itself derivative of copyrighted work. I also don't see why fan art need be considered relevant and notabe to articles. -MrFizyx 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to work on the semi-boiler plate. Its still going to require you to put the reason why the image is needed on that page, and require you to confirm that the image is really being used to significantly inprove the article. I ask that you please give me a day, I have to go to sleep over here ;). The images won't get deleted for at least 10 days if that, the admin backlog is going to get nasty, so there should be time. We can also add parameters for the source of the image, and something for the maker of the image as suggested above.—— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MrFizyx and you should not just shotgun out image messages without assisting users to correct. There is heaps of very common and recoginsable images/logos that have not had your attention and they are missing fair use rationale. --Mikecraig 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• The bot will get to those in due time. We tried doing this manually. Result; literally hundreds of thousands of fair use images without fair use rationales. --Durin 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop sending me Image deletion messages

I have asked you to stop sending me image deletion messages. These mostly relate to book cover images that I have uploaded over the years in good faith. These images are used to illustrate biography entries on Wiki. In the past there was no objection to this fair use - quite rightly. Although the copyright is with the publisher every publisher would welcome the publicity given to their books in this way - as long as they are cross-referenced in the article with ISBN numbers etc. It is nonsense to be forced to remove them - it really does achieve nothing. But I am not going to fight this matter - I've better things to do with my time. So if the Wiki gaulighters like --Durin wish to amuse themselves in this way I really couldn't care less. But stop infecting my mail and User Pages with your banal messages please. Do your dirty work - but keep me out of the loop. PaddyBriggs 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now I don't think the bot is set up to do that, I guess the bot can perhaps honor the {{nobots}} tag on the talk page, but the problem with that is the policy pretty much mandates that the uploader gets notified. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of mass-tagging...

...why don't you go to a the articles of a few high-profile, well-known albums, computer games, books, movies and companies and complain about the fair-use status of the images used there. If that is ignored, then tag the covers and logos for deletion. If you can get a precedent that pages like Starcraft, The Da Vinci Code and Like a Virgin cannot use a cover image, only then go bother thousands of people. Thanks. --Apoc2400 07:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem is these images have no rational. See our fair use policy especially point 10, as well as the comments about CSD criteria also on that page. If a rational is given, the bot will leave it alone, as it can't whats a good or a bad rational, only that one does not exist. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many people consider a template like "Non-free game cover", "bookcover", "Non-free album cover" to be enough of a rationale for use in the article about the game, book or album in question. If you disagree with this, then as I said, fight it out on a few popular pages before you bother a large part of the Wikipedia community. --Apoc2400 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thing is though, people have not read those templates, they specifically state to the uploader to provide a rational. These images are being tagged for a lack of a rational, as well the fact that most of these images lack an image source. This work has been under way for over a year now, no progress has been made, hence the bot. This has been policy for a year. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe the templates should be changed then. I still don't see what this mass-tagging archives besides upsetting people. I didn't get an answer at the Village Pump, so I will ask here again: Are you saying that an image of an album cover may not be used in an article about that album unless the cover itself is special in some way and the article discusses the cover itself? So you mean that most articles about albums should not show an image of the cover? --Apoc2400 08:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, thats one valid way of reading WP:FUC point 10. Frankly all the bot cares about is if there is a rational at all, no matter how weak. In addition there needs to be information on where the image came from. Was it scanned? Did we get it from a website? I'd not worry about these getting deleted very quickly, there will be large admin backlog, thats unlikely to get cleared quickly. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you look above I will be working on an acceptable "boiler plate" rational, where the uploaders can add the important stuff to. I really need to go bed though, and I'll work on it tomorrow. :). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you turn off the bot first? (If it's yours). You will have a lot of upset people who don't know how they are supposed to add a fair-use rationale, when the template already says everything. Also, many people are getting their talk pages filled with hundreds of these warnings. I bet it scares away a lot of new users too. --Apoc2400 08:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not my bot. The messages are no worse then those that orphan bot leaves. The messages clearly state how to do it. Its a rather simple process, justify why you need the image, make sure the image does not hurt marketing by the copyright owner. (not big enough that I could make a t-shirt out of it for example < no 1280 px images that I could put on my desktop>), and a listing of what articles it is in, and why each of those articles need the image. In addition source information is needed. How did you get the image? From a webite, or did you scan it yourself, or something else? If you think the message is not nice to new users, feel free to edit Template:Missing_rationale. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's just what I did. But then I noticed that the template in place already said almost the same as what I had just written. Why does each person have to manually write a rationale for each image, when there are thousands of images in exactly the same situation? --Apoc2400 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry I really need to go to bed, but if you have questions on why the policy is the way it is feel free to ask at the talk page of the policy. As I said I will work on making up some semi-boilerplate messages. Again there is time, all the bot is doing is making an otherwise invisible problem visible. The images are not likely to get deleted anywhere near 5 days from now. I'd think a week in a half or more. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 08:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fails to read previously acceptable wiki tags. I have seen many images that were ratified by administrators a while back. The bot mass tags rather.If you have a problem with these please address them yourself, rather than just mass tagging almost every image on wikipedia. We know the rules, but why not be pro-active and assist the drive to improve, rather than have a drone mass tag. Londo06 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually in addition to lacking a fair use rational, these images are lacking source. If you would like to comment on our policy please do so on the talk page of the relevant policy, in this case here. Cheers! —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also may I see a diff of one of the failures please? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 07:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP

Betacommand, the very example you yourself give of an acceptable fair use rationale, Image:BizarreRideIIthePharcyde.jpg, is completely generic and could be applied to the usage of any album cover to illustrate the appropriate corresponding album page.

This surely proves the point I was trying to make above, here.

See also eg the rationale for Image:AHardDaysNightUSalbumcover.jpg which equally is completely generic, and could be applied to any cover-art thumbnail being used to illustrate the appropriate corresponding album page.

Please, stop your bot until the best standard form of words to cover this kind of usage can be agreed, and lawyered, and then used systematically. Jheald 08:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use/Fair_use_rationale#Media covers for another generic rationale, applicable to this class of usage. Jheald 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't any reason to stop the bot. --Durin 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes there is. It needs work to allow for exceptions. I agree with Jheald, the rationale the bot is using is far too generic. --Thorwald 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a question

Just a question, not a complaint. I understand the need for fair use rationales and normally add them to images I upload. I deal mostly with album covers and therefore experience some of the issues debated above concerning what constitutes a fair use and rationale for a cover image. My question is: after this bot has tagged an image, then I have gone back and added a fair use rationale to the image, how long does it usually take for an admin to review the rationale and for the template to be removed? Basically, what can I expect to happen after I have done what the bot has told me and added a rationale? --IllaZilla 08:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove the tag yourself, I don't think anybody will review your FUR and as far as I understood the bot won't remove the tag. Malc82 09:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my concerns - about the volume of work you are causing

About the volume of work you are causing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• The volume of work it creates is not a significant issue. It is creating a backlog, but backlogs are not uncommon here. --Durin 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't it stop then - it goes on and on and on - even why you follow the instructions to stop it.

Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk)

• There isn't any reason to stop it. It is acting within policy. The policy has existed for some time now. People have attempted to ignore it because it was loosely and manually enforced. Now it's being more strictly enforced. The policy hasn't changed; the enforcement of it has. What the bot is doing is absolutely correct. --Durin 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary Durin, there is plenty of reason to stop this bot. Errors in tags have already been pointed out by previous posters stating there WAS a fair use rationale in their article when it was tagged. In addition, the actions are obviously disrupting the community of EDITORS (note: not mindless bots that add no information whatsoever). This bot is creating needless work for many people. I understand why you support the actions the bot takes, but that is only because you have a somewhat backward view about fair use concerning album cover art, et cetera. To be rather blunt, are you a sockpuppet for this bot? Usually someone only makes repeat comments when they are upset about something. When someone such as yourself repeatedly defends an issue over and over for a matter of days one begins to question just who they are. (Mind meal 10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

What do you think you're doing?

• You know what I'm talking about. Just tell me what you think you're trying to accomplish with all this, because quite frankly I don't get it. - Aphasia83 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This bot performs thousands of edits. Without any diffs and only "You know what I'm talking about" it's hard to address your specific concerns. Could you be clearer please? --Durin 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we get an administrator to shut this bot off?

Can we get an administrator to shut this bot off, and get it to actually be positive in its actions, ie. state why an image was fine, but that now it is not, and give some help to get it up to scratch. Londo06 10:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Steelbeard1 10:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This bot is doing exactly the task it was authorised to do, and it's doing it bloody well. Looking through both of your contributions, there are images that have never been permitted on Wikipedia in there, such as fair use images of living people. If you're not prepared to justify why you feel it's OK to use a photo that belongs neither to you nor Wikipedia, then you shouldn't be uploading these photos in the first place. Nick 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick, if you read through the multitude of complaints against the bot, it is that it is adhering to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. Images that were previously fine with administrators are being removed, without the offer of assistance or a specific reason to the image. We understand the reason for the cull, but the bot is cutting off the nose to spite the face. Londo06 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that the template should be enough as fair use rationale for (example) the use of an album cover on the page about that album. The details are being discussed on some other pages. Meanwhile, mass-tagging images is just a huge waste of everyones times. Also, where was this bot authorized for this task? I cannot find any such page. Well, it seems the bot stopped a few hours ago anyway. --Apoc2400 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever consensus you are saying is sufficient is not. The licensing templates for fair use all explicitly state that a fair use rationale must be provided. This bot is tagging images missing that rationale. These images do not adhere to our image policy. There is not reason to shut it down. --Durin 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, the bot needs to be shut down, the bugs worked out, and sent back on its mission. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 14:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin: The wording of those tags is just what is being discussed at Template_talk:Non-free_album_cover#Hard_coding_the_fair_use_rationale_in_to_the_template and Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). For the standard case of using the cover image of an album on the article about that album, no more rationale than what is already in the template is necessary. --Apoc2400 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The only "complaints" we have gotten are from people who don't have an understanding of Wikipedia policy and don't want to upload non-free images properly. There are no "bugs that need to be worked out" with this thing. -Pilotguy hold short 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy says that images that with no rationale whatsoever can be speedily deleted. Most of these images have a rationale in the template. In some cases no more rationale should be required. Even if you disagree with that, it's certainly not "no rationale whatsoever". As we've seen in the discussion at the village pump, a fair use rationale would just repeat the info in the template for most tagged images. --Apoc2400 14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything that does not meet WP:FUC needs to go, it is a matter of US law(US, where the servers sit). ^(H) 15:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot find any US law saying that template rationales are not allowed. --Apoc2400 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia fair use guidelines are a superset of US law. --Durin 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no law forcing us to write individual rationales for identical cases, so why does the policy? --Apoc2400 16:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whether there is law or not, these are our policies established by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you'd like to have these policies changed, please contact the foundation. --Durin 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:FUC is a policy of English Wikipedia and not the foundation I think. I tried to bring it up at the comment page of WT:SPEEDY (also a policy), but that was ignored. I will go try at WP:FUC. --Apoc2400 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And some of the responses here are by people who apparently don't want to follow AGF properly. Please be mindful of it, even if the complaints are misguided. --Philosophus ^T 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Non-free use disputed for Image:Kangaroo jack.jpg

Okay, I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enter Movie (talk • contribs) 13:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Durin 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Take Note

Images such as Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg have this tag attached:

Digital Image Information

This is a one of a kind unique digital image from The Florida Memory Project, Florida Department of State. It holds the archives' number of: 000000

Use: The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images. In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material.

Florida Department of State State Library and Archives of Florida 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 (850) 245-6700

• Copyright Information

Noles1984 14:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• The problem there is that the statement is not a blanket free license statement for all images held by them. It might apply, but some images have other restrictions. I.e., without identifying who holds copyright to the image and whether release exists or has been obtained, the tag you reference has no copyright standing. --Durin 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of any use or reproduction... shall be allowed are you failing to understand here? That is a general copyright release, just like BSD or GFDL. Jheald 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please see the copyright statement where it says "Some of the images may be protected by copyright" I'm sure you will understand. --Durin 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Noles, I would suggest to send an email to the Floridamemory website and see if they can clarify the licensing for us. Pretty much, we want to know if we can modify the images, use them commercially and allow our mirrors to use the images. If we cannot be certain, or the government says no, then we will proceed from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 10:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Logos

Aren't sports teams logos automatically fair use? --AW 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. The licensing tag for sports logo specifically indicates that a fair use rationale must be provided. --Durin 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dukecover.PNG

I've updated it with a fair use rationale. Gold Stur 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading School Logo

When I uploaded this image there was a standard copyright line which I used relating to logos and as far as I could establish at the time school logos were included within these criteria. Someone has come along since and changed the copyright status and I don't quite understand why. The logo was uploaded in good faith according to the then guidelines and I don't understand why there should now be a problem. Dahliarose 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a widespread problem; school logo specific templates, which stated that the use of the logo was fair use to illustrate an article on the school concerned, have been replaced with generic Non-free Logo templates, which do not include such an assertion. It looks like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, yet again. ~ Scribble Monkey 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the image? I'd be glad to help you figure out what the problem is. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't notify me anymore

Do what you will with any image I have uploaded but please stop putting notices on my talk.--Dakota 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm sick of this too. -- Krash (Talk) 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Me three. People keep deleting some images I upload too. Alex 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason why the images keep getting deleted: WP:NFCC. --Philosophus ^T 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am getting real sick of this, in the nicest possible way I can put this... **** off.--Jack Cox 04:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A possible way of resolving this would be to tag all of your images for deletion, or ask an admin to delete all of them for you. It would violate WP:POINT, but then again, this bot isn't doing the best job of following it either. --Philosophus ^T 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The bot is acting properly by informing people that these images have been tagged. In fact, there have been requests for more notification. The bot is acting properly. --Durin 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Did anyone in this section say that the bot wasn't working properly? Does the fact that some people want more notification somehow negate the fact that these people don't want to be notified for their uploaded images, and would prefer that their images just be deleted? In many cases the bot is notifying editors about images from over 3 years ago. Assuming the editors are still here, it is quite possible that they really don't care. --Philosophus ^T 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant message

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use rationale. —METS501 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop stalking my images

I'm tired of getting a message from you every day because you need to bitch about one of my images. You contribute nothing to Wikipedia. Fuck off.--jonrev 04:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mind WP:CIVIL please. This behavior by you above is completely unacceptable. --Durin 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave me alone!

I know I have to add a @&!*^%$ rationale to my images. Just give me a break. I can't add eight rationales in one day. It takes time! So please just leave me alone! --agetoagedc 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have something like seven days to provide the rationale... in theory, you only have to do two rationales in one day, and then just one every day after that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems difficult when I get messages asking me to add rationales for three new images every day. --agetoagedc 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you use a windows computer, CTRL-C and CTRL-V can come in very handy. (The bot doesn't know if you are doing this, or providing a well thought out individual rationale!) I just did about 5 in 10 minutes.The-Pope 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

the bot does know. when the current phase one tasking is complete, it will then target users like you who write improper fair use rationales. so you can fix it now or later its your choice. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Way to ruin Wikipedia with your Nazi bot.--jonrev 04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If i wanted to ruin wikipedia I wouldnt do it this way. Im enforcing m:Wikimedia Foundation policy. comply or your images will be deleted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"comply or your images will be deleted"? When going about a project like this, you really need to be careful about your public relations, and saying things like that aren't going to help. --Philosophus ^T 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you the police? --jonrev 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's your badge? Wait... why am I asking you that?--jonrev 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's called being an editor. Everyone gets a badge. This bot is enforcing policy. All of us should be enforcing policy. Betacommand and this bot are no different than you or any other good faith editor. --Durin 05:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just because everyone should enforce policy doesn't mean that everyone should enforce it in a terribly obnoxious manner. It is my belief that a significant number of the complaints here stem from the amazingly annoying and disruptive manner of this bot, rather than a policy disagreement: it goes through the images, adding tags and prominent notifications as it goes along. For users who may have been around for a few years, and uploaded a few hundred images with what, at the time, may have been proper fair use justification, they will find their talk pages filled with large amounts of extremely redundant boilerplate text, which makes it very difficult to extract useful information, and is highly discourteous to other editors who may be trying to leave notes on the talk page. The notifications are akin to me leaving a 100 word note on your talk page, but splitting it up so that each word is in its own section, and surrounded by a disclaimer. Even if my comment were legitimate, wouldn't you consider that to be disruptive?

It would be far better, in my opinion, if you could rewrite the bot so that it would go through images sorted by user, and notify the user of offending images once, listing all of the offending images in one message. Surely such a change would not be so hard? --Philosophus ^T 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do You Enjoy This

Does this get you off Big Boy, huh? Is this some sick fetish of yours? I bet your just stroking it while your mass-tagging my images, aren't ya? Does this make you feel better huh? Think your a big man?--Jack Cox 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please keep things civil. This comment by you serves no purpose other than to degrade yourself. --Durin 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Durin, this bot is WASTING a lot of time for people who otherwise would be adding meaningful content, not adding rationales to images that are blatantly and obviously not in violation of copyright laws. BTW, he was not being uncivil. He/she was being human. This bot is not human. (Mind meal 08:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Bad Idea

This bot is going to wipe wikipedia dry. There are some users who don't login everyday or even months. This bot needs to be stopped ASAP before it tags half of all images as deletable. Dangerous concept as this is going to ruin the quality of quite a number of articles by taking out the pictures. There is no way a missing fair-use description is more important than the article itself!!!! Where's the common sense here. Benjwong 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree, this bot is an abuse of power in the greatest. You make me hate you, I mean really hate you. I just honestly want to see bad things happen to you because that's how angry you make me.--Jack Cox 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The bot is acting according to policy. We attemped for considerable time to get people to provide fair use rationales. The result has been literally hundreds of thousands of fair use images lacking rationale. The higher purpose of Wikipedia is free content. See Wikipedia:About. --Durin 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When the user upload the image, how about printing a message that explicitly require FAIRUSE description from now on. This can't possibly be the most ideal solution. Going back in time to reinforce a current policy via deletion is scary. Benjwong 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• That would need a change in the code, but seems reasonable. As for going back in time; what is considerably more scary is the current situation of literally hundreds of thousands of images without fair use rationale in violation of our principles and U.S. copyright law. In the worst case scenario, the very existence of Wikipedia is at stake. --Durin 05:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How about generating a very very generic FAIRUSE description that gets pasted into every picture ever uploaded. The bot will be really helpful for that purpose. And maybe reinforce individual FAIRUSE descriptions when users upload from now on? Honestly I thought I would never be tagged with a bad license request, and I got multiple today. Benjwong 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Generic fair use rationales are, by definition, impossible. --Durin 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• You have been told a number of times in other discussions that the above statement is wrong. Why do you keep repeating it instead of responding there? --Apoc2400 06:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One must wonder, after the repeat voicings in favor of betacommandbot, about whether or not Durin is a sockpuppet for it. Just a thought. (Mind meal 08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Help to bring Images up to Scratch

Would it not be adviseable with so many images coming under fresh scrutiny that step by step advice go out to those who have uploaded images in the past, had them ratified and now see them fail. The bot deletes. Would it not be better to allow more flexibility in the timeframe, or else offer more assistance. Londo06 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A better idea would be to work on an image upload page that has checkboxes the user can check, as well as a small separate textbox for "additional rationale".

[] This image is of low resolution

[] Use of this image on WP will not impair the photographer's ability to profit from its commercial use

[] This image is used to scholastically illustrate the article in question, rather than simply supply a decoractive touch. (example: a photograph of Winona Ryder shoplifting, not of Winona Ryder in her latest Hollywood movie.

[] This image portrays a historical event, or a person no longer living, and thus a free alternative could not be made by a dedicated Wikipedian.

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• This would help, but still misses the crucial step of indicating how and why a particular image contributes to a particular article. There can be no blanket fair use rationale. --Durin 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I entirely understand the need for this, however there are those who do not check wikipedia every day. Many of these images were previously fine. My issue is with the permanence of the deletion. Especially given the scope of the bots targets it would seem prudent to extend the timeframe given for the image to brought up to an acceptable level, where appropriate. Londo06 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This bot sucks

It really does.--E tac 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Persuasive argument.--§hanel 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use policy disputed

Please suspend tagging images seemingly without rationales until this policy is less disputed. ¦ Reisio 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy isn't in dispute. It was established by the Wikimedia Foundation, which governs Wikipedia. There are certainly people who dislike the policy, but this does not make it disputed or of any less weight. We must abide by what our governing body decrees. This bot is doing precisely that. --Durin 05:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is this policy outlined? ¦ Reisio 06:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at the Chinese ceramics page and I see a number of images have already been deleted. These are pictures of vases from 500 to 600 years ago. I don't know how they will EVER get replaced. Who's going to a museum to retake them? Who was the original uploader? I have no idea. All traces are gone. Please Stop this bot before it's too late. Benjwong 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you want this bot to stop, I strongly suggest you approach the Wikimedia Foundation to change their policies. --Durin 05:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG it is doing it to wikimedia commons too. This is out of control. Who should I be approaching in wikimedia foundation?? Benjwong 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• This bot is not operating on Commons to my knowledge, as there are no fair use images on Commons. As for contacting the foundation, please see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us --Durin 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it safe to say this bot is moving so fast, it'll wipe out a large portion of wikipedia before anyone actually respond to me. Better yet, why would some lawyer respond to me? Benjwong 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Maria Arredondo - album covers

Please read the license tags _before_ adding your deletion tag. Most, if not all, album covers on Wikipedia are covered by the fair use clause . . . as far as I can tell. --Thorwald 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You do know this is a bot, right? Asking it to read the license tag isn't going to help. --Philosophus ^T 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I know it is a bot. I just was hoping, on the off chance, that the author of this (way too fast bot) will actually read my comment. This bot is getting annoying! --Thorwald 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

the images needs a rationale still Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Not good enough. Like I just wrote. Most, if not all, album covers on Wikipedia (there must be thousands of them) are covered by the fair use clause. In fact, the record companies probably welcome our use, as it helps them sell these CDs. What are you going to do, delete all thousand+ album covers on Wikipedia just because you do not understand "fair use"? --Thorwald 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but this is not limited to just album or DVD covers. But any image that the bot thinks should have fair use. Benjwong 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, not every image. There are certainly cases where fair use can not be applied (e.g., a photographer's works). However, this bot is far too ambitious. --Thorwald 06:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bug?

This bot left a talk page notice for an image I did not upload. I merely reverted it from a vandalized state at some point. The purpose of this bot would be much better served if the notice were left for whoever originally uploaded the image rather than the latest revision. -Thatdog 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

it notifies all users in the file history. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I noted earlier - you really need to think about ways (such as those I suggested) to modify the bot to be less obnoxious and disruptive, as that seems to be the biggest source of complaints, while still enforcing policy. Every time I learn something new about the behavior of this bot, it seems even more obnoxious to me. --Philosophus ^T 06:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added fair use

For Image:Sneaky.jpg, added fair use rational, is it okay?--Migospia†♥ 06:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sky Movies image

I think you are mistaken, I never uploaded the file Image:Skymovies07.PNG therefore I am not reponsible. Unisouth 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• You did perform edits on it. Please see the file history on the desription page. --Durin 13:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Failure to support conclusions

While some are more articulate than others, I have to agree with the general tone of the complaints about this bot. It has been applied without any independent thought and is running rampant. There are too many examples of inappropriate deletions to ignore. It seems that almost every complaint is rebutted with the bald assertion that the bot is merely applying policy and US law; in other words, it's just following orders. I don't buy it. Merely pointing to the policy and US law does not mean the bot is in fact following the policy or law correctly. It seems a sledgehammer is being used to swat a fly. Agent 86 07:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody has yet come up with any significant defense of how this bot is not following policy. The reality is that it is following policy. We gave a free pass to people loading copyrighted works without fair use rationale for a long time. Result? Literally...literally...hundreds of thousands of images that violate our policies. If this is a sledgehammer, then all of Alaska is a parking lot and our task is to break up the pavement with it. --Durin 12:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use in LRMad.jpg

Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
2. It is a low resolution image.
3. The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original.

(RJL Hartmans 07:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

A suggestion

This BOT is a violation of WP:POINT. However, if you feel that it is valid nevertheless, perhaps you should dedicate a portion of your time at working to overturn that guideline. Esn 07:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is currently serious debate over the policy at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, so the policy which the bot is fulfilling is far from being universally recognized as valid.

The current situation which you have created is this: Editors are left with a choice between altruism (if I don't do this, many articles will be ruined), and common sense (why the hell should I do this, anyway? Don't I have a life to live instead of doing this tedious twaddle). This shock therapy would work better if people were actually getting paid for the work that they do here. As it is, I predict that a great many people will just give up, and a great many images which were valid will just cease to exist, and who knows if they will ever be re-added. Esn 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The basis for the policy was established by the Wikimedia Foundation. Their resolution requires a rationale. That the people here dispute it does not mean this policy carries less weight. We must adhere to what the foundation dictates to us. --Durin 12:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong talk page notice

I've noticed that the bot is using {{no fair}} on talk pages even when one of the Fair Use categories have been selected. The correct template to use in that case appears to {{missing rationale}} or {{missing rationale short}} --Powerlord 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Irish Defence Forces pictures

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

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

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

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

Looking more closely, The image wasn't even tagged as "fair use" in the first place! When your bot added a tag asking for fair use rationale, the image was tagged as "PD-flag" (public domain) [8]. You better fix your bot! --PeR 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This should be "ensure", not "insure". Neil â•¦ 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's blatantly wrong anyway, since WP:FURG is not in compliance with the policy. See the village pump (policy). Malc82 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pointing out a typo, not making a policy judgement. Keep your angry emboldened words away! Neil â•¦ 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pausing your bot's operations

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

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

An even more general discussion can be found at the VP (policy). Malc82 12:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The concerns have been addressed. Several people, including myself, continually monitor what the bot is doing and people's responses to it. If you want to suspend CSD I6 while people add rationales, fine. But, suspending the bot achieves nothing. This is a serious, law violating situation that must be addressed. --Durin 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is your opinion, but most people seem to agree that it is possible for template to provide full fair use rational. - SimonP 13:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this is being discussed, I also suggest this bot be temporarily paused. If consensus is on templates being able to provide a generic rationale, undoing all the tagging will become a hassle. --soum ^talk 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how blocking this Bot is appropriate. It was performing its a approved task at an acceptable speed. Anything tagged by it could not under policy have been deleted for 48 hours after the uploader was notified, giving the community plenty of time for discussion. The reason given in the block log is particularly odd: "Bot not responding to criticisms". WjBscribe 18:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot and the Leicester City logo

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

• The bot is simply asking you to provide a rationale. Please see WP:FURG for guidance. --Durin 12:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Everyone's heads implode when the look at the fair use pages. People get worked up about copyrights and it detracts from the overall aim of Wikipedia. Yes copyrights need to be adhered to, but the pages and pages ruined by legal jargon are astounding. The Hurball Company 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We're here to make a Free Encyclopedia so we do tend to take copyright seriously. It's at the core of what we do here. If you seriously take issue with that then you might want to rethink why you're here and contributing to this project. --ElKevbo 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, let me direct you to a blank page. It infringes no copyrights, so I think you'll be perfectly happy there.The Hurball Company 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Was that a bizarre attempt at a personal attack? If so, please desist. --ElKevbo 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty funny meself, and when people start considering slight digs as full blown personal attacks then something's going wrong with the world The Hurball Company 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an easy way to solve that: don't attack editors. I don't appreciate even "slight digs" from people whom I don't know and whom I know don't know me. There's no reason for it and it leads to an atmosphere of hostility. Just be nice to people (unless they truly ask for it - and I don't think I did), okay? --ElKevbo 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no harm meant. Each to their own, you stand by Betacommand's copyright war, I think it's unnecessary. The issue will pan out in due course The Hurball Company 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry - Leicester City's not being discriminated against, the bot is going through logos all over the place, it just hasn't reached most of them yet. I notice it's tagged most of the League of Wales teams' logos, and various Albanian ones too (as the person who created a lot of articles on teams participating in the UEFA competitions, I have most of them on my watchlist, and it's horrifying watching this bot work its swathe of potential destruction through the Wikipedia). The idea that it's a good idea to tag thousands of images and give people only a week to bring them into conformity with the policies is wholly unreasonable to my mind: while it may surprise the deletionists, many of us have responsibilities and lives outside Wikipedia and not be able to devote time to sorting out this mess - my mother's been in hospital for the last 8 weeks and is not expected to survive, so I have other things to do at the moment. The most sensible thing to do is stop the bot and suspend all image deletions: it seems nonsensical to insist on an individual hand-crafted rationale for all images when they are logos or badges of an institution illustrating the article on that institution; if policy actually requires this - rather than it just being someone's interpretation of policy - then that policy should be changed. -- Arwel (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for several images

Are the images listed below OK now?

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

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

Stop this stupid BOT!

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

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

This bot is going crazy and someone should stop it.

Firstly, the bot can't deleted images - it only lists them deletion, secondally, your images were not tagged correcty, they lacked fair use rationales, thirdly, the bots not running at the minute. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I find the enforcement of "fair use" by non-attorneys to kind of humorous and sad. Seems this process should be limited to folks with a legal education and experience in IP practice and/or litigation instead of zealous, but well-meaning, lay folks. IzaakB (my Talk)contribs 16:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This is not the enforcement of "fair use" in the legal sense. But "fair use" in the sense of the Foundation and Wikipedia's policies on unfree content (which are much stricter than the law of fair use). We have set the bar higher because we are not just trying to create an encyclopedia that is free to read, but one that contains free content. The policy should clearly be enforced by Wikipedians, not lawyers... WjBscribe 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to give adequate and good discographical information without scans of covers and labels. If you are (as in the case of pages I helped to edit) deleting or preparing to delete the pages - stop it and place a discussion with the relevant groups who work on music inside Wikipedia.--Reinhard P. Braun 05:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeat Messages

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

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

Thanks a bunch

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

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

Who can I bitch at?

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

The Foundation? Whoever first had the idea to build a free content encyclopedia rather than just one that is free to access? The idea is that material here is resuable by third parties for any purpose - fair use is clearly problematic with reagrds the goals of the project and should therefore be kept to a miminum. WjBscribe 18:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to ban fair use, ban it.

But you don't want to ban fair use. There are many, many articles that can only be reasonably illustrated with fair-use images (such as book covers like the one for which I received the rude bot message).

That being the case, the decision to harass good-faith editors with threats of deletion of their appropriately uploaded and tagged images unless they jump through one more idiotic hoop after another has nothing to do with advancing the goal of keeping content free. It has everything to do with the personality type that is attracted to volunteer breaucratic positions.

Dybryd 02:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Take your personal attacks elsewhere; they're not welcome here. --ElKevbo 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's so terribly sad that good old Don't Be A Dick has been offloaded to a meta. Dybryd 10:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot ignores public domain template?

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

Taking a further look at this, maybe the problem was that the image was tagged with a public domain template AND a fair use template. Clearly, there was some confusion on the part of the uploader as far as which template to use. Doubtless, my commentary here will get buried beneath the avalanche of people complaining, but nonetheless, when you have the time it might be worth looking into. Hopefully, the bot doesn't ignore {{PD}} when it is not contradicted by another template.

As a side note, I'm changing the heading of this section so it doesn't look like just another person complaining because your bot is "broken" when in fact it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Neptune.jpg

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

Suggestion for reducing repetitious text on talk pages

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

a "Book Cover" permitted image.

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

About your Bot and an image

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

Relatively minor contributor - surprising multiple idiotic bot messages

Clearly this bot is causing way more harm than good.

I have uploaded many images over the previous several months.

All of them are justifiable per WP policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A response concerning requests to make BetacommandBot less disruptive?

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

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

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

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

Fair use question

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

As long as album covers are low res then there is no problem with a template for their FUR. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 12:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm putting this back. You didn't answer my message! You aren't ignoring me are you? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FURG is not Wikipedia policy.

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

Dybryd 12:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:Coast guard flag.gif

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

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

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

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

Here is what caused the problem: image was tagged as fair use, which caused the bot to add the tag. Only then did yall mark the image as public domain. This is not a fault of the bot, but of the person who tagged the image in the past. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

a) The tag was replaced with a PD PD tag (as opposed to a 'non-free PD' tag as was there) BEFORE the image was tagged by the bot. Is the bot going to go through every image that has ever had a non-free tag on and tag that as needing a fair-use rationale despite its status now having been ascertained as being free? b) When the tag was added, it did what it said in the name - the flag is public-domain, and is a flag. So you can't blame the person who added the tag in the first place. Is the bot going to find all images that ever had a tag on that is now classed as non-free despite it being free at the time, and has now been reclassified using a free tag, and tag THOSE as needing a rationale, too? BTW, the bot should distinguish images which have tags beginning with PD and use a different boilerplate. FWIW, I think that whilst this bot is a good idea in theory, its current implementation is causing an unacceptable amount of collateral damage. Stannered 22:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not to worry. This case was an unusual one. The dataset the bot was working from was probably just a few hours old and hadn't picked up the change. Cases like this should be few and far between. The amount of collateral damage here is minimal. --Durin 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't only mean collateral damage in that sense. I also meant collateral damage in that many active Wikipedians are resigning from the project. We avoid blocking IPs (particularly shared IPs) for more than very short periods and bend over backwards to help anyone stuck unfairly behind such a block, despite the fact that very few of those anonymous IPs would go on to become regular contributors. Yet we are (or BetacommandBot is) alienating large groups of Wikipedians through this heavy-handed (some would say cack-handed) approach to fair use rationales. See Timothy Titus's message below. Stannered 23:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin, you say that the collateral damage is minimal. Does this mean you will fix the collateral damage and remove the template from the 100+ articles tagged, or that you feel it's too minimal to bother fixing? Maybe it wouldn't seem that minimal if every stub article in your area of interest was incorrectly tagged. --Pesco 04:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

up until ~30 minutes before my bot tagged the image it was improperly licensed. Since the concerns raised by the bot have been handled, you can Ignore the message since it has been fixed. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The image wasn't improperly licensed, but it did have an old Public Domain template (PD-flag) that needed to be clarified. If any human eyes actually looked at the image before 100+ talk pages were tagged, anyone would have realized that it was a public domain image. Anyways, the template you added was inappropriate, since the existing image template didn't call for a fair use rationale. It's understandable that mistakes happen, that's why bots have a shut-off button. After a mistake does happen, the appreciated response is to acknowledge it and correct the damage done, in this case remove the template from each affected page unless it's been responded to. WP:B says that it is the responsibility of the bot owner to fix damage, and I strongly feel what your bot did qualifies as damage. For years people are going to scratch their head when they see the template, and frankly it shouldn't fall on someone else to say "please disregard" after a message your bot put on a lot of pages. --Pesco 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Do whatever you want!

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

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

• You can not delete your account. --Durin 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascistic removal of images.

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

• Starting off a conversation with "Fascist" is not a way to go about getting someone to come to consensus with you. If you simply mean to insult this bot (I don't know why; it's a bot, not a human} please see WP:NPA. As for you acting in good faith, nobody is saying you are not. The bot simply tags images that lack a fair use rationale. All fair use images here on Wikipedia must have a fair use rationale for each intended use (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #10(c)). For assistance on crafting a fair use rationale, please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. If you require more assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks, --Durin 16:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the Wiki rules. The Bot is questioning images I uploaded for which I always gave a fair use rationale. It is just not true that no rationale has been given. You will find one for every upload of an image I have ever made! Facsists cannot blame their tools. It was not Hitler's Panzer tanks who took the decisions - it was his Generals! PaddyBriggs 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

if you had provided a rationale the bot would not have tagged the images. where do you think the bot made an error? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Paddy, I'll cite two examples. Have a look at these images which you uploaded, in the versions you uploaded before this bot touched them; [9] and [10]. Both images are tagged with a licensing tag, but neither image has a fair use rationale on them. Note that in both tags it says "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline" You did not do this. Thus, this bot appropriately tagged them as missing a fair use rationale [11][12]. --Durin 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• this bot is crazie and is attacking corporate logos on the wikipedia page describing the corporation. absolutely insane. i agree with everyone on here that this bot needs to be shut down until it can generate more specific messages as well as pointed at clear copyright violations rather than minor omissions when tags are already in place. Randella 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A licensing tag is not a fair use rationale. Please see WP:FURG. Note that licensing tags ask the uploader to provide a detailed fair use rationale. A bot enforcing that policy is not "crazie". --Durin 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • uh, it is when there is obviously a fair use tag already in place. it may not be complete with a rationale, but it should be acceptable enough not to immediately delete. a suggestion would be more appropriate. also, please explain why i was tagged for this image when i did not post it and i'm not on the history for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fallfestival.jpg. Randella 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you give an example of the case you're highlighting please? As for Image:Fallfestival.jpg, the bot informed the uploader [13], and not you. The only image it informed you about was Image:Dillards logogif.gif, which you did edit. --Durin 21:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • my mistake. was looking at the talk page for that article and got it confused with my own. sorry about that! Randella 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • No worries. We all make mistakes. :) --Durin 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Agreed. This bot is completely out of control and is correcting that which by law is not in violation. Album covers in articles on albums is fair use under federal copyright laws. There is no violation of US copyright law when displaying an image of said covers in an article specifically about the album. In other words, technically this bot is doing the "right thing" under wiki guidelines, but it is also wasting a lot of time when it could focus on blatant violations that actually ARE in violation of copyright laws. Durin obviously does not understand the arguments of anyone here or elsewhere. This bot is wasting a lot of time for people. (Mind meal 07:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
            • yep. i was tagged for yet another corporate logo... one i edited but did not create. so i just put in some generic 'rationale' to back up the tag. a bot should not attack logos being used in the info box for that corporation. i'm sure there are other very obvious fair usage instances that this thing is attacking. program in some exceptions or kill this thing. just look at all the complaints. will be funnie when wikipedia shuts this bot running amok down. Randella 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Can you please point to where in "federal copyright laws" it says that "album covers in articles on albums is fair use"? I seem to have missed it. Thanks! --ElKevbo 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

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

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

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

• That is not a threat edit. This is standard practice. Images missing fair use rationales are subject to deletion from Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2Fmedia item I6. --Durin 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Conflict between WP:FUC and WP:FURG

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

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

WP:FURG only asks for purpose, portion and replacability

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

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

FUC 6 is only a link to other guidelines and essays, including one to meta:Avoid copyright paranoia which includes this great statement:

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

What's even more confusing is that Betacommandbot's example of a good fair use rationale ([14])is absolutely generic, while User:Durin, who seems to be the defender-in-chief for Betacommandbot, constantly argues that FURs have to be unique to each specific use in each specific article they're used in.

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

Malc82 09:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that betacommand simply made a mistake when defining his rational. In any case no rational is not a good thing. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting no rationale, but before a bot stirrs up thousands of Wikipedians, it would be nice if the policy would be clear. Btw, would you mind if I copied your response (and mine) to the VP. I think this is a general policy issue. Malc82 11:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC is a policy WP:FURG is a guideline. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Pausing your bot's operations

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

The concerns have been routinely address by several people. Betacommand specifically asked a number of people, including myself, to assist in monitoring operations and responses knowing that there would be significant discussion. We've been doing this, and if I do say so myself we've been doing a bang up job of responding in a timely manner to people. Features have been requested and added, people have been responded to, policies have been pointed to. This bot is more closely watched than probably any other bot out there. To say the administration of this bot is not responding to concerns is absolutely incorrect. The bot is not what is in error here. --Durin 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I look forward to you acting on my comments above in #Disruptive behaviour. But for the time being I support SimonP's decision --Philip Baird Shearer 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have answered peoples complaints just saying that they are wrong and very little else. You have kept claiming that templates cannot be used for fair use rationales, even after many people told you that is just not true. The actions of this bot is causing a lot of stress and disruption for very little value. Even is the bot is following the rules: 1) Those rules are currently under review 2) This is the wrong way to enforce the rules. You have to spread the meaning of the policies and build up an understanding for them in the community. Not violently enforce with a bot. You may be angry at the lowly ordinary editors who don't follow every paragraph of the policies, but please show some restraint. --Apoc2400 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the rules are not under review unless the Board of Trustees is planning or is currently discussing new resolutions to modify the existing one. --Durin 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

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

Please check image

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

• For what the bot is checking for at the current time, it is fine. --Durin 17:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fool

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

• You do understand this is a bot, not a human, yes? --Durin 17:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea of using a bot to make judgemental calls is too much. If "adding" articles and images is not trivial, neither is "deleting". How about just unlinking it from articles until fairuses get fixed? I don't see what harm an image could possible do if it was just sitting on the server with nobody using it. Benjwong 17:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The bot is not making judgment calls. It detects if a fair use rationale has been provided, and if not tags it appropriately. There's nothing subjective about it. It's a yes/no proposition. --Durin 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

An old Asian saying

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

Don't remove my comments from this page

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

• The images that it is tagging are missing fair use rationales. Such rationales are required by policy. I'm sorry you do not like this, but the reality is this is policy. --Durin 18:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• And by the way, the only other comment you've made on this page [15] was not deleted. --Durin 18:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I must have missed it, and so what if it is a policy, let the admins deal with it rather than a retarded bot that tags thousands of images per day. Better yet why don't you be proactive and provide rationales for the images this thing is tagging.--E tac 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Because I don't know under what concepts each image is being used under fair use. The person who adds the images to the articles knows. I am not a mind reader. --Durin 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You don't know because it is a bot doing the checking and not a human, it is pretty obvious on a band or album page that the image in the infobox is the logo or the album cover. Like I said this bot is stupid, and this work should be done by humans and not a bot that does not know how to use common sense. I am not arguing the policy and I have no problem with it, but I do with the way this thing is doing it.--E tac 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is, of course, bureaucratic rubbish because the rationale will be exactly the same in each and every case for album covers. No mind reading necessary, only a sense of constructive contribution. – B.hotep ^u/_t• 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• You and I have disparate views of fair use rationales. --Durin 19:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you just have a stupid view on it. you guys who are so gung-ho about having having personalized ,typed out fair use templates even gave us a list to type out for every one:

"* It illustrates educational articles about the band's body of work
* It represent the primary means of the visual identification of this work.
* It is a low resolution image.
* The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
* It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.
* The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original.
* The use of the cover illustration is in good faith, and its inclusion enhances the quality of the article without reducing the commercial value of the work from which it was drawn."

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

• • I don't agree that that is a good fair use rationale. Sorry. Thanks for the compliment by the way. --The holder of stupid views 19:14 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So you people cant' even decidewhat you want for a fair use rationale. That's exactly what I got from WP:FURG#CD_album_cover_art_in_the_article_about_that_album. Can you people please make up your minds? Violask81976 01:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Also this bot does nothing about images with false rationales and tags I assume. I could put "poopy doopy" under the rationale and the bot would probably leave it alone.--E tac 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If you did that, you would be warned to stop. --Durin 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • By who? If you are implying that admins already check the image pages then you have proven there is no need for this bot.--E tac 20:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • No, by recent changes patrollers. --Durin 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • You know what I mean, if humans check them then why the bot?--E tac 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Do you have any idea how many images we're talking about? These images do NOT show up on recent changes patrol. --Durin 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Um you could start a project for it, it would be no different then the assesment drives that they have had before.--E tac 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Newmoon2.jpeg

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

Unfortunately, no. While it is an excellent summary, it doesn't explain why you think this is a fair use of the image. For a book cover example, take a look at this. --GentlemanGhost 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Reword warning?

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

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

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

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

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

First person

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

• He's a cyborg. --Durin 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Done!

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

Image concerns

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

Questions needing answers

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

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

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

yes the images are fair use, the issue is not whether or not the image is fair use or not. The issue is explaining why wikipedia needs the given image. A rationale is an explanation of why that image should be used, where it can be used. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't fully answer my questions. If, as you concede, all album covers are covered by fair use, then why can we not have a generic template and rationale as to why every single album cover can and should be used? As far as I can tell, they are all being used in the exact same manner: In the "infoboxes"-type scenario of the artists and/or album articles. These album covers are being used in a consistent manner for the exact same reasons (or rationale) in every single instance. Get it? --Thorwald 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

then the images shouldnt be used in those pages per policy critical commentary is needed about the Image on the cover, you cannot use it just to ID the image. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That didn't make any sense. Why, if the exact same policy, rationale, reason, place, usage, etc., etc. is used can we not use it for every album cover? Where are you getting that we can not use the above reasons "per policy"? Am I just being dense here, or are we going around in circles with this? What on earth do you mean by "critical commentary is need about the [album cover]"? Wouldn't every "critical commentary" be identical for every album cover? How can we have different rationales for two different album covers? --Thorwald 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he is suggesting that the album article in which the image is used should contain "critical commentary" about the cover specifically. My understanding is that although this would improve the fair use case, it is not in fact required for fair use. My understanding is also that this is not required by policy on the English language Wikipedia. There are, however, a number of editors who would like it to be. You may wish to look at/join the discussion on the talk page of WP:FUC. Good luck. -MrFizyx 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that User:BetacommandBot is suggesting "critical commentary" for every single album cover. My question was, Why? If I copy the same rationale someone else used for their album cover and it is accepted by this bot, then it follows that another user could do the same ad infinitum until there would be no difference in all the rationales used by all the album covers. Thus, we should be able to have a generic template using a generic rationale that covers every single album cover automatically. Am I missing something? Please, someone tell me. This all seems insanely easy to fix. --Thorwald 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I certianly agree with you. There are, however, many opinions on this. I gather the discussion has now moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG. Regards, -MrFizyx 04:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a bogus argument being made about critical commentary on the exact "image" itself, as the same cannot be said for biographical articles containing fair use photographs of people. Fair use in that instance is used as a means to illustrate, beyond words, what that person looks like. The same rationale can be applied to album covers. If every article on an album "critically commented" on the image, that would in 99% of all cases be very silly and read in an abnormal manner. The image is intended to illustrate (beyond words) the appearance of the album, and is educational for readers. This is crazy talk, saying we must critically comment on fair use album cover IMAGES (which appears to be the argument!). Given that logic, we would have to apply the same for absolutely every fair use image on Wikipedia; meaning, fair use is pointless because photographs typically are meant to depict a person, place or event. The photographer is usually not the center of the story nor the point of the photography. Unless photographed by a famous photographer, there really is no critical commentary to be had about images. Now I see all the more why Betacommandbot must be shut down. In my view, permanantly. (Mind meal 07:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

• You're not alone in your opinion. There are also quite a number of people who feel the opposite. As to the original poster in this thread and his question, please read my comments here. --Durin 18:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jawol, mein Fuhrer!

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

POWER TO THE WIKIPEDIANS!

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

• Perhaps you should read WP:CIVIL and stop accusing Betacommand of being a Nazi. --Durin 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Durin, is it really possible that you imagine what you and Betacommand are doing constitutes civil discourse? Can someone be so self-blind? Dybryd 18:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Several other people took issue with Tom's comments above. Calling someone a Nazi is hardly productive. Encouraging them to read the governing policy on this is not out of line. I'm sorry that you feel it is. --Durin 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, score one for Godwin. --Iamunknown 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Score two, at least. There's another "fascist" reference about ten sections above this one. :( --GentlemanGhost 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FURG still isn't policy!

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

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

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

Dybryd 18:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• With due respect, WP:FURG is not intended to be policy. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria IS policy, and was affirmed by resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation (see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy). --Durin 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also, you may wish to see more background on this policy. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/FURG#The_problem_is_not_the_fair_use_policy. --Durin 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

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

• Lol, a pot calling the kettle black.. --Iamunknown 19:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that page is relevant, particularly this section:

"Often, a user will go out of his or her way to game the system, making changes which are against the spirit, if not the letter of the law. This user will, often purposely, goad other Wikipedians into response with an aggravating propensity to bend the rules, and will of course immediately accuse the other Wikipedians of incivility.

Dybryd 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, more baseless accusations of incivility! Well done, Dybryd! --Iamunknown 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people seem to be mistaken in the same way at the same time. Dybryd 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying everyone ELSE is mistaken? Fascinating! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you misread my sarcasm. However, I apologize for the sarcasm. Dybryd 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify (with less sarcasm, which I agree is probably not helpful), I don't particularly think Betacommand has been incivil. The box at the top of his talk page is, IMO, curt, but not agressive ... it is merely a collection of FAQs. I understand that other users may disagree, but I don't think we need to go about acussing others incivility ... as that is, inherently, incivil inasmuch as it produces an accusatory environment. --Iamunknown 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I will say I've seen curt writing, bordering on uncivil & arrogant, by Betacommand. When it's not curt, it's an offhand dismissal of that person's issue. Perhaps that's because bot owner has to answer the same questions 1,000 times. Of course, 1,000 questions or rants are to be expected when the bot adds umpteen thousand templates to talk pages. Honestly I think the bot shouldn't work any quicker than it takes the bot owner to give a thorough, helpful, friendly response to every inquiry posted on the bot or user's talk page. --Pesco 06:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of fair use images

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

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

PLEASE UNDO YOUR MODIFICATION TO THE HASHTGERD ARTICLE NOW

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

• Betacommand is not authorized to remove cais-soas.com from the blacklist. Few people are. The link was removed properly. If you wish to appeal cais-soas.com being on the blacklist, you can make a request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. --Durin 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed way forward

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

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

• scanning and tagging could continue for new uploads

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

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

The alternative is delete everything and take a year adding it back? --BigDT 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-ups to WT:FAIR#Way forward please Jheald 00:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Another request for a response

Despite the fact that some of my requests have been archived without a reply, and a variety of the usual complaints have seen responses, I have still not yet received a response concerning my suggestions for making the bot less disruptive. Since the bot is currently adding hundreds of copies of text that is mostly the same to talk pages in new sections, I think that it would not be comparatively very disruptive if I were to ask a third time for a response to my suggestion earlier on the page (User talk:Betacommand/20081201#A response concerning requests to make BetacommandBot less disruptive?). --Philosophus ^T 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. 2 above Ive answered this before. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but that's over 600kb of text, and it is absurd to expect everyone to read through it. Would you at least post the source for the bot, so I can try to change that instead of having to remove the spam manually? --Philosophus ^T 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all absurd to expect you to follow this discussion if you want to jump into it. It's ridiculous that you would ask anyone to hold your hand and find your answer for you. --ElKevbo 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Give the guy a break, ElKevbo. It's a legitimate question and deserves more than a brusque reply. Unlike the majority of comments here, he's not merely complaining that the bot tagged his image. --GentlemanGhost 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

the Templates that i use are all on wiki. now i will not be a broken record again see the archives Ive explained this all before. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive253#User:Betacommand:

Just because I dont publish the code means nothing. Ive see some really dumb people come through both WP:BRFA and WP:BOTREQ that could use my code, the issue is I want to avoid the damage that stupid people can do with the scripts. (I dont make my programs stupid proof) its the essence of WP:BEANS. if you look at the request for bot approvals that I have filed you will see how my bot operates. if you have any further questions/feature request please bring them up on my talkpage.

Hopefully, that answers one of your questions. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 17:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've Been thinking of a ways to lower the about of text, but as for the old messages they are staying as they are. Im going to look into how to feasibly implement that. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not msg me using the bot

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

Your bot continues to complain about my logo uploads

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

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

album cover fair use rationale

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

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

MikMod - false alarm

Your bot posted the "fair use" message on Talk:MikMod about Image:MikMod screenshot.png, but MikMod is a GPLed program and the image was tagged using Template:Free screenshot. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Furrykef, look at this diff. The person that uploaded it used a Linux screenshot, which is a fair use tag. It wasn't tagged as a free image until you got to it, so it was an error of the original uploader (not the bot). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. For some reason I thought the "file history" given on the image's page was the same as the "page history" (which had shown no recent edits), but obviously it's not. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do We Even Need Images?

Because they sure as hell are causing a lot of trouble. Why don't we just delete every single fucking one of them, sure Wikipedia will look like a ghost of it's former self, but at least we won't be worrying about the lawyers who so desperately want to close the site down anymore! The Hurball Company 20:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Let's do it. You go first. -Pilotguy hold short 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Album Covers

Your bot seems to be running through album covers (eg Image:FoxbaseAlpha.jpg) tagging them as having no fair use rationale. Given that the entire rationale for an album cover is contained in the original image tag I can foresee that this is likely to cause future problems. A1octopus 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

its not. that license tag is not a valid rationale. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My User Talk Page

Your bot recently posted on my user talk page. However, I had a template, which it totally deleted and replaced with its message. I restored it through the history page, but I just wanted to let you know about this! Primate 21:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't delete-happy enforcers HELP FIND FAIR-USE RATIONALE??

It seems to me, over the past year of Wikipedia, that the folks in charge have gotten delete-happy. Many articles important to me and others have been deleted, and I've seen COUNTLESS articles I've hoped to find a picture for totally pictureless. They weren't always this way, but friendly helpful contributory bots like Betacommandbot have ensured this remains a text-only medium. Wikipedia is NOT easy to use to the average layperson like me, and keeping an article or image from being purged seems to be a full-time job these days. I realize my complaint here will accomplish nothing.. but please, if you're a delete-happy editor, why don't you spend an extra minute and FIND A FAIR USE RATIONALE and FIX it!! Instead of DELETING STUFF why can't you find a way to keep it? I thought we were all working together here, not trying to tear each other apart!! If someone forgot to put a decimal point in a check they wrote you, would you dot it for them or tear it up and demand they write a new check? You will win a lot more friends than all the enemies and anger you incite by destroying everyone else's hard work just because they may have forgotten to dot their i's in the word "fair use". (yes literalists, this is a metaphor) deronde June 11th 2007

See #6 on the helpful list at the top of this page. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand one can disagree with #6, that list has no particular authority behind it. Wikipedia is a collaborative work. If I go to an article and find that it has lots of misspelled words, it would not be reasonable for me to declare that it's the original author's responsibility to fix it and then delete it if he hasn't done so in a week. I myself have been adding rationales whenever his bot's messages popped up on my watchlist regardless of whether I uploaded the image in the first place and in the vast majority of cases it's been an utterly trivial task. Bryan Derksen 16:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

True, you can disagree with #6 but it doesnt matter. I dont care if you disagree or not. its not going to change my position. I am not going to add rationales to over 100,000 images. Per policy when you press the save button its your job to make sure that it meets policy. I do my part, you do yours. I find images that dont meet policy, you fix. end of story. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an important note BC makes, his actions are strongly backed up by policy, blessed by the board and approved by Jimbo Wales himself. So, there you go. It's not popular work, but it's a necessary job and is making up for a failure of some folks to meet their obligations. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll regret getting involved in this no-win possibility but why on earth should anybody, let alone Jimbo, approve someone to do this job who has only just been stripped of admin powers for (as far as I can see) rudeness, lack of response to queries and a delete happy attitude while an admin? Surely this isn't a job, with all due respect, for betacommand - bot or not. 82.41.98.219 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Per policy when you press the save button its your job to make sure that it meets policy. -- Policy as it exists at the time you press the save button? Or policy that sometime in the future changes? It's tough to take temporal responsibility for the future changes to WP:NONFREE. Or is it your position that fair use policy on Wikipedia has not undergone major changes in the past year? C'mon... People uploaded images under once set of rules, the rules changed, the images are being deleted... At least be honest about what's happening. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rough Rider logos

I had these logos on one page for two years now. The helmets that you want to delete are from the same source as the other CFL Helmet logos which have been listed as good. What do you want me to do to prevent them from being removed. Because one of the logos that you want to delete is actually one of my own which I created myself. Bestghuran June 12 2007, 07:20 AM (UTC)

Even if you draw the image yourself, copyright logos are still copyrighted logos and needed to be tagged with fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Conversion = Image:ACL logo.png

I can see why you'd want to delete Image:ACL logo.png(I sent a message to SPUI, so that's how I know about the threat to delete it), but is there any way this could be converted into a more appropriate *.svg file? ---- DanTD 12:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. You could do it, anyone could do it. Well, any human. This particular editor to whom you are leaving a message is a bot :) --Durin 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I couldn't find the manager of the bot, so I had to leave it with the bot hoping that the person in charge reads it. ---- DanTD 16:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Although current consensus (I think) is that if the image had more detail than were necessary to display it at a web-suitable resolution, then it would not be fair use (so a lot of effort for no gain). In addition, the image would still need a Fair Use rationale and would need to not be orphaned, just as the current image does) - the problem (AFAICT) is not with the format. Stannered 13:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Help! Need a droolproof how-to!

I see your bot has tagged some images with needing a rationale. It then links to two very long pages describing policy and whatnot. There's a lot to read there. I'm a busy man. What exactly do I need to do make these images acceptable to the bot? Where, and what, text needs to be added? Is it a line on the image page? A line in a template somewhere? And whatever answer you have for this, can you add it to the text that the bot adds? -- Metahacker

Mr. Busy: The expeditious workaround is to put down any old nonsense as the rationale. How's a bot going to know what's legal or not? I mean, we can hardly understand it. Of course, we are good wikicitizens and would never do such a thing! I gained peace of mind when I quit uploading images.--BillFlis 11:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

wrong mister BillFlis the bot will catch that too. It as an AI and it told me it was planning on taking over wikipedia. But seriously it will catch nonsense rationales and those images will be deleted if a valid rationale is not added. and for a simple how to on writing rationales see WP:FURG Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Album cover fair use rationale

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

This too was a bit of a puzzling addition on a few low-res album images I had posted with the template album licensing box. I would be curious to know the automation's reasons for inconsistently flagging these pages. Thank you for your consideration, Poechalkdust 4:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The images dont have a valid fair use rationale, the license template doenst count as a rationale for a guideline on writing them see this Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Roy Harper

I was under the impression album covers like this one Image:Roy Harper.jpg (and the insert Image:Roy Harper and Jimmy Page.gif) were ok to upload. Stephenjh 08:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

they can be uploaded but they need to follow policy see WP:FUC, and contain a fair use rationale. for a guideline to write a rationale see WP:FURG Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

archives

Why are there no links to the archive of this talk page? // laughing man 13:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Because all the complaints are embarassing for the bot owner... --Bleveret 15:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I got a warning and a ban for mentioning it. The term they used was 'personal insult.' Reaper7 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Threads are periodically moved to User talk:Betacommand and are archived as part of that page's archive scheme. —METS501 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This should be mentioned somewhere on talk page then. // laughing man 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the page you can see that I use the werdnabot archiving method (Im in that category) and if you look at the page edit text you can see it says Target-User talk:Betacommand and when ever the bot archives it says (Automated archival of 7 sections to User talk:Betacommand) as the edit summary. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not for me (I know where they are). It is for other less experienced Wikpedians who are already confused by your bots messages. Please make an attempt to at least have this bot's talk page easy to follow, especially when the messages are regarding the bots actions not necessarily addressed to you, as other editors have been answering questions on this talk page. // laughing man 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just stop...

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

Then stop uploading audio clips, or fix the ones you have. You have no right to bitch to Betacommand for your errors. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ned. I haven't uploaded any audio clips in well over a year. I uploaded the clips this cocksucking bot is spamming me for a very long time ago, in full accordance with the then-relevant policies, in response to an FAC request, a year ago last February. I have no interest in "fixing" anything on a project already FUBAR. All I'm asking is that this shitty bot stops spamming a talk page I only monitor for messages from old friends with its boilerplate messages. Also, Ned, fuck your mother. And please direct all WP:CIVIL style responses into your father's loose asshole, since I could give a fuck. dharmabum 11:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Dharmabum420 on this. Enforcing copyright is all well and good, but being pedantic about rules doesn't help anyone. If you want to provide fair use rationale for images or sound clips, go ahead. But the attempt to force occasional users to do so just encourages us to never come back. Find a meaningful way to contribute here, or risk the loss of genuine contributors. Alcuin 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If forcing you to follow our policy on using these images makes you leave, then don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out. This is a requirement, it is not optional. You are using content that is owned by someone else, not by you. If you wish to use that content then you must do certain things. If you are not willing to do those things, then you have no right uploading non-free files. -- Ned Scott 19:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The threats of deletion are being made on the basis of something Betacommand thinks should be policy, but in fact isn't policy and is still being discussed. His harrassment of large numbers of editors is actually just a rhetorical tactic in the argument over whether it should be policy or not.

Just thought you all should know!

Dybryd 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It already is policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, point 10. Anyways, that is a lot of clips used for the article and I would personally say it would be too many. Regardless, what the bot is doing is in line with Wikimedia policy. That is why the bot gave you time to fix everything. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Dharmabum420 has been indefinitely blocked for "trolling, incivility, disruption, classic POINTmaking". --ElKevbo 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it so wrong that, rather than getting my own Signpost subscription, I just read it off of other people's talk pages, because I check so many talk pages that I inevitably see it somewhere within a day of it coming out? I'm like the bad neighbor who doesn't have his own New York Times subscription, so he's always sneaking a peak at his neighbor's. --Cyde Weys 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

/me laughs. thats not a problem. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

logos for deletion

it suprising that all the logos i uploaded are all for deletion even though the article bears the designers and the ownwer names in this case Lauren Archer and the International Peace Institute (Motegole 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

they need rationales Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

bot requests

none of the categories need to be removed, except Category:Rugby league needs to be added

but just a question, does he bot overide previous talk pages which already have the template?

If they do, there is a category that has the articles which already have the template on it.

SpecialWindler_TALK 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rugby league needs to be added. SpecialWindler_TALK 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Thanks

of course, that is what i based the list off of. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it wasn't on the list, and you had all the subcategories of that, but there are articles in the rugby league category. SpecialWindler_TALK 02:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, sorry for the interuptions. SpecialWindler_TALK 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you can/want to do what is on the the bot requests page (under the "Assessing Stub ...") section. Thanks. SpecialWindler_TALK 05:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bots exclusion

Please consider supporting Bots Exclusion Tags in your bot. Thanks. -- taviso 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I do have a exclude list that I can add users to, If you have a valid reason to be ignored. Otherwise policy states the uploading user must be notified, and only after that does the seven day period for fix/delete begin. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Id like to be added to that list, I dont dispute any of your edits, but I can see the ones that affect me in my watchlist and am not a fan of messages from non-humans on my User talk page :-) -- taviso 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Servant of the Bones.jpg

Please go ahead and delete it for all I care. PM Poon 05:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MY IMAGE

Your bot has made a error because my image is a log but it is free. you dont have to pay for it.

--Muriness 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:ATALA T LOGO.png is not free, its copyrighted Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fairy Kameo.jpg

You can go ahead and delete it. I posted an updated version of it. --Coconutfred73 17:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:GOI_Single

I took it off of the page because it was not scanned by myself and I have others in it's place. You may delete it if you like. Wasakithis 20:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A. S. Amanzholov

Hi, Betacommand. What's the problem with the external links? I checked the links and they seemed to me ok. For this reason, i restored them. If you'd like to discuss, you're welcome. Regards. E104421 19:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

the link says its turkicworld.org but the actual hyper-link is to s155239215.onlinehome.us those domain names are misleading. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Dear Betacommand/20070601

Can you guide me in creating a bot. I need the steps and what to use and do. I have already looked at how to create a bot and need guidence. Please respond on my talkpage. Thank You! Crunch13 12:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

what do you want to do with the bot? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Ericson-alexander-molano.png

I was about to ask an administrator to delete the image!!!! Can you delete it? Oh, for future reference, I uploaded another image with the same license and being used in one of the articles; does the image qualify or does it get deleted also?  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

it would only be deleted if/when the image is no longer used in an article, as long as its used no problem. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question!!! I uploaded Image:Ericson-Molano.jpg to substitute Image:Ericson-alexander-molano.png and it was being used in an article, until it was deleted from the page and I got a message saying that the image cannot be used in the article, because its copyrighted or something!!! What's your take on it?  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah that image is copyrighted and can be replaced with a free version, and thus should be deleted. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. WP:AIV & my report

Thanks for the note, the IP's actually been blocked now. From looking at the contributions, I didn't think the edits looked bot like (too low edit count) but apparently the edit summaries that the IP used were the default edit summary set on pywiki bots (I might just stay away from all bots from now on - they don't like me!). Quick question, hows the image tagging coming along? Got much to do? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

good Ive identified 170,000 images that need fixed/deleted. Per a request Im delaying the tagging until July 1. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a hell of a lot. Get the shields charged up for July 1 then :-) - keep it up though, people might get annoyed by the tagging, but you've got a lot of support from all the right people. Well done for all the work you've done with it so far. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Non-free use disputed for Image:Air Maldives4.jpg

I've been travelling away from home for the past month and had no time to look into the deleting of this image.

This was the first image I uploaded in Wikipedia. I didn't understand the categories then, so I labeled it erroneously and thus included it in 'fair use' wrongly.

Fact is that it was my own work, that it was taken by myself with my own camera and that I relinquished any rights releasing it for public use. I made it clear some time later.

Probably you didn't gather that fact or bypassed it. This image should have been reclassified as my own work. But I didn't know how to do that. Now for example I don't even know how to retrieve it.Mohonu 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but that image cannot be declared as your work. Yes you took the picture, but that logo is still copyrighted by Air Maldives, and thus cannot be released. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You state that the logo is still copyrighted by Air Maldives, and thus cannot be released. So if I paint an Air Maldives plane with the airline livery and the logo, will that interdiction apply?Mohonu 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

the logo is copyrighted. It doesn't matter who re-draws the logo, its still copyrighted. The reason that the image was deleted is because it lacked a fair use rationale if you write a valid rationale you could then show it to an admin and ask them to un-delete it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot code

It's a good point that some bot code could have adverse effects if seen by the wrong people. However, would you consider sending a copy to some of the other prominent bot runners on WP? I've seen a few botters disappear over time and it would be a shame if good fucntionality was lost. >Radiant< 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't mean me :) I've got near-zero experience with bots. >Radiant< 08:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

CCleaner image

hi, Mr or Mrs Bot, the image Image:CCleaner.png is being used (going to be), i am in the work of creating CCleaner, but want to proteckt the users from bad spelling therefore I use User:Emva/CCleaner as a spelling nuclear test ground... cheerio

Emva 22:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please subst this template

[16]. Cause it says to and it puts it into a nice dated category when you do. Thanks. -N 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot is overwritting talk pages

I can live with the tagging and notifying of non-free content, but I am very sure that overwritting the former contents of a user talk page with the orphaned image notice is not kosher. Please fix this, make the bot just bottom-post like every human would. Thanks. Resurgent insurgent 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated 'orphan' tagging of Image:STH39p19.jpg by betacommandbot

I respectfully request that your bot cease and desist from repeatedly tagging Image:STH39p19.jpg as 'orphaned' as it is currently in use in the article Bunnie Rabbot. This image does not violate any of Wikipedia's regulations reguarding the subject matter in question, and a link to the article it is in use in is present on the image's description. Orca1 9904 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Orca1_9904

that Image is not used on Bunnie Rabbot. If you think it is please point me to where its at on the page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

here it is, right here: Bunnie_Rabbot#Origin. Right side, right next to the paragraph about the character's role in the 'Rage Against the Machine' storyline.Orca1 9904 05:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Orca1_9904

that is not the same file. the one in the article is Image:Sonic issue39 p19.jpg that is not the one that was tagged Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Directives from "Above"

Dear Betacommand, the powers that be are directing me to inform you that you should hereby direct your bot to perform a supporting role for Alphacommandbot, which is run by Alphacommand. The reason for this is that the final testing phase is about to commence. As you are now a child project to Alphacommandbot, your maximum edit frequency may be altered according to a new formula. If your bot cannot handle these new tasks, you may delegate them to the newly created User:Gammacommandbot or User:Deltacommandbot. If you haven't realised yet that I'm just an eccentric with too much time on my hands, hopefully this sentence will fix that. Couldn't help myself, sorry :p Fluck 07:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• oh and the "child" joke... the Hindi word for "son" is "beta". I lolled.

I wish I were as cool as Fluck :)

"I'm glad I'm not a gamma!" -Lenina (a beta), Brave New World, Aldous Huxley. --Tony Sidaway 08:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

SOS Image

I took that screenshot myself! --Mooshykris 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Its still copyrighted Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Camino Icon

I'm not sure why I was sent this message. I did not upload the Camino icon; I just copied and pasted the template. Casey J. Morris 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Today Images

As you may or may not be aware of, your bot (User:BetacommandBot) is attacking images that are currently being utilised in my sandbox. Which, will soon be placed on the Today article in the near future. I do understand that as stated at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion under the unused unfree images tab, reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. I would apreciate if you would be able to stop you bot from enforcing these messages on these images, that are infact currently in use. In addition, I have placed a usage tab on each of the images page, explaining the circumstances. Images are listed below. --Tjkirk 08:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Image:First Today Show.jpg
• Image:Today Show Intro.jpg
• Image:New Today Show Team.jpg
• Image:Current Graphics.jpg
• Image:Karl and Lisa.jpg

Get a life Please find another purpose for your account moved by Shadow1

I don't have the time to write every single fair use rationale. Dont' you have anything better to do with yourself? Dankru 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Armageddon Image

Ok so its ok to use the image? Because apparantly, its under a "fair use" rule or something, so It wanst allowed. I had very many pictures from movie's and TV shows for World Trade Center in popular culture.

Dose this mean the images are ok to use? How do I revive the deleted others?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pag293 (talk • contribs)

Get a life

I don't have the time to write every single fair use rationale. Dont' you have anything better to do with yourself? Dankru 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Favorite statement about ORFU images:

It is your responsibility to provide the fair use rationale, or you shouldn't be uploading the content. If you don't have time, the problem will resolve itself when the pictures are deleted, but this is a good faith effort to retain as many pics as possible within the legal protections needed to keep from getting sued. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lazy Deletionist Barnstar

...Awarded to you for your efforts at Julius Langbehn. =). Not trying to be mean, I just think it was a bit swift of you.Yeago 13:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry a one liner saying <name of person> is <career> is a cruft article. Sorry for not waiting longer. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A lil' googlin' woulda yielded the fact that he already has an extensive .de artikel.Yeago 19:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Too short cert.png

Your bot recently tagged Image:Too short cert.png for deletion claiming it to be an orphan. I have the following template in place to show it's not an orphan:

{{not orphan}}

Is this template out of date? Is there some other template I need to add to prevent bots like yours from trying to delete the image?

1 that template is for free images. 2 that image still needs to be linked to on that page, currently its not. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1) is there an analogous template for a non-free fair-use image? 2) That image is, in fact, linked from that page ENDelt260 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed the way it was linked to. I think a notorphan template shouldn't be necessary now. Thanks. ENDelt260 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:KNAC.jpg

Hi,

The bot tagged Image:Knac.jpg as orphaned, and the image page does not list any pages that link to it; but it is in fact being used at KNAC. Tempshill 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. Can anyone explain what's going on?

In any case, the image may not be an orphan but it does appear to be lacking a fair use rationale. --ElKevbo 21:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please fix your bot

Your bot is claiming some of my old Wikipedia screenshot images are "orphans" when they're clearly in use at Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots. Please fix. --brion 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:HarryPotter 1.jpg

The image is now non-orphaned and thanks for remiding me...I sort of forgot about the image. ~ Bella 15:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned image

Hello, yes the article in which the MyBizOffice image was used was deleted - should I also delete the image?

--TheBackpack 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:When You Say Nothing at All.JPG and Image:When You Say Nothing at All.jpg

Both were failed experiments and neither will ever appear with an article, so they may be deleted ASAP. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. Cheemo 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK to delete the following orphans

I recently recieved notice that the following images were orphaned and scheduled for deletion:

• Image:MagellanChokeRingAndCover.jpg
• Image:TrimbleChokeRingAntenna.jpg

Go ahead and delete them.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for notifying me

Hadn't noticed some vandal erased the Sky Dream Fukuoka article. Thanks again! - Sparky 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

Your bot continues (3rd time) tagging Wikipedia screenshots as orphan, but they're all used in Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots. Few examples -> [17], [18]. --Uusitunnus 12:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

earl butz

why the revision ? it was clearly sourced (time magazine) and if something is worth an article in Time, I think that qualifies as notable. This is not just denigrating butz; when the US SEc of Ag, in his official capacity, makes such a remark, it is surely noteworthy - If you are old enough, you will recall that pres Nixon was quite a hypocrite, constantly denigrating opponents for their coarse ways while he himself used foul laguage constantly; with this backdrop,the butz quote is even more important.Cinnamon colbert 13:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Avocent logo.png [19]

The article associated with this image, Avocent, is in deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_21#Avocent) due to it's being deleted without debate. Your bot initally drew my attention to the deleted article, for which I am grateful. After I removed the orphan banner from the image, your bot tagged it again. I would suggest improving your bot so that it either escalates disputed edits to a human or knows enough to wait for a while before tagging it again. -- Austin Murphy 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale television screenshots

There's a request on ANI for mass-tagging television screenshots without rationales, which given your bot, you may want to look at. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 20:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Auxillary Constable

You issued a speddy dlete for the RCMP image on this page, this is actulally copied from the RCMP wiki article. I would suggest you slow down abit and find out where things actually come from.--Pandaplodder 20:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot Malfunction

Please shut this bot down, it's currently "orphaning" all of my screenshots.

--Mooshykris 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• It appears to be working properly. The images in question are not in use on any main namespace article. Fair use images (such as screenshots usually are) must be used in articles, or be 'orphaned' and subjection to deletion in seven days time. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #7, which is the policy regarding this issue. --Durin 01:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's used in the Switched-On Schoolhouse Article --Mooshykris 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel so stupid...I was confusing the images... forget the whole thing --Mooshykris 01:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • :) No worries. --Durin 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Today Images

This is the second message I have posted now, explaining that, your bot (User:BetacommandBot) is attacking images that are currently being utilised in my sandbox. Which, will soon be placed on the Today article in the near future. I do understand that as stated in the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion article under the unused unfree images tab, reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. I would apreciate if you would be able to stop you bot from enforcing these messages (as I have received these messages three times now). The images are infact currently in use. In addition, I have placed a usage tab on each of the images page, explaining the circumstances. Images are listed below. --Tjkirk 22:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Image:First Today Show.jpg
• Image:Today Show Intro.jpg
• Image:New Today Show Team.jpg
• Image:Current Graphics.jpg
• Image:Karl and Lisa.jpg
  • I'd recommend you continue working on your article with the images in absentia, and upload the images once the article is ready. Even as tagged, you get a week to work on the article. That's plenty of accomodation. --Durin 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Too strick with the orphaned tag.

I understand the purpose this bot performs in regards to orphaned images, however its too quick. I uploaded Image:WTlogo.gif on June 22, at 01:39. This bot tagged it a mere 4hrs later (05:30). The image is now in use, and I have removed the tag, but I think some leeway should be given to editors (Maybe 2 days?) who upload images, before they get tagged. Many people create/work on their articles thru user sub-pages (such as the case with the image in question), before publishing them. Granted its no big deal, since you get a week before they're deletd to continue, and you can remove the tag yourself, but still in the years to come hundreds of manhours can be wasted reading the bot message, and removing the tag, on images not needed.

Also, Image:Eboardhome.jpg was tagged. That can be deleted right away if you want. I changed the screen shot image that was on the article, to a logo gif. So it nolonger has any purpose.

Thank you for your time Rawboard 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really it doesn't check times. I normally run it about every week or two. some images can be orphaned for say seven days while others could be only a few minutes. orphan is orphan. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you Rawboard 07:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

betacommandbot not notifying contributor

betacommandbot recently marked Image:Franklin Road Academy.png as not having fair use rationale (which was correct, i had forgotten to do so, so thank you) however, it never notified me of the marking of my image as without fair use rationale. You should fix your bot so that it notifies the uploader that their content has been marked. Thank you. Rover007TN 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This image no longer shows you as the uploader. If you check the file history, you'll see what I'm talking about. I suspect that's why the bot didn't warn you. --GentlemanGhost 05:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

correct. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

SpebiBot

Hi Betacommand, I'm here to take up on your offer ;) (lol) Do you think one of SpebiBot's tasks could be to update the tallies on RfAs? Or would that be a little too complex... ? Thanks, +spebi ~ 07:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if your bot could tag all images on List of Virtual Dungeon monsters for no fair use rationale tags. hbdragon88 21:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

per a consensus request Im pausing all FURG tagging until july 1. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are 53 images on that page. If you'd like to have them removed for non-notability, do that directly. The appropriate thing to do here would be to have the bot put identical rationale tags on each of the images. It would likely be less work than was needed to upload the images. –M^T 06:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rebecca Maddern.JPG

I have linked it to the page - at the time I uploaded it I forgot to link it. Thanks for the reminder. --Whats new? 11:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Friendlier name for BetacommandBot interaction purposes

Hello,

It has come to my attention that BetacommandBot has an unfriendly name. Is there any way to rename it to something without the word "Command" or adding that it has a specific purpose? Perhaps even renaming to BetacommandImageBot ?

-- Guroadrunner 10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Friendlier name for interaction purposes

Hello,

It has come to my attention that BetacommandBot has an unfriendly name. Is there any way to rename it to something without the word "Command" or adding that it has a specific purpose? Perhaps even renaming to BetacommandImageBot ?

-- Guroadrunner 10:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Use less text

Your bot inserts the following text:

Image:Jean Mayer.jpg 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 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.

Where the following would have sufficed:

NOTICE: MISSING RATIONALE. A rationale for using [foo.png] in this article must be provided on the [image's description page]. Please insert a completed fair use template in addition to the fair use tag. Images without rationale may be deleted after one week. More info at WP:FURG. Ask questions at WP:MCQ. ~

The extended version wastes time - some people don't care about details and explanations, they just want to know what to do to resolve the problem: "fill this in and paste it here". Sections are redundant. It's difficult for a regular contributor to re-identify it without reading two sentences in. It's too verbose and too 'polite' - I'm not inclined to act on it, nor is it clear what my act should be. Please shorten (and thus clarify) your bot's messages, and encourage other operators to do the same. –M^T 06:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the friendly message should be supplemented by M's idea, but not replaced by it. Guroadrunner 10:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do a test run. Try each notice on a large number of random images (uploaded by different authors, in different articles) and see which one leads to more templates being added. Whatever friendliness there is in the first can surely be replicated by adding "Please note that a rationale...", and a "Thank you :)" at the end. –M^T 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sealand Coat of Arms

The image path was changed from .gif to .png by an anonymous user. I will change it back.

Madmexican 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Romania nuts l2.png

The above mentioned image was replaced by a free image. Please delete the image.CristianChirita

Tagging

Please use {{subst:ncd}} instead of {{NowCommons}} so we get a date. // Liftarn

Image:Kameo2.jpg

You can go ahead and delete this image. I uploaded it by mistake.

betacommandbot adding {{lake project}}

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

daniel dicriscio

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

You know what to do

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

Messages

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

Nicole Wray's Album Covers Images

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

VandalProof

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

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

Again VandalProof

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

amazingislandlagu.jpg

Thanks for telling me! I realized my image had 'Gamespot' on it, but i didn't know how to take it away. -Galanoth7395

Please check

Please check the Mario Lanza page for excess links such as Yahoo chat sites, message forums. not exactly Official links that have been romoved from other such sites. Needs some clean up please

Substituting {{unsigned}}

Two edits in question: [20] and [21]. Please advise why:

• the bot inserts {{{3|}}}
• the bot required two edits on one page
• the edit summary says "subst'ing templates per WP:SUBST" while WP:SUBST pretty much says that {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}} are NOT supposed to be subst'd

∴ Alex Smotrov 04:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

depends on how you read it, it says neither yes or no about subst'ing that template, only that there is a debate about substing it. common practice is to subst it thus I am substing it properly. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I still having something to learn: so you are saying that adding {{{3|}}} and making 2 edits instead of 1 — that's what makes substitution done "properly"? ∴ Alex Smotrov 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

the {{{3|}}} was not added by the bot, its part of the template. and as for the number of edits, Im developing code and its not perfect yet. (it missed some on the first check). Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe my point here was obvious: whatever the source is, {{{3|}}} was not supposed to be inserted by the bot. The same goes for other invisible markup, like in this edit. Please fix it and good luck ∴ Alex Smotrov 05:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, can you slow down the rate? You're flooding my watchlist. El_C 06:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, this is making it a bit more difficult to follow some of my watched pages. Also, this is the first time I've heard it claimed that subst-ing unsigned is "common practice." Never noticed it myself. -- Kesh 07:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any perceived "common practice", the notice that subst'ing of this template is under debate should cause one to wait until the issue is more resolved. Many drawbacks to template substitution are listed, including reasons to reconsider in this case. —Adavidb 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting the subst of {{unsigned}} on Alto clarinet. Regardless of common practice, or your perception of common practice, the very guideline you cite says this subst is not well justified. I recommend you leave {{unsigned}} templates alone until a clear policy has been established. -- Rsholmes 13:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Rsholmes and Adavidb. WP:subst does not state that the unsigned tag must be must be substituted. Also, the robot's revisions are leaving two <small>'s and two </small>'s (see Talk:Amine gas treating for example). And the code is very ugly. - mbeychok 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There was debate in 2006 over whether this template should be substituted. Continued "official" debate would be appropriate on the current talk page. —Adavidb 03:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please fix your bot

Please stop your bot from leaving messages on the wrong user talk pages. Before you send a message, you must first check whether you got the right person. This is the third time your bot is contacting me about an image that I supposedly uploaded, when in fact I merely converted it from another image format. My upload summary clearly states that. I don't know any more about the image copyright or source than you do, so stop asking! — Timwi 11:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

subst:unsigned

Please do no subst this. WP:subst does not say to, as you claim. It just makes for ugly code. [22] —Pengo 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Other discussion about this topic is also available at the Betacommand talk page. —Adavidb 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Pengo. WP:subst does not state that the unsigned tag must be must be substituted. Also, the robot's revisions are leaving two <small>'s and two </small>'s (see Talk:Amine gas treating for example). And the code is indeed ugly. - mbeychok 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The template states it should be subst'd, but WP:SUBST says it's disputed. However, whether or not {{unsigned}} is to be WP:SUBST'd, it should NOT be SUBST'd if it doesn't have a parameter. Please revert those substitutions immediately. If you cannot, I'll block the bot until a fix-bot can be run. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One do not make threats. One if you do block the bot I will consider that an abuse of admin privileges and I will respond in that manner. If you paid attention this bot does a lot of work for more than one task. Since this issue was brought up I havent subst'ed any {{unsigned}}. as for reverting that is not as simple as you take it to be, its far simpler, less hassle and less trouble to leave it was they are. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe everyone would be more clear on this bots actions (and reactions by other Wikipedians) if you didn't "archive" all feedback here to oblivion. // laughing man 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt go to oblivion, It goes to my talkpage. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Far better (or at least easier) to hate than to investigate. --Durin 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Substituting a broken template means the bot was broken. Also, if the bot does not have a revert capability, it should be considered broken, but that doesn't appear to be in the bot requirements. You should have a bot which does an "undo" on all your bot actions within a certain time-frame (for all those which can be undone, of course). Seems a simple enough bot to write. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The bot is operating properly. Its not the bots fault that the template is broken, A broken template is not a broken bot. Threats to block are a mis-use of admin status. The introduction of a un-used template parameter is not a big deal. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There was debate in 2006 over whether this template should be substituted. Continued "official" debate would be appropriate on the current talk page. —Adavidb 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please fix your bot

Please stop your bot from leaving messages on the wrong user talk pages. Before you send a message, you must first check whether you got the right person. This is the third time your bot is contacting me about an image that I supposedly uploaded, when in fact I merely converted it from another image format. My upload summary clearly states that. I don't know any more about the image copyright or source than you do, so stop asking! — Timwi 11:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bug edit?

I'm wonder what the bot was doing with this edit? All it seemed to do was change the minute time of the signature, which is a completely wasteful edit. Just thought I'd point it out so you could maybe eliminate it and make the bot more streamlined. BTW, I support what you're doing. MECU≈talk 12:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)