User talk:Betacommand/20071001

Bot problem

Your bot has a mild issue of tagging images that contain fair use rationale that mention past article names. It recently tagged Image:Maylee-p.jpg which explained its rationale for use in May Lee, the old article space that May Lee (The King of Fighters) was at.--SeizureDog 05:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If that was a redirect (its not) there would be no problem, instead it lists a different article (which is a problem). β^_command 11:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Just letting you know there's a spelling error in your bot's message: notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE – it should say "notifying". --Canley 05:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NSWPatriots.jpg

what the fuck is your bots problem with the fair use rational of this image? i asked you the same thing regarding another of my images a week ago which you ignored, an actual response this time would be most appreciated!--Dan027 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i finish leaving a message and what do i get? another message from your bot this time regarding Image:IBLA Logo.gif, how is it that your bot can read the rationale i supply?--Dan027 08:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the tag left on the image. WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 11:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD Backlog

Hi Betacommand,

Your bot has done a great job of spotting dodgy fair use, but we're now up to an 11 day backlog at CSD, trying to deal with all the tagged articles! Would it be possible to wait for a few days to let us catch up? Also, the following cases seem to occur quite frequently:

1. Images with no fair use rationale are being tagged as having a disputed fair use rationale. It's easier to deal with no rationale cases than disputed cases, so it would be better to tag them with {{subst:nrd}}.
2. The {{Non-free use rationale}} template was finally updated to have an "article" field. All of the articles using the old version are correctly being tagged as disputed, but they often have perfectly adequate fair use rationales, with the exception of an obvious name (e.g. a company for which the logo is provided). Is there a way these could be added to a new category such as Category:Non-free use rationale templates with empty article field. It would be a quicker admin task to deal with such a category. This would be a short term arrangement until the backlog has been cleared!

Thanks for your hard work, as ever! Papa November 10:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BCBot doesnt check for that article parameter. it checks for WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 11:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your bot

There seems to be some issues with your bot as it keeps on tagging images I have uploaded as having "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" when this is obviously not the case (and yes, I have gone to that particular criteria and read it in depth).

As I have probably uploaded hundreds of fair-use film poster images over the past year or so, I would appreciate if you would get this issue fixed as I am rather tired of having my talk page spammed with your notifications. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You say that it is mis-tagging images? can i get some examples. 10c is not just book keeping it is a very key point in rationales. either fix them to avoid further messages. or you will continue to receive warnings for images that have problems. β^_command 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Seconded. While flagging substantive fair-use violations is commendable, mass-tagging of all images which fail this particular narrow bookkeeping criteria is a bad idea. It takes human editor's time from monitoring real fair-use problems in Category:All disputed non-free images by flooding it with images which are NOT a fair use violation, just tagged in a way not understandable by your bot. And at the very least if you're going to go mass-tagging fair use images for improper rationales, you ought to at least place warnings on their articles with {{deletable image-caption}} in case the uploaders are either absentee or don't know how to fix the problem. —dgies^t_c 06:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Every image BCBot tags does have a non-free problem. I dont use that template, but check the article talkpage. β^_command 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here and Here are just two of the many images that have been tagged by your bot for no apparent reason. WP:NFCC#10c states: "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use." This passage obviously does not apply as the article name and fair-use rationale is included in this, and every single other poster image I have uploaded.

As I said before, I am being spammed with multiple messages from your bot nearly every day now, and as it is only likely to get worse given the sheer number of images I have uploaded. Please fix this issue as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your bot incorrectly labels images with proper fair use rationales

Example

It is obvious the bot is not smart enough to tell if the rationale is proper or not. Stop it ASAP.  Grue  15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the bot missing the above because of a layout issue. However, it's tagging of Image:BRS cover 2.jpg and Image:ISIH cover.jpg is evidently a total malfunction. If not stopped soon - if, say, you're away or something - I'll need to get an admin to block it until you can get a look at the problem and repair it. Still, good job more genrally - even if I am here to complain, I at least apreciate the work it does. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Read WP:NFCC where it says "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item". Both of you are wrong. The bot is right. Hammersoft 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hammersoft is correct please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

October, 2007

Hello, the Bot incorrectly tagged Image:Lenin 1887.jpg as subject to Delete per WP:NONFREE for "lack of Fair Use rationale". However, the image in question is PD, not Fair Use. As the image seems to be correctly categorized, why did the Bot misconstrue it as Nonfree? JGHowes ^talk - 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

see [1] β^_command 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a bug, not a feature. Can you make the bot smarter? It should say specifically which part of the algorithm prompted it to add a tag. ie. "tagged because OrphanBot did this", not some generic "invalid non-free rationale". Just out of general interest, do you stop running the bot every time a bug like this appears, and fix it before running it again? Carcharoth 05:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

its a very rare error, and it normally doesnt occur. I left the bot running longer than normal. I shouldnt happen again. (I dont plan on letting it run that long again). it was just a data lag. β^_command 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also tagged the image as needing a source. I have found other images of Lenin as a child, but couldn't find the one that was uploaded to the site and mentioned in this topic. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I found some, and put links on the page. I too can't find the precise one used, and this looks more like an artwork based on one of the photos. Might be best (unless the original uploader reveals the source) to upload one of the other pics of him as a child. I think sometimes (and I'm talking in general here) people don't want to admit to scanning from a book, and may not realise that scanning images this old from a book is OK, but you still need to give the source. Carcharoth 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

When you leave the bot running for too long, do you revert all the edits made after the time you meant to switch it off? If you did that, it would show respect for people's concerns that too many images have been tagged to deal with in the available time. Carcharoth 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont revert, there is no point. Instead I just dont run the rationale tagging part for a few days. β^_command 06:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

About "Italian Military Coat of Arms" pic

WIth regard to your ridicolus charges of using the Italian Military Coat of Arms in violation of some imaginative copyright, I have the honour to inform you that the only copyright that I am violating is the copyright on anglo-american stupid and absurd obsession for copyrights. Do you seriously believe that there is a copyright on this sybol? Are you kidding? You admins of wikipedia have deleted many of my contribs with this absurd obsession. I'm sick of this stupid rules! What do you expect from me, that I phone to Mr. Arturo Parisi (our Minister of Defence) and I ask him for a oath asserting that Italian Military Coat of Arms are not protected by a copyright????????????? Symbols of italian institutions are not of private property (as all things in your country) so there are not copyright over symbols that belong to all the Italians. It is clear? Or do you want to talk to Mr. Prodi? So I will delete my account, cause wikipedia is really pastering. Auguri di cuore per la vostra enciclopedia delle cavolate. Quando voi americani imaparerete a liberarvi dalla vostra ossessione per la proprietà privata sarà sempre troppo tardi, non potrete mai essere liberi come noi europei. Goodbye.

--Conte di Cavour 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the fair use rationale, and you've added a template for a fair use audio recording, not for an image. The bot did nothing wrong. I suggest you stop with your incivility and grow up. Read the top of the page on how to fix it. CO₂ 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your rules are simply ridiculous. It is not possible to work in order to improve wikipedia under similar conditions. Goodevening. --Conte di Cavour 22:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well they are not my rules, if you dont like them then leave. β^_command 23:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New fair use for Image:Manhuntcd.jpg

I am wondering if the new fair use rationale meets your approval. Thanks! Taric25 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

its not a valid, please see WP:NFURG β^_command 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

RE: [2]

Wow, that is a REALLY incredible program --how did you tally up everything? Can you tell me? Was it by hand? Travb (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Its just a simple computer program. I input the names and it finds users in common. β^_command 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. Travb (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How to

I am looking for some details on how to create a bot, thought you might be able to help me out on where to get the details, could you? :-) NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Creating a bot β^_command 11:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 07:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanations

Hi! I noticed above in User talk:Betacommand/20081201#.3F.3F.3F, User_talk:Betacommand#Regarding_an_image and User_talk:Betacommand#Disputed_Fair_Use_Over_Uploaded_Images, someone has a question about your bot and you only respond with "Please see WP:NFCC#10c". Many of the people asking are probably new and don't know too much about WP:NFCC. Also, because the 10c text is at the bottom of the WP:NFCC page, when you click on a link to WP:NFCC#10c, rule 10c isn't aligned at the top of the page, making it unclear which part of the policy is violated. IMO, it would be much better to say something like "You need to include a link to the articles the image is used on in the rationale (see WP:NFCC#10c", as that would be understood by both new and experienced users, causing less frustrations and probably less people asking questions on your talk page as they can see the previous answers and understand the problem.

Also, when the bot tags an image that fails NFCC#10c, maybe you could program it to write as rationale "the fair-use rationale does not specify which articles the image is to be used in (see WP:NFCC#10c", as that would allow anyone seeing the tag to immediately know what the problem is and fix it. This would probably also cause less questions to your talk page and make the bot seem more friendly.

I know that you get a lot of flak over your bot, much of it undeserved, but I think the problem for many is that its tag messages are often very terse and difficult to understand unless you know Wikipedia policy very well. Adding a better explanation might make the messages seem more friendly and understandable, which might get your bot a bit more good-will. 129.240.250.48 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (6th)

Sorry I changed your edit, I think I did that two years ago and you scolded me then too, but it was two years ago.

Could you RE-DO your UserCompare tool with the full 27 account names? I have added the remaining ones to:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (6th)

so you can see all of them.

Thanks. IP4240207xx 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blue Star Camps

Just a heads up! This article already went the Afd route and the result was keep. The listing needs to be adjusted to start a new Afd, I guess. (not my expertise). Cheers! --Stormbay 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that when creating the AfD, I forgot to change the link. β^_command 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Question for you re: where BCB is looking for article link

Unforatuntely, I cannot provide an example, as the user that pointed this out has not responded for my request for one, but:

In the video games project, we've got a subst: template that would put a FUR in the image with some appropriate responses typical for video games; the FUR did not include (until 2 days ago) the new Article field, but it did place it in an h2- type header right above the FUR. [3] is an example of what came out of that field (note the missing article header, and "Pong" above in a title line).

Now, I know from what I've seen BCB would not tag that one since "pong" is used a couple different places, but I have been told that "hundreds" of similar images have been tagged that previously had used this Template:Vgrationale subst'd template and now were failing. My question is: would BCB be catching the page link for the FUR in there, and if not, should it be catching (either is that a bug or a case that has to be determined by a human?) --Masem 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

there is no one place for the article name, as long as it's on the article its fine. β^_command 04:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:FRDavidWords7InchSingleCover.jpg

Your bot tagged the above image as failing NFCC #10, but the article title is actually included in the rationale. It's probably some complication of the fact that it's a piped link to a redirect, but I believe the rationale (though not particularly well written) does meet at least criterion 10. Thanks for all the work you do on images. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

that was fixed a week or two ago. β^_command 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Album Covers

I have spent many hours uploading lots of album covers for use in album articles in Wikipedia. As we all know, album covers can be used under fair use. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images. I have uploaded about 600 of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one. All the images I upload already specify the source and the fact that it is an album cover. I'm just letting you know that it will be a great loss to Wikipedia if you let this continue. Weatherman90 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Betacommandbot

I've blocked your bot. After all the complaints generated by this latest unapproved task after myriad issues just like this one, I looked into things and found that you let your bot run for over 9 hours after you started receiving complaints that it was mis-tagging images or tagging too many too fast. Furthermore, this task was never approved. This has been an ongoing problem with your bot and with you. Mangojuice^talk 04:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock, Ive been doing the same thing for several months. BCBot has not mis-tagged any images. β^_command 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You claim to have approval to run this task. Where? It is not any of the listed approved tasks for Betacommandbot. Mangojuice^talk 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see here and numerious AN and ANI threads. β^_command 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw task 5. It specifies tagging images that have no rationales, but you were tagging lots of images with rationales. This is a new task, not remotely described in your request. Can you point to an AN or ANI thread where you sought approval of this task in advance? Mangojuice^talk 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The images im tagging dont have valid rationales. I dont have the time nor do I want to dig through the megabytes of AN and ANI archives. task five covers this, and it was confirmed and re-confirmed there, I clearly spelled out plans and timelines. I have policy and approval behind me, just look at the numerous AN and ANI threads. β^_command 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my apologies, I found it: [4]. It turns out the archives aren't so hard to go through anymore because they have an index by section topic. Anyway, I'm going to add that link to the Task 5 page so that people can look at the discussion. Mangojuice^talk 13:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you run the "tranferring image to Commons" bot?

If so, have a look here, particularly the bit at the end. Is there a page that clearly exlpains to people what is going on, so they don't get all upset and leave due to a simple misunderstanding? I think in that case it is manual, but have you had lots of feedback from the bot-initiated transfers? Carcharoth 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont follow that conversation, but yes I do run WP:MTC β^_command 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember how that process works. Is the original uploader notified at any point that their images are being moved to Commons? The argument goes that they may wish to add the images to a watchlist over at Commons. They should have the image already on their watchlist here, but some people would probably prefer a user talk page note. That was one of the points raised at the conversation I pointed you at. I guess the question is whether the bot should do this, or whether the people tagging the images with "commonsok" should be doing this. I'd say the bot, as people are unreliable! :-) Would this be possible? Carcharoth 22:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Ive got a few upgrades that im working on that need done, when I get a chance Ill add that. One thing I would need is a template to give them letting users know whats happening. β^_command 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the people in that thread to do that, if they have time. Watch this space. Carcharoth 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot tagging GPL-2 images as disputed FURG

Image:Expander.png. Please fix or shut down. EdC 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I second this

My thoughts exactly I'm sick of being drilled 50kb bot message when I have spent many hours uploading lots of film or tv posters/ screenshots such as Image:LateLamentedPartner.jpg for use in articles in Wikipedia. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images even when I have added a full detailed 10 point rationa;e and met all the requirements of non-free media. I have uploaded about hundreds of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one either. All the images I upload already specify the source and have the rationale. Tagging images in such a way which have already had much work in adding a full rationale when they are being used for encycloepdic images is unacceptable as is unloading a 50kb message onto my talk page. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you just forgot to put the name of the article that the rational was for, that is one of the requirements. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Cohen

I really don't understand why your bot (read YOU) have a problem with the image I uploaded to show the Leonard Cohen film cover, and I don't understand what you want me to do. I put a clear fair-use reason when I uploaded the image, and there are HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS of images uploaded for the same reason.Alan 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See this part of my user page β^_command 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:SSP/Sinh

Hi Betacommand, Your comment here, makes me think you have a useful tool, but when I go to the link you provided, nothing happens. Is it broken at your end, my end, or you don't know? You've piqued my curiousity. --barneca (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Its on your end. β^_command 20:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's on your end, but nevermind, from comments you've made on other SSP reports, it doesn't do what I thought it did. --barneca (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Usercompare

Hi, Betacommand. With regards to this [5], sorry to sound dumb but what is it? I see that the sections below appear to count the number of times each user has edited a particular topic, but I'm just curious as to what the numbers in the first section mean. Thanks, Phonemonkey 23:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Username: Unique pages count ||edit count||average time of edits in UTC

I hope that helps, and those numbers are links. β^_command 00:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the link you gave here is broken. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed. β^_command 13:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Invalid tag

Just a note that this tag was definitely invalid: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Chocolat_%28soundtrack%29.jpg&direction=next&oldid=135416410

that tag was valid, please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be so much easier if you'd just change the message the damned bot leaves to say "the fair use rationale must include a link to the article(s) the image is being used in." Cryptic, technical error messages get ignored and cause confusion. You've got a good idea. The execution, thus far, has been piss poor. 71.206.188.198 02:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot RFA

Hello, your comments would be welcome at the RedirectCleanupBot RFA[6] Uncle uncle uncle 04:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Do you care to explain your odd comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RedirectCleanupBot? —METS501 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not ignore my comments. You may reply here, on my talk page, or at the RFA page. Wherever you choose. —METS501 (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I politely requested that you assume good faith and enter into dialogue, and you ignored that request. That was before I gave you the warning for not assuming good faith. Why did you not enter into dialogue? You don't know what I might have to say on the matter. You weren't going to "be polite and assume the best" because you denied my request for you to obey the AGF policy; by disobeying the policy you clearly merit the {{uw-agf1}} warning message.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont care what you have to say, I looked at your edit history, and block log. Those clearly show that you have/had some issues within the last month. I was going to make a polite request that you wait at least 60 days and then re-apply. But your abuse of the uw-ag1 clearly shows why I was wrong. that proves that I am correct. β^_command 12:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume that should read "I don't care...", with the apostrophe? Anyway, they actually don't. I can't see a single "issue" within the last month; my block that was just about a month ago was reversed almost instantly, and wasn't for VP-related things. On that basis, I'll reapply sometime soon and maybe use the IRC channel to get heard without you getting in the way.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for your information, dont try and push your POV. Ive talked with the other VandalProof Moderators and they agree that at the current time you should not have access. You have shown that you abuse TWINKLE, VandalProof is a much more powerful tool. If you attempt to bypass the current decision and just re-apply Ill make sure that you never get access. POV pushing and ABF users should not be allowed to use vandalproof. β^_command 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

While I have no idea what ABF is, I assume that "Ill" means "I'll"? Anyway, I don't abuse Twinkle, which should not be in all-caps, and you're therefore wrong. But after all, why would you accept that you're wrong and someone you believe to be inferior is right? You're in a position of power on Wikipedia, so how is it conceivable that you've made a rather bad error?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

New to VandalProof

Hi, I was recently approved by you to use VandalProof. However, once I downloaded the 136 zip file and VP137.exe file, I cannot log in. The program can locate my username and password, however, it says: "No priviliges found." Also, I clicked on the button Verify Authorisation, yet it still didn't work. Can you please help? Thanks. σмgнgσмg 09:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Refusal

Thank you for your message to my talk page re: Vandal Proof. I appreciate that one cannot approve everyone who requests it, and your advice that I apply, perhaps, at a later time is hopeful to say the least.

However, it would definitely be more advantageous if I had a firm idea what you were looking for in a user, especially as I would hate to go through this process again, only to be turned-down again. Would you please give me an honest critique of your rationale, so that I may be aware of any(perceived) shortcomings on my part? If you would prefer to send me an e-mail, I have no objection.

Please, before you object to this request, consider that, in my case, I never gave a failing grade to a student without giving him a sound reason, and the steps he could take to better himself. I would hope that I would receive no less. Thank you for your time.--Lyricmac 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason that I rejected you was because of your user talk, and talk, space edits they are very few. I would be happy with more edits there. please re-apply in 30 days. β^_command 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume I don't get to reapply in 30 days too? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No you don't, the issues that you have are a lot more serious than not having enough edits. You have a history of blocks and abuse of WP:TWINKLE. to that point I would have asked that you wait at least 60-90 days, but the fact that you templated me with a uw-afg proves the fact that you currently shouldn't have access to VP. I was in the process of leaving you a note explaining why. To that point I ask you to re-apply in ~180 days. β^_command 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks but can you fix my copyright symbols. They are my drawings and photos.

Thanks again.

Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

betacommand bot mismarking

Take a look at my talk page, and the messages your bot left all over it. All 3 oggs are linked to from where they were used (to great effect I might add) on WP:RD/C and its archive. Take the tag off and review your code --froth^t 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFCC and Wikipedia:Non-free content/orphans β^_command 01:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The heck it's not controversial, that's a ridiculous policy! Other namespaces should be held to less strict copyright standards since they're not actually part of The Free Encyclopedia and all the academic patriotism that entails, they're just pages on the internet --froth^t 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry you feel that way but any use of non-free images should be very restricted. Those ogg files are copyrighted by someone else. you cannot use them without permission, except under a few limited cases. β^_command 01:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Slow Down, Betacommand

The images that you've tagged(mostly of mine), for deletion were attached to articles, that were unjustly redirected. I've been trying to save them possibly to be sent to a proposed Even Stevens Wiki.. However, if I can't get one going, I'm going to undo the redirections and they'll belong to articles once again. Therefore I'm requesting that you not tag them for deletion so quickly. ----DanTD 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but our policy states that non-free images must be used in mainspace articles. if they are not used they must be deleted. β^_command 22:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words Dan, just undo the redirections and put the pictures back in the original articles. 71.206.188.198 23:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but every time I've tried that, I got a lot of flack for it from other editors. I'm getting plenty of it now. ---- DanTD 00:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What I said might have come out a bit more sarcastic than I intended. My primary point was that the only way (apparently) to keep the pictures here on Wikipedia is to get the original articles back up. The problem unfortunately lies in convincing other people that these redirects should be undone. People can get awfully dogmatic in their efforts to follow the alleged "ideals" of Wikipedia. Are Wikicommons a possible home for the pictures (not considering of course the annoyance of having to reupload countless pictures)? 71.206.188.198 02:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason that these images are being deleted is the fact that they are orphaned non-free images. If they were free then I would gladly move them to commons, see WP:MTC. We dont let non-free images stay around. we either use them or delete them. β^_command 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd love it if I could upload them to the commons. I understand that you're just trying to do your job, but the only reason these images are becoming orphaned in the first place is due to the overzealousness of some editors to delete the articles where they belong. ----DanTD 04:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

Fix your stupid bot so it stops tagging images that are obivously not orphaned as orphaned, please. Jtrainor 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What images are you talking about?. β^_command 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Will you please stop it. It is harassment ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put many of the orphaned images up for deletion where they ar enot needed and I keep getting repeat tags for orphaning. Aaaaaaaah ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your bot is a joke. It has done some great work but it is really pissing me off tonight ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Its given me repeat messages I have already bothered to address by putting up for deletion. Its not fair to unleash it like this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, some jerk deleted a whole article, and the bot immediately tagged all the images as orphaned. Is there a way you can put, say, a day's delay on the orphan mechanism? -- Ssilvers 23:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please change your bot to check for {{not orphan}} . Thank you. Ibjoe 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

that template is not valid for non-free images. β^_command 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deed poll certificate for Elton John.jpg

You tagged this image as orphaned. It is linked from the Elton John article and not contained in-line. It would serve no purpose as a thumbnail and is more a reference. I have removed the orphaned template, assuming you have no objections. Thanks, Oldak Quill 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It should either be used in the article or be deleted. β^_command 02:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Notorphan template

Hi, your bot doesn't understand the {{notorphan}} template[7].

Can you give an example of the image where the template wasn't recognized? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Notifications

You notified me two times about the orphaned image but it's fine. My very question is why did you post the notification on my page where in fact[8], the original uploader is not me. Please do clear this thing. Thanks Bet. BritandBeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's because you uploaded the current version of the image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:ITawAPuttyTat1.JPG

Your bot marked it as "orphaned". The reason it's orphaned is due to a slash-and-burn of some 300 "trivia" sections, fomented by one editor and aided-and-abetted by an admin currently under arbcom scrutiny for his actions. [9] Until that issue is resolved, the trivia sections (such as this picture's place, in Palatine uvula) are going to have to stay out, to prevent further edit warring. Kindly leave that picture alone until the issue is settled. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If this image gets deleted, we can restore it once the ArbCom issue is dealt with. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:MKDE server.png

It's not orphaned. Someone has decided that the fair use image should be converted to SVG and has relicensed it to GFDL. Not much I can do about this. Your bot is wrong though. It's most definitely not orphaned. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a bot error - the image was orphaned at the time the bot tagged it, and wasn't placed into an article after afterwards. [10] The image is replaceable by a free image or text, but I can't tag it because the admin above has fully protected the image to prevent it from being tagged. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Can u delete the pictures Image:Pleasure.jpg and Image:Amanda Perez.jpg. I dont need them anymore. ii LUV MY MYSPACE FAM!! MiiZ SPECTAC(hii!) 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Freeston Image.JPEG

User:Vanhalenrulesforever created a better version. BUT he states he created it and owns the copyright. Yet the Badge was made in the 1400s and there is no cennection between John Freeston, the founder, and Vanhalenrulesforever, who i already know is not a relative. Meaning the fair use in HIS is incorrect along with the copyright logo.OsirisV 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning this

...eh? You removed the external link? How come? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not orphan

Do you think this bot could be fixed to understand the "not orphan" tag, ie. images which are not orphans even though they appear not to be in any page. Richard W.M. Jones 08:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the bot did not screw up. It is a fair use image and it is not being used in an article. It just appears as a link; either display it in full at the article or we will need to delete it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The text of the {{notorphan}} template reads: "This free file is linked to from some pages (such as [[{{{1}}}]]). Please do not delete without verifying that it is no longer needed.". Is BCBot tagging free images that have this template? If so, that's a rather serious malfunction indeed. Could you please provide diffs of this behavior? SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(To Zscout370). I can't display the image in full because people have complained about the bandwidth it takes when loading the whole page (actually, there is specifically a problem with Safari -- other browsers are fine). So it is a link rather than an inline image. I fail to see how this makes any difference, since it is still not an orphan image. Richard W.M. Jones 09:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is so, them that means that there are already several images and I doubt you need another. β^_command 11:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

source?

Regarding the 100 PD images - what possible source could I provide if there images are owned by me?

--Mrlopez2681 02:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the images from?. β^_command 04:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

---ebay, Russia, New York. Many places. Some that I own I actually have seen in books nad have sanned, so maybe Ill just put whichever book has them as the source. Anyway, so what do I do - put ebay as a source (PS - I fixed the message below to separate the two....)

BTW - could you direct to a template that I can put on the image page where I can add all of the required info such as source, etc? Thank you.

--Mrlopez2681 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Main issue is, what source did they come from? book, newspaper ect. Since you obviously did not take the photo your self we need to know where it came from, {{information}} is a good template. β^_command 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

VP Login

I have been approved to use Vandalproof but when i try to login, it says i have not been aproved to use it. What sould i do? Eddie6705 10:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BBCNOW

[11] I've reverted this, since the template says "no rationale". The rationale is not only there, it is <u>underlined</u>.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've reverted you. "A picture is the only way to portray the BBCNOW" isn't a fair use rationale by any stretch of the imagination. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just picking one me. That soundtrack image, for example - every album article has a cover, why should that ONE that I uploaded be any different?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[12] Please check things before you do them. Look at the stupid mistake you made.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Im not picking on you, Its policy, please see WP:NFURG β^_command 13:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• What about your mistake? An apology?
• How come every other album can have one, then?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They follow policy and use valid non-free use rationales. Something you dont do. β^_command 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have the decency to apologise for posting useless crap on my talkpage, about images I had never touched.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is just so bloody rude. You're an admin, a 'respected' figure here, and you could live up to your respectability by apologising for burdening me with useless drivel.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A check your facts, two it wasnt usesless, three shut up and stop making personal attacks. β^_command 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I quote, "An image you uploaded". I didn't, therefore it had no meaning to me. You hold a position of responsibility here, and refusing to apologise for a really rather silly mistake is pretty naughty.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said check your facts, And you did edit those images. β^_command 06:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I upload them? No. In that case, the text saying "...you uploaded..." wasn't all that accurate.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 06:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No? Oh, well, you certainly don't deserve the small amount of respect that you had, in that case.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Image licensing template usage list

Hi BC. I was wondering if there's any progress on the script for automating the list you generated here ? If I remember correctly, you had said you'd put it in BCBot's userspace. Is it on a separate subpage? Thanks BC. ... Kenosis 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

its been running for a while, please see, User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage & User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage β^_command 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated daily I see. BC, that's fabulous. Tell me, what would be required to put template usage for a given template into a trend line in the future. Would I need to do that manually into a spreadsheet the way it's set up? Or is there an easy way to plug this approach into a spreadsheet? ... Kenosis 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Given, some time and template help, I probably could create a program to do that. β^_command 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. What kind of help would you need? ... Kenosis 05:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

how about a 36 hour day, coffee, parser-function manual, trial and error. I might be able to get something up in a month or so. β^_command 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

VP Rejection

I noticed you processed the VandalProof list and that I was rejected. I thought I had met all of the requirements to use VP. Could you let me know where I am lacking so I can improve for the future? Mbisanz 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

you only have 188 edits to the mainspace. β^_command 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this link : http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Mbisanz&site=en.wikipedia.org I believe it was 188 when I submitted my name, but it was up to 251 the day you reviewed. Probably a replication lag. Should I resubmit?Mbisanz 03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

lets just give it two weeks and then re-apply. β^_command 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Elton John cerificate deleted

Hey, I deleted the image as non-free orphaned. I linked to a copy of the image on another website. --Oldak Quill 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Infrastructure_comparisson.JPG

Hello I propose to totally rework this image with english into this picto-gramme due to its importance for green hous gas emissions Kyoto etc...

To my knowledge this should satisfy all parties.

Regards, J A

I love you, Mr. Bot. --69.139.45.173 15:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please fix your bot to check for "not orphan" tag. Second warning.

Please fix your bot to NOT incorrectly mark images for deletion. This is the second time it has done so for image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazrac.jpg . This image is tagged with {{[[Template:not orphan{{|}}T-Mek|not orphan{{|}}T-Mek]]}} (not orphan|T-Mek). This is also the second time that I have reported to you your bot's INCORRECT behavior. It is not checking for the "not orphan" tag. Please shut it down until it is fixed! Thank you Ibjoe 06:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

you are wrong, it helps to read the template that your using, {{notorphan}} is for free images. β^_command 12:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page notifications

I have proceeded to delete messages on my talk page regarding image deletions. Please note I am not opposed to this act because I understand that Wikipedia must protect itself from copyright violations; also, I'm not an expert on copyright laws so I cannot discuss this topic properly. However I feel that the posts themselves (with their showy warning signs) are annoying, especially the ones made by Bots and not people. Therefore I'm removing them for easy of reading of the page. I include this explanation here to note I'm not doing it out of spite. Anyone who wants to read those messages can do so by checking the page's history. Also, please refrain in the future from giving me any more warnings regarding image deletions. Just go ahead and remove them if you feel they are improper. (Bot messages will also be removed immediately.) Thank you. -Wilfredo Martinez 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Same goes for me.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 20:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a WikiProgrammer

This table on the Medicine portal page inspired me to do something about a few "unassessed quality" pages the other day. What I'd really like is to be able to click on the numbers in the table and get a list of pages which are BOTH "unassessed" AND "mid" importance. I did the unassessed/high importance ones by hand (although the table hasn't updated since then), but clicking through 679 pages to find the 18 unassessed ones is beyond the limits of my joints.

NCurse thought that you would likely know how to do things like this, or that you might know someone who did. Can you tell me if this would be a relatively easy upgrade? (I'll watch this page for the next week, so you can reply here if you prefer.) Thanks for considering this idea, WhatamIdoing 19:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about VandalProof

Hey I just had a quick question about VandalProof. I currently use WP:TWINKLE and was wondering what the difference between the two is, does VandalProof do everything that TWINKLE does and if I get VandalProof will I have to drop TWINKLE? Thanks for the help. Good luck editing!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

VP

Hi there, I have installed VP. When I run it I get an error after I have clicked Verify Authorization saying "The username you are trying to connect with is not approved to use VandalProof" even though you approved me the other day. How can I fix this? Thanks DoyleyTalk 10:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense?

Excuse me but did you say nonsense? I am not understanding what I am doing wrong when I clearly have shown a list of reasons for fair use. Do I have to use a template instead? Please clarify this. TrackFan 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing nonsense added myself, but, you two were revert warring over the CSD tag [13] [14] [15] [16]. While Betacommand was just replacing the CSD tag, as the problem was not fixed (although, it took me all of 12 seconds to correct the problem, which was that the rationale did not mention the article that it was for. It probably would have been easier to fix it, than to continuously revert the tag.), you hit about 4RR. Please be more careful in the future, TrackFan, and, mind our Three revert rule. S_QL^{Query me!} 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:TYTDUK.jpg

• My impression is that the bot tagged my image because the summary didn't indicate where the picture was intended to be used, and I've done that. Is my impression correct? I don't want the article to be deleted without my knowledge because it's fairly important to the article Too Young to Die (Jamiroquai song). JuJube 08:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot malfunctioning

According to the "bot generated" comment at [Talk:Common_menus_in_Microsoft_Windows|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Common_menus_in_Microsoft_Windows], "Rationales must be provided for each use of an image". A rational WAS provided on the image. I referred anyone who cares to my comments on the Talk page on the image. Now the image is deleted, the rational is deleted, and comments are deleted. So I guess using a bot for things that need discussion isn't such a good idea? (Or perhaps this is a real person and not a bot?) Please consider undeleting the relevant image, image page, image talk page, and deletion log. Thanks. - Libertas 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That image had an invalid rationale, had you fixed the rationale it would not have been deleted. β^_command 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted revision, and, the bot clearly stated, that the image was in violation of WP:NFCC#10c. Did you click that link, and read what was wrong? The long and short of it, is that you must link to the article you're using the image in, in each fair use rationale. Yes, there was a rationale, and, no, it was not complete per the above.

Also, BC did not delete your image. It was deleted by User:Angr. Betacommand isn't an admin as well, and, can't restore your image. However, I am, and, I can, if you'd like. Provided, that you are willing to correct the fair use rationale. S_QL^{Query me!} 04:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Warhawk

Hello, I see that the warhawk box art is about to be deleted, my question is why isn't every other game article out there with their box design being deleted? For example Halo 3. If I have the wrong page to take this question up, I appologize and would you know where to ask this question? Thanks. -- Vdub49 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

it has no valid non-free rationale see WP:NFURG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand (talk • contribs) 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read that and I have put the proper template under it so that it should be up to par. Thanks. -- Vdub49 01:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for taking it off. -- Vdub49 01:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot for WP birds like WP:DABS

Hi,

would it be possible to make a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size. Ask user:Betacommand nicely for a bot that will automatically add bird articles to the page, rank them by size, and add an icon to the articles that are GA or FA, just as you have done for WP:DABS....and do one for WP Fungi, substituting the word "fungi" for "bird". cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I need a list of categories that you want. β^_command 01:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm...OK, exactly like the one for WP Dinosaurs -WPDABS-, all the same - one for Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds and one for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fungi. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean all the subcats on the article page or teh cat on the talkpage. Both wikiprojects have templates on their corresponding talkpages. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about python...

Hey, Beta :) I know you're a programming whiz, and figured that you'd be the person to ask a small question to regarding Python programming. I'm designing a bot using the Pywiki framework that adds generic fair use rationales to images tagged with non-free templates, and then notifies the original author of the page. This is what I've come up with so far, and any tips would be appreciated (hopefully you can read my version of an elegant programming language =D).

  FURbot.py

__version__ = '$Id: basic.py 3998 2007-08-07 20:28:27Z wikipedian $'
import wikipedia
import pagegenerators
import sys
import os,glob

# This is required for the text that is shown when you run this script
# with the parameter -help.
docuReplacements = {
    '&params;': pagegenerators.parameterHelp
}
class FURbot:
    mysite = wikipedia.getSite()
    if mysite.loggedInAs():
        wikipedia.output(u"You are logged in on %s as %s." % (repr(mysite), mysite.loggedInAs()))
    else:
        wikipedia.output(u"You are not logged in on %s." % repr(mysite))
    # Edit summary message that should be used.
    # NOTE: Put a good description here, and add translations, if possible!
    msg = {
        'en': u'Adding generic [[WP:FU|fair use rationale]] to image (BOT)',
    }
    
    def __init__(self, generator, debug):
        """
        Constructor. Parameters:
            * generator - The page generator that determines on which pages
                          to work on.
            * debug     - If True, doesn't do any real changes, but only shows
                          what would have been changed.
        """
        self.generator = generator
        self.debug = debug

    def run(self):
        # Set the edit summary message
        wikipedia.setAction(wikipedia.translate(wikipedia.getSite(), self.msg))
        for page in self.generator:
            self.treat(page)

    def imgsize (self, page):
        a=glob.glob('c:\\*')[0]
        if a >= '25000 bytes':
            lres= Yes
        else:
            lres= No
    
    def treat (self, page):   
        """
        Loads the given page, does some changes, and saves it.
        """
        try:
            # Load the page
            text = page.get() 
        except wikipedia.NoPage:
            wikipedia.output(u"Page %s does not exist; skipping." % page.aslink())
            return
        except wikipedia.IsRedirectPage:
            wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is a redirect; skipping." % page.aslink())
            return
        except wikipedia.LockedPage:
            wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is locked; skipping." % page.aslink())
            return
        
        # If you find out that you do not want to edit this page, just return.
        # Adds generic rationale to image page
        text = '{{Fair use rationale|Article= |Description= text|Source= INSERT IMAGE SOURCE|Portion= All of the logo is used.|Low_resolution= lres|Purpose= To represent the organization/company in the article|Replaceability= No free equivalent}}'

        # only save if something was changed
        if text != page.get():
            # Show the title of the page we're working on.
            # Highlight the title in purple.
            wikipedia.output(u"\n\n>>> \03{lightpurple}%s\03{default} <<<" % page.title())
            # show what was changed
            wikipedia.showDiff(page.get(), text)
            if not self.debug:
                choice = wikipedia.inputChoice(u'Do you want to accept these changes?', ['Yes', 'No'], ['y', 'N'], 'N')
                if choice == 'y':
                    try:
                        # Save the page
                        page.put(text)
                    except wikipedia.EditConflict:
                        wikipedia.output(u'Skipping %s because of edit conflict' % (page.title()))
                    except wikipedia.SpamfilterError, error:
                        wikipedia.output(u'Cannot change %s because of spam blacklist entry %s' % (page.title(), error.url))
    def notify (self, page):
        """
        Notifies user on their user talk page about the addition
        of a fair use rationale to one of their images.
        """
        try:
            text= text + "page.get('Revision history of %s')"
        except wikipedia.LockedPage:
            wikipedia.output(u"Page %s is locked; skipping." % page.aslink())
            return
        msg= u'Notifying user about addition of partial [[WP:FU|fair use]] rationale added to their image (BOT)'
        text = '{{User:FURbot/Notify}}'        
        # only save if something was changed
        if text != page.get():
            # Show the title of the page we're working on.
            # Highlight the title in purple.
            wikipedia.output(u"\n\n>>> \03{lightpurple}%s\03{default} <<<" % page.title())
            # show what was changed
            wikipedia.showDiff(page.get(), text)
            if not self.debug:
                choice = wikipedia.inputChoice(u'Do you want to accept these changes?', ['Yes', 'No'], ['y', 'N'], 'N')
                if choice == 'y':
                    try:
                        # Save the page
                        page.put(text)
                    except wikipedia.EditConflict:
                        wikipedia.output(u'Skipping %s because of edit conflict' % (page.title()))
                    except wikipedia.SpamfilterError, error:
                        wikipedia.output(u'Cannot change %s because of spam blacklist entry %s' % (page.title(), error.url))
            
def main():
    # This factory is responsible for processing command line arguments
    # that are also used by other scripts and that determine on which pages
    # to work on.
    genFactory = pagegenerators.GeneratorFactory()
    # The generator gives the pages that should be worked upon.
    gen = "linkedpages('Template:Non-free logo')"
    # This temporary array is used to read the page title if one single
    # page to work on is specified by the arguments.
    pageTitleParts = []
    # If debug is True, doesn't do any real changes, but only show
    # what would have been changed.
    debug = False

    # Parse command line arguments
    for arg in wikipedia.handleArgs():
        if arg.startswith("-debug"):
            debug = True
        else:
            # check if a standard argument like
            # -start:XYZ or -ref:Asdf was given.
            generator = genFactory.handleArg(arg)
            if generator:
                gen = generator
            else:
                pageTitleParts.append(arg)
        if arg.startswith("-pt"):
            pt= 15
        if arg.startswith("-transcludes"):
            page='Image: %s'
    if pageTitleParts != []:
        # We will only work on a single page.
        pageTitle = ' '.join(pageTitleParts)
        page = wikipedia.Page(wikipedia.getSite(), pageTitle)
        gen = iter([page])

    if gen:
        # The preloading generator is responsible for downloading multiple
        # pages from the wiki simultaneously.
        gen = pagegenerators.PreloadingGenerator(gen)
        bot = FURbot(gen, debug)
        bot.run()
    else:
        wikipedia.showHelp()

if __name__ == "__main__":
    try:
        main()
    finally:
        wikipedia.stopme()

Cheers, ( arky ) 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This bot will not run, our policy and BRFA will not allow it. Ive been working with NFCC and am planning something in January or so, when our NFCC proposal goes live. Please Please Please dont run something like this. β^_command 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem :) ( arky ) 03:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Album Covers/Movie Posters

Dear Betacommand,

I am confused in why I have images of album covers and posters continually tagged for unfair use when I try to use the same fair use rationale as articles that have been given “Featured articles” status by Wikipedia. Please explain what is I am not making clear in my “fair use” that warrants me to continually revisit these images and add more and more reasons. Like your own BetacommandBot comments state, I do use the templates and give vaild reasons, however I fail to see what I’m not making clear in my images that every other album cover and movie poster is. paulisdead 13:24 (UTC+10, K), 26 October 2007

Please see our non-free content policy and part 10c. β^_command 03:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I just did. And I still can't see how an image such as Image:Abbeyroadback.jpg isn't explained anymore clearly than what is. paulisdead 9:35 (UTC+10, K), 27 October 2007.

Incorrect tagging of non-orphan images again

This is the third time you tagged my non-orphan image. Each time I reported to you please fix your bot to check for non-orphan tag. Great, you apparently changed your bot to delete non-orphan tag too. So I changed the linking article to load a thumb instead of just the link. But I hate to think of how many other valid non-orphan images your dysfunctional bot is deleting. Please please please fix your dysfunctional bot to not delete non-orphan images! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibjoe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue should be resolved for this particular image. The rationale for the bot's handling of {{not orphan}} is mostly laid out at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 4.

Betacommand, may I suggest writing up a summary of the bot's design at User:BetacommandBot? If it were easier to verify that its behavior is by design, you might get fewer complaints. Melchoir 06:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Need a word change

Just a heads up in message. ...is an easy way to insure that your image is...' Incorrect use of the word insure (relates to insurance). It should be ensure (to be make sure, certain, safe). Thanks. ♫ Cricket02 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Disguise2.jpg

I believe that the new template on Image:Disguise2.jpg should suffice. Please tell me -what- is missing if it is still not sufficient. -- Eptin 03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RisciLogo.jpg

Image:RisciLogo.jpg is used on the page Rizal National Science High School as its school logo. WarGaleon 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your conduct: threats, rudeness, unsubstantiated accusations

As per this, please familiarize yourself with WP:VAND before ever accusing other editors in "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Unsubstantiated accusations of editors in vandalism is a serious personal attack (please review WP:PA while at it), especially of editors who, unlike yourself, actually write this encyclopedia. Your rude threats have the effect exactly the opposite of constructive and, unless aggravation is your intention, they serve no good purpose and will be reverted on sight. Your further conduct along these lines will be promptly reported. WP:ANI saw already enough Betacommand threads where your conduct received the criticism it deserved and you should have taken it as a food for thought long time ago.

As for the image dispute, whenever the image whose fairuse compliance you dispute has already a rationale that you are going to question, you have to explain at talk what exactly the problem with the existing rational is, since unlike the images with no rationale provided (the problem is evident) other editors need to understand what exactly is the problem that you see. Happy edits, --Irpen 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism when their edits do not fall directly under WP:VAND. In particular, avoid posting vandalism warning templates on user's talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See WP:VAND: "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." See also Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". Happy edits, --Irpen 23:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you continue your revert warring spree at my talk page, ANI will deal with it from that point. Also, forgot to mention, your block threats look especially ridiculous. Your eager blocking was the main reason of your desysopping, the arbcom refusal to reinstate you and the miserable failure of your latest RfA. Even when you go to IRC trying to get your friends to do blocks for you it still gets you nowhere. Per this, please do not top off your attacks and vandalism accusations with block threats. This makes them look even worse. And best yet, do not ever mention blocks if you still plan to try getting readminned under your present username. --Irpen 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why cant you answer my question? you just revert and ignore a valid question. β^_command 00:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there a question? I saw an accusation of vandalism accompanied by a block threat in the form of self-righteous templating, then a second accusation of vandalism despite a clear reminder of its impropriety, and then revert warring over reinserting of your rude comments that I removed. If you have some questions please ask them without rudeness, threats and other nonsense.

I also have a question. Do you think the message on top of your talk page is exactly helpful in encouraging users, especially the newbies, to cooperate with your concerns? --Irpen 00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My last post was not rude nor did it make threats, I explained my position and asked a question, you blindly reverted it. If you want I can repost it but you reverted it, so what would saying it again matter? as for that template, its not a method that I like, but it seems to be the only method that works. (as it is some people dont read it). It clearly answers a few of the most common questions and prevents me from having to repeat my self 100 times because most often or not the answer to the question they ask has already been addressed here. In a perfect world I would not even have to run BCBot for rationales. β^_command 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gorillaz "5/4" Screenshot

You stated that the image seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:4Storyboard.jpg being used in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5/4_(Gorillaz_song) has an "invalid fair use rationale". Yet, I do not see anything wrong with the rationale given. It does not violate the policy in any way and I see no reason for why it is being "disputed", can you please explain? If it truly does violate something somehow then I will try to fix it, but I see no reason for why its current fair use rationale is not valid. Can you please explain why?--Jarvisganon 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you continue reading you will see it says per WP:NFCC#10c that is what is wrong. β^_command 23:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through WP:NFCC#10c a few times now, and still fail to realize the conflict the image is having with it. The fair use rationale is filled out and does not seem to break any part of the rules. Can you be specific as to what part of the image's rationale is conflicting with the non-free content criteria.--Jarvisganon 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ive fixed it, there was an error with the spacing in the article name. you used double spaces. β^_command 01:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abelia Soul Calibur.jpg

Please explain how :-

"Source - http://namco-ch.net/ps2_soulcalibur3/character/img/abelia_b.jpg

Copyrighted Promotional image used solely to illustrate character in question under fair use criteria. No free alternative available."

isn't a fair use rationale. Exxolon 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

However, there are a couple images that this bot tagged with a NFCC#10c violation where the description said something along the lines of "image is only used in the article about the subject himself". That seems to comply with rule #10c. Hence, my above question about what the bot is actually looking for when it says the articles aren't listed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

its looking for the article name. IE 10c β^_command 01:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So I guess the article name has to be written in full. Does the article name have to be wikilinked? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope just has to be there. β^_command 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

I have spent many hours uploading lots of album covers for use in album articles in Wikipedia. As we all know, album covers can be used under fair use. For some reason, however, your bot continually posts endless image deletion warnings on my talk page in reference to these images. I have uploaded about 600 of these images. I do NOT have the time, OR the patience to provide a lengthy summary for each one. All the images I upload already specify the source and the fact that it is an album cover. I'm just letting you know that it will be a great loss to Wikipedia if you let this continue. Weatherman90 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously just like to ignore me and continue with your incessant bot editing. Why don't you find something else to do with you're time? Do you realize that you are stressing other people out with these album summaries? Do you realize the negative impact that your bot has on people's lives? Weatherman90 04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the rules or let them get deleted. Easy does it. -Pilotguy contact tower 04:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your bot again

Hey again. I contacted you a few weeks ago when your bot kept on tagging images I had uploaded as failing fair-use based on "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c" when this was clearly not the case. Whatever you did seemed to fix the problem temporarily, but within the past couple of days it has apparently started up again. As far as I can tell, any image which has a faulty title link (e.g. linking to a disambiguation page rather than to the film page itself) is tagged by your bot this way.

As it is rather annoying having to save images from deletion based on such a minor point, not to mention having my talk page spammed almost hourly with these messages, I would very much appreciate it if you would fix this issue as soon as possible. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with this bot

I've updated 2 images tagged by this bot as missing links to a specified article, however it is now saying the article does not exist or has been deleted - despite the fact that the article DOES exist and AS NOT been deleted. The article is Independent State of Aramoana. --Gene_poole 07:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it Gene. The parameter wants plain text, not wiki. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oi you

It's great that you bother us all with this tedious bullshit. - Diceman 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My talk page is now 250kb long full of hundreds of images. Do you honestly think I have time to do all of them? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Look I don't mind getting a few images at a time which is managable but I just don't need the stress of having to sort out over 100 kb of messages and spend alot of time fixing it. It is demoralising adding correcting already signifcant rationales to satisfy a bot. While I do agree the uploader has a responsibility to add a full rationale and comply with "the rules" if the bot can be so clever in its duties I'm certain it could help out with some corrections where a rationale is given and only the title need fixing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I couln't agree more. This bot is beginning to tag bunches of pictures that I have uploaded that have never received a complaint since I uploaded them months ago. Not only is it demoralizing to have your images threatened to be deleted by a bot, but it is heavily critisizing many already complete rationales that in my opinion are seriously damaging the quality of images on Wikipedia. Daniel Hu 16:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I know it's frustrating to be dealt these automated messages but you really must treat the fair use images carefully, mishandling of said will compromise the whole of Wikipedia. So, in almost ALL cases, it's just a case of stating, with each Fair Use criteria, exactly which articles the fair use criteria applies to. That way, no bot messages, no hassle, no problem. The bot, while annoying, is doing the right thing. Sorry, but you've got to take responsibility for the images you upload, particularly if you're claiming fair use. The Rambling Man 16:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This bot is totally annoying... I suggest instead of putting images for deletion, you put them on a list somewhere for HUMAN review. And if it were up to me, I'd not have this bot running at all!! Compromise Wikipedia? Lol, has that ever happened? I don't know of such a thing ever having happening... I can't believe this is what Wikipedia has become, it's sickening... XcepticZP 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's down to laziness from uploaders. Simple as that. Fair Use rationales are well defined and, more importantly, required. Deal with it or don't bother uploading images without bothering to do the job properly. The Rambling Man 17:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many people have been scared of with this. You wiki 'big shots' want to trim off the little guys so it's just you left, sculpting the wiki to show your own beliefs and opinions. I'm not saying anymore on this, but if my last two images with this 'fair use missing' non-sense are deleted (even though i clearly explained on their pages the rationale, not using the templates), then I'm leaving. XcepticZP 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. It's simple. Add a correct rationale or don't upload images for fair use. There's no conspiracy here, no "big shots" as you put it. You don't need a template, you just need to follow the fair use guidelines. It's easy. The Rambling Man 10:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is human review: the bot does not delete images, they are only deleted after 7 days after that template is put up; furthermore they get put into a category, such as Category:Disputed non-free images as of 19 October 2007 (the ones that can be deleted now after 8 days of warning). Why this list is not handled by a human otherwise is shown if you look at the size of the category from, say yesterday - it's pretty much impossible. That's why the bot adds text on the image, on the person that uploaded the image, and every page that (as WP sees it) the image is being used at, all to attract at least one person to make the steps needed to correct it and get it off the list, and in most cases, it's just a matter of adding the article name(s) that are needed -- all of 5 seconds of work that cannot be done correctly by a bot because the bot cannot understand the rationale sections, it can only search for article names. Yes, the user talk page reports can be spammy, but I'd much rather be reminded about all my images that may fail to met the requirements.

Please be aware that the Wikipedia board has mandated that all non-free media uses on WP must either be tagged correctly, or be deleted, by April of 2008 (as described here. BCB is trying to help save as many images as possible by getting your attention so that you can take the few moments needed to save them from being deleted. --MASEM 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to say that(!), well said! Five seconds work each time, just do it. The Rambling Man 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then please show me how to make it a 5 seconds task, hmm? XcepticZP 10:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's all very well to use the templates, but perhaps it's worth reading them, for example, the latest disputed image for Daniel Hu, the template 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." - I don't see this anywhere. The Rambling Man 16:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, but this bot has failed to pick up my written-out rationales. I believe that in principle the idea of the bot's activity is a good one —certainly just because people don't complain doesn't necessarily mean all images are in fair use compliance— but as far as I can tell it's only satisfied by something like the non-free use rationale template. As explained in that article, the information doesn't have to be in a template. Does BetacommandBot know this? — eitch 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

the bot does not care whether or not that template is there. I grabs the page text and says does this contain the name of the article? if the article name is missing it tags the image, otherwise it skips. β^_command 19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about the bot

I'm not very well-schooled in wikipedia policies, and your bot tagged one of the images I uploaded. Anyways, I posted a lovely little reply to the bot on my own talk page to avoid a ping-pong conversation, before I realized that it was, in fact, a bot...

Anyways, I was using this image for my signature, is that ok? Over at Uncyclopedia it's something we do, just let me know if using images for personal stuff is a no-no here. Also, the image is from uncyc as well, I just copied it into MS Paint and uploaded it here as a png, so I assume there aren't any licensing issues. Please let me know what's up. Thanks. - The Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:52, Oct 28

thats a major breach of policy, we dont use images in sigs, especially non-free images β^_command 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Help required

{{helpme}} Dear sir i need help in the regard of uploading news paper cuttings actuall three of my uploaded images of news paer cuttings have been placed under orphan images kindly help me in this regard how do i link these images to the article secondly how do i upload news p[aer scans what tags do i have to add i am in a bit of confusion. kindly help me to resove the problem

Image:INDIANEXPRESSNEWSDATED07-07-2000.JPG

Image:Peetham about.JPG

regards Pingali 06:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello visitors

How can I stop a deletion? Thank you --Art4em 08:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dan Lewis 1987.JPG

On October 17, your bot tagged the image I uploaded illustrating a screenshot of Dan Lewis' first newscast with KOMO. I don't understand why my image was tagged, and after reviewing the criteria set forth in Non-Free Content Criteria guidelines, the tag supplied there is identical to the one I used when I uploaded.

I don't want to start a flame war over useless edits, but this has to stop. Personally, I'm *thisclose* to leaving Wikipedia altogether because of useless bureaucratic nonsense like the "Non-Free Content Guidelines" and the constant "Disputed Fair-Use rationale" tags I get on my talk page all the time.

I personally think the image I uploaded should stay, and does a fine job of adding value to the Dan Lewis article itself. Srosenow 98 08:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave me a message!

Hello, I have recently Asked you how to fill in the template for Image:Default JPG.Because Coolgirly's page was redirected to mine(I lost my password as coolgirly88),Am I responsible for the image? Also,you deleted my comment about the template on your talk page before you answered.Please answer this comment on my talk page or yours.Please show/tell me how to fill in the template. Thank you. IslaamMaged126 10:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some direction regarding Image:Sole-giaguaro.jpg

I'm probably overlooking something basic, but as far as I can tell the image fits the fair use guidelines. "Attribution of the source of the material" is provided, extensively in fact. The image is the cover of the book which is the subject of the article. The licensing section of the image's page appears to provide the necessary justification for the image. What is missing or wrong? Thanks. Tadiew 08:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

asee WP:NFURG β^_command 12:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what aee means, and you aren't answering the question by pointing me to a page with which the image in question is in compliance. Tadiew 01:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not comply see WP:NFCC#10 part C to be exact. β^_command 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't, please take another look at the disputed image's page. If, as it appears, it had been modified prior to your last post, you'll see why I found this to be confusing and frustrating. Is there still a problem? Please advise. Thank you. Tadiew 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good now. β^_command 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:72_aunt_jemima.gif

[[17]] This image was flagged, even though it has a fair use rationale. I was told here that it needed an article link. It has an article link at the bottom. I don't know what else to do about it. PLease advise. nut-meg 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

please see WP:NFCC#10 part C. β^_command 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the link to the article is at the bottom of the page. All has been accounted for, yet this bot still wants to delete. nut-meg 05:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

you need the article name in your rationale. the fole links section is not considered part of the image description page. β^_command 10:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ill take care of it. nut-meg 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on image

Hi Betacommand, I noticed that your bot is malfunctioning. Without any explanation it's re tagging images (except the WP:NFC#10, that you're mentioning in the talk page). I also noticed, you are engaging in dispute about images with other editors. Further Dispute will lead you to AN/I. Thanks--NAHID 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

if you think that Im wrong take it to ANI, Ive been there many many times over this same issue, every time I go I have policy backing my position, Not only do I point to NFCC#10 I also point to 10c which is very specific. Im sorry to say this but if you dont like policy tough luck, its there for a reason. β^_command 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bowyer-Anchored.jpg

The bot placed a deletion notice because there wasn't a link to the article where the image was used under [[18]]. I made a link, provided a specific rationale and removed the notice. The same notice has now been replaced (I have removed it again). Tyrenius 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

it was a link error you linked to William Bowyer which is a article on a printer. It should have linked to William Bowyer (artist), which is the artist in question. Hope that helps. β^_command 21:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on image

I posted a message regarding on your recent tagging (User talk:Betacommand/20081201#Dispute on image).--NAHID 18:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Shut it down!

This bot keeps sending me messages that the images I download aren't fair use even though they are. It's especially bad with articles pertaining to Wheel of Fortune. --JoBrLa 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, what was wrong with this Image ([19])? I think I fixed the "problem." But it seems every single Image I upload has a copyright problem -_-. --Mooshykris 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, my images are being tagged unnecessarily, something needs to change Crimson 05 22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with the bot, the issue is people not writing a correct rationale. β^_command 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:XXX

Thanks for uploading Image:XXX. Blah, blah, blah. BetacommandBot 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</nowiki>

It'd be much easier to read and distinguish the message if it were formatted like:

==Earlier section==
Blah, blah, blah.

<span id="63318668225" ></span>
== Disputed fair use rationale for Image:XXX ==

Thanks for uploading Image:XXX. Blah, blah, blah. [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Twinkle does it. Thank you for your time, нмŵוτнτ 22:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot feature request

Could you please make your bot honor <!--BetacommandBot Exclude--> or some other string for its nonfree image warnings on user talk pages? I spent some time reverting a prolific image vandal some months ago, and I've been repaid ever since by dozens of warnings that the images (which I didn't upload and have no interest in) are quite correctly about to be deleted. Even if I were in the habit of uploading nonfree images with improper rationales, I'm quite capable of noticing any problems with them via my watchlist, and so should be able to opt out of the redundant, newbie-"friendly" talk page warning. —Cryptic 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You will no longer get BCBot messages. β^_command 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A reformed Scrooge discovers Christmas.png

Can I just say that, whilst I have added a fair use rationale and, assuming this to be adequate, have removed the template, I feel (and I can see from your talk page that I am not alone in feeling this), with all due respect to you, as I am sure you believe what you (or to be more accurate, your "bot") are doing is beneficial, that this bureaucratic rubbish that seems to be polluting Wikipedia is going to drive it to the dogs. I'm sorry to have to say that, but it's what most people seem to be feeling. Best wishes, Back and Forth 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and incidentally, I had equipped the image with a perfectly adequate rationale, but had simply integrated it into the summary. You see, this tag was, in addition to being intensely irritating, totally unnecessary. Please stop. Back and Forth 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Turn off your shit bot. It's causing nothing but trouble. The H-Man2 22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

#10(c) and page moves

I just want to raise the general problem of #10(c) and page moves. When a page is moved the page given in the fair use rationale is no longer the only page linked to from the image. I want to know if there is a way we can have a smarter form of detection about this... such as, check the page move history of the page given in any rationale and then see if it has been moved to where the image is currently linked. My example was Image:Arzoo 1965 film poster.jpg where the rationale was for Arzoo but the page had been moved to Arzoo (1965 film). I think if there is one rationale and it's still only linked to from one page then further investigation is needed. I also think that a deletion template is far too strong for #10(c) incidents because often times there is a proper fair use rationale for one place where the image is linked but some new/anonymous/not-so-savvy-editor adds it to another page and because of this the image can be deleted after 10 days? Just some comments. gren グレン 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

if it was a simple move, the bot would follow redirects. But because it links to a DAB page that cannot be helped, it will not attempt to parse those. it would cause too much room for error, 10c is a key part of a rationale, without that part there is no valid rationale. with no valid rationale it should be deleted. β^_command 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Um. Without a valid rationale it should be checked by a human before deletion. The human (being smarter than a bot in most cases) should restore the needed link (unless they are blindly deleting at speed to "clear a backlog"). To simplify this to "with no valid rationale it should be deleted" is misleading. Carcharoth 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dino Crisis 3 Australis.png

The Fair Use Raionale is correct. Fair use rationale: It is written...

Official Capcom Artwork, used to show the detail and look of the creature.

Artwork to show users Detail.

Low-resolution image is used; not the original resolution for the image and cover artwork. No free use substitute for the artwork is available.

and explained...

Created by Capcom to show potentual buyers the detail they put into their creatures

They put it up on site so people could admire the detail they put into it

The High resolution is saved, but a lower resolution is used on articles.

-OV 11:29 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFURG β^_command 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Euro coins and notes complaint

Will this bot please stop tagging the euro coins and euro notes? They are Fair use, the copyright is clearly given and they comply with ECB reproduction rules. Thanking you! Snappy56 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

see WP:NFCC#10 β^_command 15:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bookcover on page for Aharon Shulov

You have placed a notice regarding use of this bookcover.

This book cover, with permission from the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo Prior to uploading the image, I contacted Mr. Jebwab, curator of the Zoo and represents the Shulov family interests. and he sees no reason why the cover should not be displayed as either an enlightening illustration of Professor Shulov, and/or the Biblical Zoo.

The book cover has been added to the page of Aharon Shulov to illustrate the publications written by the Professor; Publications that were not only scientific (see references to his studies of birds and snake venom), but also historical.

The book cover also illustrates the basic reason for the founding of the zoo, itself, with the biblical phrase, it emphasizes the attachment of Professor Shulov to the history of Jerusalem, the nation, and to the animals that were mentioned in the scriptures.

As Professor Shulov is so closely linked to the Zoo and the City of Jerusalem, display of the book cover, having the appropriate okay from Zoo itself, should be adequate enough reason to maintain the illustration.

If there is smoething more I swhould do or write in order to provide rational for use of this image on WP, please let me know.User SZAgassi:SZAgassi 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFCC#10 and complete a fair-use rationale as instructed. Thankyou, — jacĸrм (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect flagging of image

The bot has incorrectly flagged the image "Image:Cyborg4firsted.jpg" as lacking fair use rationale. There is nothing to add to what is already there, and there is plenty. I am therefore reverting this particular tag and also notifying the Novels Wikiproject. 23skidoo 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NFCC#10; especially 10 (c). The bot was correct. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I put a rationale on the image description according to the info you had put in the summary. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The image, Image:AbominableFirebug.jpg is Copyrighted by me. I uploaded the image and I did not tag it as 'fair use'. I will change it back. LymanSchool 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The image requires a fair-use rationale, please add one per WP:NFCC#10. Non-free images that do not include both a copyright tag and a use rationale may be deleted after seven days according to Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for information on adding a fair-use rationale. — jacĸrм (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be lazy

Tagging Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG as having had an invalid fair-use justification was technically correct, but the fair use justifications are self-evident and obvious from the topic's historical relevance. Current Wikipedia policy is no justification for you avoiding spending a minute or three to fill out a proper detailed fair-use justification there if you determine that the images' current justification was inadequate.

What you do to a million Pokemon images that fail to meet policy is immaterial; if you tag important historical images in this lazy manner and they get deleted, you move into "damaging the encyclopedia" territory in short order. Both board and community agree that image policy enforcement must not be used to damage the encyclopedia.

Please use your common sense. I know you do a lot of good work with the bot, but the reason you're controversial and the Bot's loathed is that you take enough badly aimed shots like that one with it. Please slow down and think a bit more about it for legitimate historically important images, or anything else that anyone's going to obviously agree is important to have.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry but I cannot program common sense into the bot. It doesnt know what the image is, nor does it care. What the bot does see is two things A) the image is non-free. B) it has no valid rationale. How can a fully automatic program understand what significance an image has? also how can the bot see self evident rationales? it cant and thus why your image was tagged. Im sorry that you dont like the fact that BCBot tagged your image. As for improper deletion please take that up with the admin in question. β^_command 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not my image. I fixed the rationale, but I didn't upload it. I work on some of the pages that use it.

How on earth are you automatically detecting a valid rationale? I assumed this was semi-automatic, that you were using it to locate possibles and then manually telling the bot to flag or not. It's fully automated??? Please explain how this works... Georgewilliamherbert 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The method that it uses is fairly simple, it looks at where the image is used grabs the titles of what re-directs there, and then checks the image description page for at least one of them. Basically does the image description page contain the name of an article where the image is used? if it doesnt contain the name its tagged. (as a side note images older than January 1, 2007 are not tagged per a proposal at WP:NFCC and a pending change) β^_command 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) If you look closely at WP:NFCC#10, you will see the wording "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item". That is something that can be checked for by a bot. Obviously the bot can't check the meaning or wording of the rationale, but it can check whether the image page is backlinking to the images it is using. Note that the "this image is used in..." bit at the bottom is automatically generated and doesn't count. It has to be specifically stated in the rationale which articles are being mentioned. If you look at the old version of the image page that was tagged, you will see that there was no such mention of the articles it was used in. Seems pedantic and incredibly annoying, and should in my opinion be a "tidy up" category, like Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, but it is entirely logical. Carcharoth 01:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of the policy should be adjusted, if, as I suspect, the bot is actually checking for a link to the article(s) in which fair use is claimed. --John 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot doesn't check for links, it sees Wikipedia and Wikipedia as the same, (I just borrowed the term backlink because I couldn't come up with something better). β^_command 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarifications. I think I agree that lack of the page name its used on being listed anywhere in the image page would probably be a valid flag for "doesn't contain a valid rationale". That particular check hadn't occurred to me previously. Georgewilliamherbert 20:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually... following myself up... Would you consider adding a better more descriptive message to what it tags the image page with? Or are you afraid someone would short circuit it by just adding the page names it's used in to the image description to avoid being detected, if you did that? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That is one reason, the other is that they need to know how to write a valid rationale. β^_command 20:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

I'm sorry to say this, but this bot is incredibly badly thought out. I have just had a load of warnings about the fair use rationales of Image:BBFC A 1913-1970.png, Image:BBFC H 1932-1951.png, Image:BBFC U 1913-1970.png and Image:BBFC X 1951-1970.png posted on my talk page. When I uploaded the images, I used Template:Non-free use rationale, as recommended on the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline page. I filled in all of the fields. Since then, the template has been updated to include an article field. Obviously, as my images were uploaded before this requirement existed, these images do not include the article field. Now, they are threatened with deletion by this bot basically because I cannot predict the future!

Surely it is not sensible for this bot to go through every one of the thousands of fair use images uploaded before the article requirement existed and potentially delete the lot? Wouldn't it be more sensible for it to simply look at the image's page, which lists where the images are used, and adjust the rationale appropriately? - Green Tentacle 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This requirement for rationales has been in place since for over a year, whether or not that template is used the bot doesnt care, it looks for valid rationales. Please see WP:NFCC#10c β^_command 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the fair use rationale thank you, very much! I realise it is not the bot's fault that the template did not meet the requirements, but given how widely used the template is, don't you think the bot going around a deleting potentially every single image using the template is a bit destructive? Surely bots are meant to make people's lives easier, so why not program it to fix the mistakes made by the template, rather than rub salt in the wound?

(On a related note, I am getting increasingly fed up of Wikipedia's 'rule' that whenever a guideline is changed, the onuses to update everything is not on the person that modified the guideline, but on the editors who followed the correct rules at the time!) - Green Tentacle 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the requirement for the article name has been in place for over a year, and BCBot is only tagging images uploaded after January 1, 2007. well after the requirement for the article name. And a bot cannot fix bad rationales. β^_command 15:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I give up. You're clearly not listening. - Green Tentacle 15:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look through the history of the template. Find out when the article parameter was put in. I think what Betacommand is trying to say is that even before the article parameter was in place, there was a requirement to link to the article from somewhere on the image page. Because that article parameter is now in place, it seems like the bot is saying "you forgot the article parameter", but what it is really saying is that the link back to the article (from anywhere on the image page) is missing. In other words, even if the article parameter hadn't been introduced, the bot would still have flagged up the image as needing a link back to the article it is used in. Carcharoth 00:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you Carcharoth, you are correct, the need for the article name has been around since July 13, 2006. The change in the template is recent and was made so that images could be brought into compliance with the policy easier. β^_command 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. I understand this and did before. The issue is that I (and thousands of other users) used the template and, given it was 'official' guidance, assumed that it would be enough (after all, all image pages automatically put in a link to the pages the image is used on). I guess the issue really lies with whoever designed the template and said "use this and you'll be fine" when it doesn't actually fulfil the requirements. Perhaps it is also the fault of whoever updated the fair use requirements and did not do anything to implement them. A similar situation exists in that every now and again I get warnings about images I uploaded years ago saying that they have no fair use rationales, when fair use rationales did not exist when the image was uploaded. I, and I imagine others, am getting a little fed up of bots posting messages on my talk page asking me to, basically, clear up someone else's mess. - Green Tentacle 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I found that the automatic warning from BetacommandBot was unnecessarily peremptory and threatening (image) - and inaccurate: for there was in fact no rationale at all. (I had been given no prior notice of WP:NFCC#10c, so had no idea that the provision of a rationale was a requirement). By contrast the first warning I was given by OrphanBot for failing to provide a copyright tag (image) was by contrast polite and helpful and prompted me to fix the omission immediately. Salisian 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OrphanBot and BCbot do not use the same methods, BCBot does not threaten, it just gives a warning as would any other user. As for writing a rationale please see WP:NFURG β^_command 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for all the image warning messages! I'm so glad I get to spend the next hour updating 50 image pages! After all, I have nothing better to do with my time! Weatherman90 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) _{Preceding comment moved from user page to talk page by — jacĸrм (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)}

Please do. It would be a shame to have all those images deleted for noncompliance with the image policy. A use rationale linking each with an article is an absolute requirement for copyrighted images to be uploaded here but better late than never. Incidentally, I see you've created at least one discography. Please take a look at WP:NONFREE - Wikipedia doesn't permit non-free images to be used in discographies, lists, galleries, etc. Those are the policy rules. The tags you got are merely enforcement of the rules we have had for a long while. Wikidemo 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Despot Djuradj lik s novca.JPG

Heh, and if I'd actually read the full username, I would've realized that, too! I'm so used to seeing it with "bot" that I (apparently) don't look much past the "Betacom" part anymore. In any case, thanks for fixing it. -Bbik^★ 22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares?

Making "fair use" a moving target does not help anyone. What was an OK rationale yesterday suddenly doesn't meet the standard today. If you really cared, you would try to improve content, not destroy it. But, obviously, you don't care. --GentlemanGhost 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)