User talk:Betacommand/2007101

Template:Paramilitary-org-stub

Why did you remove the edit action in this edit to Template:Paramilitary-org-stub, and with no edit summary? All the other stub templates use that syntax. If you do not explain your edit, I will revert it. Thanks, — Swpb^talk.edits 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One Please do not be aggressive. Second, I am removing them from the templates as I am trying to clean-up our mainspace and the self links in it. We should not have links to wikipedia in our mainspace unless we are talking about wikipedia. β^_command 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend any aggression in my tone. If I don't see a good reason for an edit I don't understand, and I don't get one from the editor, I revert it—that's not a threat, it's letting you know where I'm coming from. However, I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your explanation a bit. How are stub templates different from cleanup templates that link to non-mainspace pages? Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid indicates that self-refs in stub messages do not need to be deleted. Also, have you talked with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting about these changes? — Swpb^talk.edits 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I the other templates you are talking about dont use external links. I am attempting to clean up the mainspace and remove external links to wikipedia that should be internal, or be removed. the use of external links in templates is not a good practice and is normally avoided along with the fact that when ever you use one of these templates with external links it just makes it all that harder to work with improper links. β^_command 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, have you talked to the wikiproject people though? Seems like these links are standard practice, so the folks who make these templates should know not to include the edit links in the future. — Swpb^talk.edits 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC) On second thought, seeing as I'm one of at least five editors with doubts about your removing these links from all the stub templates, I think you should probably open this up for broader community consensus before continuing further. — Swpb^talk.edits 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB

Is there any consensus for the changes you are making? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia should not link to itself, especially in templates. β^_command 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop and get consensus for your changes. WP:AWB says to keep your AWB edits uncontroversial. As evidenced above, there is evident controversy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That was not an AWB edit, and there was no controversy. there is a consensus that wikipedia should avoid self links. β^_command 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Where? --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid β^_command 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why remove links in stub templates to "edit this page"? Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#In the Template and Category namespaces seems to say this is acceptable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It creates a lot of un-needed external links that make it very very difficult to work with the real links that are on wikipedia. Ive seen a lot of pages that use external links, but should be using internal, and others that are reference problems. with the mass addition of these links in templates it makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to address the serious issue of improper use of those links. β^_command 23:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is uncontroversial as the ease of maintenance reasoning does not apply to avoid self-references in article space so I don't see a consensus to not have them in stub templates. In fact, Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid seems to show a consensus that it is acceptable in stub templates but I, personally, do not have a significant objection to removing the links from stub templates. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded - Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Community and website feature references pretty explicitly says that stubs will have self-edit links and that this is ok and normal. Betacommand, please stop and reverse yourself on this. Get consensus to change the guideline before proceeding again. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also notice that you are removing links that use the oldid parameter that lets one pick a specific version of a page that is available only by using an external link to Wikipedia. I use that feature on my own user talk page to avoid having to create separate archive pages for my talk page. No doubt others are using it to point to specific versions of pages as well, so at a minimum you need to think twice before removing such links. Definitely not something a bot should be doing, and I'm doubtful if AWB should be used for it either. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit links

I just filed bug 12445, a request for an edit link magic word that would solve the stub template issue. It should be an easy patch if you can find a willing developer to code it. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A copyvio uploader

Moshgun (talk · contribs)'s uploads are all stolen copyvio images with dishonest sources. 142.167.95.209 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, bot not transwikifying good images

There are clearly categories on these images, and I even used the format you prescribed: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. What's the issue here? Could you please just take a few seconds to update the code for the bot's regular expression finder from [[:commons:category:.*]] to [[:?(C|c)ommons:(C|c)ategory:.*]]? The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

the reason that the bot did not transwiki the cat is simple you had [[:commons when it should have been [[commons . β^_command 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi. I was recently approved to used VandalProof. However, I can't seem to log in. I typed in my username (with the "_" for the space) and my correct password, but nothing happens. Can you help? The Chronic 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

dont use the _ β^_command 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Still no luck. The Chronic 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

try logging in using Internet Explorer and remember to click remember me. β^_command 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Still at the "connect to VandalProof" screen. The Chronic 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

which of the two buttons is grayed out? β^_command 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually one of them: "verify authorization". The Chronic 03:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

did you press the one that was not gray? β^_command 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tried to, but to no avail. The Chronic 03:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

what OS do you have? β^_command 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP. The Chronic 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

the issue is not vandalproof, Internet Explorer will not let you log into wikipedia. β^_command 03:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How is that? I am currently logged on to WP through IE. The Chronic 03:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

/me scratches head. did you let VP access the internet through your firewall? β^_command 03:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

THERE WE GO! I just turned off my firewall, and now I'm in. Thanks! The Chronic 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, VPRF doesn't really live up to my standards (for several reasons). Is it okay for me to be taken off the list of authorized users? The Chronic 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Thanks for the approval. With regards to the issue above, I also had it (running XP Pro with IE6). I suggest quitting entirely out of VandalProof, waiting a few minutes, and then re-entering the application. I would speculate that if you bollocks up your login the first time, Wikipedia starts asking for a captcha which of course cannot be displayed in the VandalProof login box. After a bit of fiddling, I eventually got it to work. Lankiveil (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Category:Cuban contemporary artists

You pulled the mass linkspam out of these articles. Are you planning anything else for these? If not I'll begin going through and assessing individual notability and tagging appropriatly. I'll watch here. MBisanz 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof application

Hello, I note that my application for VandalProof has been rejected -- can you tell me what the criteria for being accepted now are? I only missed out very slightly the first time so was sorry tnot to be accepted this time.

Thanks

Showjumpersam (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

you have a very low talk/user talk edit count, I would like to see you more active in user discussion. β^_command 20:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed you think my contribution os so poor. I haven't indulged in discussions too much as I have generally only written on subjects I have studied and study (I am a professional academic scientist) so haven't felt the need. However, I shall take ytour comments as feedback and look to change things. Perhaps you can quantify the requirements for this sort of application? You neglected to in your last message.

Many thanks Showjumpersam (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In no way are your contributions poor, that said, vandalproof is a very powerful tool. I would like to see more talk interaction before you are approved. Since VandalProof is a vandal fighting tool, you interact directly with more users. I know you will make mistakes and revert something you should not, (It happens to the best of us) and that may make the other party angry. a good history of talk interaction will prove that you can handle situations like that. When I checked you only had 56 talk space edits, that is not really enough to make a judgment of how well you can handle your self. this is nothing against you, as with most new users there is just not enough data there to prove one way or another. What I would suggest is dont worry about it and re-apply in 2-3 weeks. β^_command 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalproof App

Hi - On a similar note to the one above, I would like to know where I failed in my application, so that I might be able to improve. Even a nudge in the general direction would help, otherwise, I would just continue as I have. _Jame§^ugrono 23:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

you only have 146 mainspace edits, Vandalproof requires at least 250. β^_command 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

image fair use rationale- economic development in india

hi, i took the liberty of removing the indian oil logo image (you tagged) from the article. hope so you will not mind but i have removed the notice you put up on the talk page. thanks a lot for your tolerance. Sushant gupta (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Technology

Hey, how does the bot reason whether or not a fair use description is valid or not? or does a human review it, before deleting it? JonOmite (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot

It concerns me that Betacommandbot frequently sends warnings over fair-use images that do specify a rationale. It is not required that a rationale be written in any templated form for easy bot recognition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• It concerns me as well. I removed a warning from a book cover image that has been part of the encylopedia for two and a half years, without issue. It clearly qualifies as fair-use, and links only to that book's page (Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret). Something needs to be done quickly to remedy such obvious errors. Bellwether ^B_C 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Morven since you did not give me an example of what your talking about I cannot use one of them as an example of what is wrong with your rationale. As for Bellwether, I think you are referring to Image:AreYouThereGod.jpg which does not have a non-free rationale. a guide on how to properly write rationales can be found here. β^_command 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case I was talking about Image:EMD_511.jpg which contained all the information required, IMO, just not in an easily parsed format.

A question: is human judgment being applied in this tagging, either to select the images being tagged or as a sanity check after a heuristic algorithm selects likely candidates? Or is it wholly automated? This isn't the first time I've seen an image tagged that has a rationale already there in non-templated form, and I've seen worse examples before, although it's entirely possible that previous problems have been fixed by now & thus those aren't necessarily valid for the tagging being done now. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the version that the bot tagged [15] that image had no rationale. β^_command 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do you fully understand that it is not required of editors of the project to make the bot's job easier? Noting that it is a book cover, and that it is used only once (on the book's article) fully satisfies the requirement that the rationale outline how the useage for the project will not harm the copyright holder. Bellwether ^B_C 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

that is incorrect please see our non-free policy and a guide on writing rationales β^_command 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, you're simply wrong. The image in question is used only once, and the non-free template that has been on that page for the two years it has been on the project outlines how the image complies. I have also added a note to the image. Please stop trying to remove book covers that have been a part of the project for a long period of time. Bellwether ^B_C 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BCBot is charged with making sure all images on WP comply with the Foundation's requirement on non-free media use before March 23, 2008. This requires that a rationale with the exact name of the article(s) the image is being used on is present on the article page (WP:NFCC#10c). Image:AreYouThereGod.jpg's rationale is valid save for this point (it is off by a question mark). While a human may be able to judge that what's written is the same as the page name, it is necessary after March 23, 2008 that this be understood by a computer program such that WP can maintain this. It doesn't have to be templated, it just has to be that article name exactly. --MASEM 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• So, because of a missing question mark, an image that has been playing a useful part of the project for two and a half years could be deleted? Seems a bit lawyerly, especially given Bc's pointing at policy pages when asked to explain, rather than taking the time to clearly articulate (as you have) the extremely minor problem with the rationale. And for the record, I can not figure out a way to edit the file history to add the question mark. Bellwether ^B_C 17:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it for that image MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The sad thing is, how many book covers that I have not been watching for my students have been deleted for similar "jot and tittle" reasons? IAR would seem to apply directly to this type of case. Bellwether ^B_C 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are these all bookcovers you've uploaded through your account? If so i might be able to go through your contributions and hand-check them quite easily. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, I was referring to various book covers across the project that are not watched closely by me (whatever they may be). I only noticed the bot's "handiwork" on the Shelby Foote article, and the above-discussed book. I was just wondering aloud how many book covers across the project had been deleted because no one was around to protest the seemingly-draconian (I mean, one question mark?!?) tagging by the bot. Sorry for any confusion. Bellwether ^B_C 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I must also lodge a complaint. Your bot is running rouge. It complained about Image:Dontokosuojisan-logo-japan.jpg which has been up for a long time, doesn't have a fair use equivalent and is used in the article to showcase this product's logo (like many other pages) and is listed with fair use rationale. Why did the bot go after it? Calm down its hunger a bit, k? ;) cheers. Nesnad (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The bot was correct, the version that it saw did not have a rationale. after it was tagged User:Nihonjoe added a rationale and removed the deletion tag. β^_command 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ally1884.png

I think Image:Ally1884.png is in the public domain, I've tagged it on that belief and given my reasons. If I've got it wrong, let me know and I'll add the fair use rationale. Ta, Hiding T 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adamphone_b.jpg

Image Adamphone_b.jpg is on public domain. It is on Rotten Tomatoes and also available at the film's official website for internet usage.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10005222-red_cockroaches/gallery.php?page=2&size=lores&nopop=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaman81 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Hi, Your bot identified this logo [16] as not in public domain. It is a logo, would you please clarify?Farmanesh (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Spreading the load

I'm not here to complain as such. I understand the need for BetacommandBot and always respond to the request. Today, however, I have received (so far) 12 messages. Would it be possible to adjust the programme to limit the amount of messages any one user receives in one 24 hour period? Regards - and Happy New Year - SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, but what if tomorrow it finds another 12 images someone's uploaded that are non-compliant. Some of our prolific contributors could back it up past the deadline. MBisanz ^talk 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bug in BetacommandBot

Hi Betacommand - you left a message on my talk page that I had uploaded an image Image:Huygens landing01 L.jpg. I DID NOT upload this image. It was uploaded by User:Curps, who is the user who should receive the message about the copyright problems. All I did was edit the image to crop some black margins. This is not the first time this error has happened! Please correct your bot so that it picks up the original uploader, not the editor of any subsequent version. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

you did in fact upload the image, you were just not the original person. BCBot notifies all uploaders. β^_command 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not seeing it on Curps talk page or in his history. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the notification on User talk:Curps, which is where the notice should be! - MPF (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason that BCBot did not leave a note on curps page, Curps talkpage is protected admin only. β^_command 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see a lock, my fault. When BCB runs across a protected talk page like that, could it drop a warning to some centralized place? In this case we were lucky a second editor had done something and was notified, but conceivably, the talk page could be protected, the article talk could be un-watched, and of course the image could be unwatched. Maybe a BCB/protected pages sub page? MBisanz ^talk 19:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

here is a list of user talkpages that BCBot could not post to. β^_command 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But how would an editor know, without seeing the image page, that BcB did not post to the protected page? I know users watch other users talk pages and pick up tags in that manner, so this is knocking one of the safety legs out from the three-legged stool of article-talk, image, user-talk. MBisanz ^talk 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

this is something that I cannot control. I do my best. β^_command 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, i agree you can't control people not watching images, I'm just suggesting that instead of BCB NOT posting to the pages on the protected list, he posts the warning to a subpage in his userspace. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

the link above is a running log file of all pages BCBot cannot post to. β^_command 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I get that BCB won't post to pages on that list, so when he runs across an image that would cause him to normally attempt post to a page on that list, he would instead post the warning to User:BetacommandBot/ProtectedPages, then users could watch only that page and pick up on user notificaitons that otherwise wouldn't be made, because of the list. MBisanz ^talk 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot edit summaries

I noticed it pop up on my watchlist, notifying is spelt incorrectly. One of those little things. :) Cheers --Charitwo ^talk 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Button noref.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Button noref.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand

Yesterday this bot tagged the image for Mirage and I added a fair use rationale template thing, despite the fact that I don't really understand the whole thing. I didn't upload the image, but it's just an album cover. Today it got tagged again. What exactly is the problem now? Did I use the wrong template? A bit of explanation would be nice, as opposed to endless threats to delete. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks.. I got the exact name of the article wrong. Much appreciated :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I love you, but please don't leave me messages

I have {{nobots}} on my talk page, yet your bot still insists on posting warnings about fair use images to my talk page. I really could care less if any non-free media that I upload gets deleted. I'm asking you to just please leave me alone. —Zachary ^talk 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Meat Loaf: In Search of Paradise, now uncategorized?

This bot edited an entry that has/had no images, and changed it to be 'uncategorized'. I'd like to re-categorize it as a 'film'. Is it OK to do so as a 'undo'?Kc1981 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Rational update

Fair use rational for use of Image:Munizzi.jpg in Martha Munizzi added on January 2, 2008. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The image isn't usable for the purpose you want. The person is still alive. I'm removing the usage. It's replaceable fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

COMPLAINT

I understand you are trying to help. I have a suggestion: DON'T JUST DELETE IMAGES. REPLACE THEM. You're not helping anything by having a ROBOT go around and tag images for deletion. Why don't YOU go and change the tag, or upload a replacement. You're not actually contributing anything to Wikipedia, if anything you are removing information. Good work. Charles 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• You do understand this is a bot, yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair Warning

When you bot places warning messages on article talk pages it does not specify the date on which an image will be deleted as it does on user talk pages. Modifying your bot to include this feature would give users fair warning of when they had to act by. - perfectblue (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gaston Image

I couldn't care less about that image Gaston2.jpg, seeing as I didn't upload the upgrade. I uploaded the original, and it was deleted a long time ago, so it's not my problem. Jienum (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Douche Bag

Stop deleting images — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.85.204 (talk • contribs)

• The bot does not delete images. Perhaps you've confused the bot for an administrator? If so, you may wish to contact the administrator that deleted the images you're concerned about. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry Then

Recent edits

Bug report kindof. Can you fix it where it does not flood talk pages. [17]. Thanks, Mercury 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• And what would you suggest the bot do? Not notify people? I understand this might be perceived as a problem, but what alternative is there? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  Group the notification into a subpage or perhaps consense into one section. There is a world of options. :) Mercury 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe refrain from notifying the same user 20 times? --John (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• So how is the user informed of the 20 images? Do we just inform of unspecified images and leave it up to the user to figure out which ones might be non-compliant? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I could see where it would batch notify, with one message listing 20 images. But that kind of coding would be rather difficult I imagine. I'll leave it to the bot owner to answer that. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mind the notifications. Just the format. I'm only asking for a change in format. Mercury 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hi there - its me again, your old friend. I'm very angry at the moment and I'm honestly having a tough time controlling my language, so please do bear with me. Have you seen my talk page? Do you know that your bot has placed nearly 100 rationale notices on it in the past day? I'm sorry, but unlike you, I don't have hours and hours to waste on image rationales. I do have a life! What compels you to do this? Do you think that the image police are going to come after you if every image on Wikipedia doesn't follow the template? Go outside, take a breath of fresh air, and clear your senses. You obviously need a big wake up call. There is much more to life than image rationales. Quit pasting these messages on my talk page, because I do not have time to deal with them. Weatherman90 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you're not interested in writing rationales for non-free images you upload, then you are intentionally uploading images in violation of policy. Perhaps you should stop uploading images beyond your capability to provide rationales with them? That would certainly eliminate all the notices to your talk page. In short, the problem is sourced with your lack of providing rationales, not the bot noting you didn't provide them. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I use the template on all new images that I upload, but its hard to undo my actions from two years ago.Weatherman90 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For the love of god...

Don't just revert, explain why you are re-adding the template. Viridae^Talk 05:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read what the template says you will see why its there, the rationale that is there is not valid. β^_command 05:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If it didnt wor the first time, why is simply re-adding going to work the next 10? Viridae^Talk 05:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If a user does not read one thing what make you think they will read something else? β^_command 05:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The template is complicated, try and eplain it, dont just revert war. Viridae^Talk 05:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

the only justifiable use of the bot is as a first screening. If it works,great, it's saved us all some trouble. If not, we then need a human. A human who not only knows the rules, but who is sympathetic to users, and willing to help them learn how to follow them. DGG (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be really great if the bot's script could be updated to express this fact. Right now, it reads like BCB is an admin and will delete the image as soon as the time allotted runs out. As neither the bot, nor its owner (apparently) has administrative powers, shouldn't the script be changed to reflect the fact that the bot is only a first screening? Bellwether ^B_C 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:JordanPNew-1Dinar-2002.png

Can you please supply the appropriate fair use rational Mr,Mrs or Miss Robot. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, but you can. Please read WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Betacommandbot

I was working on adding appropriate fair use rationals to the jan 2 disputed category when you kicked off your bot to resort the categories. I have addressed several of them, however your bot was functioning off the list before i fixed the fair use. These images are then tagged with the new sub category and not the master category. Similarly, being the new category being added is not part of the template, it is possible and probable that people fixing fair use may miss removing the extraneous sorting category. Do you think it would be possible for you to program your bot to go through and look for images that have had the primary FU disputed tag removed/addressed and if the extra sorting category remains, remove it as well? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

not a problem just poke me a day before they expire. β^_command 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Proof Question

I was just wondering what specifically led you to decline my request for VP? I am not taking objection to your decision, but rather seeking to improve in that area(s) before my next application. Thanks!  DavidJ710  talk  20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about you status thing

Would it be possible to use your status thing that is in the top right of your user page, on my page to show my status?? Also could you answer on my talk page, thanks. Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested slight reword

Try this wording, if you can :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Urgent - missing information for (IMAGE) Thanks for uploading (IMAGE). As you may be aware, all images on Wikipedia are carefully scrutinized for copyright and licensing information, since our content may be used by anyone, whether freely or commercially. As such the community has approved very strict requirements to evidence that images are genuinely needed and valid, for ourselves and any third party to rely upon. An automated checking program has identified that the above image is missing information needed for this purpose by our image use policy. Without this information (called a 'fair use rationale'), images cannot be used on Wikipedia and must be removed. The extra information is usually routine and easy to add; it will also be manually checked at some point as well. This message is to ask you to visit the policy page and read the instructions carefully, then carefully add the missing details on the [[(LINK)|page that describes your image]] explaining why the image may qualifies for fair use, and the other factual information about its sources and so on. Using one of the fair use rationale templates is an easy way to ensure that your image is clearly in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. In general, images without a completed rationale, or which aren't agreed to qualify under fair use, usually are removed from Wikipedia (often within a couple of days) to prevent copyright and policy violations, according to our criteria for speedy deletion. A clear and completed rationale added to the image ensures others can check it meets our criteria to be kept. If you have any questions please do ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you! BetacommandBot (automated checking program) (DATESTAMP)

Any use? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like FT2's wording. It would have helped me understand what I needed to do more quickly. In addition, I think it would help uploaders if the bot reported the specific criteria that have triggered it. For example - "An automated checking program has identified that the above image is missing information needed for this purpose by our image use policy. Specifically: it does not contain the name of the article in which it is used"

In my case, the image already had what looked like a comprehensive FUR. It took some digging to work out what was wrong with it. --Ukslim (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This bot needs to look closer at edit histories.

I just got a message saying that "an image I uploaded" has disputed fair use, despite the fact that I only edited an image that already existed. I have no way of verifying the source of an image that I did not upload. ericg ✈ 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncategorized tags

Not sure if this is a bug, or a one-time error, but you have added the same tag twice to an article (Uncategorized and uncategorized). See Dysprosody. --Bwpach (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TODAY

Hi Beta. Based on a discussion on WP:AN located here about fair use images tags done by bots, and the pending fair use deadlings from the Foundation, I've started this proposed policy/project/change at WP:TODAY. Please check it out and weigh in. The specifics as discussed above about a run for the Images problem we have is at Wikipedia:Task of the Day#Early 2008 trial run. Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And if possible, let me know who else should know about this? Lawrence Cohen 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your floating banner

If you don't want questions about images directed to you, you should probably stop running a bot that tags images for deletion. I don't mean this to be at all snarky. It just seems a bit less than congenial to tell people not to question you about your tagging. Bellwether ^B_C 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not add that, check the page history. β^_command 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies, then. I can't figure out who added it. Bellwether ^B_C 02:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Though Beta didn't add it, it's probably a very good idea. BetacommandBot's talk page is a very poor place to be discussing policy surrounding fair use images. The cited page is a good place to go. There's more people watching that page, and this talk page really should be about operation of the bot, not the policy it is supporting. The bot's been previously approved for its actions, and it is acting in accordance with policy. There's lots of griping that hits this page, and the majority of it is inappropriate or flat out wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, the floating banner is distracting. Leave it at the top of the page. People who don't read it there aren't going to read it anyways, and its a bit of an annoyance. Actually, I may boldly fix it myself. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree it's annoying, but that was the point I think. WAY too many questions come here without ever bothering to read the great whopping big stop hand section at the top. The non-floating banner will just be ignored. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are annoying large numbers of people. It comes with the territory Muzzamo (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Logos

Hello. I have received a couple of notices about non-free use of logos. This is an "old" discussion that keeps coming back, basically due to the "automated" process some editors are using. The common consent is that a logo is a logo and the usual logic that applies to images is not applicable in their cases - at least, as long as it is stated that fair use is claimed. In any case, the logos images are taken from my own book cited in the articles. Please tell if the above suffices. Regards Skartsis (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is the lack of proper fair use rationales, not the rationale you state above. Image:Namco_greece_logo.gif has a sufficient one now. Image:DIM logo.jpg and Image:Alta logo.jpg do not. Please see WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Luis-Frois.jpg

I posted my justification at Image talk:Luis-Frois.jpg. Now what? Kingturtle (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• In some jurisdictions, the use of this image must fall under fair use, even given the existence of User:Kingturtle/World Coin Gallery. That release only covers that person's release, which does not cover all rights. In some jurisdictions, there are other rights that must be released. In some, there are not. Thus, there must be a fair use rationale supplied with the image for it to be acceptable here. See WP:FURG for guidance. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you are tagging files with vaild FURs as invalid

You need to fix your bot!!!! You are now tagging files that have valid FUR's in the new format, by the way. Enough is enough. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ALooney_Tunes_Back_in_Action_Game_Screenshot.jpg&diff=181611335&oldid=180882086 Dbiel ^(Talk) 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what prompted this one to be tagged. 1 != 2 16:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

there was extra spacing in the title of the article, first time Ive seen this. Ill add a filter into BCBot to check for that. β^_command 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, good. For once a real bug report! Every few pages it happens. 1 != 2 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had several other images as well where some had the rationale and others didn't. The bot flagged those with the rationale as invalid (and those without) and they got deleted due to the speedy deletion, and I never knew about it until several months later when I logged in again after being logged out for several months. I saw my talk page just cluttered with messages related to disputed rationales. The images were already deleted by the time I got to see the messages (and since I don't get any E-mail warnings, I had no knowledge of this being the case). I've since spent about 2 hours reuploading everything and redescribing them just for one to encounter the same issue again. I would agree in the case of those images where I didn't have the rationale (it wasn't required at the time, but at least, a warning outside of Wikipedia would be nice). Ulillillia (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

it is not my fault that you did not check your talkpage. and please review WP:RAT for help on how to write a proper rationale. β^_command 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that only those images with slightly incorrect rationales placed by people who check their work regular should survive here? 18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional species in South Park

BC, please allow this to run its course for a week or two. I "articlized" the list (boldly moving it a new name), to give them time to work it up, with a few references, and thereby to allow the images to remain. If they don't do so, then I'll remove the images from the article, and turn it back into a list, myself. For now, though, I think this seems to be something of a "way through" the problem. Bellwether ^B_C 15:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have referenced your NFC reasoning in a discussion I've opened at the talk page of the above article. Just thought I'd let you know. Bellwether ^B_C 17:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that just because you changed the name to remove "list" from the title, don't change the fact that the content is still a list. --MASEM 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• And I'll note that I'm simply trying to find a constructive way forward here. And I've seen many "articles" in much worse shape than the above article. What will it hurt to give the people who have invested time in FsiSP a week to find out-of-universe references to support its new status as an article? Bellwether ^B_C 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are trying to add references as to allow certain sections of that list to stand as their own article via notability, great - no problems. But if the intent is to keep that article as a referenced list of characters, it still is a list, and still falls under the issue above. (See Characters of Final Fantasy VIII which, despite being well referenced for notability, used to have individual pictures but now has only two relevant ones). The other option here is that since South Park episode articles do exist and have a varying degree of notability, move respective images to those pages (eg Marklaks to "Starvin' Marvin in Space"), since that image is appropriate for that episode. --MASEM 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that there are several options here. First, perhaps there are outside references that will establish the notability of the group collectively known as "Fictional species in South Park." I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm willing to give the people who might be able to find such references a bit of time to find them. Second, it could be as you say, that individual sections of the current article could be referenced to establish their own notability. Third, they could do as you say and simply add the appropriate images to the appropriate articles, and the article could be relist-ified. Or, fourth, there may be no out-of-universe references to establish notability for these species, in which case (as noted in my clarification on the refences template I placed) it would be turned back into a list, and the images removed immediately. Does that sound fair, at least? Bellwether ^B_C 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The last three options are reasonable. The first one is not - if it looks like a list and acts like a list, it probably is still a list despite the fact you're calling it an article and "List" doesn't appear in the title. Again I point to the Final Fantasy VIII characters article above. It does not call itself a "list" but is effectively a list , and thus has trimming images down from one for each major character to the 2 that you see. Your first option proposes getting the South Park list to the same content and referencing as the Final Fantasy VIII article, which regardless of the outcome, is always a good thing, but it is not going to change the fact you are enumerating through elements, and as such, such enumerations, however they are presented in a single article, cannot have multiple non-free image uses. --MASEM 17:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Right now, the article currently contains four images. For an article of that size, this does not seem an exorbitant amount, if they can sufficiently show the notability of the topic "Fictional species in South Park." All I'm trying to do is assuage a difficult situation by being a bit bold, and not alphabet-souping the editors who have invested time in it. Bellwether ^B_C 17:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI archive

Hi, sorry I reverted you there--some of those threads were from today, and only a few hours old? Sorry. Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, you beat me to the revert. I pressed the wrong button. β^_command 21:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Protected Areas of Oregon

Howdy, just curious why you removed the (red)links on two items. The template contains dozens of redlinks; we're knocking these off the list, slowly but surely.

I could understand if you thought all redlinks should be removed (I'd disagree, but that would be a sensible position.) But I don't understand why these two specific links should be removed, making those two items the only ones with no links. Could you discuss, maybe at Template talk:Protected Areas of Oregon? Thanks! -Pete (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I just was removing red-links for recently deleted articles. β^_command 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Not sure links like that should be deleted, since often articles are re-created after deletion, with better content. Anyway in this case, the deletions have been reverted, I think this template is now OK. Thanks for explaining. -Pete (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking

Hi BC, can you explain to me the purpose for the unlinking that you are doing? I just saw you in a large part of my watchlist unlinking valid articles with no reason provided. --JayHenry (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ive been unlinking deleted articles. β^_command 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[18] You also appear to be deleting valid links to articles that are not deleted. --JayHenry (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There was an error with quotes and the unlink script. β^_command 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A gotcha, I noticed that they were short stories and journal articles that style guides recommend go within quotes like "Mold of the Earth". Funny technical glitch. No worries at all and thanks for fixing! --JayHenry (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed something similar, links to Michele Gurdal were deleted from numerous tennis tournament articles today. These edits should be reverted. There's no reason a player who was in so many tournaments shouldn't have an article. If there was a Michele Gurdal article that was deleted, it was likely a different Michele. --dantheox (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a typo

It looks like the bot's adding '\,' but I'm guessing '\n' was intended? [19] Gimmetrow 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah it was a typo β^_command 23:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking deleted articles

This really isn't necessary. Redlinks are not evil, and an article's deletion is not necessarily a command not to recreate it. In the case of stub articles, de-linking discourages growing the web, so I'd appreciate if you didn't do this without warning in future without a more solid reason (or at least a talk page note). Chris Cunningham (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)