User talk:Betacommand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Douglasnicol (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 7 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

−5902 days left

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note:
  1. There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
  2. Read this talk page and its archives before registering your complaint. It is likely someone has already registered a similar complaint, and that complaint will have been given an answer.
  3. Read the policy
  4. Check and make sure the image has a valid source
  5. Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here)
  6. I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine.
  7. I do not want to see images deleted
  8. All images must comply with policy
  9. A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale.
  10. If you're here to whine and complain that But <place image name here> is just like my image and isn't tagged for deletion I will tag that image too, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.


Bot misidentified source of protected image

There is a message in my talk from Betacommandbot which begins:

Thanks for uploading Image:UCI letters.png.

The image in question is an interlinked "UCI" (University of California, Irvine, perhaps?) in gold on a medium blue background. I did not upload this to Wikipedia. In fact, I have yet to upload an image of any kind to the site. Could you check your bot and the image to see if you can find out who did upload this?

Marketstel 13:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BCBot must not tag without also performing notification

As you know, BetacommandBot is mass-tagging images with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. It is also leaving the original uploaders a {{di-disputed fair use rationale-notice}} and a message on article's talk pages. However, it is not following the directions of the tag because it is failing to add {{deletable image-caption}} to the captions of these images. This is a problem because for a large number of images, the original uploader is absentee and article talk pages get far fewer page views than the articles themselves. These images then go ignored for seven days at which point an administrator either is lazy and deletes an otherwise valid instance of fair use which lacks correct tagging, or else scarce admin time is used to correctly tag an image that could have been tagged by any user had the caption indicated there was a problem.

I'm not asking you to shut off your bot, just make it leave the notifications recommended by {{Deletable image}} so people have a chance to fix the tags. Please reply on my talk, because yours too busy to watchlist. Thanks. —dgiestc 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not possible to have the bot add that template. Due to some templates breaking if that is used. I instead follow a method that is safe, and notify all uploaders and leave a note on the talkpage. βcommand 22:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shut this stupid thing down!!

I AM giving a decent fair use rationale for the Bob Goen picture! Freakin' let it go already! >:( --JoBrLa 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading tagging by BetacommandBot

See this diff, where BetacommandBot tagged the image with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} even though the image in question did not have a fair use rationale, or any claim of fair use at all. The correct tag in this case would've been {{no source}} or {{no copyright holder}}... except that the image already had that tag (and nothing else), courtesy of a previous visit by OrphanBot. This certainly looks like a bug in BetacommandBot to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no easy method to see if there is a rationale, it just checks for NFCC#10c βcommand 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, couldn't you do some checks? In this case, the page was blank except for a {{no copyright holder}} tag (which, it seems, for some reason categorizes the image as non-free; this seems like a related bug in the template). At the very least you could have the bot check if the words "fair use" or "rationale" are present and, if not, tag the image with {{di-no fair use rationale}} instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHUT UP BETACOMMANDBOT!

WHY WONT HE SHUT UP?NEARLY EVERY ARTICLE HE SPOILS EVERYTHING!THE BIKERS IMAGE HAS A FAIR USE!STOP IT ALREADY.--Someguyudontknow 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Love letter

Right, Betacommandbot, or whomever has unleashed this on the world. What's the deal with this image?
image:Ble-goude.gif
You tag it for review, but the human behind you never bothers to show up with any reasons. More specificity is added to the rationale, the tag is removed, and a week later, here we are again!
Stated reason this time:
c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
Bloody christ, what do you call the link at the bottom of the page?
Look, I understand your desire to make wikipedia as small and nonspecific as possible. Heck, I might even admire it in another time and another place. But if you feel the need to auto delete images from wikipedia, please tell your creator that she/he has to actually visit and look at the images in question, and come up with some human readable demands which can be addressed by other humans.
Otherwise, your existance, dear Betacommandbot, is a massive pain in everyone's collective ass.
XOXO T L Miles 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article name is supposed to be in the summary section. This bot got me on a few of those too until I figured it out. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The File Links section is not part of the image description page. File Links is auto created to show where the image is used. Non-free rationales need to be specific for each use, and thus must contain the article name in the rationale. βcommand 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why having an automated bot leave cryptic messages results only in confusion and unneeded deletions of useable images. I'm sure you created this for the best possibe reasons, but the net effect is incredible annoyance for everyone involved. Please either do this manually or don't do it at all. T L Miles 14:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misstagged

Your bot seemed to mistag Image:CM abraham lincoln.jpg, as the rationale is clearly stated in plain text. How did it miss the rationale? --Knulclunk 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, it might be missing the article name that the image is used in. This information needs to be in the summary now, as part of the rationale. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that image see what I did. βcommand 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bellissima poster.jpg

Your bot tagged this picture as having no fair use rationale. It appears a complete rationale was present at the time of tagging.- AKeen 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired it, it was not correct, the rationale was for Bellissima, while the file was on Bellissima (1951 film). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Logos are painfully obvious, IMHO (hell, you could probably make a template specifically for logo rationales if that gives you a warm fuzzy). But really, this bot should not be tagging logos for speedy deletion. It would be far more constructive to actually have the bot put in a generic logo template when it comes across logos lacking rationales. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot cannot create a fair use rational as it lacks the intelligence, one needs to be written by a person. The tag gives several days for the images to be fixed. There is a terrible backlog of such images and we need to get through them. 1 != 2 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logos, and trademarks in general, have pretty much cookie cutter fair use rationales. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for a bot to go and tag all the fair-use logos on the site with something generic that explains why it's okay for us to use a fair-use image of a logo. I have no sympathy for people who try to push their agenda via a bot or otherwise when with a little more work they could solve the problem outright. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that you feel that way. You've been shown the policy, instructed how to make a fair use rationale, and for a sixth time in ten days insist on not providing one, removing the warning template in the process. You should not be surprised at the results. This policy not up for debate. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy item #4 which explicitly states that fair use images must have a rationale. The image has repeatedly been tagged appropriately. You are committing vandalism, pure and simple. If, beyond any possibility of hope, you manage to get policy changed so that images do not have to have rationales (as you keep on revert warring in an attempt to make happen on this image), we can leave the image untagged for deletion without a rationale. Until such time as that happens, this image has been appropriately tagged as missing a fair use rationale. --Durin 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The default on all of these things is "manual". The bot, luckily, helps on some. Its creator has decided he does not wish to attempt to code for the other. That may be a job that it could do, or a job it can't. The point is, it doesn't. So those templates must be added the old way. If it's easy then I'm not sure why it can't be done manually. It is the bot owners choice what he writes (or feels appropriate to codify) and what he believes he is unable to let a bot he codes, take responsibility for. The consensus is one way or another, all nonfree images must have suitable rationale in the communally agreed manner. A bot programmer establishing a bot for one task and leaving other related or similar categories of task as still needing manual work, is not an "agenda". The issue is not sympathy, but compliance with agreed norms. If the bot can't or won't do it, then humans (ie, the uploader) will have to, as is the default. I don't see a difficulty with that, if its "generic". Apologies, but what is the real concern? My $0.02 FT2 (Talk | email) 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I am sure Betacommand is not 'pushing an agenda' here. Instead his bot is very busy trying to repair a big problem in Wikipedia. WP:BOTREQ is down the hall, second door on the left.
Logo's are not very easy, the bot has to recognise them (how to recognise a logo from another image?), and then has to decide on which page it has fair-use rationale (I guess that logos are sometimes also used on pages of which it is not the logo of the subject itself). Not something that can be caught easily by a bot, instead a warned human editor can do it within a minute and actually solve the problem. And that is what this bot does, notify the user. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bots cannot write rationales, its not possible. βcommand

2002 Logo (AGAIN)

There, I added this template to [1]: {{Non-free use rationale |Description= 2002 Logo |Source=http://www.2002music.com/movies.html|http://www.2002music.com/movies.html] |Article=2002 (band) |Portion=All |Low_resolution=Yes |Purpose=Logo of Band for Infobox |Replaceability=Because there is only 1 logo. }} Is this clear enough?!!!! How much more info do I need to add before this bot will stop marking it, and most of all, stop posting message after message on my talk page?!!!

Of all things, the "replacability" annoys me the most. Why can't a "free" image replace the 2002 Logo? Maybe there's only 1 logo!

--Mooshykris 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good, prior to doing this the image had no rationale. βcommand 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee Poster.jpg

The bot keeps on trying to delete Image:Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee Poster.jpg but there is nothing wrong with the fair use rational. Please can you help me and turn this bot off for this image? -- UKPhoenix79 22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you had an incorrect article name, the one that you had was for a book. The Image was used on a page about the film. βcommand 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot keeps tagging non-orpaned images as orphaned

This bot doesn't recognize the "not orphan" tag and keeps tagging images as orphans when, obviously, they are not. This needs to be fixed. --Sable232 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

example please. βcommand 22:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Marquis ornament.jpg. It's linked to in the text of the article to show the car's emblem (logo), but there's not really a good place to put an image in. --Sable232 22:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{not orphan}} says Warning This free file is linked to from some pages, Please note that not orphan is used for FREE images. βcommand 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

Can I have a second opinion about a question on my talk page in the "image question" section User talk:Wiki alf#Image question please. Your thoughts would be appreciated as to what to do next with this, if anything.--Alf melmac 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, good sir.--Alf melmac 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on from this image conversation started over on Alf's talkpage. Could you take a look at Image:Mustaine052007.jpg. The uploader doesn't have a very good track record for understanding WP:FAIR and seems to be shading the rules a little on his latest upload. The image he is trying to replace is a free-use image from Commons and is a bit grainy... but still a freebee. I think he may be a fan who is trying to push a better quality image into a hero page at any costs. I will google around and see if I can find the true source. 156.34.142.110 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question is probably not a free image. If you take a look at the bottom right hand corner of the image, you will see a watermark image, showing that the user who uploaded it has probably taken it from another site. For him to release it free, he would have to be the copyright owner, which looks extremely suspicious in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keen eye!. A quick Google search shows all sorts of poses taken from relatively the same angle... NOT our exact shot in question... but pretty close. Enough to indicate that a deeper search will likely reveal a web source somewhere. 156.34.142.110 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lorezjacket.jpg

Hi, sorry to bother you, I don't have much experience of Images and their licensing, especially the fair use policy, your bot recently tagged this image {{di-disputed fair use rationale|concern=invalid rationale per [[WP:NFCC#10c]]|date=November 6 2007}}

So I added this template: {{ subst:Book rationale | Article name goes here | website goes here | person or company owning the intellectual property goes here }} however, I'm not sure if its right... please get back to me on my talk page cheers PhilB ~ T/C 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm A friend sorted it PhilB ~ T/C 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussionbot.py and taking up too much RAM

Betacommand, I've been told that the Discussionbot.py script is taking up way too much RAM. Could you look into why that is? MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take a look. βcommand 21:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Star images

I would like to discuss this tagging [2] at Talk:Shadow Star - Because there are multiple characters discussed to this article, and the fact that these images in no way harms the ability for Shadow Star comics or TV media to be sold, this should be compliant with Wikimedia image policies. If you contest the amount of images, please also discuss at the Village Pump. WhisperToMe 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not taking this to the VP. it has been discussed usage of NFC in list is not allowed. βcommand 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the discussion. I would like to see the exact context and the rationale. If I find a page that is inconclusive, I will start a Village Pump discussion to attract more people to see if there is an agreement. WhisperToMe 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed at length on AN and ANI (about 6 months ago). the result, NFC in list are not allowed. βcommand 04:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want an exact link to the discussion. Since you cite the AN and ANI discussions, please provide a link so that I understand which discussions you are referring to and how they define this. WhisperToMe 05:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look them up, Im not a broken record. βcommand 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I believe that it is the responsibility of the person making the assertion to link to the policy decision. I will look for them anyway, but next time it is a good idea to have links on hand to the discussions themselves so that other participants will easily follow decisions. Now, I will state that images showing several characters at once exist. Maybe it may be good to use one of those pictures to represent some characters and then keep individual images for characters not in the pictures. WhisperToMe 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • EDIT: I do not know where to begin with the Administrator's noticeboard - Is the discussion you describe in the administrator archive? Incident archive? 3RR? WhisperToMe 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the preview option, repeated quick editing of a discussion page is a disruption. If you can get one or two group images you might be able to make a case for that. But what you want to do is not allowed. As for the discussions it was on WP:AN and WP:ANI there was even a Signpost article. βcommand 05:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the Signpost was easy to search. Are you referring to this? Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use ? WhisperToMe 05:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that was part of the discussion. βcommand 05:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, cool :) - I posted my opinion about the difference between gallery images of episodes and gallery images of characters on the talk page. What I will do later is upload a gallery image of the main characters of Narutaru, which will eliminate the need for the individual pictures of some of the main characters. There is also a large composite with minor characters which could be used for some of them. I would still have to find a composite for the anime versions of the characters. WhisperToMe 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see also User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation βcommand 05:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for linking to that :) WhisperToMe 05:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Australis_Dino Crisis 3.png

I already explained that the fair use was ok. why was it deleted??? I mean everything in the Fair Use Rationale was correct anyway so what was the point in bots deleting it over a dispute over a correct fair use ratione that makes little senceOsirisV 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find File:Dino Crisis 3 Australis.png, I guess that this is the image you meant. You stated:

Fair use rationale:

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.

It does not say on which page this rationale is valid, etc. Hence it did not have a valid fair use rationale, resulting in tagging and subsequent deletion (the deletion is not performed by a bot, that is done by a human editor who evaluates both the tag and the rationale (in case it did get repaired). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Alone

I think I have addressed the fair use rationale problem of the Home Alone image, can the template on the page be removed? mickyfitz13 Talk 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tag removed. βcommand 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect tagging, three times on the same article.

Please see Talk:Through the Looking Glass (Lost), which has three posts by bcb saying that some images fail NFCC... after the article's promotion to FA. Both had FURs too, and although it wasn't a template rationale, text rationales are allowed under WP:FURG. Thanks, Will (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct they are allowed, and the rationale for Image:Prisoner Ben.PNG was 95% correct the issue was at the Through the Looking Glass article on the English Wikipedia, the name of the article was not specific it should have been at the Through the Looking Glass (Lost) article on the English Wikipedia, please note the exact name of the title of the article. βcommand 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though to be honest, that's not the fault of the original uploader. Will (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! Slow down on my talk page!

It would be nice if this damn thing at least gave me a chance to fix the FUR on the first image it messaged me about before dumping another two messages on my talk. How about a autodelay so it only dumps one template every 5 or 10 mins on a user talk, giving them a chance to fix the image before it notifies them about the next? Exxolon 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Case in point - it's dumped 2 more in the it took to type the above message. Exxolon 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5 messages in 5 minutes - nowhere near enough time to deal with each issue. Slow it down! Exxolon 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have seven days to fix it. that is all the time you need. βcommand 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The point is that your bot comes off as overly aggressive when it dumps multiple messages on a user talk page in that short a timescale. Understandably any reasonable user is going to feel victimized and or harassed by such a slew of messages - each of which boils down to "YOU DID IT WRONG! FIX IT OR I'LL DELETE IT!". I know it aggravates the hell out of me. Exxolon 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry you feel that way, But the bot needs to check 320,000 images attempting to place throttles on talkpage notifications just increases the risk of the bot crashing and then no-one getting a message about that image. Also neither I or the bot can delete images. The tag is placed there to let users know that they need to fix their images, they have seven days to fix it, and if the user ignores the issues they know that the image will be deleted.
Also if you dont want to get these messages from the bot fix your images before BCBot tells you to fix them. βcommand 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the image of Mr. and Mrs. McCormick.

I'm sorry; I don't actually know it's designation down-pat. I hope that you, despite being a robot, can understand which image I mean. Since you say it needs to be deleted without a source and license provided, and since the user who uploaded it doesn't seem to want to bother with it; I propose that either you or ImageRemovalBot delete it. I know a site which has an image just like it; I can pick it up from there and upload it again, with the proper information (I think!). Wilhelmina Will 22:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Regardless of your pleading innocent, I think you (providing there is a human subject behind this "bot") are simply a busybody. Granted, Wikipedia is a free-for-all. But it is also a cooperative work, and the tone of all editors should be constructive. By this, you are not helping the image of Wikipedia, and in fact, may be encouraging competition to this service. I know that I am on the lookout for some alternatives to this nonsense. Think about it, if you have a conscience, which I gravely doubt.!Mike 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I might put my two-bits in; I think you're wrong about this user. A user would not likely have the word "bot" in their name unless they actually were a robot, would they? Wilhelmina Will 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Image:JourneyBegins1.jpg

It's a screenshot from a freeware videogame used in that videogame article (Neophyte (series), so I don't think it should be deleted. This also aplies for the two other images used in the article for the two other videogames in the Neophyte series. I'll add the non-free use templates to all three, and will be very grateful if you (or your bot) don't delete them. --ŴôôDéļf 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Timing

Betacommand, I'm sure at some point down the road I'll be here railing about some image I want to keep that isn't permitted, but until then, thanks for upholding a reasonable policy. How long after a non-compliant image is posted does it take for your bot to label it? Just a fact I'm looking to keep in the back of my mind for when I begin uploading more images. Mbisanz 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it all depends. sometimes its a matter of minutes other times its months. Just take care and make sure that the rationales that you upload are solid and you will not have any issues. βcommand 05:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there someway to "submit" an image to the bot to be checked for compliance?Mbisanz 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is tagging images with 10c when articles are disambiguated

As far as I can tell, the bot is tagging image pages that don't have a link to the pages that they are used in. This is causing problems when articles are moved to a different name because of disambiguation, or when a better name is found for an article. I don't know much about bots, but it seems like you could have it check if the article's name has been changed from "foo" to "foo (bar)" and then check the dates of the image and the original "foo" page. If the dates check out, then the bot could update the article name field, leave the article alone, or add it to some category where editors can change the name. Not sure what should be done when an article is renamed. I don't know what kind of info WP's database can give you to resolve that issue, but maybe you could search for "fair use for foo" and update the image page if "foo" has been changed. Another problem I've found is that one can do a bullet proof FU rational for some page (page A), and then an inexperienced user can come along and add the image to another page (page B) and the image is then tagged for deletion. Maybe you could check dates, and instead of deleting the image, if it met our requirements for page A, then remove it from page B. Obviously these are difficult things to script. The thing I worry about is that well chosen images with well made image pages are going to be deleted and replaced with poor images and image pages. We need a system where if you do it right, it sticks. That way we can slowly get reid of all the bad images (and descriptions) until only good ones are left. I know I've had images caught up in these sweeps where I took a lot of time to select the correct image and have created extremely detailed image description pages, then had to fix trivial disambiguations so the image isn't deleted. I frequently take wikibreaks, so it's a little unreasonable to expect editors to constantly defend well made image pages. Anyways, probably nothing you haven't heard before, but I think these are issues that should be dealt with. - Peregrine Fisher 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes BCBot tags images that link to DAB pages, per policy you need to include the exact title. BCBot does follow redirects, but it cannot follow DAB pages. there just is not a valid method to do this. As for your other concern. BCBot looks at an image, gets where its used, and then checks the image text for at least one of them. If you add the image to page A and have a good rationale for page A, it will not get tagged for deletion if another user adds it to page B. right now if the image has at least one valid rationale its skipped by the bot. βcommand 12:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but it cannot follow DAB pages. there just is not a valid method to do this. Further reason you need to kill this thing. It really appears you are emotionally invested in tagging images with a bot instead of manually. But its equally clear that doing this automatically simply does not work. You can't assess a rationale that way, and when you find an actual problem, you can't comunicate to the human uploader in a way s/he can understand. All that happens is that lots of well intentioned uploaders get frustrated and acceptable fair use images get deleted. Please stop this! T L Miles 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the messages are quite clear and this bot will not stop. I have been proven Time and again correct. DAB pages fail WP:NFCC Number 10 part C. if you dont like policy file and ArbCom case so that I can be proven correct again. βcommand 15:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "dab" pages that are in question. It's redirect pages. Since a redirect page points unambiguously to a unique page, this is fully compliant with 10(c).

A way needs to be figured out for the 'bot to take redirects into account. Jheald 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald, BCBot sees and understands redirects. BCBot does not follow disambiguation (DAB) pages, which is the issue raised here. BCBot has been understanding redirect pages for a while now. βcommand 15:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the bot cannot determine which link on a disambig page is the correct one, and that a human needs to do it. But that is why the bot puts a tag up that gives humans a week to do so. Such images do need to have their link corrected to meet our criteria. The bot seems to be doing well. As for following redirects, it should be doing that now. If there is an example of when it has not followed a redirect, a diff would be helpful. 1 != 2 15:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably some problem that I'm not thinking of, but why can't it check if "foo" is the page mentioned in the FU rational when the page the image is used on is "foo (bar)"? Basically just try ignoring what's in parenthesis and see if that matches? - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links to DAB's dont meet WP:NFCC#10c βcommand 18:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Stop spamming my talk page. Deleting images because the fair use rationales don't link to the articles they're used in is excessive, bureaucratic nonsense. And giving only seven days to fix such a minor problem is unfair (not everyone logs in every day). Your pointless bot has done nothing but damage this site. --YellowTapedR 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on the policy pages, the bot did not make these rules up. It is policy that fair use images that do not have a rational linking to each article should be deleted after giving 7 days to fix. If you don't like it then try to change policy, but don't bitch at the guy who runs the bot. 1 != 2 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the bot was approved to tag images that lack fair use rationales, not to pester users who, in good faith, forgot to include a link in the rationales to the articles in which they're used. Some 15-year-old sitting at his computer shouldn't wield so much power. --YellowTapedR 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making personal attacks, and I am not a child. the rationales that you use are not valid and that is why they were tagged. βcommand 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) "...forgot to include a link..." = lack of fair use rationale. Simple. Sorry if you're annoyed but it's policy, not Betacommandbot power tripping... And please refrain from the ageism, very patronising. The Rambling Man 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Mariage Anglais

As a novice user I guess I don't get to call your warnings spam. Could you possibly clarify, in simple terms, whether there is any easy way of putting a picture on the page in question? I have looked again at the criteria for use of unfree images - 10 is a nice round number, easy to remember, but I'm still not sure I actually understand them. How do I find, construct or request a justification and from whom? In simple terms: "is trying to load an album cover really worth the effort?" Thanks. Martinevans123 12:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple and effective method of writing a rationale is to use {{non-free media rationale}} and make sure that you include the article name where your using the image, and why you need the image. If you do that you shouldnt have any problems. βcommand 12:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt and positive response - I'll try again. But since I mistakenly used the feminine pro-noun in the name I gave it, it might be convenient if this image was deleted anyway (maybe there is a gender bot for pages Francaises?)! Martinevans123 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bot

Once again, I hate your bot. I have no idea what it wants me to do to make my images fair use, again despite the fact that they are all already fair use under Wikipedia guidelines AND have valid fair-use rationales. What can't your bot just tell me specifically what's wrong, or better yet, fix it. -- jackturner3 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very specific please see WP:NFCC#10c βcommand 14:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GramParsonsLive1973.jpg

I see nothing missing in the fair use rationale for this image as it now stands. I have not attempted to change anything yet. Backspace 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see |this someone else fixed it already. βcommand 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It looks like someone fixed it already[3]. I think one of the problems was that the rational did not mention the article it was for, which is needed. Also the new rational states who owns the copyright, which is also required. Thanks. 1 != 2 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article taggin

I see the new article tagging rule for fair use rationales...what do you do if the same image is used in multiple articles though? Douglasnicol 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betacommand&oldid=169919908"