Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 19 May 2007

• 20060127
• 20060409
• 20060508
• 20060713
• 20060906
• 20061017
• 20061117
• 20061207
• 20070101
• 20070201
• 20070301
• 20070401
• 20070501
• 20070601
• 20070701
• 20070801
• 20070901
• 20071101
• 20071201
• 20080101
• 20080201
• 20080301
• 20080401
• 20080501
• 20080601
• 20080701
• 20080801
• 20080901
• 20081001
• 20081101
• 20081201
• 20090101
• 20090201
• 20090301
• 20090401
• 20090701
• 20090801
• 20090901
• 20091001
• 20091101
• 20091201
• 20100101
• 20100201
• 20100301
• 20100401
• 20100501
• 20100601
• 20100701

betacommandbot adding {{lake project}}

I fixed a series of banners placed on unrelated articles, e.g. Talk:Mount_Tallac. It looks like it's mainly articles in categories such as Category:Lake Tahoe. -- User:Docu

daniel dicriscio

you mentioned self links . Which links are you referring for deletion. Thank you.

You know what to do

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/nufu.txt

sports logos

Why are you nominating all the sports logos I uploaded for deletion? They are just normal sports logos that are used on the team's page. All other sports articles on wiki do the same and they don't have their logos deleted. Thanks. Nokhodi 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to see the images deleted, but per our Fair use policy we have to source and provide rationales for every image. Betacommand 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nokhodi; Betacommand is correct. Please see Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline. --Durin 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now going after Speedway Team logos. There is no problem using speedway team logos, same as any other Sports logo. A sports club logo in low resolution. If it concerns you so much about these rationales then why not source them yourself instead of deleting them. This is why Misplaced Pages loses regular contributors yet vandalised pages are left. Hammer1980 21:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I still find it strange, considering Iran has completely different copyright laws than the United States. Nokhodi 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello?

Hi... I don't mean to be rude, but could you please see my comment (titled "Decline?") above? I would appreciate an answer. Thank you! :) --Catz 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

in the last four months you have made less than 100 edits. Betacommand 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but is there a rule that says I have to have more than that in the last 4 months? --Catz 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the block of a user...

I recently received an e-mail from a user called Wikcsb (talk · contribs) whom you blocked - however, this person had only undertaken two edits, but is that really good rationale to block the user because of two spam edits?

I think - rather I know - that there are accounts that have been created that are far more abusive towards Misplaced Pages. I think you ought to unblock the user and we should teach him/her how to behave correctly on Misplaced Pages,

Booksworm Talk to me! 09:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Discogs.Logo.png and other FU images uploaded before 4 May 2006

Concerning Your tagging FU images uploaded before 4 May 2006 with {{nrd}}, per the template message: This image or media, uploaded after 4 May 2006,... {{nrd}} is not applicable to those images. Please remove those misleading tags or replace them with appropriate ones. Also please do not rm. the images from their respective articles, instead add - {{speedy-image-c}} or similar to the image captions. Thanks, feydey 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a problem. The image is missing a fair use rationale, and in any case is orphaned. When it was uploaded is not particularly relevant in this case. --Durin 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

added article - Abhideyaka Abhishekam

i have added the article mentioned above and linked it to 3 images - Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam.jpg, Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Diamond).jpg, Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Gold).jpg. hence i removed the orphan tags on the image desc pages of these three articles. If you have any issues, please do let me know. Kalyan 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a fair use rational for the use of Image:Abhideyaka Abhishekam (Diamond).jpg in *that* article? Thanks —— Eagle101 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Organization logos

How is displaying an organization logo, when the subject of the article is the organization, not fair use? Quatloo 13:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

the image is copyright, to display non-free content we must provide a Fair use rationale for every page we want to use it on.

Fair Use Rationale for <article name here>

1. The material should not be used in a manner that would imply endorsement by or for the logo's respective company
2. No free equivalent will ever be available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
3. The image is of low resolution, which does not interfere with this logo by its respective company in trade
4. The image used for educational and informational purposes by Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization.
5. <why should we have the image in the article>

that is a simple fairuse rational that would work for most logos. Betacommand 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot think of an instance where the use of a logo would not be fair use, in that every logo in Misplaced Pages would either (a) illustrate an article for which the entity using the logo has some relation, or (b) some artistic discussion of the logo itself, or the logo's creator, etc. This would not apply to other images, just... logos. Yet you seem to be targeting logos? Quatloo 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

that is just where I started, im going to be expanding. Betacommand 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you start with the LEAST PROBLEMATIC IMAGES? Quatloo 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Composure

I know how hard it is to keep composure when threatened, that's one of the objections editors have raised with me. I edited your comment on BetacommandBot's page, you might want to re-edit it again to remove my commentary. Cheers, and keep up the good work. Nardman1 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you, Matthew's repeated comments and post are veiled, personal attacks, saying that I cant program, that I steal others code's and other attacks that are completely out of order. the reason that i think that he is doing this is because Im one of the people who removed the Fair use abuse in the list of .. Episode pages. and I also am cleaning out our fair use images that are against policy. My choice of words are specific This is to-date only the second time Ive had to use strong language. Betacommand 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

error with this bot? (Image:Cambodiaflag emblem map by Melanochromis.jpg)

I'm removing the bot's tag on this image for the second time. This image is fair use and is not orphaned as it is currently used by portal:cambodia. I think there might be an error with your bot as it cannot detect uses if images by portals. --Melanochromis 08:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's no error. Fair use images are not permitted outside of the main article namespace. This prohibits their use in portals. Please see Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria item #9. --Durin 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why...

Why is your bot mass tagging images as having no fair use rationale? Do you really want countless fair use images to be deleted from Misplaced Pages because no one has yet written a rationale for them?

Also, why did you tag Image:101.5 CIL-FM logo.png and Image:1050 ESPN logo.png with the "no source" template? The source is the companies who made these logos and the copyright status is clear. Isn't the "no source" template for when there is insufficient source information to verify the copyright status? —Remember the dot 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No rationale == deletion plain and simple per policy. Betacommand 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a hike.

You're tagging logos of public corporations where the logos are easily accessible? This bot should be dismantled. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I fear you're wrong and he's right - David Gerard 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• On Betacommand's behalf, why thank you! Hikes are very refreshing and good for your heart health. All fair use images need a fair use rationale for each use on the project, per our policies. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria item #10. Enjoy, --Durin 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • For logos of companies, would it not seem more productive to provide a fair use rational instead of just in essense throwing it away. I am not an expert on images, and correct me if I am wrong, arent corporate logos commonly used under appropriate fair use critera? If this is the case, find a way to tag them appropriatley instead of tagging them for throw away. Just a friendly suggestion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The more global issue here is what the logo contributes to the article, with respect to fair use claims. In the vast majority of cases, the articles that use a company logo do not discuss the logo in any way. They use it only for decorative purposes. This is one way of responding to that; if you can't provide a reasonable fair use rationale on why a corporate logo should be on an article that doesn't discuss the logo, then delete. --Durin 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • logo can stay if the article "discusses the logo" - one of the most stupid things I've heard.

Logos are a key part of the identity of an organization and something readers can generally relate to quite easily. I would hardly describe their use as being "decorative" given their core function is to create a visual identity for an organization and speak to people both inside and outside the organization about the organization. The argument about articles "not discussing the logo" reeks of hairsplitting nonsense. Wiggy! 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What this guy's doing is nonsense. Blueshirts 22:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think so, you must review your knowledge of out policy on non-free content. To include a non-free image on an article one must prove that it satifies all 10 criteria mentioned there. Also, any fair use template, such as the generic {{restricted use}} one speaks along the same lines that "...the use of this work to illustrate the object in question ... qualifies as fair use...". Does an article on a corporation always discuss the logo? I don't think so. Now, is it still nonsense? Or would you prefer to see Misplaced Pages being shut down due to copyright violations? Миша13 22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlicensed image

Thanks for the heads-up on the image at Covenant Life Church. As of now, this is an outdated logo whose source on the Web is no longer valid, so I think it can be safely deleted. I may look for an updated logo if I have the time. --Tschel 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Croatian football club logos

It's not right to remove the logos from those articles; it's fairly clear that the logos come from the clubs themselves and that they qualify under fair use guidelines, so the only problem is the omission of an explicit source reference by the uploader. You should fix that problem by asking the uploader to fix that; not by going over the top and removing images. --Joy 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sports club logos

You've got a page full of comments and complaints about your bot tagging sports logos. If you're not gonna rein in that gizmo it might be in order (and probably generally acknowleged as a civil thing to do by legions of other editors) to provide some clear, simple instruction as to how you expect these types of logos to be tagged or point to an unambiguous reference on how to do that. Wiggy! 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, take some of your own precious time and contact relevent wikiprojects about the status of images rather then let a bot run amok. While ensuring that images are properly tagged is the right thing to do, your methods most certantly are NOT the right way to handle it. Work with other editors to fix problems, don't hide behind a technicality to commit what is, frankly, vandalism. Resolute 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hay, I notify the the person who uploaded the image finding wikiprojects is not my responsibility. as for this being vandalism, its POLICY so quit complaining and follow it. Betacommand 23:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And if the uploader of the image has left the project or is otherwise unavailable? I do not accept your excuse for letting a poorly designed bot run around vandalizing articles. You have taken on the responsibility to deal with a problem, but you simply do not want to do the leg work to fix the problem.

You don't want to search for wikiprojects? Fine. Tell your bot to post an message on the talk page of any article with an affected image. That would give more visibility so that anyone watching these pages can address the problem quickly. Tag the image for deletion within 48 hours per policy, but leave the image alone on the articles. Dont waste our time by making us revert your edits once the image is properly sourced/rationalized. I have also been working to address the issues with the images themselves, but do not appreciate the damage your bot is doing to articles. As I said, your goal is good, your methods are not. Resolute 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

the method that I am using has the best results of any method. Ive done the other methods or seen them done, they are just not as effective. (and Im not a bot) Betacommand 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And would my suggestion be any worse? Have you tried? Heck, what have you tried? You have a page full of complaints that argues very strongly that you are causing a major disruption. I would suggest figuring out a way to work with others while still accomplishing your goal. I have offered a suggestion, but I am sure there are other ways. Please have the courtesy to consider them. Resolute 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

those other methods have been tried and failed. the complaints are unfounded whining against policy. they need to get over the policy and actually follow the rules. Betacommand 00:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What other methods? I am not arguing policy, I am in full agreement with you on the need to enforce this policy. I am arguing cooperation and compromise. It is very disappointing that you are so obviously unwilling to work with others in this regard. Resolute 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

people have tried wikiprojects, leaving notices on the talkpage's, and notifying the uploader. separately they have all been very ineffective. I am working with others. I will not compromise with people who have no understanding of policy. you are one of the very very few who understand it and are not supporting my actions. Betacommand 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't support your actions because it flies in the face of collaboration. But, whatever. It is obvious you are not interested in changing. All I ask is that you stop hiding the logos in the National Hockey League and Western Hockey League team articles. I am working to source all of them, and really do not want to waste more time than I have to cleaning up the damage you do to the articles themselves. Resolute 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Various logos

Please stop removing logos from articles about the companies or groups the logos belong to. I could understand removing them from articles that are not about those companies and groups, but the logo tag on the image clearly states that the logo falls under fair use when used in the article about the company or group that owns the logo. As evidenced by the multiple complaints above, it appears you are going beyond acceptable bounds here. Please stop now. ···日本穣 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, please read our fair use policy, every fair use image MUST have a specific individual rationale, no template can cover those grounds. If not they need to be removed and deleted. its that simple. Betacommand 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then be a little more productive and toss in a simple fair use rationale rather than wasting everyone else's time in something you could have easily fixed without all this extra hassle. ···日本穣 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The burden of providing a fair-use rationale MUST lie with the contributor or someone actively editing the article. Betacommand has no way to read your mind. I disagree with him on plenty of things, but this is not one of them. The uploaders/editors who are not properly adding a rationale are the ones wasting time. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All I'm wondering is why he's wasting everyone else's time when he could just as easily pop in a fair use rationale himself in the same amount of time it takes to have his bot go through tagging everything. They are all logos, so the fair use rationale would be exactly the same for each one. And many of these logos where uploaded long before the current policy revision was enacted. ···日本穣 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, if he's too "lazy" to put in the fairuse rationale, why not add a deletion warning below in the image in the article mainspace? This way, at least there's a chance that some editors might come by the article and add in the rationale. Then maybe after a week or two he can go through the list again and delete them, sine apparently he's got a lot of time on his hands. The way he's handling this right now is really stupid and counterproductive. Blueshirts 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil when disagreeing with people. We're all volunteers here, and your characterization of him as "lazy" and his action as "stupid" don't help healthy discussion. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are these logos valid fair use though? I just had a look through and very few of these company articles contain discussion of the design of the logos. They mostly seem to be used to decorate the articles. The fact that we have an article on company X doesn't mean that company X's logo is fair use in that article. Hence why we need more than a boilerplate fair use rationale. It seems to me that there has to be some critical comment about the logo. WjBscribe 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

some dude in a previous section already points out that a logo is part of a company's identity and what the people associate with. It's more than "decorative". Honestly I don't know who make up these rules. Blueshirts 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Per fair use law it is decorative, per foundation policy

identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)

for images, does the text of the article support critical commentary? If a image doesnt have a FU rationale it takes a good 20-30 minutes for someone not involved to research the usage and write up a good rationale, while someone involved could write one in about 2 minutes. Betacommand 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

arbitration

I just came across this Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. I haven't read over the details but "image deletion" came across quite a number of times. Are betacommand's mass taggins a violation of this arbitration? Blueshirts 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, if you invested a minute to read the findings, you would have been able to answer the question yourself without creating the (completely coincidental, I'm sure) appearance of grand-standing on BC's talk page to further a point you're making above. No, the image tagging, unlike the things he was sanctioned for, is completely appropriate and supported by the foundation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, HELL no. that was one incident over 6 months ago. Betacommand 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, obviously) If you "haven't read over the details" the I suggest that you do and do it thoroughly before starting to toss accusations around. Also, I'd like to note that you have done your posting as if this page was an open noticeboard of some sort. This is Betacommand's talk page, for queries addressed to him, yet this seems like a call to the community at large. Regards, Миша13 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree - you should have read the details. While some may not like or agree with Betacommand's current activities, they differ significantly from the activities mentioned in his ArbCom case. In fact, I'd say that his current activities are quite commendable in light of the findings of the ArbCom case. Not only has he directly replied to the "image deletion issue" in his ArbCom case by communicating with other editors, he has continued to stick around after what must be a painful and embarrassing series of incidents and is still working for the good of the community (even if some members of the community don't seem to get that). --ElKevbo 23:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work Betacommand, your image work is certainly correct - it's about time someone got fair use images with no rationales sorted. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop tagging my image.

Image:1166431088861.JPG

It's a logo, a logo for a game that was added to the article corresponding to that game. I don't know what it is you want from me. - The Norse 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spin Doctors

Just an FYI. This should have been your approach. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:why

Because they can be used under fair use, and you are removing them from related articles. Besides, Argentine money are free images. --Mariano(t/c) 01:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

per our policy and the tagging of that image that is not true. the image needs a Fair use rationale. if the images are public domain then please re-tag as it fits. As the license stands it needs a rationale. Betacommand 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? the image belong to a note bill, and thus can be used as per Fair Use. Read carefully: This image depicts a unit of currency. Some currency designs are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Others are copyrighted. In these cases, their use on Misplaced Pages is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself

You've been deleting such images from articles such as Argentine peso, where the use of such images is granted by fair use. Even worse, you've been tagging all bill images as no source information: it's money, man, it's source is the entity that prints them in each country! You are going to have thousands of valid images deleted because of this insanity. --Mariano(t/c) 12:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

you say the images are fair use? that proves my actions correct. may I quote the template that you are using? 'To the uploader:' please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Misplaced Pages:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. you have failed to do so. Betacommand 13:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of mobius strip image

Can you please explain these edits: , , , etc.? Paul August ☎ 03:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a mistake and didnt notice it was on commons. thanks for catching that and reverting me. Betacommand 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging

1. Why are you (or your bot) applying the {{no rationale}} tag to images uploaded before 4 May 2006?
2. Why are you (or your bot) only contacting the original uploaders (and not subsequent uploaders, whose sources might differ)? —David Levy 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I was notifying, the other uploaders, but I got many complaints about them just reverting the image version, croping ect, and I decided to only notify the original. Betacommand 03:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And the answer to question 1 is...? —David Levy 03:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry was getting a quote, Per our non free image policy An editor uploading copyrighted material must provide a detailed "fair use" rationale, or the uploaded material will be deleted. that line doesnt give a date and is the only line in the paragraph on the policy page. In regard to older images we dont have a tag for them specifically and they are violating policy so i chose the tag that best fit.Betacommand 04:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't. That template explicitly indicates that the image was "uploaded after 4 May 2006." For images uploaded before that date, this tag should not be used. Instead, you should use the {{non-free use disputed}} tag. If no fair use rationale is added within seven days, the image can be tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-badfairuse}}. Please go back and fix any remaining improperly tagged images and compile a list of images that were deleted less than a week after you improperly tagged them. —David Levy 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to address this issue, or should I begin rolling back your problematic edits? —David Levy 14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am working on fixing but I will have to sign off shortly and will not have time to fix for ~12+ hours Betacommand 14:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interim, your incorrect tags might mislead sysops to improperly delete images too soon. I'll begin rolling back the edits, and then you can insert suitable tags when you have the time. —David Levy 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When I saw how many images you'd tagged and that almost all of them were uploaded before 4 May 2006, I stopped checking the dates before performing the rollbacks. Therefore, a few images uploaded after 4 May 2006 are mixed in.

I attempted to avoid rolling back the insertion of the {{no source}} tag alone, and I self-reverted upon realizing that I had.

When you set up your bot to insert the correct tags, don't forget to replace the lists of pages from which the images were removed. —David Levy 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please listen to David's advice and correct the tags. And also please do not rm. the images from their respective articles, instead add - {{speedy-image-c}} or similar to the image captions so people are aware of the no source/no FU rationale issue and can correct the issue during the week. feydey 09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, lay off the damn tagging already. Please do not urinate or defecate outside the toilet. 22:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Album Covers

The bot is removing fair use album covers. ≈ Maurauth 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

yes I am removing Fair use images without rationale. read the fair use policy and get over it. Betacommand 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using your automated bot on my talk page. I have a separate page for image inquiries. --Thorpe | talk 10:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mobutu Sese Seko

Hi Betacommand,
I undid the commenting out of the picture from the bill. Either remove the picture if not appropriate, or leave it until the status is known for sure so the person who’ll erase the picture can see what pages are using it. When it is commented out, there’s no way to track it down. --moyogo 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

see above re:why section. Betacommand 14:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi ...

... you have cluttered my talk page within a period of two hours with an impressive 80 (eighty!!) messages about images I uploaded. Most of them are screenshots in film articles or book covers in literature articles. Could you please stop that activity which, as far as I'm concerned, borders on vandalism: All those notifications of yours say the same, and I do get the message after the first couple. My talk page is no longer manageable, and I've even missed out on one or two real messages due to that pointless inundation. Don't tell me it's a bot: If it is, it's a very silly one. Best wishes, <KF> 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken orfud

FYI, in working through the deletions, I came across Image:Logo of Hampshire County Cricket Club.gif, which BetacommandBot tagged here on 9-May. According to the history of Hampshire County Cricket Club, that image was in use at the time the image was tagged. ~ BigrTex 14:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I told him of the bug. I expect the code is plagiarised, hence why the bug is not fixed (owner doesn't understand it, etc.) Matthew 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

matthew shut the fuck up, I wrote the code my self thank, using the pywiki framework. as for the error Im looking into it. Betacommand 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Folsom Field images

All the images have a source. In the tag, the very first part has: "This image (call number Rh-1840)" where "Rh-1840", in this case, is linked to the source website. I've removed all the ones that you marked like this that I could find. Further, it's not appropriate to mark images no source and not notify the uploader on their talk page. If you're marking a lot of images (which it seems you are) then you can install this tool to mark the images, notify the uploader and any other needed items for many different options like no source, no license, IFD, etc: User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. If I've missed more than the 4 you did, please undo it or let me know and I will do it. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Université de Sherbrooke coat of arms

Could you explain your removal of the coat of arms of the university from the article on the university? Logos (which a coat of arms of a university would be equivalent to), are always considered fair use in articles on the entity the logos represent. Fair use rationales are not needed for such use of logos—only use of logos in articles other than the one the logo is directly related to need a fair use rationale. Lexicon (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion above with another user or two about this, and I must agree... the convention on Misplaced Pages has always been that logos do not need the fair use rationale, simply because it is obvious what the rationale for a logo of an organization is. Your efforts would absolutely be better spent elsewhere, in particular because you are actually causing trouble by doing what you're doing, since the correct thing to do, if Misplaced Pages really required a fair use rationale for the inclusion of logos in articles on the entities that the logos represent, would be to simply add the rationale, as it takes no skill or knowledge of the entity or logo whatsoever to do this (and that's why we've never required a fair use rationale before). Instead, by tagging a logo as having "no fair use rationale" and removing it from the article it is used on, you are causing unnecessary disruption. Lexicon (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:ßetacommand

Would you mind redirecting User:ßetacommand and User talk:ßetacommand to User:Betacommand and User talk:Betacommand, respectively, to avoid confusion? Thanks. —METS501 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that was Beta? Looks like an impersonator to me. Prodego 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Um that wasnt me :P yet another vandal impersonator. Betacommand 02:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your rewards

3 barnstars for you:

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless work dealing w/ images -- FayssalF - 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being bold dealing w/ images' issues -- FayssalF - 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		And this for your bot! -- FayssalF - 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)