Misplaced Pages

User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:41, 18 February 2008 editBetacommand (talk | contribs)86,927 editsm Reverted edits by 152.91.9.144 (talk) to last version by Betacommand← Previous edit Revision as of 03:48, 18 February 2008 edit undoBetacommand (talk | contribs)86,927 edits →BCB missing notification of page uploader/image use page?Next edit →
Line 190: Line 190:
:PS that page is full of lies and bullshit and is a complete farce and it will not affect how I operate BCBot. ] 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC) :PS that page is full of lies and bullshit and is a complete farce and it will not affect how I operate BCBot. ] 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::as for the other images uploaded by English peasant, that was caused by a user re-name while the bot was running. ] 02:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC) ::as for the other images uploaded by English peasant, that was caused by a user re-name while the bot was running. ] 02:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

===Non-notification===
Hi I recently raised the issue of non-notification but got fobbed off with "you recently changed your username, that's why". I have been putting fair use rationales on images you tagged and came across . Could you explain why there is no notification about the impending deletion of this image on the talk page of the article in question (]). If people are not informed the image almost certainly gets binned. ] ] 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

:Im looking at BCBot's logs, and it shows that the bot did post to the talkpage. Im not sure what the issue is. ] 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
::I found the issue, it was a database lock that caused the error. ] 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings on the same issue - It appears that there were multiple instances of this problem (that were brought to my attention) (], ], ], ], ]) all on 2/13. With probably 9,800+ images tagged this day, would it be possible to notify the uploaders that were not notified that their images have been nominated so that they can do something about them? Thanks much. ] (]) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
:SkierRMH, those images in question were all uploaded by the same user, the issue is the fact that the user had a rename. (I just checked all those links and 3 of them still said they were uploaded by the old username.) that issue I cannot help it was caused by a rename. db locks are very very rare and very very few images would be affected, there is just not any good method of re-checking them. ] 03:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

*I did not upload these ], ], The uploader was not notified on his talkpage so the bot getting confused by my namechange doesn't work as an explanation. ] ] 03:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

: see above. ] 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


== Blacker Gachet image Help! == == Blacker Gachet image Help! ==

Revision as of 03:48, 18 February 2008

−6129 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 Misplaced Pages: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.


The Original Barnstar
Because of your repeated kindness and willingness to help others when nobody else will even know about it, I sincerely thank you. You've helped me build an army of... well, I'll just leave it there. :-D east.718 at 01:16, December 16, 2007

Point 15 is total rubbish

I have just added the title of the article to an already existing fair use rationale on an article that most likely gets very few views, and thus would have been deleted. Pure and utter laziness. MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a bot. Not a human. A bot can't be "lazy", and further a bot can not write rationales or evaluate rationales for some characteristics because they are highly subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The people operating the bot can look at the tagged images and take the 10 seconds it took to fix the issue in this instance.
  • One person operates this bot. One. This bot has over 700,000 edits. 10 seconds times even 100,000? More than 11 days of editing, non-stop, to attempt compliance with the images. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't you see that as a problem with the policy/tags/established procedures when there are that many edits to be made by this bot? My issue is it's operation with a complete lack of any kind of parallel good faith group effort to fix what are 99% newbie errors. These images are lost after your arbitrary time limit, often with interested parties never even seeing the tags, never mind being able to understand them. I only encounter the stupid thing once in a while, but who is systematically examining tagged images? Leaving it to the uploader is a total cop-out in my opinion, and probably puts many new editors off. Remember here, I am not talking about an image here with no rationale, it was ALL there bar one tiny mistake, on a non-busy article, thus the image dissapears forever on the dodgy premise of it's too hard to fix it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't you see that as a problem when it takes that many edits to keep up with the massive influx of improperly rationaled images??? We tried doing it with humans. It failed. That's why this bot is so necessary. This attack on the bot and countless others have all been raised before. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The bot fails too, just in a different and more spectacular way. How about you have the bot deal with new images, now that the upload wizard includes tools to provide the appropriate rationales, and stop messing with old images that were uploaded with proper tags before this idea of a "rationale" existed, or had a rationale but the page was moved, or have a reasonable rationale written by a reasonable human which doesn't satisfy your bot? Then you don't have an "influx" anymore. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced when you can't link to any actual debates or established consensus over the use of the bot, in addition to the complete non-reply to me raising the issue a few months ago on all the appropriate pages. Given the amount of times you are referring to previous debates, you might at least have a handy link to them, or do you just not get the idea that I have that the same complaints are occuring every time this bot runs. Christ, even having the 17! point massive 'dont blame me' box should tell you something about the way things are currently being done. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you ever made a good faith effort to assesss as a percentage of tagged images, how many are being dumped that are easily fixed and not actually causing a major breach of copyright? MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Bot tags image, uploader doesn't see tag in time, other good faith editors like me who see 7! similar taggings on their watchlist tonight lose the will to even investigate possible bot errors, no parallel community effort is harnessed in parallel to the bot, deleting admin is not interested in fixing as per the attitude at the top of this page i.e. it's not our job, we don't work in that field, bingo, image deleted and lost. What are you not getting about that process, and the obvious role the bot's current operation plays in it? MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Previously debated. I encourage you to view the archive index I previously cited and spend some time reading the prior debates. What I am not getting is why we are having this debate, when it's been debated before with the conclusion being that the bot continues the work. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, as it seems you get complaints a million times when you run this bot, why don't you already have a handy list of links to specific decisions and precedents for pissed off people to look at? Judging at the rate of growth of this page alone tonight, dismissing someone to go peruse the archives is a blatant bad faith attitude. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • First, I don't own or run this bot. Second, that's the second time you've accused me of bad faith. I strongly, strongly, strongly urge you to seek out another administrator to have me blocked as soon as possible to stop my bad faith edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's blatantly bad faith when you enter a discussion, take a position based on previous debates which no sane person would spend time finding in vague archive references, then claiming it's all nothing to do with you anyway. You are clearly on the wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was previously asked to find prior discussions. I did. Now you're accusing me of bad faith for finding those discussions? Who's on the wind up again? I'm confused. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You haven't found anythong. Pointing to talk archives means nothing in an issue that clearly everyone except you can see is a hotly contested bot. You are absolutely 100% on the total wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. Ok, look, above you asked for some feedback on prior discussions. I gave it to you. Now you're accusing me of doing something *bad* because I gave you partially what you wanted? If you don't want to go through those archives to search for the answers, what motivation does anyone have to find the answers for you? I gave you an entirely proper link to help you in your search. You just don't want to do the work to find the answers you want. I *helped* you, but that's not enough...you want me to do all your work for you. And *I* am the one acting in bad faith? *I* am the one "100% on the total wind up????? Ok, enough of this discussion, as it's clearly gone off the deep end. Please let me know when you make the request to block me and/or file an ArbCom case to get this bot permanently blocked. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to see you stop pretending that it should be the many many editors being pissed off by this bot to have to repeatedly go find these what look like increasingly mythical overwhelming debates that all us stoopid people don't get. It would be nice if you could hold a discussion without bringing up ridiculous strawmen, it would be nice if you followed up with your assertions, or explain why you think there are no links on this page to these oft referenced decisions and debates, it would be nice if you addressed the actual points being made regarding the bots defficiencies and obvious flaws or even acknowledge its wider role in getting images deleted, rather than resorting to "it's not my job/remit/wikititle" (why are you even here then on a talk page about the bot?) and "if it was that bad it would be blocked" (which it has been many times), it would be nice if your whole attitude changed really and you acted less like a wind up merchant and more like a contributor. MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't intend to respond to your comments because of your devolution into hate filled vitriol. I suggest you read WP:NPA. I've already told you where to look. I'm not going to do you work for you, most especially when you think it a great motivator to insult me to get me to do you work. Have the last word if you like, but in the process please make sure you request I be blocked. You might try making such a request at WP:AN/I. Thank you, and good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think I'm acting in bad faith, then my edits are a disruption to the project. That's a blockable offense. I'm sure you'll be able to find an admin to agree with your conclusion that I am acting in bad faith. Therefore, I request you please go and find an uninvolved administrator to perform the block. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That would mean finding a contributor that hasn't found a blatant error with this bot's operation, as I see it that only realy leaves you, so block yourself please and leave us to get on with our rationales. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Above you stated that I was acting in bad faith. That's got nothing to do with the bot. Bad faith edits are disruptive to the project and a blockable offense. I assume you meant what you said, yes? Or did you not mean to say that I was acting in bad faith? Also, I'm not an administrator, so I can't block myself. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • HEY GUYS! :-) I'm a bit late here, but you are both arguing back and forth here. It doesn't look pretty. Hammersoft, you are coming across as over-defensive. Why not politely redirect people to the help desk, instead of increasing the heat on this page? Mick, I understand this annoys you, but why not walk away if you feel Hammersoft's replies are winding you up? Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion on notices

Before the next run, could you create a "short notice" version, that says something brief like "An image you've edited, $1, has been tagged for deletion. <sig>"? If there is already a B-bot notice on a user page, add the short form to that section. Same for article talk pages with a variant short notice. Also, I'm not sure how many other editors would get annoyed, but I would like some (brief) notice if any image I've ever edited were tagged. Gimmetrow 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be nice. Or at lump all the day's notices into list. I often have a dozen notices (some "helpful" editors have gone on an article renaming tear lately and NEVER update the images) and these repetitive notices could be made much more user friendly.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Lag, and is this the right way to handle this case?

How much lag is the bot working with now? Reason I ask is the bot sent notices for one image at 23:03 and 23:04, but the image had been removed at 22:46.

I'm also wondering if this is the right way to handle this case. The fair use rationale was written up for one article, then the image was incorrectly added to a second article. This is a problem in the second article, not the first. Gimmetrow 03:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

βcommand, I would really like a response on these two issues. These could reasonably be construed as bugs. Gimmetrow 23:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what caused the lag, Ive been looking into it, BCBot normal only as a minute or two lag. β 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Salute!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For continuing to enforce the policy set forth at WP:NFCC and putting up with those editors who would blame you for enforcing it, rather than the policy writers or the original image uploaders, I award you this barnstar. Please keep up the good work and don't let the naysayers deter you - for every editor who complains profusely about your warnings, there is an editor who learned the FURG and has benefited from it. JPG-GR (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Now with extra nose oil, to keep it running smoothly! -- SEWilco (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WMF deadline and Betacommandbot (discussion notices)

Hi Betacommand. Please see:

For obvious reasons, it would be good if you could comment over there, or find your way to where-ever the discussion ends up. Carcharoth (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I found ya fair use fo Image:ChangingFaces.jpg

Your bot just put up some deletion stuff fo that image. I now have a fair use clause for it, and you can take down the deletion notice asap. Besides, it's another day at work for me. -iaNLOPEZ1115 TaLKBaCK Vandalize it UBX 12:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bug: BetacommandBot makes multiple identical reports

BetacommandBot makes multiple entries on an image uploader's talk page, e.g. ]. These entries should be consolidated into one. I can think of two different ways to do that: by searching the talk page for a BetacommandBot entry, and adding the newly-found image into that entry, or by looking at the last entry on the page, and if it's a BetacommandBot enttry, adding the newly-found image into that entry. RussNelson (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

commons image moving

Has the script finished or is it still running? Added a few more when I realised you'd begun... Timeshift (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Once it starts it only moves whats tagged when it starts. β 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Btw, what happened here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here? The description is not there but is when I click edit... Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

You may be interested in a discussion in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

Looks like BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) is trying to subst {{deprecation notice}}, but it's just escaping the front part of the template (see ). Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks, Ill fix. β 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

The recent behavior of BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) is being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BetacommandBot_is_malfunctioning_again. John254 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you.Tiptoety 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Substitution

Please do not create messy wikitext like in . In such a case the ParserFunctions should be substituted too. See m:Help:Substitution#Multilevel_substitution.--Patrick (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Schedule for March 2008

Hi Betacommand. I noticed over on WP:AN that you said "Given that we have about 500 non-free uploads per day, I'm guessing that my future should be around 1000 images about twice a week." Do you think you could expand that a bit more and explain things a bit more clearly (with some numbers) and put it on the record at, say, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#March 2008 schedule for BetacommandBot? For example, have you finished running through the lists of older images? It would be a nasty surprise if you discovered an old list you had forgotten and tagged several thousand old images without warning. I know you don't normally run to a definite schedule, but would you please, please consider it just for this month, as this month may be particularly hectic. And could you also say how you think things will change after the deadline? See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Deadline does exist (spirit of resolution). I know I can be rather insistent at times, but I really think that just a little bit more effort from everyone involved here, and a brief notification each time you intend to do a run, will make a big difference and make things easier. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also reading Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive91#BetacommandBot and Fair use, and I was wondering if we could get a full update on the phases and how complete they are and the numbers involved? A new section and post somewhere, please? Not posted in the middle of an existing long thread... (I missed your post at ANI about Phase 4). Carcharoth (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate template substitution,

Please do not use your bot to substitute templates appearing on template documentation pages, as instances of templates used in documentation of templates need to be transcluded, so that the text in the documentation will be updated when the templates are edited. Thank you. John254 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What I would have done differently

Hi Betacommand. I offloaded some of my thoughts here. A bit of a random location, but probably better than here. Unless you want me to copy them over here? Just leaving this note to let you know. Getting a response is a bit difficult sometimes. Would it be better if I e-mailed you? Carcharoth (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons stuff

Getting a bit bored with the non-free stuff. Was looking at User:Betacommand/Commons. I think I left a note for you before at User talk:Betacommand/20071201#Commons duplicates. Would you have time to point me towards any work needing to be done here or in the "Commons OK" stuff. I have an account at Commons if that helps, but I haven't really got the hang of categorising images there yet. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

see the commons link on Misplaced Pages:Image renaming β 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Does that do the full move process, or just the renaming bit? I'm afraid those pages aren't telling me much. Maybe the pages are in state of flux as the functions switch over. I'll come back later when the process is fully working. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Assume good faith"?

I left a polite message saying "Could you please explain why you have reverted this posting? It doesn't look like vandalism to me, but if you think it is, could you please explain why you think this? Thanks"

Your response was:

  • revert my message, saying it was vandalism;
  • give no answer to my polite question; and
  • put an extremely aggressive message on my talk page.

Your behaviour is unreasonable, and is most certainly not "assuming good faith". Pdfpdf (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Stats

Did you see this from ST47? I make that an increase over 2007 of 155,000 images. That does include free images as well, but even so, are people really uploading that many free images? Geni indicated from a random selection of 100 images that these include many copyvios. What do you think? I remember a comment you made somewhere that there had been an overall decrease of about 100K in non-free images, which doesn't really seem to add up. Which set of stats are wrong here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image upload and deletion stats (2007)

If you have time, would you be able to comment on Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria compliance#Weekly uploads and deletions and bot taggings? Discussion should be taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria compliance. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BCB missing notification of page uploader/image use page?

You may want to check out the diffs given in this diff by a user that cite examples where the bot tagged the image (correctly for #10c FUR) but did not notify correctly. All of them seem to be recent (Feb 13 and later) so I don't know if it's a code change or the like, but would be a serious problem if there is large amounts of non-notification occurring. Hope this helps. --MASEM 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asked not to send Blofeld any more notices. (long story), there was a image that was pointed out Image:1932Bears.jpg that I know a database lock caused a small problem. β 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
PS that page is full of lies and bullshit and is a complete farce and it will not affect how I operate BCBot. β 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
as for the other images uploaded by English peasant, that was caused by a user re-name while the bot was running. β 02:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-notification

Hi I recently raised the issue of non-notification but got fobbed off with "you recently changed your username, that's why". I have been putting fair use rationales on images you tagged and came across this edit. Could you explain why there is no notification about the impending deletion of this image on the talk page of the article in question (Talk:History of the Chicago Bears). If people are not informed the image almost certainly gets binned. English peasant 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Im looking at BCBot's logs, and it shows that the bot did post to the talkpage. Im not sure what the issue is. β 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I found the issue, it was a database lock that caused the error. β 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings on the same issue - It appears that there were multiple instances of this problem (that were brought to my attention) (Image:ItuzaingoLogo.gif, Image:GimnasiaCU.gif, Image:Laflorida.gif, Image:GrupoUniversitario.gif, Image:Ahitienetumadre.jpg) all on 2/13. With probably 9,800+ images tagged this day, would it be possible to notify the uploaders that were not notified that their images have been nominated so that they can do something about them? Thanks much. SkierRMH (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SkierRMH, those images in question were all uploaded by the same user, the issue is the fact that the user had a rename. (I just checked all those links and 3 of them still said they were uploaded by the old username.) that issue I cannot help it was caused by a rename. db locks are very very rare and very very few images would be affected, there is just not any good method of re-checking them. β 03:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
see above. β 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Blacker Gachet image Help!

I would be grateful if you would tell me what exactly is insufficient regarding the rationale I have left for the use of this image. This is what I included on the image page:

Fair use rationale

  1. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work, and of such low quality that it will not affect potential sales of the art work.
  2. Inclusion of the image is for information, education and analysis only.
  3. The text discussing the significance of this art work, or referencing it as a key example of the artists work, is enhanced by inclusion of the image.
  4. There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement image available.

With many thanks for your help. --Adammckenzie101 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

you forgot to state for article that rationale is for. β 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Ignoring bug reports?

I see that you plan not to respond to my bug reports. Very well, then, that gives me cause to ask that BetacommandBot be banned permanently: author refuses to fix bugs, and reverts bug reports without acknowledging their existance. I want to point out again that I agree with you that there is nothing wrong in what BetacommandBot is doing -- but everything wrong in how it does it. Fix your code or don't run it. RussNelson (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not ignoring your reports, they are not bugs. I was asked to do it that way. Also check my talkpage as that is where the conversation was moved to. β 00:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I looked on the archives link at #3, and my bug reports were neither on this talk page, nor were they in the archives. I suggest you edit #3 to also point to your talk page. RussNelson (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


AN/I Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you.Tiptoety 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Over-eager archiving

It is less than 24 hours since the last posting to both of the next two items.

Why were they archived? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Has my question already been answered?

I'm very sorry that I'm not a robot and have to do things "manually", but I'm not about to spend hours looking through 21 archive files to see if someone might have previously asked the question I would like to ask. Have you given any thought to providing a method by which users may quickly and easily determine if their question has previously been answered? Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It is point #3 in this big grey box that is saying:

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.

I sincerely doubt that 21 archive files have been condensed into 17 numbered paragraphs.

So thanks for your reply, but my question remains unanswered. Viz:

Has anyone given any thought to providing a method by which users may quickly and easily determine if their question has previously been answered? Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to put together a FAQ. I think you'll find that that box does answer most questions, or link to the answers. – Mike.lifeguard |  20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that that box does answer most questions
Interesting. If this is indeed the case, why does the box say point #3?
When I read point #3, I get the impression that it is telling me that the box doesn't answer most questions, and that I need to go look in the 21 archive pages. Or am I mis-understanding something? Pdfpdf (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Correct image on the right page for the right reason, but rationale has shortcomings ...

I'm not sure how much of this is a "bot" issue, and how much is an "image" issue, so I'm posting this question in both places.
If I understand the policies, guidelines, etc. correctly, the appearance of the company's logo on the WP page about the company, the album cover on the WP page about the album, and the school's logo on the WP page about the school are all "correct" usages.
However, I frequently see BetacommandBot "Fair use rationale" messages complaining about the inadequacy of the rationale.
Two questions:

  1. Given that these are "correct" usages, why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
  2. Given that these are "correct" usages, why is a generic rationale not acceptable?

Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The logo template ({{Non-free logo}} specifically states :
“ This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded. ”
The album cover template ({{Non-free album cover}}) specifically states :
“ To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. ”
WP:NFCC explains the basic reasoning and lays out the very restrictive circumstances in which fair-use images should be employed. WP:FURG#Necessary components lays out the minimal requirements for a valid fair use rationale. Vassyana (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I've read all that stuff before, and I believe I understand it. However, you haven't addressed my questions, viz:

  1. Given that these are "correct" usages, why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
  2. Given that these are "correct" usages, why is a generic rationale not acceptable?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A detailed unique rationale for each use is required by the policy, for the reasons stated in the policy (and because a Foundation-level policy requires it). Bear in mind the usage is not "correct" if not accompanied by an appropriate rationale. Vassyana (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Enough of the fallacy that the bot enforces correct anything. All you need to do to not be tagged by the bot is state each article name in an otherwise gibberish piece of text. Seriously, we are not talking about a sophisticated piece of A.I. here, it is one persons attempt at coding a super tagging machine, it enforces nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a detailed rationale is required, I'm not questioning that. I am asking:

  1. (Given that these are "correct" usages), why does it matter if the rationale is imperfect?
  2. (Given that these are "correct" usages), why is a generic rationale (with gaps for required specific information) not acceptable? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand your questions, the answers are provided above. Could you perhaps rephrase the questions or better explain what you are asking? Vassyana (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but gotta go right now. Will respond later Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that took longer than I expected. Sorry for the delay

As I said, I also posted this question on Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk. Their response answered my question. I am reproducing it here for the future benefit of those searching the archives.

Also, in an interesting coincidence, the very next question originally appearing after mine happens to be on exactly the same topic! I'm reproducing that here too.

So, merging MickMacNee, Masem, Adammckenzie101 and β, it seems MickMacNee has the most concise summary of the situation:

"All you need to do to not be tagged by the bot is state each article name".

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer from Misplaced Pages:Image copyright help desk

The use of images as you describe are acceptable uses, but a correct rationale - in the sense that a machine can understand what the rationale is applying to - still must be provided per the Foundation requirements, it's just very unlikely that the non-machine readible sections of the rationale will be challenged. --MASEM 16:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in general, it doesn't matter if the rationale is imperfect; the bot messages are complaining about the machine-readable bits of the rationale that are not conforming to its requirements/expectations. Is that correct? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the bot can understand some parts of the rationale and make sure it's compliant, but other parts (the validity of the claims of fair use, no free counterpart, etc.) will have to be judged by a human. --MASEM 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks! Your answers have been very helpful. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blacker Gachet image Help!

I would be grateful if you would tell me what exactly is insufficient regarding the rationale I have left for the use of this image. This is what I included on the image page:

Fair use rationale
  1. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work, and of such low quality that it will not affect potential sales of the art work.
  2. Inclusion of the image is for information, education and analysis only.
  3. The text discussing the significance of this art work, or referencing it as a key example of the artists work, is enhanced by inclusion of the image.
  4. There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement image available.

With many thanks for your help. --Adammckenzie101 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

you forgot to state which article that the rationale is for. β 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all involved. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Re: My image

It is used, at the page "Maiq the liar/About"... Maiq the liar (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's copyrighted, and you can't use those images anywhere but in encyclopedia articles - so it isn't counting the use on your about page as a use. See WP:NFCC for our rules about this. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page

I have created the folowing page Misplaced Pages:Bots/BetaCommandBot and NFCC 10 c to attempt to centralise discussion on BCB and specifically its NFCC10c tagging operation.
MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Opting out

Is there a method of opting out from receiving messages from your bot and letting whatever default action is necessary happen? If not, there should be. My talk page is literally spammed with messages from this bot, and it's bordering on harassment in my opinion. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think BCB honours {{nobots}}; I would consider that a bug rather than a feature if it did. Uploaders need to be informed of the problem. That said, perhaps some amalgamation of notifications is in order. Nevertheless, please provide rationales as required by policy. The notifications are for your benefit, and the benefit of the project, since unless they're addressed the images are very likely to be deleted. – Mike.lifeguard |  20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I refuse to be held to a moving target. When I uploaded the images I uploaded they met all policies in effect at the time they were uploaded. I refuse to participate in this non-stop "let's make uploaders do this" garbage that appears to have infested the anti-fair-use brigade.
So far as I see it, I have two options: find a way to stop this bot from informing me, hence my question here, or find all fair-use images I've ever uploaded and nominate them all for deletion at IFD (and risk violating WP:POINT, but I'm sick of seeing new messages over trivial BS this bot or it's author could fix itself). I will try {{nobots}} though.. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)