Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:27, 19 December 2007

−6114 days left

If you are here to register a complaint regarding my edits, before doing so please note: There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria 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. Read the policy Check and make sure the image has a valid source Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here) I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine. I do not want to see images deleted All images must comply with policy A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale. 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.

• 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

I Don't Understand

My image that i uploaded, ]], is apparently not in compliance with the policy for non-free content or whatever, and i dont understand the policy all that well. i dont know what a rationale is or anything. i'm only a teenager who made a page for an album that wasnt yet posted on Misplaced Pages. i would like to be told what is wrong with my image in terms that i can understand. please lemme know!

Bot mistakes and stupidity

Someone please get this bot under control. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This bot has been blocked for one hour for mistakenly identifying good faith edits as vandalism. This is annoying to me and doubtlessly will be to other good-faith editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

hay fucktard Im not a bot. and read our policy. β 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Watch the abuse please. I have read the policy, I have provided the necessary justification, and I have included the image in an article. This complies with the policy. Please explain where the vandalism occurred. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the removal of templates without addressing the issue is vandalism, when I opened the page the image was not used. β 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue was addressed. I tried to reach you/the bot twice and received no response. I explained both on the bot's talk page and my own talk page about the draft that was happening. You then accused me of vandalism, reverted the edits without discussing the matter with me at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You pointed to a Non-free image being used outside the mainspace, per WP:NFCC#9 that is not allowed. I removed it, you violated policy and re-inserted it. I checked that image and it was orphaned and the tag had been removed. I reverted it. As for drafting a new version of the article, you have seven days to use it, before its deleted. you should not remove it because it will be used, that is not a valid reason. the only reason that you should remove a ORFU tag is when it is used. β 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. But instead of responding to me politely, you chose first to communicate via vandalism templates and now wikilawyering. Perhaps next time you discover a problem, particularly with a user that has shown a willingness to communicate, and who has asked for a bit of patience on your part, you can show that patience? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am following policy, the tag in question gives you seven days of patience. Im sorry but dont attempt to make your fuckup my fault. you violated WP:BLOCK along with our NFC policy. β 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check the policy. As I read it, it gives me 48 hours unless the image was loaded before 2006-07-13. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard practice does not check dates, instead it gives all image related deletions seven days. go ask any admin working on images. also check the date on the tag, it says December 22. β 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps the policy page should be corrected to match practice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Right ladies, chill out for a sec. Betacommand, you shouldn't be reverting those edits as vandalism - they weren't, if you revert in the future, please use a more descriptive summary. EncyclopPetey, that was a bad block and you should think about things before acting in the future - but there's no real harm done, and the block log has been annotated - now, let's leave each other alone and move on please. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Ryan, seems both of EP and BC escalated this very quickly, when it would probably do everyone well to calm down and think about things for a second. What's the big hurry? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You still blocked Betacommand when you should not have. I think you should apologize for that. Prodego 21:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, calling someone a fucktard when they come to you with a legitimate concern is completely inappropriate. I'm sure you know this already. If you can't respond to problem reports in a mature manner, you should probably just turn off the bot for good. Friday (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Friday when he blocks me for following policy and ignoring my comments I get in trouble that makes no sense, Sorry If I get offended, but stupid actions by supposedly experienced users, that are newbie mistakes piss me off. I expect some respect, especially from long term users. β 21:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh right.. well, I'm not saying he did the right thing. I just noticed the name calling and thought something should be said. Friday (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So Betacommand, above where I pointed out your mistakes (no real apology from you on that) regarding some of your edits regarding the famous americans fiasco, could I have called you a fucktard? Your responses to people on your talk page here continue to show a lack of respect and civility towards others. Please consider calming down and addressing things in an appropriate and calm manner. Name calling is a personal attack. We all make mistakes, as you pointed out, but name calling is not the proper action. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, you know full well that your bot has pissed a lot of people off. And it doesn't matter what the rationale is or how well-supported it is by policy. Referring to editors as "fucktards" is not going to endear you and your cause to anyone, and simply using the excuse that he has pissed you off and you're annoyed at such behavior from a long-term editor doesn't excuse your behavior. Disagree all you want, but keep things civil. And that goes for the people bitching at you, too. Using terms like "stupidity" and the like are pushing it on their part, too. 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not have been as pissed of if EncycloPetey had blocked the bot. EncycloPetey blocked me. that is what caused my outrage about an un called for block. β 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

if it is possible for people to make this mistake, you perhaps need to clarify this somewhere DGG (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		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

Worklist

Regarding this comment, there ought to be a way to figure out the worklist so as to avoid retagging an image a couple times. People will, after all, tend to fix an image shortly after it is tagged. How many items do you grab from the transclusion of {{non-free media}} at a time? Gimmetrow 02:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It rarely happens as the list it uses is updated fairly often. β 02:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But it happened here some 4 hours after the problem had been fixed. Is there anything you can do to account for this? Gimmetrow 02:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

*Poke!* Care to update the list the next time you feel like wasting half an hour? —Disavian (/_contribs) 09:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea what's wrong with this image now

Why is the bot tagging images with only PD templates for fair use issues? Gimmetrow 01:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

you had recently changed the status of the image. It was still listed as FU for the bot. β 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That was some hours ago. You're saying the bot doesn't read the current version of the page before tagging? I realize this saves a ton of page loads, but shouldn't it check the current page status? Gimmetrow 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

it gets a list of pages from {{non-free media}} and then works off that, due to the length of that list, ~305,000 so working thought that does take some time, along with the fact that non-free media is not trancluded directly makes it harder to track. β 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a sufficiently major bug that the bot should not be running if it can't deal with page changes in a timely manner. OrphanBot's solution is to check the image description page of each image just before editing. --Carnildo (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ive been playing with the settings and this should be avoided in the future. β 15:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this edit really neccessary

, the user is indefinately banned. King of the NorthEast 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

how is the bot supposed to know that? β 02:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether the bot knows it or not, this sort of notification is important. Most of the time I find out about a problem with an image only because β-bot dropped a message on a watchlisted usertalk page. Some of those users are indef-blocked. Gimmetrow 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that what Betacommand meant to say is that the bot doesn't check if users are banned, as that would require an extra edit for each image, causing considerable server load and bot speed issues. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Frontispiece of book published ca 1935.jpg

Pity this bot can't read... Here is the summary I included immediately on uploading with relevant phrase bolded here: Summary - Frontispiece with initial "B.R." credit; caption (incorrect): "The famous L.N.E.R Pacific class locomotive 'The Flying Scotsman' in Hind J.R. "The Book of the Railway" (Collins clear-type press, London & Glasgow, UK). No Publication date, but certainly around 1935/6. Request inclusion in LNER Class A1/A3 article (image temporarily downloaded to User:John of Paris/sandbox 6) as book is long-since out of print and no free licence image adequately represents this famous locomotive type in its best-known form. New version of article is almost complete and it will shortly be transferred to WP main space.--John of Paris (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Userspace does not count as an article. WP:NFCC states that non-free images cannot be used outside of mainspace. The bot is correct. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 13:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. This just means that the policy is too rigid and WP is over-policed - and as usual over-policing mainly hassles people acting in good faith.--John of Paris (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Fair use in the U.S. only really covers educational usage. Since userpages aren't articles, they aren't being used for educational purposes. Just wait until the article is ready for the article mainspace, and then upload the image. There shouldn't be a problem after that. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

CVG

Please move them back. Computer games are not video games! Actually, video games should have VG, while computer games should have CG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyano czespony (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to explain your request...BetacommandBot doesn't move anything, perhaps you meant to ask the operator, User:Betacommand? Otherwise, we'll need a link. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he is talking about a wikiproject that merged a month or so ago that BCBot helped with template transfering/renaming. β 15:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mehrunes Dagon.jpg

Go ahead and delete it. Peter1968 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

When are you going to be able to pass the people in line who want to be able to use VandalProof? Redmarkviolinist 16:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Notre Dame Leprechaun.png

This image meets Misplaced Pages's standards for fair use. The Notre Dame Leprechaun is an important symbol of the University's athletic programs. The Leprechaun with his fists up ready to fight is an image that one immediately associates with Notre Dame. As such, it is placed in the infobox for the article, showing the reader that he or she has found the correct article. It is used in its entirety, to the specifications provided by the University's style guide. It is big enough to be recognized, but not unnecessarily large. Please inform me where this rationale falls short and I will provide it. Plenty of other college athletics logos are hosted on this site, and are not subject to your bot's attention. If this image does not have the proper rationale, then please delete every other school's logo in the Big East Conference.

• Image:C-paw.gif
• Image:ConnecticutHuskies.png
• Image:DePaulBlueDemons.png
• Image:Hoya.jpg
• Image:UL Cardinal head logo.png
• Image:Marquette athletics logo.PNG
• Image:PittPanthers.png
• Image:ProvidenceFriars.png
• Image:Rutgers athletics logo.png
• Image:Usfbulls newlogo.gif
• Image:SyracuseOrange.png
• Image:VillanovaWildcats.png
• Image:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png

--Pgp688 (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

First, be aware that non-free fair use images cannot be used in User: space - the Leprechaun is being used in both your user page and a userbox of yours and they must be deleted from there (however, these are not why you received the warning). As for the warning BCB put on your page, you have a correct fair-use rationale for one article, Notre Dame Fighting Irish, but it is also being used in University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame Fighting Irish football, and Notre Dame Leprechaun, and there are no separate fair-use rationales listed for those. You need a total of 4 rationales for that image. --MASEM 06:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:VPApproval.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VPApproval.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Nazi

Ever get tired of deleting pictures just because it's not fair use? Who really cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.193.36 (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop making test edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Image:Greek-English Lexicon.jpg. It is considered vandalism, which, under Misplaced Pages policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. --Gnfgb2 (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)