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 03:56, 17 February 2008 editHammersoft (talk | contribs)Administrators91,043 edits →Bug: BetacommandBot makes multiple identical reports← Previous edit Revision as of 06:42, 17 February 2008 edit undoJohn254 (talk | contribs)42,562 edits fixing my commentNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 226: Line 226:
:thanks, Ill fix. ] 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC) :thanks, Ill fix. ] 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, ] ] 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC) ::Thanks, ] ] 03:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

==Bot malfunction==
The recent behavior of {{User|BetacommandBot}} is being discussed at ]. ] 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:42, 17 February 2008

−6110 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

Image:Pio.gif

Betacommand, you (or your bot) tagged that image as being orphaned. It's actually not orphaned, the links below the image pretty much prove that point. I removed your template as it was in error. Just a heads up for you ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Non-free content/orphans and our non-free policy. that image is non-free and not used in the mainspace. Non-free content is not allowed in userspace. β 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)



Betacommand - the picture you keep removing is a generic drawing of a rooster. You first tagged it as being orphaned which it wasn't. Now you tag it as a copyright infrigement. Not possible as the image itself isn't copyrighted. Stop templating the image. Also, your threat to block is not within policy - I uploaded an image which , itself , is not copyrighted (www.oceansideemmaus.org/Pio.gif). If it's not copyrighted, there can be no violation. I realize you have a tough job and people yell at you all the time. I absolutely not willing to be one of them. Keep up the good work Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

its copyright from the page that you linked to GoDaddy.com, Inc. All rights reserved. it is copyrighted β 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Beta, the page is copyrighted. The image is not. Your tag is incorrect and therefore

will continue to be reverted as this image is neither orphaned nor non-free under wiki's guidlines which state:

For purposes of this policy "non-free content" means all copyrighted images and other media files that lack a free content license. Such material may be used on the English Misplaced Pages only where all 10 of the following criteria are met

... Bottom line - the image is not in violation of any regulation. The tag will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

show me where that image is free. if the page is copyrighted, images on it are also. β 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)



SO let me see if I understand this: In patrolling images, you found the image Pio.gif and believe it to be in violation of terms, and therefore you tagged it. I have no problem with that. However, after the uploader has explained more than once that the image is not copyrighted and therefore not a violation you still continue to tag, and insist that I'm in the wrong. Sorry - that doesn't wash. The image is not copyrighted. Bottom line. I saw what you wrote above, and it's rubbish. Using your logic, I could then say that my template is copyrighted to me because I created the damn thing, but you and I know that's pure bullshit. Leave my damn image alone, your template is incorrect and I will continue to revert it every time you put it on . Capisce ? KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of that, you have the image as being non-free. That, in itself is ok, but by policy, non-free images must' and can only only be used within mainspace articles - not on talk pages, user pages, or any other namespace. "What Links Here" for the image shows its only use is on a user talk page, which is invalid, so first you need to link it to a main-space article page, and then once linked, you need a valid rationale for its use on that article page. --MASEM 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The template you created is clearly licensed under the GFDL, as is all text available on this website. Every edit box says the following: "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". Therefore, we know, and, can prove the copyright status of edits you've made here. As for the image you have uploaded, we cannot, as I outlined on your talkpage. Furthermore, while I understand that you are frustrated, please, try to be civil when interacting with other users here. SQL 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

You need to calm your bot down

It is just rubbing people up the wrong way. I see 7 articles on my watchlist that the bot has tagged within the last 6 hours - the FU tagging is getting worse, and is starting to annoy me (and by the look of this talk page many others). Sure FU rationale need to be provided - and sure that is something that should, methodically, be worked on - but going around tagging thousands of images per hour as being "about to be deleted" (no they are not, dumb bot) is completely ridiculous and is just seriously annoying a lot of people. Please throttle the bot back or I will post a note on AN - sensible time frames and availabilities of editors should be used to deal with the FU issue, not the mass tagging/deletions going on here. SFC9394 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cite them SFC9394 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. This is impossible. Any attempts to address the issue have gone nowhere, and Betacommand reverts my comments if I try to address you. Enigma (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Settle down, please. Users are completely allowed to remove comments from their own talkpages. See: Misplaced Pages:TALK#User_talk_pages SQL 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, and I'm also completely aware of Misplaced Pages's policies on Talk pages. I was just commenting on the difficulty of getting anything done here. The discussion has moved elsewhere. Enigma (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Ships

I have had help add the fair use and the non free tag i just need to ask you can the tag yet be removed HAHA70000 —Preceding comment was added at 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm sure you'll block me for saying it, but you are the most annoying cunt on Misplaced Pages. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 19:08, 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)

Moved warning



Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Pio.gif, you will be blocked from editing. The status of this image (Not copyrighted) has already been explained to you. Repeated tagging of this image is considering vandalism and will be reverted as such— Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs)

I moved this warning to the bottom of the page, and fixed the wikilink, to keep this talkpage readable. This is in no way an endorsement of this warning. SQL 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm not sure if this was brought up before, but it looks to me that a lot of the images BetaCommandBot is flagging have articles that were either moved or redirected and the original article the image was used for had been altered to remove it. Would it be possible to automatically fix the article the image cited to the new one? --Ouzo (talk) 16:21, 15 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)

Read or Dream Non-Free/Fair Use Templates Added

This bot posted three "disputes" regarding the lack of the non-free/fair use templates for the images associated with the article Read or Dream. I have added these templates and provided information on the copyright owner and the source.

I am not complaining, but noting that I found the Misplaced Pages articles on the non-free/fair use templates a little confusing and therefore I cannot be 100% certain I added everything correctly. If there is still something wrong with the images/templates and a human editor is able to check on this, I'd appreciate that happening before the images are deleted unnecessarily. Thanks very much. DeathQuaker (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

{{WorldCoin}} and {{WorldCoinGallery}}

{{WorldCoin}} and {{WorldCoinGallery}} are image licence tags. You should exempt images with those templates — or everything transcluding {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}, if possible — from your bot's messages. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

those images should not be labled as non-free. which is why the bot tagged them β 20:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice.

I have begun a WP:ANI thread about this bot here - Exxolon (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"dispute" disputed

I dispute the term "dispute" and "invalid" (e.g. Image:Ch_m_michelle.gif.) It's just a robot. It's using an algorithm to determine compliance with Non-Free Images policy. Instead of saying that a "dispute" exists, if the rationale doesn't link to the article it should simply say that. I propose instead this language:

Hi. This is the BetacommandBot robot. I've noticed that there's a rationale for $image but it doesn't link to the article to which it applies. According to Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline, each and every use of the image must be justified as fair use. Please edit $image and provide a reason why this copyrighted or trademarked image may be freely copied. Nobody will delete the image prior to $date.

I do believe that a portion of the hostility to BetacommandBot is due to the language it uses. RussNelson (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bug: BetacommandBot makes multiple identical reports

When BetacommandBot finds multiple non-compliant rationales, it will insert an unlimited (as far as I can see) number of citations into the talk page(s) that reference those images. See, for example, Talk:Read_or_Dream where there are four. It would be an improvement if it consolidated all the rationale notices into one citation. RussNelson (talk) 16:30, 15 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)

  • Both this and the prior recommendation aren't bugs. They're feature requests. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • If a human persistently edited talk pages that way, they would be banned. A bot that edits talk pages that way is a buggy bot. I'm not disputing that BetacommandBot's mission will annoy people. I'm asserting that when it does so unnecessarily, that's a bug that needs fixing. RussNelson (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It's still a feature request, and not a bug. A bug implies a malfunciton. As you note, "there is nothing wrong in what BetacommandBot is doing". It's not a bug, and most emphatically not a reason for banning. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        • The error in BCB is not in what it does, but in how it does it. If a person made the same edits BCB makes, they would get banned. A bot that makes edits like that is buggy and needs repair. RussNelson (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
          • You your self admitted it's working fine. It's not like it's tagging images already with an acceptable rationale as missing some component. What you're asking for is a feature, an advancement of the code. Should this bot be banned every time someone makes a feature request and such request is not done? Of course not. You're welcome to make a complaint to WP:AN/I that this bot operator refuses to implement your suggested feature request, but the chances are very small the bot will be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:56, 17 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)