User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:46, 2 March 2008 editMahanga (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users21,554 edits →See also, external links bots: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:29, 3 March 2008 edit undoMBisanz (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users126,668 edits →See also, external links bots: commentNext edit →
Line 87:		Line 87:

	<span class="sigInvitatious">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)		<span class="sigInvitatious">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


			==Next phase==
			I've been thinking about the next phase you mentioned BCB woul be entering. If I remember correctly, it will comment out images from articles in which they have no FUR on the image page. I'm wonering if these couldn't be further split. Say first tagging all images that have a file link whose title is not in the image page. It would be an informational tag, much like our Wikiy or Cleanup tags and be cross-posted to the uploaders talkpage/article talk. After some period of time, say 30 days, BCB would scan the cateogry created by that info tag, and at that point, comment the image out of the article. Basically, it would give the uploader a chance to make sure the image is being used the way they wanted it and give article watchers the chance to fix the FUR/remove the image manually. How does this sound? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:29, 3 March 2008

−6123 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.

		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

Man, you are tough!

You take all these comments, and don't get discouraged over them! I don't think I could ever deal with all this...you have quite the tough skin! Following the ways of Compwhizii...

Soxred93 | talk bot has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A couple of concerns

Hi. I very much appreciate the work that your bot is doing, but I have a couple of concerns about details. I previously raised them here, but I guess you haven't had a chance to respond to my comments there. In brief, my points are as follows:

The notice at the top of this page is uncivil, in particular the use of language like "whine and complain". Please change it.
Given that there's an FAQ available specifically to cover the behaviour of your bot and the recommended response, please link to it prominently at the top of this page, and in the message that the bot leaves.

Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I for one am not offended by the notice at the top of the page, and I don't see how anyone can be in any case.--WaltCip (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-labelling anticipated good faith behaviour as "whining" is uncivil. Bovlb (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not pre-labeling anything. What that does is stop wikilawyering and and attempts to weasel their way out. Ive seen it before, and placed that there to stop it. if it doesnt apply to you, dont take offense. β 18:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image renaming

Ahoy there. I'm an admin on the YPPedia, the wiki for the Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates community. While looking over Misplaced Pages:Image renaming it seemed to me that you would be a good person to ask a few questions of. Our wiki sees a great deal of user-generated artwork and game imagery uploaded every day. While a lot of it does follow guidelines for naming the stuff that doesn't is often left in the background in deference to other administrative tasks. I'm really impressed so far by what I've read of the image renaming bot. I like how it checks that the requests have been approved, and I like how it preserves the history of the re-uploaded file. Would you be able to help us set something similar up, or at least give me advice on how to do it? Thanks in advance, --Fiddling Frog (talk) 07:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Request your advice on an image

Image:Sea org.png

Fair use is claimed on (5), count 'em, five articles:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't fair use really only appropriate for the article Sea Org? Cirt (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The image use appears to be appropriate to me. Logos are not limited to one use, afaik. Lara❤Love 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have actually heard quite different on this, AFAIK, it's best to just use this image on Sea Org, and it's pushing it on all these other articles. Perhaps Betacommand (talk · contribs) can help explain this to me, or point out something related to policy and/or consensus on this. Cirt (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand, any input here? Cirt (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ive been busy and havent had time to look into this. β 05:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that, quite understandable, take your time. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Karaku

Hello Betacommand. On User:Karaku's userpage it says he/she uses vandalproof. If this is correct, I suggest you 'de-approve' him/her. He/she violated several 3RR violations, and has been blocked several times. He/she hardly ever shows good faith, and is rarely civil. If you are to reply, please do so on my talk page. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hanks

I was curious as to why you added the WikiProject Religion template to this article. Has something extraordinary happened that has changed the direction the article should be taking? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Next phase

I've been thinking about the next phase you mentioned BCB woul be entering. If I remember correctly, it will comment out images from articles in which they have no FUR on the image page. I'm wonering if these couldn't be further split. Say first tagging all images that have a file link whose title is not in the image page. It would be an informational tag, much like our Wikiy or Cleanup tags and be cross-posted to the uploaders talkpage/article talk. After some period of time, say 30 days, BCB would scan the cateogry created by that info tag, and at that point, comment the image out of the article. Basically, it would give the uploader a chance to make sure the image is being used the way they wanted it and give article watchers the chance to fix the FUR/remove the image manually. How does this sound? MBisanz 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)