User talk:Betacommand: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 17:44, 4 March 2008 editBetacommand (talk \| contribs)86,927 edits →Removal of redlinked categories ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:52, 4 March 2008 edit undoRyan Postlethwaite (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Removal of redlinked categories: cNext edit →
Line 112:		Line 112:
	::You didn't answer the question, which was ''"please can you explain where and when BetacommandBot was authorised to perform this task this task?"'' BrownHairedGirl raises a good point, and the removal of redlinked user catagories has no benifit and is only going to rile people up as well. Where was this bot task authorized again? ➪]! 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)		::You didn't answer the question, which was ''"please can you explain where and when BetacommandBot was authorised to perform this task this task?"'' BrownHairedGirl raises a good point, and the removal of redlinked user catagories has no benifit and is only going to rile people up as well. Where was this bot task authorized again? ➪]! 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::] is approval for CfD work, which is what Im going, removing deleted/non-existent categories. ] 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)		:::] is approval for CfD work, which is what Im going, removing deleted/non-existent categories. ] 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
			:This isn't doing CfD work though - it's removing all red linked cats, and some which shouldn't be removed. People sometimes want red linked cats in their userspace, yet BCBot is removing them for no reason. There's a lot of debate about this, if you want to carry on removing every red linked cat then get approval, but I seriously doubt you will get it without a lot of discussion. when people clear out CfD cats, they work from lists - not every single red linked cats. ] 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:52, 4 March 2008

−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.

		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.

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)

Well, if/when you get a chance to comment about this image's use, could you message my talkpage, and/or just tag the image with disputed fair use yourself? Cirt (talk) 17:35, 3 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)

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)

Asterix cover page images deleted under fair-use rules

Hi,

I had uploaded a bunch of Asterix comics cover page images. I had scanned the images with a personal scanner. When I had uploaded the images, I had used whatever template was applicable and I think the images qualified under the fair-use policy. Do you think you can restore the images and I can then add the correct template with fair-use policies? Also, maybe you can consider changing some of the parameters for your bot as I added these images almost 2 years ago and other asterix comic page covers are still intact.. The images were deleted too quickly for me to take action as I am not a regular contributor to the wiki.

Thanks Nikhil Nikhil (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand doesn't delete the images. He simply has his bot tag them and they are then put into a category. Editors and admins go through these categories and typically fix the ones they can while the rest are deleted. If you'd like to have these images restored, you'll need to request an admin do this for you. You'll also need to link the images. Try WP:AN. Regards, Lara_Love 15:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BABS again

Hi Betacommand: I guess we'll try the template way — anything that shows the BirdTalk template on its discussion page. The category method just isn't working... Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

bypass redirect, making way for new template

Re: actions by BetacommandBot (talk · contribs) - thank you! Cirt (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of redlinked categories

Hi Betacommand

I see that your bot is now busy removing redlinked category entries from articles, in addition to its other tasks. Just to take one as an example, I see that in this edit it removed Category:Conservative MPs from Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury. The edit summary was "removing Category:Conservative_MPs" - there weas no explanation of why this was done.

This was not helpful: the correct category is at Category:Conservative MPs (UK), and problems such as this are much more likely to be picked up if the categtory is a redlink than if it is simply removed.

I have just checked Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot, and at the top of that page there is a very clear list of the tasks for which is aproved, and this is not one of them. I have also checked Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval, and can find no sign of any recent authorisation there.

I presume that I must have missed something, so please can you explain where and when BetacommandBot was authorised to perform this task this task. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

its CfD work. removing deleted/non-existent categories is something that BCBot has been doing for a long time. β 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, which was "please can you explain where and when BetacommandBot was authorised to perform this task this task?" BrownHairedGirl raises a good point, and the removal of redlinked user catagories has no benifit and is only going to rile people up as well. Where was this bot task authorized again? ➪HiDrNick! 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

here is approval for CfD work, which is what Im going, removing deleted/non-existent categories. β 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't doing CfD work though - it's removing all red linked cats, and some which shouldn't be removed. People sometimes want red linked cats in their userspace, yet BCBot is removing them for no reason. There's a lot of debate about this, if you want to carry on removing every red linked cat then get approval, but I seriously doubt you will get it without a lot of discussion. when people clear out CfD cats, they work from lists - not every single red linked cats. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)