Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 8 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.

• 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

		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.

It's a bot. Bot's don't care: they just do what they are programmed to do. --Sugaar (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Other question at that request

Betacommand, have you seen the earlier questions from MBisanz at that bot request? "If I could ask the question of which of BCB's 4-phase NFCC approach have been included in this bots approach? Will this bot follow the no-bot tag rules for userspace and usertalkspace?" Just letting you know in case you missed them. And on a personal note, can we please try and get something sorted out amicably? I do want to see a separation of the non-free image task from the other tasks, but if, as MZMcBride said here, the name of the bot was chosen to tally with my proposal, it would make sense that others code the other stuff that is needed. Unless you really want to do all the coding yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

all current phases will be transfered to the new account. I dont like the idea that more than one programmers code is being run on the same account. As I have stated my proposal is an all or none deal. Im tempted to just withdraw it now and say fuck it, and quit trying to be nice. at ever turn I seem to get harassment. β 12:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's harassing you? Would you like me to have a word with them? Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Block reinstated

I have reinstated the block on BetacommandBot (talk · contribs), because the bot has:

1. resumed removal of categories without clearly explaining why they are being removed
2. resumed category-related before the Bot owner has fulfilled his obligation to repair the damage caused by previous runs of the bot, per the policy WP:BOT which says "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly."

I have posted a longer explanation at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Block_of_BetacommandBot_reinstated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the damage. I remain very concerned that you took no steps to repair the damage until the bot was blocked, and that your response to the block was to describe it as "unfounded bullshit". I think that at this point an RfC would be appropriate, and will see if I can find the time and energy to open one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont waste your time on an RfC. if you want to file something file an ArbCom case. your actions were completely out of line. calling your actions Bullshit is an understatement. what you forced me to do was violate several policies, WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:VANDALISM for starters. I do not see the removal of red cats as damage. what I do see is a problem is dumbass admins using WP:BLOCK in a dispute to force their point of view. instead of coming to my talkpage and discussing it you have to be a dick about it. β 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with you deleting my warning -- or deleting this after you have read it -- as long as you realize that I am an Admin. (Have a look.) And I understand you feel under a lot of stress but you need to temper your language. If you can't be civil -- take a break. Or someone may force you to. To repeat something that gets said dozens of times an hour, Misplaced Pages will be here tomorrow; there's nothing here that needs to be done now. -- llywrch (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot problem?

I had seen that your Bot had re-reverted an edit that it made on the Lenny Dykstra page, putting back in a category that did not exist anymore. I figured I would let you know about this, in case the bot has made other bad edits lately. Whammies Were Here 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bot is restoring categories it removed in a previous run, per the lengthy discussion here. The restoration of the redlink category is not a bot error - there was consensus this and some other redlinked categories shouldn't have been removed from articles, so the Bot is helpfully putting them back.

The category in the Lenny Dykstra article is redlinked but populated - it needs either creating or sending to CfD. Given how narrow it is I'd suggest CfD, but I'm no baseball expert so I'll leave that decision to others. Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, further examination shows the category has already been to CfD so BetacommandBot was right to remove it from the article, and didn't need to restore it. The Bot owner is currently rolling back around 2000 edits per the discussion I linked above and must have overlooked that this one didn't need reverting. Thanks for re-removing the category manually. Euryalus (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment bot help?

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Bot requests#Bot to rate WikiProject quality assessment on talk page as same as other project tags and previous discussion at Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests/Archive_13#Assessment_bot - can you help me out with assessing the unassessed stuff for {{WikiProject Theatre}} ? Cirt (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Could really use your help on this one, (especially with matching up unassessed things for {{WikiProject Theatre}} that have already been assessed for other project tags as WP:GA and/or WP:FA), because it will make things a lot easier with regard to working on improving the Portal:Theatre. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all the crap that you've been facing for the past few weeks. Maxim(talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say this barnstar is very well-deserved. --EoL talk 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rename of User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot

Cross-posted to User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, User talk:ST47, User talk:Martinp23, User talk:SQL, and User talk:Betacommand.

Would you (all four of you) consider asking for a rename of this bot to User:NFCC Bot (10c)? The reason is that I hope the proposal at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria compliance will gain support, and part of that is a plan to create the following bot accounts to take on the roles of enforcing compliance of those aspects of WP:NFCC that can be checked by bots. User:NFCC Bot (3a), User:NFCC Bot (3b), User:NFCC Bot (7), User:NFCC Bot (9), User:NFCC Bot (10b), User:NFCC Bot (10c). Since the code proposed to run on User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot is a clone of BetacommandBot's task of enforcing the bot-enforceable part of NFCC#10c, I think the rename I am proposing will help make things clearer. Could you post replies at User talk:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

List of bus operating companies

Could you please provide an explanation for this edit? At first glance it definitely looks like an instance of wikistalking, especially given your lack of previous edits on the article. Orderinchaos 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your rollback Betacommand - obviously this is going on AN/I for a review. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did betacommand reverse itself?

Just curious why it logged a complaint then reverted itself: Image:ICAHD_logo_small.gif. It seems to have had a valid complaint -- there was no fair use rational listed there. --MattWright (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

there was an issue with the API that caused some miss-tagging, the best option was a full revert. β 14:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BAG/BRFA issues

Please read and, is possible, discuss :). Thanks, Martinp23 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Statistics on success of image tagging

Hi. Do you have any statistics on how many images tagged by BCBot (and friends) have been deleted, and how many have since been brought into compliance? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont have those numbers. what I can say is that when BCBot started we had ~380,000+ non-free images. that number is down to about 280,000 currently. β 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So that's a difference of 26%, but we can't tell how it breaks down between deleted non-free images, images now tagged as free use, and (negatively) newly created/tagged non-free images. Bovlb (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#BetacommandBot

I've listed an arbitration case under this tentative name to resolve the longstanding conflict basically surrounding this issue. This is a message to inform you that you're listed a party there. Maxim_(talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling foul on a Commons image

Image:Heart 70s.jpg is an image which is available as a "self-made" over on Commons. The uploader, Sidneyjunior89, has had a number of his pictures called into question mainly for more detail on sourcing. His response was to blank his talk page and walk. Most of his pics are low quality building and landscape shots with a few flags and logos thrown in. That he took a picture of Ann and Nancy Wilson back in the mid 1970s is a bit of an oddball/far-fetched addition. I am finding this picture on a couple of online blogs and... comparing to the subject matter of the user's other uploads I am calling a foul on this image. I am not 100% on it... but my AGF for it is nil and it just doesn't seem right. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bug Report, Unspecified-Source Routine

While cleaning up Talk:W-inds., I noticed a syntax error at #Infobox conversion, which I presume was intended to post an "Unspecified source for Image:1st Messgae.jpg," rather than clog up my User and Date stamps when posted 23:47, 24 May 2007. Ignore if this bug is already fixed at your end, similar to 08:55, 8 March 2008. B. C. Schmerker (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

About your BettacommandBot

It targeted an image that already had Fair Use Rationale: Image:Negasonic.jpg.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You needed to provide the full disambiguated title that the image is used on (Negasonic Teenage Warhead wasn't sufficiet, it needed to be Negasonic Teenage Warhead (comics) which is where the image is used.) I've corrected this for you. (Also, when talking about images on talk pages, you can preface the image with a colon to prevent it displaying but still linkable: eg ] --MASEM 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: {{WorldCoin}} and {{WorldCoinGallery}}

Sorry, didn't see that you'd rep[lied to my comment (could I ask you to drop a note on my Talk: page when you do, please, just so I don't miss it — I'm jobhunting at the moment, so not really following my watchlist at the moment, sorry :o)

Wrt Image:1 New Israeli Sheqel (1994-1995).jpg, the image is non-free, and should be labelled as such. It just happens to be a non-free image that doesn't need a fair use rationale.

Could you please take a look at excluding {{OTRS}}-tagged images from the bot? Repeated tagging of images that should not be tagged is a bug in your bot and could be construed as vandalism. Whilst I don't agree with the way in which you implement the copyright policy, I'm certainly willing to concede that it is "within the rules", as it were, and I'd just like to help optimise that. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

if an image is non-free it requires a non-free rationale, end of story. β 18:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand a little. OTRS images have been released under a free license, otherwise OTRS wouldn't be involved. Such images should be tagged with the appropriate free license, not the original non-free license. If tagged correctly, the bot won't tag the image. The bot code should not be changed to exclude OTRS images, as being tagged by BCBot (albeit for something different) alerts to the improper use of licensing tags on the image. Lara❤Love 18:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot

BCB is stupid and pointless and ruins wikipedia. --{{123Pie|Talk}} 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

BCB is definitely stupid, being a bot, but the idea of BCB is far from stupid. It has a definite point, to help us bring Misplaced Pages into compliance with our copyright policy. Its operation in practice has both good and bad effects on Misplaced Pages. If you have a specific complaint, I suggest that you present it specifically and politely, or no-one will be able to assist you. Bovlb (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Everybody has the right to learn, hence wikipedia was created. If somebody wants to learn about the minigate, they have the right, and maybe they wanna see a picture of it, but don't have the stargate box-set, they have the right. --{{123Pie|Talk}} 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In the face of so much complains

Since BetacommandBot is the subject of so much controversy and you don't want images without fair use rationale, why don't you give a hand to the uploaders and provide these images with fair use rationale yourself.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Instead of sitting on your ass, adding {{fairuse}} to every picture, so you can a picture less world find the fucking info yourfuckingself! _{Sorry for any offense caused but I have a point!} --{{123Pie|Talk}} 22:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)