Misplaced Pages

If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ST47.

How can I get the "Hall Hunt" page posted again?

Hey. My name is Hall Hunt. There was a page about me that was deleted earlier this month. I just noticed that it was deleted. I don't know anything about publishing anything about Misplaced Pages except for looking articles up, so I am amazed that I even found this page to ask you the question. How can I get the page back up? I think it said said something about plagerizm. I didn't create the page to begin with, but rather I think it was an organization I am a part of. Maybe they plagerized there other webpage or something. I am not sure. The bottom line is I would be willing to do anything I need to so the page can be posted again. Please let me know what, if anything I can do. I guess you usually post responses here, so I will check back. Otherwise just email me at HallHunt@comcast.net . Thank you very much! ;o) 67.129.185.89 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Hall Hunt

Hi there!

Looks like I deleted your article because it was copyrighted material, and we can only use free non-copyrighted text (see at the top left of this page where it says "Misplaced Pages, the 💕"?) If you do believe that we should have an article about you, you can write a draft, making sure that you can back up your information with links to reputable web sites, and visit WP:AFC for more information. Before you do, please note that we cannot publish your article unless it is written in a neutral way (You can't say "Hall Hunt is the best because he is awesome", you can say "Hall Hunt has won so and so competition in the field of competitive eating," granted, of course, that you have actually won that competition) and contains links to reliable sources, like newspapers or other websites, or even this article, which is what our old article was copied from. You might also want to have a look at WP:COI first, since writing about yourself in a neutral way is often a difficult task - but if you do happen to slip up, there are plenty of eyes around to help out. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell your bot thanks...

...I totally forgot to add a license to it. Thanks =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that is the point of the bot ;) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi, just a couple of friendly words, because I'm worried that you may be rubbing some editors the wrong way, and potentially scaring them off from Misplaced Pages. I think it would be very helpful if both you and your bot provided a little more information about what Misplaced Pages, and your bot, expect to find at a non-free image page - and to let editors know what it is they've missed out from their rationale.

It is clear from your comments on your talk page that a number of editors feel their images already satisfy the requirements, and that the template messages left by the bot have not made it clear if, or why, this is not the case. Your first replies rarely help them to understand why they are in error; in some cases ("Stop being stupid and fix your image") they are downright rude - especially coming from an administrator.

I'm not sure of the mechanics of your bot, but I suspect you would reduce the number of irate posts to your talk page if your bot's message gave the user clearer instructions, which could perhaps be made more specific according to which of the bot's rules was broken. I'd suggest something along the lines of:

Also, please do read template messages you post on user pages, check they're appropriate (you recently tagged my burgeoning talk page with a message saying "Welcome to Misplaced Pages!" when a quick glance would have shown you that I'm not exactly new to the site, which didn't exactly make a great first impression) and check that they provide the editor with a clear "next step" through the complex copyright mire. I usually find that editors are more willing to spend their time doing things, such as providing a fair use rationale, if I take a couple of seconds to speak to them helpfully rather than just bombarding them with unhelpful templates.

I hope that that will help to engage editors a little more in the copyright process and encourage them to improve rationales, rather than thinking "sod it, it's not worth it", and leaving useful images to get deleted unnecessarily. Besides, I'm sure you get pretty frustrated wasting your time messaging people telling them why your bot was right and they were wrong - which is clearly the case in the majority of instances! I hope that a more helpful bot message would reduce the number of people requiring such a response.

Anyway, I hope that's of some use.

Smith609 Talk 08:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am cautious about telling users exactly what is wrong with the image, because if they know exactly what the bot saw, they can fix that issue and then not be seen by me again, whereas if the image has many problems that the bot cannot detect, it is preferable to have them fix all of the issues that they can find so they comply with the policy, not with my bot. The problem arises not when they can't find out what the problem is, but when they refuse to read and understand policy, even though the relevant policy is linked from the deletion tag, the warning message, and the bot's talk page. It seems to me that no amount of handholding, short of fixing the image for them, of course, will help. There's an old adage about giving a man a fish... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the assumption on the part of the uploaders that my bot is in error, as evidenced by the section title "fix your bot" is ever so slightly annoying. Perhaps that contributes to the "irate" nature of my responses. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy is a mess, and I totally understand that many contributors have trouble following it, especially in a way that makes bots happy. It sounds like you have two ultimately contradictory goals: you want it to be obvious how to follow policy, but you also want it to be non-obvious how to pass your bot's check. But in an ideal world the bot's check would be equivalent with policy. The fact that it's possible to "comply with policy but not with your bot" requires that there is a significant difference between your bot's rules and policy. It's an understandable situation, since the policy is so complex, but it shouldn't be taken as a desirable situation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aubrey Gibson image and your bot

Well, I guess I'm one of the users the subject of the discussion above. An average user, average editor and - I thought until now - diligent reader of wikipolicies as required. The difficulty with your response just above is that I can't see what your bot saw. Some time back I uploaded an image - Image:AubreyGibsonRosebowlJacket2.JPG - for use in an article I created. It has just been tagged by your bot. Fair enough. Now, if I've read the policies correctly, the justification I've given for the use of the image is adequate. However, I took the point that maybe I've put the justification in the wrong location on the image page. I confess it's a while since I've uploaded an image, so I tried to edit the image info page - and this reminded me that the process is semi-automated. I couldn't work out how to shift the justification for use from its current location to a location next to the link to the particular article (and only article) in which the image is used. I'm taking the tag off, not to be difficult, but because (a) as far as I can see I've complied with WP policy, but more to the point (b) at the moment I'm only visiting the site every couple of weeks and the bot / WP / whatever is only giving me 7 days warning. I'm sure you'll set me on the right track. I have the fish, thanks, but my problem is not understanding your bot's message but in successfully responding to it. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fix your bot - restored section

Per .

Since you didn't answer, I'm going to ask one more time; please direct me to the 'machine readable' policy on en. Furthermore, how does this affect Image:BanqiaoDamAfterFailure.jpg (hint, it already had a {{Non-free fair use in|Banqiao Dam}} tag and was therefore machine readable).

Let's be really clear here: this image is classic fair-use. It had a rationale. Your bot tagged it because it didn't have a particular template. There is no requirement that this particular template be used on fair-use images. Instead of admitting that you are a lazy bot writer, you first blame the image, then me, then some 'machine readable' policy that makes no difference since the image page already had a machine readable tag.

This was a difficult image to find, and it should not be deleted every couple of years because some bot writer all of the sudden decides there's a particular template that must be used.

If you want this image to use a specific template for fair-use, go ahead and add it. Otherwise revert your edit and fix your bot. --Duk 12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Please show me where your bot was approved to mark for deletion fair-use images With a rationale. --Duk 13:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot tagged it because the rationale is not complete. Why in the bloody hell do you not realize that? You fail to address the most important point, the lack of a free equivalent - Why must we use this non-free image? Why is there not a free one? You fail to address 10c: There is no mention of the page it is used on. You fail to address 8 to my satisfaction: You say it is an educational use, but why is this particular image the only way to educate readers? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A bot may not judge the quality of a fair use rationale. You might challenge that quality, which is fine, but if your bot fails to pick up a fair use rationale, no matter how poor, and tags the image for deletion, I'm going to re-block the bot. --Duk 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to flag templates

Hi, when you remove images from flag templates such as Template:Country data Réunion, please replace the image with a placeholder instead of nothing. Image:Sin bandera.svg is usually used for this sort of thing. As it is, your change effectively breaks every page that transcludes that template with the region parameter, and the template documentation code certainly offers clues that something is wrong. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

STBotI blocked

After reading Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline again, I see that Image:BanqiaoDamAfterFailure.jpg contained both the copyright tag a specific fair use rationale as required. Your bot tagged it for deletion anyway. When this was brought to your attention, you failed to acknowledge the bot's error and attacked myself and the rationale instead. This is unacceptable.

I looked at STBotI's last seventeen edits. It failed to recognize three existing fair-use rationales . Another edit added This image or media is claimed to be used under Misplaced Pages's policy for non-free content... when the image made no such claim . That's an unacceptable error rate so STBotI has been blocked.

To fix this, I'd suggest a) searching the image page for key words that would indicate a rationale, or b) propose at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline that {{Template:Non-free use rationale}} be required to aid bot work. Didn't think about how to fix the last error, but I'm sure you'll figure it out.

It is not acceptable for your bot to make these errors, but it's even worse when you refuse to acknowledge the errors and attack the messenger or the rationale instead. And it's sure as hell not acceptable for your bot to evaluate the validity of a fair use clam.

I'm not unsympathetic to your work, having processed thousands of copyright violations (before you made your first edit) and done automated work myself. I know what you have to do to fix this and that it isn't very hard. Sofixit.

--Duk 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no rationale whatsoever on , is not sufficient, and the tagging on this is correct because there is not sufficient information to be sure that there is no copyright info. The rationale on your image is not sufficient. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 18:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Duk in a few of these cases. Image:Broom by Bundies2.jpg is just a bogus rationale, it's true on that one. But Image:Brother Is To Son.jpg is a decent attempt at writing a rationale by the kind of contributor who hasn't yet passed the bar in wikilawyering. In the cases where there is a rationale but it is not "sufficient" for your bot -- generally based on an out-of-policy requirement that it has to include the literal title of the article -- it's wrong for your bot to go around saying "there's no rationale". There's a rationale, the bot just can't find it.

This is an area that is extremely daunting and confusing to most contributors, and its typical enforcement by bots (using an article title as a proxy for a rationale) only confuses the issue more. We either need better heuristics for criterion 10c, or we need to re-examine the assumption that 10c can be enforced by unassisted bots (remember that many NFCC criteria aren't). One proposal I would make would be to tag images where the bot can't confirm the existence of a valid rationale with a template saying basically that, instead of a deletion template making the bald assertion that "there is no rationale". A person can then check the description, and tag it for deletion or fix it.

Yes, it's a complicated issue. That's a good indication, though, that there isn't a simple automated bot solution. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May I also suggest adding a link to FUR Templates in your message to get people started. It might make the process easier on unfamiliar editors. Thanks Morphh 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A category page full of templates? No, nobody but an experienced Wikipedian is going to have any idea what to do with that. I think a better thing to do would be for the message to provide a template for them to fill in and tell them how to add it to the image page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

True, based on the licensing template, it should be able to recommend a FUR template. Morphh 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the argument 'some of these rationales aren't sufficient' doesn't fly. A bot may not judge the quality of a fair use rationale. If it is a poor rationale and the bot misses it, I will re-block the bot. This isn't about how good the rationale is, it's about the bot working or not--Duk 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait. You are saying that if the bot tags an image for not having a sufficient rationale, you'll block it? Well, that's the last time I try to follow policy. Make sure that you don't follow any policies in the near future either, I'll be watching you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I find your behaviour to quite extraordinary for an administrator, and really setting a rather poor example. How many people have you thrown insults at, or tried to intimidate, in the last 24 hours alone? If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Less than or equal to the number of people who have thrown insults at me, that's for sure. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And that makes your behaviour acceptable in your eyes does it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't make your unilateral accusations acceptable. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You let yourself down once again I'm afraid. Why not aspire to be one of the best administrators, instead of spiralling towards becoming one of the worst? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could stop harassing ST47, go on with your wiki-life, leave him alone and stop continuing the fight, and you won't risk an uninvolved administrator coming in to take note of the uncivil way you have been treating ST47 on his own talk page?⇒SWATJester 02:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You wikilawyers do make me laugh. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Error with Bot/WP/EN/ST47/BLPWatchBot/1.2

Bot/WP/EN/ST47/BLPWatchBot/1.2 needs to be logged in! BLPWatchBot (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#STBotI --Duk 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

STBotI blocked again

I've blocked this bot again. Its accuracy is horrible. It tagged the following images for deletion for not having a fair use rationale, when in fact they did have a rationale . The final link should have been tagged orphaned fair use, not lacking a fair use rationale. How did this bot ever get approved? --Duk

Error with Bot/WP/EN/ST47/AfDBot/1.2

Bot/WP/EN/ST47/AfDBot/1.2 needs to be logged in! 91.198.174.194 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)