Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:36, 5 November 2007

If you are here to register a complaint regarding this bot's edits, before doing so please note: There is a very clear policy regarding having fair use rationales on fair use images. This policy is located at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria point #10(c). Rationales must be provided for each use of an image. Also please see Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline. We do not permit fair use, copyrighted images to exist on Misplaced Pages if rationales for that image's use are not provided. Please see Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2Fmedia #6. Also please see the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on this matter at m:Resolution:Licensing policy point #4. For quite some time, we have attempted to encourage people to provide rationales. The results of this effort have been dismal at best. The creator of this bot has come under fire for performing this work manually. One of the main complaints is that the effort to tag images could just as readily be spent providing rationales. This is not the case; the uploader and/or user of each fair use image is the person who should provide the rationale. A non-involved editor can not know under what principles the user of an image intended such use as fair use. The use of fair use, copyrighted images on the Wikimedia servers is covered by United States law. Our policies with respect to this bot's actions are based on that law. Please see Fair_use#Purpose_and_character. Bug reports are very welcome; tagging images as this bot is doing per policy is not a bug.

Favorite statements about ORFU images:

Thank you for the message, Mr. Bot, but you have to understand that this image was used in an article, but the article got deleted. PK 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello visitors

Just a friendly reminder that if the bot didn't remind you, you'd wonder why your image just vanished without any sort of warning. Also, you're still required to be civil here. The bot may not have feelings (though I betcha Betacommand is working on that...) but the creator sure does. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 04:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

speedy deletion

IS UNACCEPTABLE. if policies change, let users fix the page. dont speedy delete it. this goes against productive efforts. UNACCEPTABLE. Obrez 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

your wrong, you have 7 days (its not that speedy) to fix the image. and THAT is policy. β 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

there was no explanation given to what was going against the policy. that is very unproductive. Obrez 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

it says exactly what is wrong if you read the template on the image. β 03:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot malfunction

Your bot has marked images that are not tagged with a fair use tag as "orphaned fair use", for example, . --Carnildo 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That image IS tagged with a non-free template, {{Non-free media}} which is what I use for finding non-free images. β 03:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is tagged with a "no source" template. Adding an "orphaned fairuse" template is very confusing to new users. --Carnildo 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Love letter

Right, Betacommandbot, or whomever has unleashed this on the world. What's the deal with this image?

You tag it for review, but the human behind you never bothers to show up with any reasons. More specificity is added to the rationale, the tag is removed, and a week later, here we are again!
Stated reason this time:
c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use.
Bloody christ, what do you call the link at the bottom of the page?
Look, I understand your desire to make wikipedia as small and nonspecific as possible. Heck, I might even admire it in another time and another place. But if you feel the need to auto delete images from wikipedia, please tell your creator that she/he has to actually visit and look at the images in question, and come up with some human readable demands which can be addressed by other humans.
Otherwise, your existance, dear Betacommandbot, is a massive pain in everyone's collective ass.
XOXO T L Miles 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article name is supposed to be in the summary section. This bot got me on a few of those too until I figured it out. ≈Alessandro ♫ 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Misstagged

Your bot seemed to mistag Image:CM abraham lincoln.jpg, as the rationale is clearly stated in plain text. How did it miss the rationale? --Knulclunk 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, it might be missing the article name that the image is used in. This information needs to be in the summary now, as part of the rationale. ≈Alessandro ♫ 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bellissima poster.jpg

Your bot tagged this picture as having no fair use rationale. It appears a complete rationale was present at the time of tagging.- AKeen 15:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have repaired it, it was not correct, the rationale was for Bellissima, while the file was on Bellissima (1951 film). --Dirk Beetstra 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos

Logos are painfully obvious, IMHO (hell, you could probably make a template specifically for logo rationales if that gives you a warm fuzzy). But really, this bot should not be tagging logos for speedy deletion. It would be far more constructive to actually have the bot put in a generic logo template when it comes across logos lacking rationales. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A bot cannot create a fair use rational as it lacks the intelligence, one needs to be written by a person. The tag gives several days for the images to be fixed. There is a terrible backlog of such images and we need to get through them. 1 != 2 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos, and trademarks in general, have pretty much cookie cutter fair use rationales. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for a bot to go and tag all the fair-use logos on the site with something generic that explains why it's okay for us to use a fair-use image of a logo. I have no sympathy for people who try to push their agenda via a bot or otherwise when with a little more work they could solve the problem outright. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you feel that way. You've been shown the policy, instructed how to make a fair use rationale, and for a sixth time in ten days insist on not providing one, removing the warning template in the process. You should not be surprised at the results. This policy not up for debate. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy item #4 which explicitly states that fair use images must have a rationale. The image has repeatedly been tagged appropriately. You are committing vandalism, pure and simple. If, beyond any possibility of hope, you manage to get policy changed so that images do not have to have rationales (as you keep on revert warring in an attempt to make happen on this image), we can leave the image untagged for deletion without a rationale. Until such time as that happens, this image has been appropriately tagged as missing a fair use rationale. --Durin 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)