Misplaced Pages

User talk:BetacommandBot: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:24, 14 December 2007 view sourceWiggy! (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,426 edits →Can you be any more vague?← Previous edit Revision as of 00:15, 15 December 2007 view source Shadowbot3 (talk | contribs)51,520 editsm Automated archival of 1 sections to User talk:BetacommandNext edit →
Line 36: Line 36:
Hello Betacommandbot. I've placed some discussion which hopefully you can get back to me on. Cheers. ] (]) 00:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)<br /><br /> Hello Betacommandbot. I've placed some discussion which hopefully you can get back to me on. Cheers. ] (]) 00:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)<br /><br />
It's not clear why this image (Image:Mig15.gif) should be removed after a fair-use rationale was provided. Am I dealing here with a plain mechanical digital bot that just marks up for deletion anything which comes its way? Can you shed some light on the situation?] (]) 11:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)<br /><br /> It's not clear why this image (Image:Mig15.gif) should be removed after a fair-use rationale was provided. Am I dealing here with a plain mechanical digital bot that just marks up for deletion anything which comes its way? Can you shed some light on the situation?] (]) 11:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)<br /><br />

==Can you be any more vague?==
I'm trying hard to be compliant and then I get stupid messages like this one from you:

''Thanks for uploading Image:imagename.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid.''

Invalid how? The templates I'm applying are in widespread use and have been acceptable to this point and now they're no good?! And this has got to be the third time around for this nonsense. How are users supposed to keep up when you keep fine tuning your bot and make compliance a moving target? I'm trying to be a good citizen and I'm more than a little frustrated over this. ] (]) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
:If this is anything like my experience with asking Betacommand a question about the bot, it's probably been answered before in one of the archives, even though expecting you to read through all of them is absurd. However, in your case, it seems that you just had generic templates before being notified by BetacommandBot, a situation that is no longer considered adequate by general consensus (not just by Betacommand), and after being notified, it appears that you added specific rationales to each image. Isn't this exactly what's supposed to happen with BetacommandBot? As for the unhelpfulness of the template, see ], and feel free to improve it after reading up on current opinions on the matter. Unfortunately, that reading tends to take an absurd amount of time, and the whole matter is terribly complicated. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::Part of my objection is that that it should not have to be so complicated. This is literally the third time some of the images have been tagged. And I can foresee Betacommand adding more hoops to jump through and having to modify the rationales a fourth or fifth time. That's an incompetent implementation. Hash out the requirements and then run the bot. I have other stuff to do besides chasing after this week's flavour of bot.
::Further, the message is useless. "May be invalid"?! So it also may be valid. The bot isn't sure, so what is an image poster supposed to do if the bot itself doesn't know the rules? And all the while under threat of the image being deleted. Where is the user-friendliness and presumption of good faith editing in that?
::I understand the need for proper fair use tags. But I'm puking tired of stuff being ''repeatedly'' tagged as the rules change or because bot designers value zeal over common sense and a genuine sense of community and team work. ] (]) 12:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Dont insult me, the rules that govern BCBot have not changed in a while (~6 months). Im sorry you cannot write a valid rationale. the reason that it says ''may be invalid''. sometimes an image has a good rationale except for a typo in the article name, or it might link to a DaB page instead of the actual article. In those cases yes the rationale is not valid but it is just a very minor fix, compared to others who's rationales are complete bullshit. ] 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I can write a rationale just fine, thanks. The target keeps moving. Not changed in 6 months?! That's utter crap. I understand the need for the rationales, I'm just appalled at the lack of consideration consistently demonstrated toward other users. If an image is tagged ''may be invalid'', that has to be based on some ''RULE'', otherwise its just a useless act of harassment. If the bot can be made to recognize a "breach" of the rules, it can also provide an appropriate error message that corresponds to what it identifies as a "problem". That is better and more useful than ''may be invalid''. That's good programming ''AND'' basic civility. And it doesn't seem to be particularly hard thing to do. ] (]) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I guess you did not read the tag on the image then. it clearly states what is wrong. ] 18:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::No, it does not. It invites me to thrash around and have a guess at what the problem ''might'' be. There is nothing explicit about it. ] (]) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:15, 15 December 2007


If you are here to register a complaint regarding this bot's edits, before doing so please note:
  1. There is a very clear policy regarding the use of non-free images. This policy is located at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria
  2. 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.
  3. Read the policy
  4. Check and make sure the image has a valid source
  5. Make sure that the image has a valid Fair use Rationale (A guide can be found here)
  6. I will not add rationales for you as the uploader it is your responsibility NOT mine.
  7. I do not want to see images deleted
  8. All images must comply with policy
  9. A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. For quite some time, we have attempted to encourage people to provide rationales. The results of this effort have been dismal at best.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Bug reports are very welcome; tagging images as this bot is doing per policy is not a bug.


I once had a job that required that certain tasks be completed, and the completion of the tasks be recorded; the record was to be submitted to the corporate office. I forgot to record the work one day, and the boss got on my case about it. I pointed out that it was entirely possible to do no cleaning, falsify the record, and make corporate happy without all the work, and that corporate seemed to only demand that the unimportant aspect of the job be complated, because they had a beurocracy that checked forms according to an infexible procedure, without any real investigation of what was actually happening in the store.

Well, all the pictures I've submitted are legal and proper, and have been marked as such, but something that used to be done by bone-headed beurocracies is now being done by a machine, and I guess that my sumbissions lacked something that the machine was looking for.

So how about instead of building inflexible beuracracies to tear down the work of others because some trivial filing wasn't completed properly, we investigate, and fix these little details so that Misplaced Pages doesn't become a desert of dry text, completely devoid of visual content.--Drvanthorp (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Betacommandbot. I've placed some discussion here which hopefully you can get back to me on. Cheers. Scott Lyon (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear why this image (Image:Mig15.gif) should be removed after a fair-use rationale was provided. Am I dealing here with a plain mechanical digital bot that just marks up for deletion anything which comes its way? Can you shed some light on the situation?Petitgirard (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)