Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betacommand (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 21 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

−6112 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

Message from LDEJRuff

Hey, βcommandbot. Thanks for letting me know about fair-use rationales. I just recently got your message about the image for Nina Valerosa needing a rationale, and got to it. However, I just recently re-uploaded an image and added a fair-use rationale while re-uploading.

Once again, thank you. ~~LDEJRuff~~ (talk) 1:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify cryptic #10c concern

I answer questions at WP:MCQ, and too many people come there who are totally mystified by the disputed fair use rationale concern of “invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c.” I suggest that you modify the concern to say something like “no non-free use rationale for use on <<article>>. See WP:NFCC#10c.” Thanks, teb728 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, isn't that what I am saying. Tell them what you are saying and tell them where to get the information? - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

doesnt (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. cover that? β 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The contents of WP:NFCC may be clear, but the messages you are leaving aren't. --Carnildo (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Experienced users like you and me can figure the message out well enough. But for image newbies it is mystifying. See for example here and here. --teb728 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another example of a user mystified by your #10c message. It is from today; so I see you have not yet fixed the problem. --teb728 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot Exclude not working

Hi, I used the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command (with the angled brackets) in order to prevent your program from questioning the legitimacy of my using images in certain articles, when I had put in almost all the justifications I could think of. However, it has done it again: it has gone to all these images, claimed that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid" and threatened to remove it. May I have an explanation, please, in order to put an end to this. Thank you,--Marktreut (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have had to remove this bot's deletion tags about five times now for images that clearly have proper fair usage information. This bot should stop making changes that annoy people unless it's going to do them correctly. --Apavlo (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Without a link to the actual image, it is hard to tell what went wrong. I do ask though, does your rational name the article it is rationalizing? 1 != 2 15:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume, based on Marktreut's contributions over the last day, it's images like Image:Hergé (aka Georges Rémi) cartoon 018 - Colonel Sponsz as Esponja.jpg - which Marktreut has fixed properly to include the right #10c name after BCB's warning, but do have <!-- BetacommandBot Exclude -->. However, I was not aware BCB had exclusion properties for images (and given the Project's goal by April 2008, I would expect it not to have such) and looking at it's userpage, this only prevents the bot from expanding out subst'd templates, not from checking FURs (though if that's changed, then I'm mistaken). --MASEM 16:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The image does not have a proper rationale (it does have a rationale). The rationale should state for which page it is actually valid. I also don't think that BetacommandBot has exclusion code, that would result in images not being tagged while they do not comply with the copyright laws. IMHO, that would not be a good thing. --Dirk Beetstra 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

the exclusion code is just for subst'ing and is not used on other tasks. β 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

What am I missing? I cannot see what the bot is seeing when it claims the image is violating WP:NFCC#10c.

Image:McDs arch deluxe.png

The source, article name and a copy right tag are all included. I did edit it to make it less verbose, but it still contains the same information that was there before my edit. So why did the bot tag it as not being WP:NFCC#10c?

-Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

The rationale does not say for which page the rationale is valid (that is, for each page the image is shown on there should be a separate rationale). --Dirk Beetstra 17:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, it's being used in McDonald's Deluxe line which you don't have a rationale for specifically.--MASEM 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it was unclear what I was supposed to be looking for. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

WikiProject newsletter delivery bot

from Misplaced Pages:Bot requests

I need a bot script written for me. I need a script for a bot that can deliver a a community newsletter. It would be operated in one trip every Sunday (to deliver the newsletter). If I could get the script for that, I'd appriciate it really much. Thanks! The Chronic 07:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess Betacommand can help you with this. See #Newsletter bot. --Erwin85 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

if you give me what you want delivered and to who Ill set the bot up to do it. β 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"I do not want to see images deleted"

So why is your bot designed to get just about as many images deleted as possible? --71.157.174.18 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex (comic strip)

Your bot appears to be posting redundant copies of the same message on Talk:Alex (comic strip). Please have a look at it and consider rectifying its behaviour. Thank you. --82.13.146.160 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Gwm-logo.jpg

It looks like the bot screwed up on this message. The page already had a non-free use rationale. --teb728 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot Exclude not working

Hi, I used the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command (with the angled brackets) in order to prevent your program from questioning the legitimacy of my using images in certain articles even after I had put in almost all the justifications I could think of. However, it has done it again: it has gone to all these images, claimed that "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid" and threatened to remove them. Nothing seems to satisfy it. Could you please inform us what kind of justification would satisfy your program, and why the !--BetacommandBot Exclude-- command is not working. Thank you,--Marktreut (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for example Image:Hergé (aka Georges Rémi) cartoon 018 - Colonel Sponsz as Esponja.jpg, you have indeed provided a rationale, but the rationale does not say on which page it is valid. The rationale shold be provided for ever single page that uses the image.

I am not sure, but I guess that the Exclude command would result in you not being notified of such errors, resulting in images getting deleted without the uploader being notified. That would for me be a good reason to ignore that tag for these runs. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Beta explained just above: the Exclude direction is only used in other aspects of BCB to prevent templates that are normally substituted from being substituted. The directive has absolutely no bearing on images, so you will be warned if you have an invalid rationale regardless if you have it there. --MASEM 05:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Free image tagged with invalid rationale

The bot has tagged Image:Mbta-logo.svg as having an invalid rationale for the second time, despite the fact that the image is in public domain. It was tagged first on November 9 and again on November 19. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But according to {{Fairusereview}} the image is labeled non-free. β 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you plan to do about this? Clearly, tagging it as "invalid rationale" is the wrong thing to do. --Carnildo (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is to find out why its tagged that way in the first place. β 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not the question. The question is "The bot is malfunctioning. What are you going to do to stop the malfunction?" --Carnildo (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

the bot is not malfunctioning, that image is labeled as non-free, the question is why. β 02:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Marking the image with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} is clearly the wrong thing to do. What are you going to do to prevent it from happening again? --Carnildo (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gwm-logo.jpg

Can you explain this edit?

My suspicion is that your bot is looking at the pre-expand wikitext when checking for links to the article in which it is used, which would cause it to overlook the link in the template. However, this template does appear to satisfy the NFCC#10; the bot should be changed to look at the expanded wikitext, or to look for this specific template.—Random832 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive fixed that issue. β 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Subdividing

Is there a way to track which articles in a category BCB has tagged as being non-compliant? Specifically, I'd like to take a category like Category:All non-free Logos and see all the non-compliant articles BCB has tagged (I'd ideally like to see all non-compliant images, but don't know how to write a bot to do it.) Mbisanz (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Article tagging gone mad

Hello BetacommandBot, I have noticed that you have been adding the {{WPUKroads}} tag rather indiscriminately. For instance The List (magazine) and Edinburgh Castle are now listed as within the scope of the UK roads project, which I'm not sure should be the case. It's because these (and other) articles are in Category:Royal Mile, which is a UK road. It may be worth investigating what other non-road articles are in street categories like this, meanwhile I have notified the project and will start de-tagging Royal Mile articles. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As well as the Category:Royal Mile articles mentioned above there appear to be a few other errors like Stone of Scone which the bot tagged as a road despite it being a ceremonial rock, and Royal Regiment of Scotland which is of course a military unit.

Of course, most of the tagging is correct. I'll go through and revert any more obvious errors I find but it might be worth looking at why these crept in and whether the bot's search criteria need tweaking. Euryalus (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the bot just goes by category. If an article is miscategorized, that is hardly the bot's mistake. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the problem. The Stone of Scone is categorised as a throne, a stone, British royalty, Scottish royalty, politics and history and Edinburgh Castle. None of these immediately suggests "roads" to me. By the way please note I am not criticising the Bot or its owner. Most of the tagging is correct. A small amount is wrong. It would be worth seeing if the incorrect results can be minimised for future runs. Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(addendum) It appears from this that the Bot was tagging a list of articles given it by a WPUKroads member. The errors were in the list it was given. The Bot simply carried out the requested function. Euryalus (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Edinburgh Castle and Category:Scottish Parliament are subcategories of Category:Royal Mile, which is what's causing many of the problems here. --Carnildo (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks. I've gone through and removed tags from non-road articles in these subcategories and Jonathan Oldenbuck appears to have done the same for the Royal Mile. So - hopefully this is resolved. As previously stated, the problem here was not the Bot but the list. Euryalus (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

MakkankosoppoPiccolo.JPG

The bot repeatidly tags MakkankosoppoPiccolo.JPG even though the image has a sufficent summary for its use. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You where linking to the Piccolo article, not Piccolo (Dragon Ball) where the image is used, so the bot just see that the rationale doesn't mention the article the image is used in, easily fixed though. --Sherool (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

132 days left

Hello Betacommand,

I was curious about this edit. Could you please tell me about this?

Thank you! Jecowa (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

it is the deadline for wikipedia to be NFC compliant. β 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Those stupid messages

The messages that your bot leaves on talk pages about images that need FU rationale are really annoying. As it is, it's a big block of text that seriously clutters up talk pages, especially when there are multiples. It's even more annoying when they messages are still around even after the FU has been added or the image deleted. Please either shorten the message it leaves or incorpate some sort of auto-message removal for after the issue is resolved.--SeizureDog (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoroughbred horse racing Images

Would you kindly let me know when you are done targeting the images I have uploaded. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)