User talk:Betacommand/20070901

Auto article assessments
Would you consider having your bot flag the auto assessments it's doing with the auto=yes parameter thanks? That parameter is designed to let the rest of us know an article assessment wasn't performed by a human and may be off the mark. Quite a few WikiProjects already support this parameter.

Secondly, I understand previous auto-assessments have been performed on articles which are marked as stub and assigned a stub class assessment accordingly. What criteria is your bot using to assess articles as Start class? -- Longhair\talk 11:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry just noticed the talk page comments being left by the bot regarding assessment criteria. Strike my second question above thanks. Could you please consider usage of the auto=yes paramter however. -- Longhair\talk 11:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done βcommand 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - however it seems the WPBiography banner doesn't support the auto=yes parameter in the way other WikiProjects already do. It's getting late here so I'll make a note to raise the point someplace appropriate tomorrow. Thanks for the fast reply. -- Longhair\talk 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice the assessment bot is up and running. Job well done! Is this still beta or is it up and running for good? Drewcifer 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What?
" == WikiProject class rating== This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing this on a lot of talk pages lately, and all I see is that a bot "autoassessed" something regarding the rating scale of the article. Could you please, in detail, describe to me what the portion I have bolded actually means? Because as it stands right now, it doesn't make sense to me at all (I don't think it is worded well at all, its certainly not informative). Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Additional comments/questions: I also don't understand why an article that was ALREADY ASSESSED by humans is NOW being assessed by a bot. Isn't a human assessment better than a bot assessment? Does the bot overwrite the assessment that was already preformed by humans? I don't mean to sound upset or angry ..I'm just very puzzeled! Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely understandable, this bot doesnt really "assess" any articles. what it does is check for humans who have rated the article for one wikiproject, and then uses that rating if there is a second banner. IE and article is part of WPBIO and per BIO its rated a start class. but the article is also part of the france project, but the france template has no rating (un assessed) the bot sees the WPBIO rating and then uses that for the france project. (I hope that made sense) βcommand 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I kind of understand what its doing, but I believe there is some work that needs to be done on your part. The questions I have should be easily answered by viewing the userpage for the bot.  Any bot running on Wikipedia should have a detailed description of what duties the bot preforms with a possible explanation of why it is necessary.  The user page for this bot has no information on what the bot actually does.  Second, the notice that the bot automatically places on the talkpage is ambiguous and poorly worded (in my opinion); the message, like the user page for the bot, also fails to describe exactly what the bot did for the article.  Third, in the case of an article falling under several different wikiprojects (as you have mentioned), the talk page notice that the bot leaves fails to mention for which project the bot assessed - this is important. Anyone just looking at the page can't tell which projects recieved bot assessments and which ones were from humans. I know we can look at the page history or "edit" the page to see where the bot=yes tags are, but if there is any coding that could be done to remedy this situation, it would be outstanding.


 * I strongly recommend adding an explanation of the bot on the userpage though! :) Thanks again, --Naha|(talk) 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * as for say what project that is extremely difficult, I just check for class=Start or class=stub and replace the empty class parameters that are there with either Class=Start|auto=yes or Class=Stub|auto=yes. As for userpages they are crap. BetacommandBot does many different tasks. full approval and details can be found under the WP:BRFA process in which all bots are approved. If you have suggestions about how to improve the message the bot leaves I would gladly try and improve the notice that it leaves. βcommand 01:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You have pointed me to Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7 to find an explanation of what your bot does, however all this page talks about is your bot's ability to move images to Commons, it does not address any of the issues I have brought forth (auto tagging/accessing articles for wikiprojects), and I again, respectfully ask you to write a full description of all BetacommandBot's functions/processes and place that information on User:BetacommandBot where it is easily accessible to all users. Anyone who is not familiar with bots would have been hard pressed to find [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7], and even if they had, they still wouldn't have found any information on the bot's Wikiproject assessment ability because it is simply not present.
 * This brings me to my second concern, it is possible someone might be alarmed to see a bot "assessing" articles and not realise that it is only assessing whether the article is a stub, start class, etc, and NOT assessing the article on the "importance scale" (low, mid, high), something that can certainly only be done correctly by a human. This is a second reason that the Automatic message needs to be modified, to something like:


 * Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 04:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that is my only pending BRFA if you looked you would see another 7] BRFA's the one relating to this is #8. βcommand 14:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did look and I missed it, I appologize. This is still not a listing of all the bot's duites, its a group of discussions that have to be dug through to find out everything the bot can do. I again plead to you that most users will not know to look for this type of information outside the bot's userpage. Wikipedians should strive for organization and ease of use, making all information easily accessible. Do you still feel you need no information whatsoever regarding what your bot does on it's userpage?


 * Also, you said "If you have suggestions about how to improve the message the bot leaves I would gladly try and improve the notice that it leaves" but did not comment on the suggestion I made above. I'd like to know what you think regarding the suggestion.


 * P.S. I'm honestly not trying to be a thorn in your side, the userpage update and bot notice are two things I really think need to be done for Wikipedia. I am willing to dig through those bot request discussions and try to come up with a suitable "Guide to BetacommandBot" myself, but probably would not do as good a job as you, because you know in your head all the things it does. But if you'd like me to try, let me know. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 16:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly I dont care about user pages. and there doesnt need to be a guide, (BCBot as been around over a year without any problems) Ive made a change to BCBot's message, let me know what you think. βcommand 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the message is definitely an improvement - thank you for that. However the fact that users have to to go on a wild goose chase to find out what a particular bot does still seems absurd to me, and while you do not personally "care about userpages" this isn't about "userpages" its about making information on Wikipedia easily accessible to users, and the most obvious place to outline what a bot does would be on that bot's userpage. Again, if you just feel you have better things to do and can't be bothered with such a task, I am willing to attempt it myself.


 * Bots outlines a policy for all bots, the very first criteria is states do not start running your bot without ...creating a talk page for the bots, describing its functions. Further down the list it says bot owners should create a user page for your bot before seeking approval on BRFA: Describe the bot's purpose, language it uses, what program(s) it uses (pywikipedia framework, etc)


 * You seem to have failed the description critera because the userpage only describes one of BCB's functions. While BCB may have only had one function when it was first approved, you have since incorporated more functions and as such should appropriately update the bot's userpage to reflect all functions currently in use. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images
The bot keeps tagging User talk:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images as having content that violates the FUC (check the talk page history) - if you look at User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images you'll see there's a good reason for this; to allow for checking for duplicate images, those which have different file names but similar upload times/file sizes - it's a lot quicker if they can be seen side by side. The page is in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions and has a header that says as such, and content does not stay there for very long, only until an admin has chance to look the images over and deal with them. Can BetacommandBot exempt this page? Neil  ム  12:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be a little out of control, my friend
Perhaps a little less overzealous image deletion would do you well.... why on earth did you feel the need to delete a picture my friend JWinTX took of a dead wasp, and emailed to me, from his user page? I had total permission from him to do this, yet somehow you found some sort of analistic loophole which gave you the "right" to delete my work, his pic.... on a USER page. Nothing factual or unfactual... nothing copyrighted in the least. Get a life and leave our user pages and personal, noncopyrighted pics that are on them the f alone. Thank you. J.A.McCoy 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:4550393.gif]]
You delinked Image:4550393.gif from 1700 East 56th Street, Hyde Park Township, Cook County, Illinois, and South side (Chicago). Is it possible to revert any or all of these with a proper fair use argument?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. image was deleted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Was there an WP:IFD debate on this image that you are closing? If so, I need a link.  Please respond at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to contest this deletion on fair use grounds. It is an important image for the WP:CHICAGO project.  Could you kindly restore the image, put it up for WP:IFD debate, and notify me of the link for such a debate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, there is a free image of the map you cite, Image:US-IL-Chicago-CA.png. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

James Arbuthnot
Why did you delink JNA.jpg image? - Kittybrewster  (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:JNA.jpg has been deleted. βcommand 13:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? - Kittybrewster  (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly (Im not an admin and thus cannot see the deleted revisions) it was licensed as For non-commercial use only which is not accepted as a valid license. βcommand 13:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the page, you (Kitty) chose a license that stated only Wikipedia could use the image. This is not an acceptable license at all for images after May of 2005. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my application to use VandalProof
However, I've just recently returned form a long break to Turkey and I've come back and dicoverdd that I can't log in. Do I need to be re-approved? Thanks  Ryan (talk/contribs) 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your bot is out of control again
It removed the image from an article in my talk space, when there was valid fair use guildelines on the image. This is a book cover, and as such is covered by the fair use doctrine when used to expand an article. There are appropriate fair use assertations attached to the image, and yet your bot is still screwing with the images. Please cease and desist fouling up my pages. Timmccloud 15:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking the history of the article, I see that there was no fair use assertion before BCBot tagged it, and that it was only added afterwards. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 15:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A non-free image is never acceptable in userspace, see WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. If you're writing an article in your userspace, can you add a colon to any image links, so that the image doesn't display, something like Image:Example.png and when you're ready to move the article into the encyclopedia proper, simply remove all the extra colon's to make the images display. There are bots which will remove fair use images from userspace and replace with a different image informing users about not using non free images in userspace, something that has to be done but is inconvenient when you're writing an article. Hope this is helpful, anyway. Nick 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have specific permission from the author to use this and other images. She provided me with the following text: "I am Gianna Masetti, the author of the webcomic. As the copyright holder of The Noob, I give Wikipedia editors permission to use text or image material from the comic for the purpose of updating this Wikipedia entry. My only request to the authors and editors of the entry is that it should be strictly informational and it should respect the guidelines of the website (i.e. not promotional). I may be contacted about this at my email address gianna.masetti@gmail.com." - go ahead, contact her. Timmccloud 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * it doesnt matter, wikipedia policy states otherwise. βcommand 14:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
Hello Betacommand. The motion to restore your administrative privilege with stipulations has failed to gain a majority approval from the Arbitration Committee. You can view the votes on the motion, and after a few days it will be moved to the appropriate page within the original case.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Something
You'll like this. Have a laugh. :) Acalamari 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NPW Checkpage
Hey Betacommand! I know you're a moderator for VP, and an admin, so I wasw wondering if you'd want to approve some users for NPW, as there's a bit of a backlog at the check page. Cheers,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  17:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to break this to you, Im not an admin. βcommand 17:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy cow! No way! I could've sworn.....ah, well. Sorry for the trouble,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What about this, though? Happy editing,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  18:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom desysoped me. βcommand 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sorry about that.....just noticed it right as you posted. I'd support you in an RFA, no problem, though. Sorry again for the trouble,  A r k y  ¡Hablar!  18:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

stop
off stop off lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.147.113 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My Logos
Do not remove the logos from my Big Brother or Pirate Master user pages. If I catch it again, there will be some consequences!!!ScottAHudson 14:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell your bot not to check my page ScottAHudson 19:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your bot needs its gears adjusted
Though otherwise I have no issues with how it does its job, I think BetacommandBot has something in need of adjustment. I've come across a good number of talk pages with problems as seen on this revision of Talk:Genesius of Clermont. This is the first one where I've looked for a culprit, but I think it probable that your bot has a pipe missing in its code. The one that should be between "Stub" and "auto=yes" in the biography project banner, to be specific. If there's a way for you to fix this before sending BetacommandBot to play in the biographies again, I would appreciate it. Thanks! — AnnaKucsma    Speak!  15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * already fixed, I thought I fixed all the errors. βcommand 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —  AnnaKucsma    Speak!  15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot again
Why did it tag image? I don't see any reason to believe fair use is being inappropritely applied and everything including source, rationale, what article it qualifies on, etc. are provided. — M o e   ε  02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Im looking into that. βcommand 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just had a question, what happens on April 1, 2008 (i.e. your countdown on the top of this page)? — M o e   ε  05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ive found and fixed the bug with BCBot, and April 1, 2008 is the date that we have to be NFC compliant. βcommand 06:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What would happen if something wasn't compliant on April 1, 2008 that would be different? — M o e   ε  06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont ask me, that deadline was set by the Board. βcommand 06:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, a ticking time bomb with an unknown explosive inside.. — M o e   ε  06:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't given it much thought, but is there, or are you willing to create, a bot that could place every non-free image that has a high resolution in a category/list/something else? That is a major problem here as users mark extremly high resolution images as low, not understanding what it means. — M o e   ε  07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot: specify concern in templates?
It looks like Betacommandbot is adding to images. For example, this edit. It's possibly also using   Either way, it's not filling in the "concern" argument (argument one to undefined). Since I think the bot is flagging pages lacking any fair use information, it might be good to add an explicit concern of "The image lacks an explicit fair use claim as required by..." — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot: Using template in edit summary
Per the same edit, it looks like the bot is trying to use in its edit summary, but templates aren't expanded there. So it leaves an edit summary of " tagging as dfu per WP:NONFREE " when I think was is meant is " tagging as per WP:NONFREE " — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot to move files from en to commons
I asked if someone had a bot to move files from en to commons, and someone said he thought you might. Is this the case? Raul654 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Betacommand/Commons βcommand 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to be able to move lots of (all?) files uploaded by User:Dwsolo from enwiki to commons Raul654 06:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the numbers dont matter just add commons ok and Poof it appears on commons :) βcommand 06:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It deletes them off en, right? Raul654 06:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One Im not an admin, two BCBot is not an admin either, all it does is tags them for deletion. βcommand 06:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help :) Raul654 06:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:BKkidsclubgang.jpg
Hello βcommand, Your bot tagged the Image:BKkidsclubgang.jpg as not having a proper fair use rationale. When I uploaded the image, I made sure to use the template and fully fill it out with the reasons it qualified for F.U.R. Could you look into this please?

Jerem43 06:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that that was reverted. βcommand 06:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir, Jerem43 06:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pinski-Tailor.jpg
Could you please look in on Image:Pinski-Tailor.jpg, currently proposed for deletion? Obviously, it is almost impossible to prove definitively that a particular 1930s U.S. government poster qualifies as a Work of the United States Government, but (as I've explained on that page) the Library of Congress has stated that it "is not aware of any copyright in" this material, which is as good an assurance as one is liable to get.

Thanks in advance for your attention to this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Darkprincecover.jpg
Why is your bot adding dfu to images with a rationale? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked your bot, please explain why it is indiscriminately tagging images with existing rationales. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please unblock, I stopped the bot less than 2 minutes after your post and am looking into it. βcommand 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry for the rash action, but some of the tagging made no sense. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It did this to several other images too... this is very frustrating and the bot shouldn't be run until this can be fixed. --W.marsh 02:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It has just wrongly tagged here. When editors have complied with policy and added the necessary rationale this is is very discouraging. BlueValour 02:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not sure what broke, but until its fixed ill stop running it. (unless Im manually watching it and checking its edits) βcommand 02:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

FU Rationale
The bot just started tagging logos that already have accepted rationale: Image:Columbia Valley Rockies.gif and Image:Seguin Bruins.gif. DMighton 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * those images dont have valid rationales βcommand 02:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? And how is your bot qualified to evaluate dozens of rationales per minute? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They sure as heck do. DMighton 02:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NFCCc which requires you to have the titles of the articles in which its used. those two images dont have that. βcommand 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So, your bot is going to SPAM each hockey logo... despite the fact that each one does list the the article it is associated with because it isn't wikilinked.... is there some way we could avoid this perhaps? It seems like a waste of time and manpower... another bot perhaps?  Because it was a little much last time.  DMighton 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as it contains the pagename weither or not its wikilinked wont matter. βcommand 03:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They were both in there. So I am hoping that is the end of this then.  DMighton 03:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have tagged Image:Pinsinit.jpg as having an invalid fair use rationale. To the best of my understanding, it fully complies with the needs for a fair use rationale. It is cover art for a Wiki article on a CD. Can you please point me to the Wiki policy on fair use which makes the rationale I provided invalid? Thanks. Grimhim 03:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it tagged that, Im reverting. βcommand 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It also tagged this image. Not that I would say that is a good rationale statement, but I thought I would note it since the bot shouldn't have technically tagged it, given how the bot detects these things. Not complaining, just hoping to help. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute?
Hi. I'm confused. This bot appears to have flagged Image:New Zealand Herald.jpg not on grounds of having no rationale (since that image does in fact have one) but rather on the grounds that the rationale is disputed. Where is it disputed? The image's talk page is a redlink. Thanks, Doops | talk 02:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fannwongchrislee.jpg
You tagged this image with "This image or media has a fair use rationale that is disputed."

How is it disputed? You did not provide a reason to dispute the fair use rationale.

--166.121.36.232 03:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Analysis Group.gif
Apparently your bot has been tagging a bunch of images which already had proper fair use rationales, such as Image:Analysis Group.gif as disputed. I've already reverted that one, but it would be wise for you to check through your bot's tags for the last hour or so and make sure to revert all of the ones which were incorrectly tagged (not just the ones that happen to be brought to your attention on this talk page). Thank you. DHowell 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I second this. The bot did this on Image:Production Baobab.jpg and Image:光の伝説volume1.JPGm both of which had valid fair use rationales. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * me too, Silence is Golden (Tremeloes song) I had a rationale, I up-dated it 'cos I thought it must be wrong, and added another rationale. ♥♪♫♥♪♫ 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again at Image:Ragealbum.jpg Caknuck 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added additional rationale to Image:Tina.ogg, but don't know what the proper protocol is for removing the warning you added. Can you check the rationale, and if you agree with it, remove the warning? Thanks. Travisl 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Like Phantoms Forever cover.jpg
Why was this media tagged as having a fair use rationale dispute? – Zntrip 03:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

More bugs
I blocked your bot for doing things like this or that, and announced it here. Max S em 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please TALK instead of BLOCKing I have reverted your template and I will manually fix the other. βcommand 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

9/6/07
Please check User talk:BetacommandBot - there seems to be a large number of false hits today - including one of mine. SkierRMH 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, they have been reverted, it was a bot malfunction. βcommand 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA
 Wikihermit would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Wikihermit to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

~  Wi ki  her mit  20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
I have just sent an E-mail to you. It's actually urgent. Acalamari 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Doh!
I hate to bring up old crap.. but .. What were you thinking here? He was way out of line, but when you respond with rude language like that you make it harder for people to defend you. Next time someone is so rude to you please come grab someone else to respond. You shouldn't be treated like that ... but if you respond in anger you risk retroactively justifying it... --Gmaxwell 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it had been happening for a while prior and no-one did anything, I finally snapped after he made a few personal attacks. βcommand 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging images with FU rationals
This bot has tagged a number of images that do have FU rationals. Is it looking for FU rational templates? Is that required now, or can they be made by hand? Or is it manually tagging ones that ones that are insufficient in some way? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 03:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This bot's activities seem either way out of control or totally outdated. Take a look at Special:Contributions/Mr.Z-man for an example of some of the recent reverts required to correct its actions. ericg ✈ 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked MrZ-man to help me, the bot malfunctioned and it has since been reverted. βcommand 04:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed this as well. I received a notification for [Image:CD Suchitepequez.png] which has a fair use rationale (using the standard template). Any help would be appreciated. Jogurney 04:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I was about to report the same thing (viz. Image:New_Zealand_Coat_of_Arms_old.gif)... Grutness...wha?  06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My image is also clearly free, located at Image:Hcseal2.gif. If the old rational wasn't enough, which it was, I provided even more info why it was free, yet the bot refused it and marked it for speedy deletion. So since it's fixed, is it still on the speedy deletion list? -- Tommy Boy ♪   ♪  17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one that had FU Image:Columbia Lane - the Last Sessions.jpg not using template (I don't use templates for albums). SkierRMH 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep-Your-Right-Up 000.jpg
Hello, this my contribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tegiiin, your bot get wrong, pls, take control it, thx. Tegiiin 10:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exemption for official exemptions?
(reposted since no response before) Hi Beta- if I ask nicely, will you tell your bot not to check my page User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images? Perhaps you could ignore all pages in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. I didn't mind before, but putting in your "nonfree removed" image makes it harder to do what I'm trying to do over there. Thanks, and keep up the good bot work. Staecker 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done βcommand 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks- Staecker 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad edit
was incredibly pointless. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop. Read.
This bot needs to learn to read the first thing I have on my talk page. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So doff your cap
It's a pity your bot can't read the paragraph on my talk page where I invite image taggers to delete the damn things and just leave me alone. Strange, it's smart enough to "be concerned" but not to read instructions to "go forth and multiply". Djdaedalus 17:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you considered using a tag, instead of attacking Betacommand? (I assume BCBot supports nobots...) SQL(Query Me!) 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pint&dale.jpg
Thanks your your note about Image:Pint&dale.jpg which I uploaded years ago when the policies regarding press-kit images were very different. However, I notice that your bot didn't actually add any kind of notice on the page for the image itself or on the page in which the image was included. With such an old image, that kind of thing would be much more useful, as the original uploader may be long gone and new people taking up the baton of working on the article. As you have it now, there's a chance that people who have an interest in the image and the article wouldn't find out about the problem until after the image had been deleted. Incidentally, I have contacted the rightsholders for the image in question and hope that they will take care of the problem. Please leave the image alone until the end of the month to give them time, as they are not Wikipedians and may have trouble. Thanks. Crypticfirefly 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Followup: apparently your bot did tag the image, it's just that someone else disputed your tagging before I ever saw it. Crypticfirefly 01:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost


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. HermesBot 01:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Help...
I was wondering if you could direct me to an administrator or moderator that could assist me in creating a wiki template just like the one found on this page in the top right corner.

Thank you, Mrlopez2681 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DinoSizedBot
Hello, Betacommand;

You'd mentioned on the bot request page (now archived) that you'd have a look at making a replacement for DinoSizedBot, and I was just wondering how that was going. It's not a huge deal, and if you're busy, it can certainly wait, or I can put it up on the requests page again if you don't think you're going to be able to get to it. Thank you for your time! J. Spencer 13:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was stuck with sorting the items by size, but I think Ive figured out how to do that. As soon as I finish my second re-write of User:RFC bot in the last 24 hours, Ill get started on yours. βcommand


 * Sounds good - thank you! J. Spencer 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks very good. Can you exclude Category:Dinosaurs in fiction and Category:Dinosaur sculptures? J. Spencer 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One other tweak - I just saw the updated list, and it looks like Category:Jurassic Park species will have to be included, because excluding it is causing big names like Tyrannosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and Velociraptor to be excluded. Is there a way to get the bot to ignore this category instead of excluding it? J. Spencer 02:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do with that JP species category. Logically, it makes more sense under Dinosaurs in fiction, but then all the real genera included in it would excluded, it's never bothered anyone before being under Dinosaurs, and it's not a huge deal either way.  Given that it doesn't seem to be an issue which of the two it's under, what would be the best way to handle it for the purposes of the bot? Thank you, and have a good day! J. Spencer 14:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * did you see the last run? βcommand 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have, and I'm impressed. I've let the other WP:DINO members know about your progress as well.  I was just wondering if there was a better place for this odd duck of a category, and how it would affect the bot. J. Spencer 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldnt effect anything. βcommand 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some articles (about 100, comparing the number of entries for the old bot to the sandbox) that aren't showing up, such as Succinodon and Maniraptoriformes. I can't see any common thread in the categories, so could there be a technical limitation? J. Spencer 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's found them now. There was one other thing that was pointed out to me, that List of dinosaurs is a featured list. Could featured lists be included in the parameters?  Otherwise, it looks complete and ready to go. J. Spencer 14:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The Green Hornet vandalism--not me!
I have found your "warning" of my alleged vandalism of The Green Hornet article. I have done nothing of the kind. The character's name IS Dan, not Andy, Reid--we (that is not the editorial "we") had a previous run of vandalism of the exact same nature, see the article's History listings, beginning on February 13, 2007 (I was the first person to revert it, and apologize for saying "some jerk's", but I was new here then) and ending with the page being granted semi-protected status on February 23--and the various Wiki-links I've deleted are either redundant, the same articles being linked elsewhere on the page, or worse, Andy Reid being a real person in football who was born in 1958, at the end of the original Lone Ranger/Green Hornet era and patently irrelevant to the article in question, and Britt Reid redirecting right back to it. He/she has also been posting the same "Andy Reid" misinformation on The Lone Ranger and being reverted by me there, too. *I* was going to initiate vandalism charges against the other person today (and check his/her edit summaries on these reversions on that same History page and LR's if you don't think he/she is a vandal; there is some definite sarcasm against me personally), but there was a different IP number this time, and I had not as yet determined an appropriate course of action to cover that change. The next time you have an urge to give somebody a vandalism warning, check out the circumstances thoroughly first to avoid being embarrassingly wrong like this. It didn't help that you made it a "last warning," when it was the first warning of vandalism ever given me, and the word "last" requires by definition prior action in the same vein. However, I will wait for this to be withdrawn before I revert the garbage again. Thank you in advance for doing so. Ted Watson 21:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Any further word on this bogus charge? Because you placed the warning in an already existing thread on my page, for a while there I thought it had been removed. I will apologize for how harsh I was up there, but how would you feel if you were accused of vandalizing an article that not only you not vandalized at all with the evidence clear and conclusive, that the true vandal had taken to calling you a vandal, but the article was one that was very special to you and you had made it twice as good as it had been when you first found it? Just how would you feel? Ted Watson 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: I just found another reason I thought that your warning had been removed from my Talk page---it does not show on the History listings. WOW! Ted Watson 19:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you have been temporarily away, so I can have all this resolved before you see any of it. I have been had, and you were framed. The actual vandal on the stated article made that "warning" on my Talk page. By not signing it and ending it with a Wiki-link to your profile page, he/she made it look like you signed it. That is why I thought it was not showing on my Talk page's History listings, that there was no entry with your name on it. Eventually I noticed the IP number there, and thought it looked familiar. A quick check revealed that it was the more recently left of the two IPs in the History listings on the Green Hornet page putting up the "Andy" Reid garbage. I have since filed a report with administration on both IPs. I actually did all this yesterday (Friday), and apologize for not doing this sooner. You deserved better, but as I noticed that "Away" indicator at the top this time, no real harm done, right? Again, I'm sorry, but I was a victim here, too. Ted Watson 22:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Article size bot
I have heard that you may be the operator of a bot for calculating article size for a project. WP:CHICAGO would like access to such a bot to identify articles for WP:CHICOTW.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic interdependence
The discussion section for this article features a complaint that fair use for an image (of both sides of a Russian ruble) is not properly justified. The image does not now appear in the article and the complaint does not seem appropriate. It should presumably be removed. Is there any reason it should not be?

Temple Bayliss 12:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the Image is no longer non-free, the image is public domain so dont worry about fair use and re-add it to the article. βcommand 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alfredo Lopez.jpg
So your bot tagged this image because it's not being used in an article. But it is being used in the writing of a future article. The article is in my sandbox, and hopefully will be done in the next couple days. Cool? Murderbike 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, Orphaned non-free images have 7 days from when they are tagged until they are deleted if they are still orphaned. If you cant get the article written by then you can either ask an admin to undelete it once the article is complete, or just re-upload it. βcommand 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nova Scotia flag
Ain't you fault about that one, just had someone on the commons caused problems to get the image deleted. Image is back up on the Commons under a PD license. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cantleaveemalone.png)
The image can be deleted. A better version has been uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmed36 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sonic the Hedgehog
Go ahead and delete it. I think we have no use for it now. --Coconutfred73 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Uta-med.jpg
This image was replaced by Image:Uta-med.jpg within the UTA TRAX article. --Millbrooky 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please
Please dont post in my talk page for things like this image is for candidate deletion and that shit. Football97 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ivo robotnik01.png
The image can be deleted. Another wiki user continues to remove it from the page it is used on, and to be civil, I'm allowing his image to remain in the place of this one. - Matticus333 19:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the bot cannot delete anything, neither can his owner, I have deleted it for him. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hadassa Ben-Itto
Thanks for your help.
 * I've restored the image to the author's page - it's a book cover.
 * For an unknown reason, User:After Midnight removed it.
 * Best regards, I am --Ludvikus 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar [[Image:Smile.png|20px]]

 * Definitely agreed! :) Keep up the good work, Beta! :) SQL(Query Me!) 05:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above statements as well. :) I've also sent another E-mail. Acalamari 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally disagree. Order of the Pickled Schmendrick would be more appropriate.Djdaedalus 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Djdaedalus, don't let your personal opinions about this user  throw a negative light on their incredibly useful, valuable, and crucial contributions. It is not polite to say such things when a user is awarded a barnstar. Yes, you might dispute BetacommandBot's fair use warnings on your talk page, but that gives you no excuse to insult a user when another pats them on the back.  A r k y   ¡Hablar!  00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean only bouquets are allowed? In any case if eta-beta-pi-bot or whatever has problems with the odd zinger, then administrator-hood is contra-indicated.  And I didn't dispute anything.  I merely told all who wished to delete good-faith contributions for ex-post-facto reasons to get on with it, leave me alone, and go stand somewhere interesting, say around the rear of dyspeptic elephant.  You'll find that's a common sentiment. Djdaedalus 17:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to be left alone, being uncivil here, probably isn't the best route. And, as I suspect you've been told, you probably won't get bot messages (in general), if you do your images right. SQL(Query Me!) 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my experience the right thing to do at one time is never the last word on the matter. As I tried to point out, changes after the fact in so-called policy resulted in many messages about impending deletion of material.  Said material was posted in a manner consistent with stated policy at the time.  Now in a schmendrick-free world the consequences of change would fall upon those in favor of the change.  Instead these bot-meisters get to bother others without hindrance.  And they get congratulated by those of similar bent.  So consider this a dissenting point of view (oops, POV not allowed, is it?).Djdaedalus 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded! Good work and good luck! Dfrg.msc 09:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oddity
Hiya,

This isn't a bug in the bot, but it seems to be a bug somewhere: Image:Hwasun logo.gif was tagged as a non-free orphan because the description page did not show any incoming file links; however, there is and long has been an incoming link from Hwasun County. If this is not an isolated occurence, there could be a lot of false positives out there.

Anyway, I'm way past caring about any of these images, if they go they go, but I thought I'd mention this as it seems to be a very peculiar thing which could lead to inappropriate tagging and deletion. Thanks for your hard work! -- Visviva 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a null edit and fixed it. βcommand 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi Betacommand, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Best of luck!--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 02:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

BetacommanBot suggestion
I noticed an automated rating and message from the Bot at Talk:Martin Peters. Nice work. Just a small suggestion that the message is tweaked to include which WikiProject rating's been automatically done, as many articles (like Peters'!) are subject to multiple WikiProjects. Anyway, like I say, nice work. --Dweller 10:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The roughly 170,000 "legacy" NFC images
Hello: Would you kindly check out the last several posts in User_talk:Wikidemo. I'm interested in getting the information about what templates are presently used on what images into an accessible place. That is, in order to bettter understand how to deal with the images, it is important to have a breakdown of how many image pages contain each of the many presently available NFC and PD templates. Thanks very much. ... Kenosis 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * if you can get me a list of templates you want be to check for usage not a problem. βcommand 16:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the applicable templates are listed in the following places: Image_copyright_tags/All, Image_copyright_tags/All and Image_copyright_tags/All. There may be a few stray templates out there, but this would hopefully add up to the majority of that 170,000 you've identified. And thanks so very much for your efforts and skills. ... Kenosis 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I've been hellaciously busy with different tasks, and just noticed you had linked the list of tasks that BCB performs on it's userpage. Thank you very much for doing this. --Naha|(talk) 00:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid, you are.
Why delete the WHTZ logo? It's a logo. If wikipedia wasn't ran by bots and real people with real BRAINS this place wouldn't be so damn annoying.. Big texas lump 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, please no personal attacks. Neither I or the bot are admins and cannot delete images. second if the image was compliant with policies it would not have been deleted. βcommand 15:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks on Betacommand or his bot. He is simply trying to make sure images are in compliance with policy. If you have complaints in regards to an individual image, I recommend you bring it up with the deleting administrator (which is easily found in the deletion log for the image), as Betacommand is not an admin and did not delete the image in question. Thanks,  ^ demon [omg plz]  15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lynn Anderson-Greatest Hits Image
About the Lynn Anderson "Greatest Hits" album cover image, you can delete that, I don't need it anymore, I found a better image. Thanks! Dottiewest1fan 19:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

CTT logo
Hello.

I thought and made sure that the Columbia TriStar Television image I've uploaded had a fair use copyright tag and non-free. I checked myself. King Shadeed 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are talking about Image:Columbia TriStar Television.jpg. that image does not have a valid rational. please see WP:NFURG βcommand 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
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 06:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Those Pokémon images you deleted
As you may not have noticed, all of the images you removed from the List of Pokémon have fair use rationales on them. As far as I'm concerned, they are only used in the lists for informational purposes. The images all describe the subjects and are needed to explain them in detail as they accompany the text.

I will be removing the tage and returning them to the articles. æt 'ə' rnal 'ðrAعon'  → 10:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive
I think I got archived before you answered me at User_talk:Betacommand/20070901.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you get me some categories to work with? and please change your sig its extremely long. βcommand 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Aggresive editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%8Cban_Star-Racers&diff=next&oldid=157221210 You should remove only images, not the content, right? --193.219.88.146 08:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Wild Arms 2 characters
Please stop reverting this article. Wild Arms 2 is not an episode of a series like it's been treated. The characters are pretty much unique to that game, as it is its own world from the other games. Compare the Final Fantasy series and Characters of Final Fantasy VI. - Gilgamesh 07:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue at List of Wild Arms 2 characters needs to be addressed and discussed specifically and nuancefully instead of how it's been dismissed without it. Please see my comments in its edit history and my complaint at User talk:Betacommand. Let us please continue the discussion at Talk:List of Wild Arms 2 characters. - Gilgamesh 17:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought you were a bot. I mistook you with User:BetacommandBot. - Gilgamesh 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if needed
I explained that you are a user and what your bot does to an editor. Please let me know if I made an error in describing the situation, particularly the functioning of your bot. Cheers! Vassyana 13:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hellogra3.png
On the Page for IP Pascal. This image was deleted, then reloaded, then deleted yet again. It is fair use. Your bot's message "what is the rationale for fair use". I don't know what you want here. It is a screen shot from a computer program, which is fair use. If that is not enough, it is a screen shot of a program I created. I don't honestly know what "rationale" I would provide for fair use here. I know you are just doing your job, but I would like to know how to stop this from happening. I DID read the rules very carefully, and they seem to be oriented towards people who are placing images of other people's work. There was nothing obvious there concerning work that I myself performed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.253.185 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The screenshot that you uploaded is copyrighted by the author of the program, for what is needed in a valid rationale please see WP:NFURG βcommand 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cover for Illegal Alien (novel)
Greetings, BetaCommand!

I have looked through the current page, and (very briefly) a couple of archives, but didn't find anything like my situation.

I am working on a draft of an article on that novel (starting from articles about other Sawyer novels, as templates), so the image was linked to my draft under my user page. Some bot noticed the draft was in my user area, not in the articles area, and replaced the image with a "don't do that" alert. Then you came along and noticed the image was no longer linked to any article.

Of course I can just put the image back into my article and remove the "to be deleted" alert from my image, but that will just start the cycle over again.

So how does one put images into a draft that is not yet ready for publication?

Thanks! — SWWrightTalk 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I cleaned up the draft and published it. Now how do you get the notice off the image? — SWWrightTalk 20:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind again, I just removed the "this will be deleted" template from the image page. Hopefully that will take care of it. — SWWrightTalk 04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain something?
Your bot is currently going around tagging a bunch of images as having a "bad rationale". OK, yes, that's within policy, provided the rationales are actually deficient, and I'm not complaining about that. However, since "bad rationale" is an incredibly generic message, there's no way of telling what about the rationale is bad, and we can't fix them.

What exactly is the bot checking for when it runs this process? --tjstrf talk 05:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its looking for WP:NFCC (Ive fixed the reason already) βcommand 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So in other words, it's tagging images whose description pages don't specifically mention all the pages that they're linked from? Well you should realize that you're getting a lot of false hits here. For instance, you tagged the ISO logo as having a bad rationale, presumably either because it's marked as "Fair use in ISO" rather than "Fair use in International Organization for Standardization", or because it's also present on Image:Iso logo.gif due to obsolete being present on that page. If it's due to the latter, then it's going to presumably also mistag every other image that's used in that template. --tjstrf talk 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as it says at least one useage it will not be tagged even if its used on several pages. βcommand 05:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's not counting redirects? (Otherwise I'm not seeing where the complaint on Image:ISO english logo.svg is coming from.) --tjstrf talk 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, because the image is not being used in ISO, its being used in the International Organization for Standardization βcommand 06:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well it would be nice if that could be fixed. But at least I know what the problem is now. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X
in this page Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2, you removed all characters' pictures

okay, now you can go on each character individual page and remove his picture too

Od1n 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Im sorry but I dont understand what you are saying, I removed images from that list for a reason. βcommand 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These images are still present inside a lot of other Wikipedia's pages. For example, you removed the picture of Tidus in Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2, but this picture is still present in the Tidus's page.
 * ... If you don't remove a given picture from ALL places, your action is pointless ("copyright violation" is remaining).


 * Also, following this logic, you might consider removing pictures of characters of all other Final Fantasy episodes, and of all other Square-Enix games, and of some other video games, and so on.
 * In think these images weren't harming Square-Enix's interests in any way. To the contrary, these pictures are only deserving to fill out the articles, and some visual informations considerably increase the desire to play the game (ie. buy it).


 * Od1n 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No the issue was solved because images used on that page violated our Non-free policy. the use of the same images used in other locations doesnt mean that those are a violation. the use of those images on that page was a violation. and we are not here to sell or promote anything βcommand 18:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You said "the use of the same images used in other locations doesnt mean that those are a violation". That point particularly interests me, can you say me more details or give me a link? Thank you Od1n 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Use of non-free images in lists is very limited, and should be avoided. βcommand 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Betacommand corrected a WP:NFCC violation, see User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation for more detail. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned screenshot
Hi, you left a note that "my" pic Image:Tyler.firestarter.jpg is orphaned. Indeed, the article where it was used was deleted (and I didn't realise it). You can delete the picture, too. &mdash; Tauriel-1 ( ☎ ) 15:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tolwyn04.png
The Geoffrey Tolwyn articale is one of my watched pages and I did not add the picture, it's apparently been there for a while, but I have tried to add a fair use rationale here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tolwyn04.png

Is this now sufficient? Douglasnicol 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it looks ok. βcommand 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yamaha_motors.png
In the case of this image it appears obvious why this image was flagged (the rationale is outdated, and does not mention the only article that links to the image). However, it would be helpful if the bot was more descriptive and said specifically which article(s) are not mentioned in the fair use rationale(s). Thanks! Polpo 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * if it was tagged that means that there are zero valid rationales in the image description page. βcommand 00:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arbcom.jpg
For the third time now, I have removed the speedy tag from Image:Arbcom.jpg after receiving one of your messages - it is being used in an Arbcom case, it is currently linked to in the evidence section, I DO NOT KNOW why this isn't showing up in the links, but please stop sending me those messages! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot not editing right!
This is not something one should see. The tag is not substed because the link is not closed. Please clean them all up. --Pekaje 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is another example. Videmus Omnia Talk  18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * its being fixed. βcommand 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late, it's tagged loads of images which is just annoying, shouldn't you make sure it works before setting it going? >_< →  j acĸrм  ( talk  |   sign  ) 18:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Its tagged 410 images, all are tagged right, except for my typo. The bracket error is being fixed as we speak. βcommand 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Your bot has twice now tagged fair use images that I uploaded as being non-free compliants due tot he absence of the fair use rational. I must say that I find this hard to beleive becuase the rational template ( and its associated parameters) are filled out in the image space. In simple terms, my question is: Why am I getting these notices if the fair use template is filled out? I would rather not recieve an more messages about fair use compliance, so if you couls shed light on this mystery here I would be thankful. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Does the rationale specify the article in which the image is to be used per WP:NFCCc? Videmus Omnia Talk  19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Tom II (Toonami).JPG does not meet WP:NFCC βcommand 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So the key issue here is that I have not specified the article(s) to which the fair use claim is being made. I am correct in assuming this? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes βcommand 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then, thanks for the info. In the future when I get these annoying messages I will know what exactly it is I need to do to adress the issue. Thank you for the help, and sorry if I appear snappy here, its been a long day and my patience is wearing thin. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of Wild Arms 2 characters
I would appreciate consideration and response. If I'm wrong, then by all means show me where I'm making my error. I'll keep an open mind. --tjstrf talk 21:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * you are incorrect please see my note on the talkpage and the section above about Final Fantasy X. βcommand 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No good. I've read the note on your talkpage and the Final Fantasy discussion. I've also read Durin's essay on the subject, the signpost article you keep linking to, and, previously, the WP:ANI discussion on lists of episodes that it references.
 * However, none of these have addressed my specific concerns, and the reasoning that characters without their own articles don't need fair use images is based on old practice where every character was given their own (mostly in-universe) article by default. It does not reflect current best practice.
 * I would appreciate an answer that goes past the party line here. --tjstrf talk 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * its a violation of our non-free policy, those discussions should have shown that. If a character is not notable enough for their own article then you should ask your self, Why must wikipedia have this image?. Our goal is to provide free content, and to that degree we dont need images of every non-notable character in every TV show or game. βcommand 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Which point of the policy?
 * If point 3, read my comments on Talk:List of Wild Arms 2 characters: there is no way of using a smaller amount of the work to illustrate the character designs, though 2 of them might be discardable as illustrating only minor characters.
 * If point 8, images of the major characters of a work do significantly increase readers's understanding of the topic, and their omission is detrimental to that understanding. (If they're only minor characters, then sure, get rid of them.)
 * Again, show me where I'm wrong. Show me how we can use a lesser extent of the copyrighted material while keeping the same educational value. --tjstrf talk 21:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * easy use none at all. or one group picture. If they are a major character then they should have their own article, if the subject is notable enough. βcommand 22:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A group picture isn't any lesser extent of use at all, it still contains every copyrighted character design. It is also a less accurate reflection of how the characters look in the game, so it's a weaker argument in terms of educational value as well. (And again, no, they shouldn't all be given their own articles, that's completely at odds with WP:FICT.)
 * So then: The images are included because they are significantly beneficial to understanding Wild Arms 2. Without them our understanding of Wild Arms 2 is significantly damaged. We are using the smallest amount of copyrighted material we can while still maintaining educational value. The images of the major characters (not the last two) therefore pass the WP:NFCC, and are valid non-free images for Wikipedia to use. Unless of course, you want to dispute that the NFCC is our guiding policy.
 * Now if you would be kind enough to ask Alkivar to unprotect the page... --tjstrf talk 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Im sorry such image use is a violation of our non-free policy, if you care to read the discussions, the signpost, ANI subpage, and Durin's subpage that will make that clear. I will not ask Alkivar to unpotect the page so that you can add those images back in against policy. βcommand 22:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NFCC, the policy in question, it quite explicitly isn't. And as I said, I've read every single one of those pages, and while they give excellent reasoning regarding lists of episodes they say nothing applicable to lists of characters.
 * Now, I've gone through the NFCC point-by-point, shown you my reasoning, and repeatedly and civilly requested that you show me where I'm wrong from logic or by policy. You have given no refutation to any of my points regarding extent of use and significance, instead simply relying on proof by assertion. Would you like to suggest a better venue for this discussion? --tjstrf talk 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please state which specific point of the WP:NFCC those images violate. Your refusal to communicate here is coming across as most incivil. --tjstrf talk 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the discussions was about list of... pages. not only episodes. the community decided that such non-free images in list should not be used. its the same idea as with the LoE's the the decision was removal from List Of... pages. βcommand 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you admit that they do not violate the WP:NFCC policy? --tjstrf talk 23:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as if he's saying the community has decided that such image usage is a violation of WP:NFCCa and WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Those specific images do not violate either 3 or 8, consensus on lists in general or not. Also, any such consensus needs serious re-evaluation in light of recent changes in WP:FICT. --tjstrf talk 23:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, I personally don't always remove these images from lists myself, depending on the circumstances. But Betacommand's belief here is a common one, as best expressed by Durin and also (if I recall correctly) by Jimbo. It's probably something to take to WT:NFC, since WP:FICT is just a guideline, not policy. Regards - Videmus Omnia Talk  23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't WP:FICT itself, it's the interaction between the two: Previously, even if you had strictly applied a "no images on lists of characters" rule, it would have generally only affected information on minor characters, not major ones, as being in violation of point 8. However, the recent changes in WP:FICT are strongly suggesting we merge major characters --whose images do pass point 8-- into lists. --tjstrf talk 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They do violate NFCC and consensus, NFCC is policy, while FICT is just a guideline. βcommand 23:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet, for all that conviction, you cannot name a single point of the NFCC that those specific images violate. --tjstrf talk 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, discussion started on WT:NFCC. If you have actual policy-based reasons for removing those images, you may wish to state them there. --tjstrf talk 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Iran Azeri Cartoon.jpg
Hi, Beta. Can you elaborate why your bot tagged the image as disputed fair use rationale? I have expanded the rationale a little bit but to be honest I do not see problems with the original one either Alex Bakharev 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * you have fixed the the issue, it was WP:NFCCc βcommand 23:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So the bot complained that the article was referred by a redirect rather than the current name? Is it possible to make the bot to check for redirects? Or at least explain the issue in plainer English? Alex Bakharev 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How the hell can this bot read valid/invalid rationales?
Well? Image:CrimeAndPunishmentCoverPenguin.jpg had a perfect fair use template before your bot flagged it. I'm sick of this, I upload an image once (an image that DOES fall under fair use) and I'm bugged by idiot bots for life. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It needs to link to the article it's used on in the text. --tjstrf talk 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * you dont have to link to the article just meet WP:NFCC βcommand 00:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS that rationale on Image:CrimeAndPunishmentCoverPenguin.jpg is for Crime and Punishment. the issue is that the image is not used on that page instead its used on Fictional portrayals of psychopaths in literature
 * The portrayal article is referring and illustrating its referral to the novel, but that's not what I'm asking about, how does this bot read rationales? +Hexagon1 (t) 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * checks for several key parts of rationales, WP:NFCC being one of them. βcommand 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only part of #10 is could check is the articles-used. And what about disambigs/redirects or just texts (no links) referring to the article? Sorry about the rashness earlier btw, no-one told me that by uploading an image I suddenly become its caretaker or whatever. These bots should leave a message on the talks of the articles that use them, rather then uploaders. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the bot does leave a notice on the article talkpages too. All the bot needs to see is the name of the article (it doesnt need to be linked, just be on the image page). redirects are not checked for. βcommand 01:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a user-page flag that says they don't wish to be contacted with fair use warnings for their images? +Hexagon1 (t) 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are they really that hard to remove from the talk page? Just wondering... Videmus Omnia Talk  01:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They're annoying, and I don't want to be bothered with a big orange sign because of such a trivial matter, message-boxes are for human communication afaic. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. Keep in mind that the editors trying to get copyrighted material in compliance with the Foundation's licensing resolution also get annoyed by bad or missing rationales, and there are so many of them that bots like BCBot have to be used to identify the tens of thousands of problem rationales. A good way to limit further messages would be to look back through your upload log and make sure the images you have uploaded have good rationales. Videmus Omnia Talk  01:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * At least until another arbitrary change to fair use rationale policy, like a requirement to compose the rationale in iambic pentameter. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration; I just wish editors who don't like this policy would address it to the Foundation or to the community rather than the individual editors who are attempting in good faith to carry it out. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The foundation isn't behind these policies, Wikipedia users draft and implement them. An image should not be deleted because its rationale fails to link to an article it is used on (that is, if you ignore the "File links" heading in the image description page), the rationale should be fixed. Nominating all such images for deletion, much less doing so with a bot or all at once, leads to a very low retention of images. This might be a good thing if your goal is to gradually eliminate all fair use images from Wikipedia, but it is a very bad approach if you only mean to improve the standards of description pages for all current fair use images. It also leads to a lot of confusion and annoyance on the part of uploaders - an unfortunate side effect I'm sure Betacommand is only too well aware of. I would hope that Betacommand would be willing to entertain the notion of programming his bot to actually fix some of these concerns, but I doubt he would favor such an approach. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:AEBDavie.gif
This is a Public Domain image, a photograph taken 150 years ago, and therefore the image is not under copyright. There is no fair use rationale because it is a free use image. It was wrongly tagged by the uploader, and I placed the correct licence,, on the description page. I'm removing the warning tag again. Please tell your robot. bobanny 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont worry if its tagged as free. βcommand 00:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I took down the warning and the robot put it back up again after I put the correct licence on it. That's why I came here. bobanny 00:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That wont happen again. βcommand 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, bobanny 01:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Image used in The Class (Erich Segal novel)
Please see Talk:The Class (Erich Segal novel) for a response to your bot's tagging of the image used on that page. I do not believe that my fair use rationale contravenes WP:NFCC as stated, and ask that you review my response and the fair use rationale given. If you yourself believe there is still a problem, I would appreciate it if you could let me know exactly what the problem is. Thanks in advance. --carelesshx talk 01:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New comments on article pages: good feature
Thanks for adding the functionality where Betacommandbot posts a note to the talk pages of articles that might loose images because of fair use claims that aren't quite up to the bot's standards. It's helpful because I don't typically watch images other people upload, but I may watch the article they're used in. I'm not a fan of the bot, but if it must run this will help maximize the number of humans who investigate and maximize the number of images brought up to fair use standards instead of being deleted. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your second Rfa was unsucessful
Hullo, Betacommand.

I am a non-sysop, non-bureaucrat, but I have closed your Rfa as unsuccessful since a bureaucrat did not get to close it at the time. If you are concerned with this, please contact me on my talk page. Regards, -- Hirohisat Kiwi 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. - Warthog Demon  06:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential crisis...
Hello Betacommand. A quick question for you with your wealth of WP:FU knowledge. Over at Wikproject Cricket a discussion is starting over the fair use of Image:Leicestershire logo.jpg. It appears to be used all over the place (about thirty or so articles) and I would think it would only qualify for fair us in the Leicestershire article itself. This would mean it would be necessary to remove it from all other articles which currently use it. Is that how you'd see it? If so I reckon the project has got a headache because as you may see from articles like 2004 English cricket season, the county logos are being used all over the place... I'd really appreciate your opinion on this so I can try to push the project to do something about it. Cheers. The Rambling Man 07:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * its Non-free image abuse, like you said it should only be used on one page. thirty... that is just abuse. βcommand 12:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stamp image.
The bot is saying that I have given no boiler-plate template or any other kind of fair use rationale when I in fact have. Can someone stop the bot from deleting the image? Fennessy 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the image was Image:Irish st Patricks battalion stamp.jpg, it has no rationale. See WP:FURG. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the image of this stamp was being used to illustrate the stamp itself and not the thing illustrated on the stamp, just as the "stamp" template explains, it is probable that Fennessy assumed that the stamp template was sufficent. Crypticfirefly 01:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you didnt give me a specific image all I can say is make sure it meets WP:NFCC and WP:NFURG. βcommand 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the bot doesn't delete the images, it just tags them. --Naha|(talk) 00:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:PLTSlogo.gif
This image is the logo for for the higher educational institution Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. According to Wikipedia's Non-free Content Policy:
 * Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.
 * Team and corporate logos: For identification.

Accordinging to Wikipedia's Guidelines for Logos


 * Logos should be presumed to be trademarks and/or copyrighted.
 * Duely note by fair use rationale


 * Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something.
 * This is not done on the sole page this image is used at; it is used as a part of the institutions infobox in accordance with the guidelines of WikiProject Universities.


 * Logos should not generally be used in contexts which are, taken as a whole, strongly negative...Within the article, the real logo should generally be used near the introductory paragraph, adjacent to text which is simply descriptive and which presents a clearly neutral point of view. People tend to recognize logos quickly, so a placement at the start helps the logo to do its job and confirm that people have arrived at the right article. This does not mean that we should censor the article - only that we place the logo near neutral text, not in the middle of long negative passages.
 * The image is used as a part of NPOV article on the subject which the logo represents. It has been placed in the infobox at the top of the article per instructions from the relevant wikiproject; it has not been modified in any way.


 * Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence.
 * This logo is the official logo of the concerned institution and taken directly from thier website; it has not been modified in any way.

When uploading a copyrighted logo, whether current or historical, include the non-free logo template message in the image description
 * This has been done.


 * Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the logo owner's own website should be OK to use, because it represents their wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions.
 * This logo was taken from the owner website without modification of any sort.


 * Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented.
 * This is the current logo.


 * Special care should be taken when using the logo of an encyclopedia or other reference work in a Wikipedia article.
 * Not applicable to this instance.


 * It is not necessary to seek formal permission from the owner in advance of using their logo, so long as the usage is fair use, does not create any impression that the logo is associated with or endorses Wikipedia or the article it appears in, and does not create any reasonable grounds for complaint by the owner.
 * This has been done through the inclusion of the non-free image template and the fair use rationale.


 * In the event that the owner objects to the use made of a logo, the suggested action is for the owner to remove the logo themselves, and identify themselves and their reasons for removing it on the associated talk page.
 * There have been no such objections raised.


 * In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo. This does not mean, however, that one person may veto a consensus on the use of the logo, unless that person is the owner of the logo.
 * This has been done through the inclusion of the non-free image template and the fair use rationale.


 * When a logo is removed because of an objection on the part of the owner, no attempt should be made to re-insert the logo (except perhaps under very extraordinary circumstances, and only after extensive discussion). The other provisions of this policy are intended to cover ordinary, common-sense usage. When the circumstances are unusual and the use of the logo is in dispute, this policy should not be cited as weighing on the side of inclusion.
 * This is not applicable.


 * Logos that contain slogans should be omitted in favour of equivalent logos that do not.
 * This logo does not contain a slogan.

Given the above, there is no reason why this image should be listed (again) for speedy deletion or for stating that, "there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid."

jackturner3 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That image does not have a valid rationale please see WP:NFCC βcommand 14:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it because the article(s) in which it can be used weren't specified? If so, I think it should be okay now.  The Rambling Man 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If that was all that was wrong, I would have gladly fixed that without all the trouble above. It would be better if the bot would tell a person specifically what policy is violated so that it can be corrected rather than something to the effect of "this image violates one of Wikipedia's many policies" and then leaving the "weekend warriors" like myself to take a stab at what is wrong. -- jackturner3 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the message was made clearer shortly after that tag run. βcommand 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your bot, again :P
Hi there, first let me make it clear that this is not a venting of displeasure against the bot ("THE" bot :D) that you operate. While I absolutely support the work it does, I do have some gripes with the messages it leaves. By leaving a templated message such as one that says "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10" is extrememly unhelpful. Instead, it should leave specific messages. As far as my knowledge goes, the bot operates by checking presence of certain words and templates. It would be greatly helpful if the message left by the bot included which check did the image fail. I know this might give evaders a chance to fool the bot, but it will also be immensely helpful for those who aim to write proper rationale, and any omission was by mistake. Because I have seen certain images where everything looks fine but the bot still has tagged it. Thank you. --soum talk 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry there was no direct link to WP:NFCC until yesterday, and that is what they violate. βcommand 12:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I meant which of the three is violated? Take, for example, Image:TweakUI.png. It is not very clear which one of the three is violated. --soum talk 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That image listed an improper page for use, Ive fixed that, and its NFCC #10c is what triggered the bot. βcommand 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is very hard to spot such mistakes. It would be very helpful if the bot can point out the mistake (simple message like "The articles the image is used in is not mentioned in the image description page") can help a long way in fixing the problems. Thanks, anyways. --soum talk 14:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a good example. I'm having a very tough time figuring out what the bot is complaining about with regard to images. I deleted the message but it retagged a day later. Can you tell me what it wants jbolden1517Talk 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you tell me which image, I can help. βcommand 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

666 Satan
your bot recently tagged one of my images claiming that that my rational was not valid, Image:Mishima Kagesuge(666Satan).jpg is the image, and i was wanting a sentient person to review this prior to making my decision on what to do about it... thanks,  Ancientanubis ,  talk  Editor Review 16:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem, which was WP:NFCCc. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand/Commons
Beta, has the above function been approved yet? I just got a heads-up on some gay pornstar images that need to go to the Commons, and I really don't want them in my Commons upload log. Sounds like a perfect job for a bot. :) Videmus Omnia Talk  17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just tag them and they will will appear on commons. βcommand 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. The helper script seems not to be working for me, should I get a button in the toolbox? Videmus Omnia Talk  17:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I figured it out - you have to hit 'edit'. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use template tagging
Tagging images saying that they have faulty fair use rationale templates by automated bot messages is not reasonable. if you ask someone to improve the contents of the fair use rationale template then you have to specify what is faulty in the rationale, so that it can be improved. If the uploader of an image gets no clue on what the problem is (and referring back to the guideline page is not helping, in he case of the images I've uploaded, added fair use rationales to, i cannot see clearly where the problem is still). --Soman 06:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur - switch the bloody thing off Albatross2147 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the messages the bot left on your talk page. The bot's tags clearly said it was a WP:NFCC problem, which you fixed by adding the name of the article. It looks like you understood the message, or was there another problem? Videmus Omnia Talk  13:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

dino size followup
Hello, Betacommand; We're very happy with the functionality of the bot for the size task. Is there anything special we need to do, besides link the size page to it? Thank you! J. Spencer 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Betacommand;
 * When you get some time, could you have the bot substitute Template:GA-icon for Template:GA-inline, as the latter no longer displays, and perhaps also Template:FA-star for Template:FA-inline, in case the same thing happens with that template. Thanks again! J. Spencer 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Happy Slip Logo.JPG (copied from here)
I had posted to the image page six different detailed fair use reasons to use this image in Happyslip. BetacommandBot posted on that page that the fair use rationale is disputed because of Bad rationale and then threatened to delete that image if I do not some how address BetacommandBot's concerns. In view of my previously posted six different detailed fair use reasons, BetacommandBot needed to articulate a better reason than Bad rationale. BetacommandBot's poor reasoning plus BetacommandBot's threat raise serious concerns about BetacommandBot's abilities. Please review the matter, take the appropriate steps to make corrections, and let me know the progress of this. I also have serious concerns about the deletion of others post on the BetacommandBot talk page, effectively hiding the concerns other have raised about BetacommandBot's efforts. Please look into this. Thank you. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 05:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Im hiding nothing and all conversations are moved to my talkpage and archived from there, If you note Image:Happy Slip Logo.JPG is not used on Happyslip. per WP:NFCC the current rationale is invalid βcommand 05:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If the bot had noted that Image:Happy Slip Logo.JPG was not used on Happyslip, I could have easily determined the problem (someone move the Happyslip article and made it a redirect after I uploaded the image). --  Jreferee  (Talk) 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, that "someone" was me. Sorry causing all this trouble!  :D    Ichormosquito 05:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Certain public domain images and moving images to Commons
Betacommand, I have a question related to your bot and its activities in moving images to Commons. I don't know if you are running it yet, but I think it may still be relevant. There are some works that are in the public domain in the United States, but are not in the public domain in the country in which they were originally published. An example of one template based on this principle is PD-US-1923-abroad. There may be others. Copyright law is, of course, confusing, and editors, or even experienced administrators, may see the "PD" symbol and automatically think that the image may be moved to Commons. My question, then, is: If I created a "tracking" template for the sole purpose of automatically generating a list of such images (akin to the template Non-free media and its function for non-free media), would you program your bot to recognize when an image should not be transferred to Commons, and then decline the transfer? Thank you, Iamunknown 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ill add that function as soon as you get it going. βcommand 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Olympic athletes
You seem to have tagged Stefan Drews as speedy A7, but all Olympic athletes are apparently notable, so I removed the tag. (I agree its a very poor quality article at present)DGG (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New comment
One problem, "Bot" is another one of the vigilante types who show up regularly at Wikipedia. It is giving a personal opinion and asserts "it" will delete the image based on "its" interpretation. That is unacceptable bullshit and is extremely irksome to people who make substantial and real contributions to Wikipedia. Handicapper 12:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Word, Exactly. —  j acĸrм  ( talk  |   sign  ) 12:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, the image in question does not have a fair-use rationale, so maybe the bot is right and the image should be deleted, per WP:NONFREE. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Too bad you are blind. Handicapper 17:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot is not a "vigilante". It has been approved for this task and is doing the job as designed. Also, the bot does not delete anything, it only tags images that are in violation of policy. Videmus Omnia Talk  13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and the "Bot" does things all by its self. Handicapper 17:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The image does not have a fair use rationale, read the necessery policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Leicester City logo
Can you please explain why you put a tag on the Leicester City logo. A fair use rationale was already provided. Rather than just tell me to check a page, why don't you tell me why you think it's not fair use. If you can't, or a least the person who runs this Bot cannot, I then the image stays. I have provided what I think is a fair use image, if you have a problem with it tell me the exact problem, not just a vague message. JimmyMac82 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As the message said before you deleted it, the rationale did not address WP:NFCCc, in that it did not specify the article in which the image was to be used. I fixed it for you, but next time please read the policy linked in the message before assuming the message is incorrect. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fix your bot
If you are doing a beta trial of your commandBot, then it has bugs in it. A valid fair use rationale has been given for both of these pictures. Perhaps your bot is not finding the statements that any human being can see. Please fix your bugs.

Image:Water SA.jpg gives the following fair use rationale: Fair use; Journal Cover url=http://www.ajol.info/journal_index.php?jid=28&tran=0&ab=0 Non-free magazine cover The image is only used in the article about the Journal Water SA. Water_SA

Image:MAAREC logo.gif gives the following fair use rationale: Licensing=Fair use of an organization's logo The image is only used in the article about MAAREC Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium

Please fix the bug.Kgrr 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the problem is not with the bot, but with the rationales, which are woefully incomplete. Please see WP:FURG for the required elements. It's not enough to simply add the copyright tag and a statement that this is "fair use". The copyright tags even instruct the uploader to add a detailed fair use rationale. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have followed the directions to the last dotted i and crossed t when uploading images. It's fair use to use the logo when writing an article about the organization.   How much more detail do you need???


 * Hello, Betacommand, I feel that your bot is acting up as well. It is currently tagging the images of articles that have a decent (or I would say good) fair-use rationale for its images, ones with fair-use rationales that are not as short as I've seen of some fair-use rationales, and some of the ones that your bot has been tagging give the right information. If you feel that there is no problem with your bot, then you could look at some of my edits where I have countered your bot and see what you feel about those instances, of course. See you around. Flyer22 05:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki message
Hello, I'm Vinhtantran, a sysop from Wikipedia Vietnamese, I'd like to know how can we know what MediaWiki messages the current page's having? I want to create a new language page (for Upload page) but there are so many MediaWiki messages that I'm afraid it will float the Recent changes page if I use my bot with my username (to change MediaWiki namespace). Have you got any ideas? Or can you forward it to anyone who may concern? You could reply at my talk page from my signature, as I check it very often. Best regards. Vinhtantran 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot help you, but you might try WP:VPT βcommand 03:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NFCC for Partsandlaborgroundswell.jpg
Hi, your bot tagged this image for not having a correct fair use tag. I have updated the fair use rationale to include all information I can muster in order to prevent its deletion. Could you please take a look at the image (which is used in the article Groundswell (Parts & Labor album)) and tell me whether it now complies with any and all regulations regarding fair use? Chubbles 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, once the old revision is deleted. I marked the image as reviewed. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why your bot tagged this image.
What is the problem with the rationale that led your bot to do ? —David Levy 05:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The name of the article in which the image was to be used (per WP:NFCCc) had apparently changed (Cho Seung-Hui vs. Seung-Hui Cho). I don't know if the article was moved or what, but apparently nobody fixed the rationale. I took care of it. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed your edit. Thank you!
 * Betacommand, can you please modify your bot to check for redirects? And why doesn't it specify the exact problem that it detects?  —David Levy 05:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCCc is pretty specific - the rationale needs to specify article usage. No exceptions are included in the policy for redirect pages. Videmus Omnia Talk  06:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I overlooked the "c" (so please disregard the struck question).
 * I realize that the rationale must specify the correct article title, but it would be very helpful if the bot could update redirects resulting from page moves. —David Levy 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably easier for a human to do it - I don't know how a bot could determine if the image was on a different article from which the rationale was written due to a page move, or someone just putting the image in a place where it doesn't belong. Videmus Omnia Talk  06:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The bot could simply check the links contained within the rationale. (I'm not even asking that it check for non-linked redirect titles.)  If one of them is a redirect to the article containing the image, it would then update it accordingly.  —David Levy 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah - yes, I agree that would be an improvement. Sorry for misunderstanding. Videmus Omnia Talk  07:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. :-)  —David Levy 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Illegal Alien -- again
OK, I haven't been around Wikipedia very long (less than a year of active editing), and I don't know all the history of the place and I certainly don't read the policy discussions (bo-ring...). So is this policy your bot is enforcing a new one? Or an old one that somebody decided needed enforcing? Yeah, yeah, I'm whining ... but if I write according to accepted practice (most of the novel articles I have looked at include a photo of the cover, there is a specific slot in the "infobox Book" template for a JPG image of the cover!) then why am I getting tagged? I have to conclude this is some new policy.

What, precisely, is unclear about the following text in the "Non-free book cover" template?
 * It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers
 * to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
 * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
 * qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

The name of "the book in question" is clearly visible on said cover image.

Ohhhh... I have to provide license information AND a fair-use rationale? What I quoted from the "Non-free book cover" template is not sufficient?

Can you point me to an example of an image that IS properly set up under these new rules? Much easier to copy known good work than to wade through all the policies. If I wanted to wade through great masses of verbiage, I would start a business in California (said masses of must-comply verbiage being one big reason why a lot of businesses are leaving California).

Thanks! — SWWrightTalk 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What? I gotta have a rationale for EACH USE?  What happens if somebody else uses the image in their article, I gotta go hunt it down and add a rationale or the image gets deleted from MY article too?  Please tell me I am misunderstanding the situation! — SWWrightTalk 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. The image should just be removed from its unauthorized usage, not deleted entirely. I believe the tag states or removed from some usages. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious ... did you start this bot up recently? When I was here before, there wasn't much on this page.  Now it must take you a half hour a day just to wade through all this stuff... — SWWrightTalk 05:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fair use rationale added. Got any MORE nits to pick? — SWWrightTalk 06:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops ... now that I'm all done, I just noticed that this time your bot added a comment on the talk page for the article Illegal Alien (novel). Had I read that at the start, I would not have ranted so much.  But you are getting a glimpse of what this whole process looks like to a fairly new Wikipedian.  There's only so much you can do, but this sort of stuff is going to chase people away from Wikipedia. — SWWrightTalk 06:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Whidbey News Times Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Whidbey News Times Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * what part of "	fair use, newspaper logo http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/ (c) copyright 2007 Whidbey News Times Will be used only in article about Whidbey News Times" does your bot not understand. I'm really getting sick of your "Beta" command bot.  If this is BETA software, I don't appreciate getting tested on.  This is the last time I'm putting up with your defective bot.  Quit running your defective bot and please fix it before upsetting more people. Kgrr 07:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To actually stick up for this bot, your image was not at all in fair use qualifications. It's directly from the COPYRIGHTED website, and you do not provide a detailed enough rational. I'm afraid his bot is correct, and you should calm down before you start a heated argument before you get yourself blocked. -- Tommy Boy ♪   ♪  07:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "It's directly from the COPYRIGHTED website." Tommy, fair-use only ablies to copyrighted material, objecting to fair use on that ground is makes no sense. The Merciful 08:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beetlejuice soundtrack.jpg
I've looked at the fair-use rationale for this image (which your bot tagged as being non-compliant with), and don't understand what the problem is. Can you explain as a person what needs to be done for this image to be compliant with WP policy? Cheers, Murderbike 08:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The link given leads to WP:NFCC, which states that the fair use rationale must state where the image is being used, so that inappropriate uses without rationales can be detected. I have added a link to this image, but you may wish to go through your upload log to see if there are other images missing a link to the article they're being used in.  Feel free to contact me if you have further questions regarding our non-free content criteria. --Pekaje 10:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot blew a gasket again
I took this photograph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Meusoc86.gif It is my pistol, US Government property marked and built completely to Spec. I took a photograph of this pistol to illustrate an article. I released it to the public domain. Tell me what I need to add to it in 50 words or less. Thank You.--Mike Searson 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just remove the rationale (which someone else has already done). No rationales needed for free images. Actually this image belongs on the Commons. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Query (refer to owner; detailed response, please)
What do you challenge is invalid with the fair use rational in, let say, this logo? El_C 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It did not specify the article in which the image was to be used, per WP:NFCCc. I fixed this, please see the change I made to the image. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Whidbey News Times Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Whidbey News Times Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * what part of "	fair use, newspaper logo http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/ (c) copyright 2007 Whidbey News Times Will be used only in article about Whidbey News Times" does your bot not understand. I'm really getting sick of your "Beta" command bot.  This is the last time I'm putting up with your defective bot.  Quit running your defective bot and please fix it before upsetting more people. Kgrr 07:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about you follow the link stated in the dispute template? It explains exactly what needs to be done, and it takes a lot less time to fix this than it does to complain on the bot talk page.  I fixed this one for now. --Pekaje 07:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Walsh (Rugby League Footballer)
Bot gone wrong again, please address. Londo06 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you just shouldn't have tagged Image:JoeWalshQuins.jpg (which I'm assuming is the problem) with non-free promotional, since it has an OTRS verified permission. I've removed the wrong tags. --Pekaje 07:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Monster.png
the rational i provided for Monster.png is perfectly fine? (Jacksack 07:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
 * It looks alright, but there is a lot of fair use images in side the article. I suggest cutting down on a few. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:ChoSeungHuiNBC1.jpg
A invalid rationale tag has been placed on Image:ChoSeungHuiNBC1.jpg image page with the rationale for deletion stated as WP:NFCC. Under 10(c), a rationale must be provided for each article that includes the image. However, a rationale already appears on the image page for the image, and the image is used in one article only -- the Seung-hui Cho article. So, it is unclear as to the reason for tagging the article or what other information is required to comply with WP:NFCC. Could you provide additional information about what else is required beyond the rationale and the one reference to the article to resolve this issue?  → Lwalt ♦ talk 09:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem was that the bot did not recognize the link, because it was a redirect. It should probably be rewritten to automatically update these links, so the fair use rationale remains valid.  Or at least learn to follow redirects.  Anyway, the specific image has been fixed now. --Pekaje 09:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free?
The image Image:WorldWiki.PNG is free, though orphaned to be deleted. Of course it's orphaned but it is a free image. I made took the screenshot of my own work. It is free. Coaster geekperson  04  14:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The image has a license tag indicating it's copyrighted. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * and because it uses their logo its copyrighted, and non-free. βcommand 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Their? I think what he is saying is that he owns the site, infact if you go there you can tell he owns it. It is his logo. 67.169.127.93 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown of non-free and public domain content by image-licensing template
Hello: Anything further on the breakdown of that approximately 170,000 images considered NFC without use rationale, according to image licensing template? If you're too busy, I'll be willing to request someone else to handle it. Please let me know. Thanks. ... Kenosis 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * part 1 βcommand 14:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, BC. That's a superb start towards getting a handle on what the usages presently are. Is this a running tab that is, or can be, updated periodically so as to discern usage trends over time, or a one-time search of template usages? ... Kenosis 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gulagbook cover.JPG
Non-free book cover Does this explaination no longer hold? I thought the tag was in the right spot for the image to be legal. Does this no longer reflect policy on what can and can not be added? Please explain.

LoveMonkey 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NFURG βcommand 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your bot, again.
It seems that your bot is malfunctioning again. I self-reverted myself a week and a half or so ago for a comment about this problem because another admin completely reverted the edits and I assumed you would fix the problems with it. However, you are once again mass-tagging at a rate that can't possibly be human checked with what are *obviously* spurious tags. What kind of criteria, exactly, are you using for your tagging? Your comments about "Violates NFC#10" are not nearly helpful nor specific enough. Are you just searching for if the articles that an image are used in are wikilinked in the description, and then assuming that if it isn't, there must be no rationale for use? This is an extremely shaky criterion to use, as I fully expect that if any of these images should be deleted, it's due to other problems. This only punishes people who didn't wikilink the article, or even worse, wikilinked a redirect (which your bot is also catching). Although maybe my theory is wrong.

Anyway, a quick check of your edits seems to show a great majority of them to be spurious. What, pray tell, is the problem with Image:Estrella Roja Fútbol Club.jpg, Image:Suikogaidenvol2box.jpg, or Image:Joefrench.jpg? All of these have valid FU rationales, and the only commonality is they either simply forgot the wikilink (which is... not even a requirement, really, and in the case of the Suikogaiden cover, it does in fact link to where the article used to be; it's just that the article moved, and that's now a redirect). SnowFire 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Estrella Roja Fútbol Club.jpg and Image:Suikogaidenvol2box.jpg did not specify the correct name of the articles in which the images were to be used (though in the case of the latter it apparently was a character problem, which I fixed.) Image:Joefrench.jpg had the same issue, but it has a more important problem re WP:NFCC, in that it is replaceable with a free image of Air Chief Marshall French. Anyway, the bot is not malfunctioning, it is performing exactly as designed and approved. Per WP:NFCCc, the articles in which the image is to be used have to be specified. This does not have to be wikilinked, just specified in the rationale. Videmus Omnia  Talk  05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is a bug; see RockMFR's complaints below. Missing the fact that the link is a redirect to the proper article is a *serious* problem.  As an example, this will break horribly with images on merged lists where the image refers to the old article.  Even worse, links to a redirect are actually better in such cases, because they may have an anchor to head directly to the section that they're used, and also don't need to be modified if the article is spun out on its own again.


 * As for Joe French, I assumed he was dead and didn't look closer. If it's RFU, then fine, though the problem was totally unrelated to what the Bot flagged.  More generally...  I strongly disagree with the way this is being gone about.  It punishes uploaders with less than perfect English, and moreover, most of these images should not in fact be deleted but have easily fixable problems (or their problems are wholly unrelated to the criteria for tagging).  Might I suggest tagging these images with a new category along the lines of "Images whose NFC#10 compliance is unsure?"  Then a *human* can actually assess these images and decide whether the problem is fixable or not. SnowFire 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect links
Hello. I've blocked the bot so I can hopefully get you to implement a bugfix involving redirects. I'm aware that WP:NFCC says that the article name needs to be in the rationale, but why can't the bot also check for redirects to pages that are using the image? This bugfix would prevent the bot from tagging images such as Image:Brigham Young University-Idaho medallion logo.png and Image:Cho Seung-hui NBC.jpg (which may or may not fail other criteria). These articles do contain the name of the article that they were used in at the time of upload, but the articles were moved elsewhere (in the first case, it's just a hyphen/endash flip). Not checking redirects to articles probably results in many "false positives". --- RockMFR 05:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, on a completely unrelated note - your bot's userpage says that the bot will stop if someone edits this page, but that doesn't seem to be the case (hence why I had to block rather than just edit here). You might want to fix your bot's behavior or remove that bit on the userpage. --- RockMFR 05:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to strongly second the notion of permanently shutting down this bot until this obvious bug of not following redirects is fixed. If there is an obvious work for a bot to do, it would to fix the redirect links, not to flag an image for deletion. One could argue that the wiki itself should fix any links when an article is moved. Sdenny123 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:NDA1.JPG
Is this okay now, I added a fair use rationale. Do I remove the warning or do you do it? Douglasnicol 13:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * go ahead and remove it βcommand 13:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Edmonton Journal.jpeg
I added a fair use rationale to Image:Edmonton Journal.jpeg: if you have a chance, could you check to make sure I have done so correctly? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked and agreed, so the template has been removed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your bot is destructive and wrongheaded.
Please see my note at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- BTfromLA 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:VPRF approval
I was originally approved for VandalProof under my former username Cchan199206, and I'd like to get back to using the tool. I changed my entry on User:AmiDaniel/VP/L2 from Cchan199206 to Crazytales, but now VP is throwing an erro rthat says the user list is corrupt, and to contact a moderator to have it repaired. &mdash;Crazytales talk/desk 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image for You Really Got Me
I disagree with the message placed at Image:Kinksgotme.jpg claiming that there is something deficient or invalid about my Fair Use Rationale. It conforms with everything Wikipedia requests for cover art for a musical recording. Can you revisit this please? Grimhim 09:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not listing the correct page it is being used in. Unlike other complaints, this is not because of a redirect.  Just specify where it's being used, and verify that the rationale is valid for the article it's being used in. --Pekaje 09:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, the image was deleted from the page at some point. I've reinstated the image on the You Really Got Me page and the FUR looks fine. Grimhim 09:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But you forgot to handle the actual problem, which was that the rationale didn't specify (in a machine-readable format) in what article it was being used. I fixed it for now.  However, it has no rationale for The Kinks (album), and it doesn't seem like a solid rationale can be made for it (alternative covers are generally discouraged), so it should be removed from that article. --Pekaje 09:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing at WikiProject Albums that supports your statement that alternative covers are "generally discouraged". Grimhim 10:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I saw this discussed at FUR (or maybe it was IFD) one time, and the reason is that some releases have a considerable number of alternative covers, and it was disproportionate to the rest of the article. It's probably in order to conform to WP:NFCC, which requires only a bare minimum of non-free content.  That being said, there can be a good reason to include alternative covers if there is some significance to the alternative, which is discussed in the article. --Pekaje 10:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, the cover image for You Really Got Me appears to be the cover for a US release of a Kinks album rather than the single anyway, which may explain why it was at some point deleted from the article on the song itself. I have altered the FUR accordingly. I have no strong feeling about the image. If you think it shouldn't be used as an illo for the song because of WP:NFCC, then feel free to remove it. Grimhim 12:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to make a big deal about it, if that's what you're asking. It's not blatantly excessive use, so I'm not going to do anything more about it.  At least we got the criterion 10(c) problem fixed. --Pekaje 16:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:AOV XXX Action Clips.jpg
A invalid rationale tag has been placed on Image:AOV XXX Action Clips.jpg image page with the rationale for deletion stated as WP:NFCC. Under 10(c), a rationale must be provided for each article that includes the image. However, a rationale already appears on the image page for the image, and the image is used in one article only -- the XXX Action Clips Channel article. So, it is unclear as to the reason for tagging the article or what other information is required to comply with WP:NFCC. Could you provide additional information about what else is required beyond the rationale and the one reference to the article to resolve this issue?HeMan5 18:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like you fixed the problem already, is your question answered? Videmus Omnia Talk  19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale? What rationale?
I noticed that BetacommandBot tagged these images as having an "invalid rationale per WP:NFCC", when the actual problem is that they had no fair use rationale at all. Now, one might argue that this makes little difference in the end, since the outcome will be the same anyway, but the inaccurate description surely won't help users understand why their image has been tagged for deletion. If I'm not mistaken, your bot used to be able to detect and tag images with missing rationales before: would it be too much trouble to make sure that the missing rationale check takes priority over the WP:NFCC check? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale issue
Can you verify that Image:Parrsboro logo.jpg has the proper rationale added?  Andrew 6 47 00:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Videmus Omnia Talk  00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Im mrsnash.jpg
In addition to the redirect concern, the bot also disputed rationales if they did not link to instances in userspace (e.g. User:Bocajpj/inge morath). Userspace use of non-free content is a separate issue, so the script should be adjusted to ignore all usage outside of mainspace. I've removed all instances of Morath's work in userspace. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as theb image page has the name of one use it will not be tagged. and Ive been working on the redirect issue (I thought I had that fixed before). βcommand 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Does the bot recognize links included in the copyright tag itself, as in ? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * for NFCC#10c tagging, as long as when you hit the edit button the name of a use is listed in that text it shouldnt get tagged. That does not exempt it from not having a rationale, (IE no non-free rationale or less than 20 characters of text other than templates) your fair use in still needs a rationale. βcommand 00:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. Turns out this one was a redirect issue after all, Inge Morath vs. Inge Mörath. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

user:Betacommand/Commons
Can you add CO to the page? Wikihermit --renamed--> CO. Thanks.  CO 2 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do it and endorse you. Videmus Omnia Talk  01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Heartland XV image
I noticed your bot left a message indicating that Image:Heartland XV logo.png required a fair use rationale and was orphaned. The bot was correct in that it had no fair use rationale, but did not pick up that it actually was being used in an article — New Zealand Heartland XV. I added the fair use rationale. Just wanted to notify you that the image problems being reported might have caused some problems with your bot. — Dale Arnett 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Error
Some images are being used in articles but for some reason not showing up in the File links part. This is not due to the image being removed or other, simply, there is a bug in wikipedia currently. Your bot has tagged 6 images that I have uploaded as being orphaned, when, in fact, they are being used and have been rationaled correctly and have not been removed from the article by vandalism or other. In some cases the image has been in place for almost a year. Perhaps this bug should be fixed before wholesale tagging takes place? — Bob 08:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ill take this to the devs. βcommand 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Lakeside School
It would be nice if the Bot put a warning. As Lakeside school built the Lakeside School wiki entry and fully approves the use of the Crest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.85.128 (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blaine1.gif
The image is not orphaned as you said to me when you messaged me. See Blaine Allen. - Redhead911
 * What are you talking about? It's not only orphaned, but also a duplicate of Image:BlaineAllen1.gif, but is also missing a fair use rationale.  I'll tag one for immediate deletion (duplicate), and if you don't add a rationale to the other one soon, that one will get tagged too. --Pekaje 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify that, Blaine1.gif does not link to the Flash article, Image:BlaineAllen1.gif does. Wikipedia doesn't need two copies of the same picture. --Naha|(talk) 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. I must have uploaded that image again by accident. Go ahead and delete it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. - Redhead911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead911 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to the operator
I have uploaded about 100 images for films from imdb and amg. I don't have a bot to run modifications to all their given rationales. I am no more active in films, haven't read all the new policies and have no time to do it manually or even to look up what the precise wording should be, but it should be something pretty standard. You can find them all in User:Hoverfish/Gallery. They have the same insufficient rationales, so either delete them all without warning me for each if possible, or (and I believe this would be better for Wikipedia), please modify their rationales to the satisfaction of all the new policies. I did what I did to help, at a time when such rationales as offered were acceptable. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Images
You may remove images Image:Sega data file sonic.png and Image:Sally123.png as they pages they were on have replaced them with better pictures. I am adding the fair use rational for the image Image:Sth183.jpg, so do not remove it. - Matticus333 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
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 02:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aspley High Logo
Can you please explain to me in simple English te prob with the Aspley High Logo so I can fix it if possible? I tried reading all the links tagged to it but I'm aving problems understanding it. Ta! Clonetrooperx497 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't link to either the article or the logo image, so I'm guessing it's about Image:AspleyHSlogo.png for use in Aspley State High School. The specific complaint was that it was not indicated where the image is being used, which is a requirement of our non-free content criterion 10(c).  The reason for this requirement is that valid use in one article may not be valid use in another.  However, in this case there was actually no fair use rationale at all.  This would eventually have resulted in another tagging, so I corrected it by adding a rationale.  See this for a guide to writing valid rationales. --Pekaje 10:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:Warrant for Genocide - 1897959494.jpg]]
Dear fello Wikipedian, I was away until August 15, 2007. So I did not get a chance to Tag the Image with the appropriate Copyright notice.
 * Is there a way to retrieve the image from Wiki Archives (if it's there) so I can correct my omission now?

11:43, 11 August 2007 ST47 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Warrant for Genocide - 1897959494.jpg" ‎ (I5


 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was removed from the article a while ago, and for perfectly valid reasons. Since then it has been orphaned, and was subsequently deleted as all orphaned non-free images must be.  In short, while you can ask an admin for undeletion, you really shouldn't.  The image does not appear to be needed.  Meanwhile, you should concentrate on adding a fair use rationale to Image:Cover-th-warrant-for-genocide-1897959257.jpg, which is currently missing one and will be put up for deletion if such a rationale is not added. --Pekaje 11:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

'bad rationale' at Image:%attac aus stand.JPG
I would prefer you to elaborate on your complaints about my rationale, either on the image description page itself or my own talk page. A subst'd template does me no good in addressing your concerns, whatever they may be.  Oc t  ane  [ improve me ] 18.09.07 1656 (UTC)
 * I fixed the image. βcommand 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what the problem was. (:  Oc t  ane  [ improve me ] 18.09.07 1758 (UTC)

Trusted user
May I be approved to add commons ok to (verified) free images? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Quadell, I added and endorsed you at User:Betacommand/Commons, there's also a helper monobook script. Videmus Omnia Talk  18:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * approved in the bot, Ill update the page when I get some time. βcommand 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * wait, your all ready approved :). βcommand 18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha, I found the list and saw I'm on it. :D Thanks, preemptively-retroactively! Now I'm off to try it out. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. You let me know that "Images now require commons categories Please add commons:category:NAME OF COMMONS CATEGORY . Images without categories will not be moved." Am I now doing this correctly? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
I put a proposal at User:CBM/NFCC Proposal‎. Please feel free to edit it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I ensure that my sound clips are not deleted?
I have added additional specific explanations to the image pages for the images you tagged in Talk:Music of Israel (Image:LaKahatEtYadiBeYadeh.ogg and Image:PashutVeAmiti.ogg), and also formatted the explanations using the "Non-free use rationale" template.

Now how do I assure that these images are not automatically deleted. In past instances where bots marked my contributions for deletion, I added an explanation and then deleted a template, but in this case there is no template for me to delete.

Thank you, --Ravpapa 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like you took care of it already by removing di-disputed fair use rationale βcommand 19:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested help text for categorizing
see User_talk:Betacommand/Commons and let me know what you think. This help text is about how to figure out the categories to use, it is NOT about how to actually do the syntax of tagging, you'd know best about that part. If your bot could check that at least one category added as a tag can trace lineage to Commons:Category:Topics that would be really good. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pro Evolution Soccer 2008.jpg
This image has rationale and correct tags, what is wrong? —  j acĸrм  ( talk ) 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationale was added after the bot tagged it. βcommand 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken bot
BetacommandBot. My only issue is that I did not upload that image. If you follow the link to the image, you can plainly see that I am not the one who uploaded it, nor have I edited it. In fact, until I found this warning on my talk page, I had no idea that this image even existed. I suggest you fix whatever glitch caused this in order to prevent future occurences like this, as I do not appreciate random warnings meant for other users ending up on my talk page. -- 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an error, you did upload that image see the log for the image. you uploaded it, Misza13 deleted it and a user uploaded a new image with the same name. βcommand 02:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a cooperative effort among several bot designers/code writers
Betacommand, I've started a conversation with Rich Farmbrough and Misza13 about automating the tally of template usage for image licensing tags. here and here. Both of them have responded either on my talk page or their own, so I wanted to call the conversation to your attention as it develops. I'll also leave a note on WT:NFC for now, to make those participants aware of the conversation. ... Kenosis 14:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want I can have that script update daily to a page on wikipedia, its not that big of a deal. (No one asked before about doing that) :) βcommand 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. I like the idea. I also still would like to talk further about a small group of trusted bot designers working together on this. Any further thoughts about that? ... Kenosis 16:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

THE MEDIC DROID
dlt th fckng thng jst lk th bnd pg, sngl nd lbm gt dltd STPD wkpd CNTS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSfan1223 (talk • contribs)
 * pls rvw t crtr fr spdy dltn nd nsr tht yr pgs d nt mt ny f ths. f y stll hv cmplnts, pls rtrn wth n xplntn f wht th pg s, nd why y wnt t kpt. thnks, --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Image
Hello dear!

you had deleted the image of Mirza Qalich Baig i don't know about licening in wikipedia so what I do.

--Mangrio 16:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NFURG βcommand 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Move to commons
Hello betacommand. I left a note to your Bot but someone there pointed out it'd be better to try here first. In any case, please take a look at the Bot's talk page: I think you should tweak the move to commons bot. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already done, see User:Betacommand/Commons. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image moves to Commons
Hello Mr Bot. I see the bot is now moving a lot of images to Commons. Not a bad idea but the code needs to be fined tuned. In particular, as far as I can tell, it's not adding any categories to the images created on Commons. Uncategorized images are one of the worst problems currently afflicting Commons and as one of the few admins who actually deals with the CSD:I8, I'm left to do the work myself. At the very least, the bot should tag all of these images on Commons as uncategorized. It could also make use of CommonSense which, however imperfect it may be, does find meaningful categories. I'd suggest the bot could create the images on Commons with a tailor-made "BetacommandBot has assigned categories but he may have screwed that up so please check them and remove the template once this is done". Pascal.Tesson 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Betacommand's talk page first Pascal :).  CO 2  00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Already done see WP:MTC βcommand 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Denmark Vesey House
I've removed the prod tag you added to Denmark Vesey House. It is a National Historic Landmark, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which certainly ought to meet the notability concern you raised. Now, whether it needs to be a separate article from Denmark Vesey or should be merged is another matter. But it seems to me that its notability is beyond question.

Given that I've informed you of this directly, I would hope that if you still think it should be deleted and you proceed to an AFD, you will be gracious enough to let me know on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your bot
That bot of yours, User:BetacommandBot tagged Image:Stephanie brookes.jpg wrongly. I had to fix the damned tag myself. Please fix that bot... it's out of control. --HurricanVest 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * it also did the same thing to Image:At the Show.jpg--Dan027 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A note left at User talk:BetacommandBot/Templates
I assume this page is for the bot's commons-uploading function. In the event that it is, I left a note about quirky free image copyright templates. --Iamunknown 09:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Images for Taxi (TV series)
You have tagged 2 images used in Taxi (TV series) as orphaned images, but they are being used as links within the article. If they need to displayed within the article, I will set them up that way if needed. I did not remove your tags in order to wait for your response. Please respond at my user Talk page. The images are &

--Bamadude 22:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:US Government most-wanted Iraqi playing cards.jpg
Hi. Please come and participate in. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 23:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not seem all that critical but we need to see if there is a way to avoid sending thinmgs over that are just going to get deleted... or maybe a way to have the bot move them back? ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned non-free media (Image:Weezer-Buddy Holly.ogg)
You posted on my wall concerning Image:Weezer-Buddy Holly.ogg. Feel free to delete this file because I attempted to get an audio file into an article. This attempt was unsuccessful. So please delete this file  cowbellcity45  talk  15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Pascal.Tesson 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot
Why can I not change the edit count for the bot? I am only adding it for a readers benefit. It was not intended as vandalism. And, why was I given a level three warning, when it is my first warning on Wikipedia? Dr ea my \*/ !$!  00:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One you vandalizing the page, you do not know the actual edit count. Instead you use wannabe kate which has a maximum limit of 45,000 edits. BCBot is obviously well over that number. (I have access to the correct numbers) currently its at about 418,000 edits. you were obviously ignoring my revert of your incorrect information. Editing another user's user page is normally not done except for maintenance (Image rename/deletion, template substution, or WP:CFD). You knew what you were doing so the t1,t2 were not appropriate because they assume that it was accidental. this wasnt. βcommand 01:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
If everyone is mostly satisfied with User:CBM/NFCC Proposal‎, I think we should make it live while it's still relevant. Would you be willing to support the wording as it is right now? It's been sitting untouched for a few days. I also made a mockup of an image description page at User:CBM/Sandbox. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

S495
Is it OK to have nonlicensed pictures? -- 25 September 2007 (UTC)S495
 * No βcommand 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of a LIVING person.
Pattav2 12:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Ive uploaded pictures and put it down as a 'FAIR USE OF A LIVING PERSON. And it is a fair use. So what have I done wrong? Whats wrong with that?
 * We are not allowed to use Non-free images of living people, per WP:NFCC Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created. Free photos of living people can be created. βcommand 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Image
The image i uploaded was reverted so it is currently not being used any more, and i didn't know the license but the image was the exact same as the previous one, accept i edited it in paint so i assume it had the same free license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiaburi (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your talking about. βcommand 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


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. R Delivery Bot 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Betacommandbot
Hello, I have a suggestion for your bot. When copying images to Commons, it creates a table with the "Image description page history". In the "link" column, the links are usually quite long, like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Sandpit.ogg&redirect=no&oldid=128957642. I think it's better to put them in brackets, so that they look like. Another (possibly not so easy to implement) suggestion is to recognize wikilinks in upload summaries, so that they don't look like "The spoken article for Sandpit". Conscious 07:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

9. A generic template tag is NOT a valid fair use rationale.
Why do you say this? Asking per the inclusion of the content guideline (Fair_use_rationale_guideline) you reference with your bot and this guideline's implying that templates are fine as fair use rationale. Thanks. sakaki 20:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Templates are not valid rationales. Rationales must be unique to each use of the image. βcommand 22:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, why? That is, why is a rationale template not valid/unique enough if it's specific enough for the WP guideline and filled out with the correct information in full? This guideline lists templates for use and, further, links to templates for specific types of media. sakaki 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (further clarified sakaki 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Please see WP:NFCC βcommand 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Huntington Avenue Grounds.jpg
I did not upload this image, but I'm curious how an image dated no later than 1911 can possibly be anything but public domain. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See the bottom of it says BALLPARKS © 1996-2007 by Munsey & Suppes. so they may own the copyright. βcommand 01:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How can they own a copyright on an image that's well over 90 years old? They put their little stamp on all kinds of pictures, many of which are obtainable (without that stamp) from a variety of sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Im not sure you might want to ask at Media copyright questions‎ βcommand 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the way this is normally handled is to state the source of the specific photo (which was already on the picture page) and to point out that the photo itself is pre-1923 and thus is public domain (which had not been previously stated). That should cover it for now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the copyright refers to the website itself, in general. And it's worth pointing out that most of the text material is taken directly from Lowry's book (which they do list as a source). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the web site owner means that the owner owns this particular reproduction of the image, while anyone else is free to make his or her own reproduction or the original item? The site owner would then hold the copyright only for things that were changed by the reproducer, such as pixellation. (Stefan2 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

RE:Signature
Hello. I intentionally made my signature blend into a Talk Page background to go along with my username; If you want, however, I can play around with the tone a bit and make it somewhat more visible. I've already been asked to do so (and have done so) once, though, so this next tone alteration will be something less significant. How does this look:

Old signature:  You Can '  t See Me!  New signature:  You Can '  t See Me! 

Is this okay?  You Can '  t See Me!  22:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * its still very hard to read and inappropriate for a sig. Your sig isnt there for making statements. Blending in with the page background is a BAD IDEA (tm). βcommand 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. Is this one fine? It's now darker than the background rather than brighter. This should be much more visible; then again, I could easily pick out my old signatures from the background, so you might have another opinion.  You Can '  t See Me!  23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I've changed the tone even more per another user's request. How's this?  You Can '  t See Me!  23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better. βcommand 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Thank you for remaining civil throughout this. My apologies for any trouble I may have caused with my signature. Regards,  You Can '  t See Me!  00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bright Eyes - Cassadaga.jpg and Image:Bright Eyes - Four Winds.jpg
Have had fair use rationales provided for them and as such your bot's "disputed fair use rationale" messages have been removed from these images. Thanks. sakaki 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your bot does not includes Template:deletable image-caption
I have noticed your bot adds a request for speedy in the image page, but it does not add a deletable image-caption where the image nis used. By including this tag you will help editor of related pages to be aware of the deletion request, and they may provide a fair use rationale, thus saving the image... Rjgodoy 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True the bot does not add that template, doing so with a bot is not possible, there are too many templates that break when that is added. Instead I leave a note on the articles talkpage. βcommand 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bug in bot
Image:Scarlets_badge.png was tagged by your bot as "being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in (the Llanelli Scarlets) Wikipedia article constitutes fair use." - yes there is, on the image description page it states: "I believe this image qualifies under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy, as it is the logo of a sports team, and is intended to represent the team on their page." Their page being pretty obviously (to a human reader at least) Llanelli Scarlets. AlexJ 10:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * please see WP:NFCC βcommand 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Still not tuned enough
Your bot is still tagging images that require only basic rationale as if they were disputed images requiring a complex rationale. Would it not be better A) To create a list of pages so that human editors can use their discretion, rather than tagging en mass B) To separate pages with weak rationales from those with no rationales and to past in a generic rationale that is up to Wikistandards. As it is, your bot is creating much more bad feeling than it needs to. - perfectblue 11:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Its only tagging images with zero valid rationales, Im sorry if you dont like the bot but its doing needed work. βcommand 11:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Its only tagging images with zero valid rationales"; Actually, this is the nub of my complaint. Your bot is tagging pages with short or non-standardized rationale too because it's not fine tuned enough to understand them. You say that it is tagging pages with zero valid rationale, I say that it's tagging pages with a valid rationale because the way in which it decides this still needs work. You're using a shotgun to swat a fly and are shooting up the furniture in the process.


 * For example, does your bot understand spelling mistakes, like rational V rationale, or pages where people have included a full rationale but haven't used the heading "Rationale". I've also seen pages that have been tagged when they have custom written rationale which simply appear not to use whatever keywords you are scanning for. Maybe you need to expand this list, or whatever it is that you are using.


 * You either need to tweak the code on your bot or to recruit some humans to give it human oversight. It's creating bad feeling.
 * perfectblue 11:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NFCC its clear cut and images it tags fail that. I ask you find me a image that you think it mis-tagged and I'll show you how the image has an invalid rationale βcommand 12:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be shy, give me a 10 second rundown of your code. You can't be saying that something has to be an X percentage match of WP:NFCC, can you? Seriously, what are it's criteria? - perfectblue 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about that one: User_talk:Betacommand? Looks like it fits the description... or the post below this one 67.176.255.139 03:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:NFCC"(c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item..." βcommand 23:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)