User talk:Betacommand/20081101

recent tagging
Hey Beta. Just a quick note. There's a strange bug with your recent di tagging. The date is July 8th. I don't know if you did these by hand but if it's using a script then there's a bug with your script. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With all the brouhaha below, I'm not sure you noticed my post so I'm making sure you get another one of these lovely yellow bars just in case. :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Simpsons
Fair use is policy, non-free is an idea. Plus, Mike Godwin, legal dude for Wikimedia, says they are OK. You are trying to say the legal department of Wikimedia is wrong, I don't think so. You are jumping the gun too before the discussion here has finished. Also, don't threaten, that is considered an attack, which is against the rules. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 04:27
 * please read the policy, fair use is not policy. please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria which is policy. reporting you for violating policy is not a threat. it is following policy. βcommand 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are taking this discussion FAR too seriously. You need to take a deep breath and relax.  Fair use is policy, it is also law.  Law trumps Wikipedia policy anyday.  NFC is an idea, whether it is policy is not, I don't know.  Still, law trumps Wikipedia policy.  Godwin says that galleries of any kind are fair use, making them OK.  You are trying to make them not, by some policy of a website.  Can't happen, you can't trump law with a website's policy....you can't trump Godwin.


 * Also, threatening to report someone over an edit war, essentially, is a threat, a threat is an attack....and I took it as one. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 04:39
 * Please shut up before you make your self look even more stupid. you obviously have no clue what your talking about or even for that matter what non-free content is. please take a walk, come back and do some research, once you understand non-free content and fair use come back and we can have a discussion, until then your just making your self look like a fool and violating foundation policy. βcommand 04:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that was a personal attack. Telling someone to "shut up" and that they are "stupid" (which I have been called worse) is a lame personal attack, but a personal attack none-the-less.  Attack me again, be it lame or not, I will report you.


 * Make no mistakes, I know little about fair-use and non-free, but I know enough to know you are wrong. Mike Godwin says galleries are OK under the law and with fair-use being Wikipedia policy, they trump NFC.  Law trumps policy. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 04:47
 * Ok, law might trump policy if policy was went against the law but it does not. policy is a stricter version of the law, and by stricter I mean far stricter. please read the policy pages before attempting to dictate something to me. I made no personal attack, please re-read what I have stated, asking someone to quit talking about something that they know nothing about and are making a fool of themselves over is not a personal attack. please do your research before trying to tell me Im wrong, Ive talked with Brad Patrick and I have also worked with Mike regarding this, wikipedia policy is well within the law and does trump the law. βcommand 04:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very mistaken. Policy cannot create allowances that fall outside US law where the servers lie, but policy can resist legal content since it is the Foundation's servers that we are running WP on, thus their rules apply. That have stated that non-free content (which all fair use falls under) must be minimized, thus either we have to agree to follow that or go elsewhere.  --M ASEM  04:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the servers are in Florida, which last check was still part of the US. Also, the images in question were created by US companies (The Simpsons image by FOX from NYC and LA; television images from all over the US.  So, what exactly are you talking about? -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:05
 * Please read WP:FUEXPLAIN βcommand 05:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I clicked on it and I ain't reading all that, give it to me in an unbiased, BS-free sentence and a half. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:09
 * Not possible. Please read that explanation. βcommand 05:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Make a paragraph. Just explain it without giving me a bunch of BS and "this is policy" crap. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:13
 * read the first few sections. βcommand 05:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't give me a "short version", can you? You don't even understand it yourself and not being able to give me a "short version" shows it. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:17

Fair use is a concept that exists only in United States law. Fair use law permits the use of copyrighted works in other works without the permission of the original copyright holder under narrow circumstances. For example, parody of musical works (such as done by "Weird Al" Yankovic), and the use of copyrighted works in secondary works that conduct critical commentary on the original.

Fair use law is deliberately vague. Cases over history have given guidance on what may or may not constitute fair use. However, there is no 'bright line' test wherein one can definitively state something is fair use. Analysis is done on a case by case basis.

Some countries, in particular many within the Commonwealth of Nations, adhere to a somewhat similar concept of fair dealing.

Discussing the law in any more detail is not particularly pertinent to further discussion on Wikipedia's policies on this point. Wikipedia's policies are intentionally a superset of fair use law. Our practices are more restrictive than what the law would have us adhere to. There are important reasons for this. One of the more important reasons is there is little to be gained and much to be lost by flirting with the boundaries of the law. For the most important reason, see 'Mission of Wikipedia' below.

Wikipedia's policy that is being cited as basis is from Non-free content criteria items #3(a) and #8:
 * 3. (a) Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.
 * 8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.

The focus of both of these items of policy is to limit the use of copyrighted, fair use imagery as much as possible.

This concept was further upheld by the Wikimedia Foundation in their March 2007 resolution on the matter found at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy.


 * here you go. a sort version. βcommand 05:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ^^^That's a short version? Come on!  All images already go through #3 and #8. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:29
 * Like I said, please read the whole page, it gives a full explanation. Non-free content is not a quick read subject. I have been working with it for a long time. I glossed over a lot in that post. βcommand 05:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said a short version. You are talking to someone with a short attention span when it comes to boring crap like that. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:35
 * Then avoid non-free content. if you cannot take the time to research what your doing dont do it. βcommand 05:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be avoiding all of Wikipedia and I think I said before, I ain't going anywhere. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:38
 * Then do your research and understand the topic. otherwise you probably will end up blocked for violating the non-free content policy. βcommand 05:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is going to block me? You?  HA!  All of the images I use have been approved by many F-URs.  Again, don't threaten. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:43


 * Because the servers are in the US and under US law, fair use law applies. But the Foundation is adding an extra stipulation through the NFCC that fair use must meet certain criteria and must be minimized, thus limits how much fair use can be used.  It's the same concept as a non-compete clause; free speech is a guarantee for anyone in the US, but companies can restrict it (in this case, preventing you from describing work at the company for a period of time); as long as it is not the government doing it, it is perfectly within the bounds, and you can opt to go with what the company says or go elsewhere.  --M ASEM  05:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) ...and Mike says galleries fall under Fair Use. Fair Use is a law and policy, NFC is something we, essentially, made up.  Law trumps website policy.  Also, stop telling me to "go elsewhere", I ain't leavin'. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:17
 * The Foundataion made the statement on non-free use. That is there rules for playing on their playground.  Mike is completely correct, from a legal standpoint, the galleries are fair-use.  That means that WP should not worry about getting sued for having them in there.  But the NFCC policy is to meet the Foundation's mission of creating a free (as in thought) encyclopedia, and to burden it with excessive non-free images is not appropriate.  Thus we follow that policy to minimize its use.  We know based on what Mike said we fall in fair use, but we have been required by the Foundation to be stricter than that.  --M ASEM  05:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said on the main discussion, try explaining a television station logo with just words, no pictures. It is hard.  That requires a gallery to show the reader this is what the logo looked like the in the 60s and how it looked in the 70s, for example. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 2, 2008 @ 05:28

Dual Licensing Bot
Hi.

Bot Requirements for Dual Licensing Bot.

The bot shall scan any item in Image: namespace (which is not already on commons)

The bot shall determine if an image is under a single license

In the case of an image which is only licensed under GFDL terms (in particular those specifying a particular version): The bot shall determine the uploaders, and on the talk page of each associated uploader leave the name of the image, and a request for the uploader to dual license the image.

The template that could be used for this message is or

In the case of an image which is only licensed under CC-BY-SA terms (in particular those specifying a particular version):

The bot shall determine the uploaders, and on the talk page of each associated uploader, leave the name of image, and a request for the uploader to dual-license the image concerned.

A template syntax that could be used for this message is

For images that the bot is able to clearly determine as already being dual licensed the bot shall flag the image for transfer to Wikimedia Commons, but shall not carry out any such transfer automatically.

For images under Creative Commons Attribution or Public Domain licenses: The bot shall flag such images for transfer to Wikimedia Commons, but shall not carry out any such transfer automatically.

If multiple images by the same uploader(s) are encountered then the bot shall collate as far as reasonably or technically feasible into list form, rather than leaving a full message for each group of images so encountered.

The bot shall clearly sign any messages it leaves.

The bot shall implement a rapid shut-off facility, enabling shutdown by administrators if a fault condition is percieved to have developed.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

24 hour block
"...your a fucking dumbshit..." violates the civility condition of your editing restrictions and, also taking into consideration the general tone of the comments which contained that phrase, I have therefore enacted a 24 hour block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am only being blunt and stating the truth. Im sorry if that is offensive but it needs done. βcommand 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are on a civility parole; if you are adamant that it needed saying then I conclude that you are prepared to take the consequences. That is fair enough, and I based the tariff on the basis that you have not been sanctioned for quite a while. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that both sides, are treated equal as I was responding to someone who started the attacks. βcommand 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall be pleased to look into the matter should you raise it at the appropriate venue, but it is unlikely that there will be "equal" treatment - unless the other party is also subject to a civility restriction such as you are. If there is a violation of policy, the other party may be warned (or be commented if stale) on a scale commiserate with their recent behaviour but only blocked if it apparent that it is ongoing problematic behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you blocked me I am unable to bring it to the proper venue, that is why I am bringing it to your attention. veiled threats and obvious insults would get a reaction out of almost anyone. I made my point clear, All I am asking is treat both sides of the coin fairly, dont just ignore part of the issue. it may not be the same response but some action is needed. βcommand 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The treatment will be asymmetric in any case, since the other editor IMO was only being mildly un/in/non-civil. Nevertheless, I've left them a caution. Franamax (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI report
It occur to me that I should have promptly notified you of that thread. Sorry I didn't do so, it was discourteous of me. Franamax (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And if all that was a continuation of the endless "law trumps WP rules" argument from a few days ago - well, you have my sympathy on that. I think you often take a narrow interpretation, but that can reasonably be discussed, what I saw was complete incomprehension on the other side and it must be frustrating to deal with. However, you can (and know you can) make your points quite well in a civil fashion. Don't let yourself get badgered. Franamax (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One must be blunt, if those who are listing refuse to head kind words, for harsh words are more effective if they refuse to listen to the kinder ones. βcommand 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe one "must" be blunt if one wishes to save the wiki all by oneself. The other strategy is to calmly restate your case and wait until other editors come along to back it up - which they would, 'cause you were right. I don't personally agree with you completely on the gallery thing, I see some other sides to the argument, but you were dead-right on WP/WMF rules being the only ones that matter. It's always better to keep the high ground though, especially when you're right. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * then why do so so few state that? I see fewer and fewer users standing up for the core policies that make wikipedia. those that have in the past have either given up, or been harassed off the project. βcommand 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point and mea culpa there. I saw what was going on and I could have chimed in to say the guy was dead wrong. I suppose I didn't partly because I thought it was in hand, and partly (being honest with myself) because I see you as a hardliner and didn't want to be on that "side" - which is my failing, 'cause you ended up getting blocked over it. I'll try more in future, and it would be much easier if you were a little more moderate too, then there would be a better "together" to which we could "stick". :) Franamax (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am moderate, the thing is good usage of non-free content needs very very little defense as it speaks for its self. βcommand 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons rename bot
Dear Betacommand, Is there a reason why your rename bot has not run on Commons. According to this catalogue, there are more than 1,098 image files which require a rename of some kind. I have 2 pictures in this category but I just thought this situation was strange. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Key
You mentioned on WP:AN that a key was required, and to poke you for access, so... Please? : ) - jc37 11:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Drop me a email, with what ever you want your key to be. βcommand 14:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Feel free to pick something, and I'll just use what you pick. - jc37 23:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource
Hello,

Could you please explain why your bot tagged random pages for speedy deletion? s:Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot_AWB_drive. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * its not me, its a impostor. please block and checkuser. βcommand 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked on WS. Yann (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Block?
You are in no position to be threatening others. You threaten me again, and I might get you blocked. For the countless time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop trolling. I am making no threats. I am just giving warnings. violations of the non-free content policy will lead to a block. βcommand 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop your empty threats. You have no authority, nor stature in wikipedia, to get anyone blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content criteria rule #8
I'm not sure you're interpreting this policy correct. It states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Clearly, use of non-free content should be limited. But in the case of news personalities on television stations, visual references of said personalities increase readers' understanding of the topic. As a member of WikiProject Television Stations, I know that in order to use non-free content, there is a specific non-free use media rationale that must be used. I don't mean to cause a conflict, but I think there might be some other editors that agree with me on this. Cheers. Strafidlo (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The non-free content policy does not allow for galleries of images. βcommand 06:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were true, then all city pages would have their galleries deleted, many user pages would have their galleries deleted (including mine), most state pages would have galleries deleted. So, I think you are interpreting this incorrectly, as those galleries continue to exsist dispite NFCC. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • November 23, 2008 @ 07:27
 * Read what I was referring to, or do I need to tell this to you in chatspeak? the non-free content policy does not allow for galleries of non-free images. Im sorry if you could not understand the implied meaning of that statement, when referring to non-free content and usages of galleries. Ill need to remember that from now on I need to talk like Im speaking with a five year old, and that you dont understand nor can comprehend complex subjects, since you have repeatedly failed to take the time or to listen to the dozen or so people who have attempted to explain the non-free content policy, or use commonsense and normal judgment in reading others statements. βcommand 02:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Beta, I actually think that Neutralhomer is stubbornly refusing to listen or engage other editors about this problem. That being said, the above paragraph you just wrote is unacceptable, regardless of who's right or wrong. It's insulting and more importantly it's intentionally insulting. If you can't handle Neutralhomer calmly, just let others do it. You were blocked for this diff so piling it on is not exactly a positive move forward. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * and yet the person stalking my edits and harassing me has yet to even get a warning about this, he has been harassing me for over a year now, before being indefed, during using socks, and continues after unblock? im the one getting blocked for being blunt and stating the truth? yet my actions have 100% policy behind them and I get blocked for asking a user who has refused to engage in logical discussion to refrain from those conversations because the user has admitted that his attention span is not long enough to read the discussions. Yet no surprise as more and more trolls are getting ignored and those who react end up getting either driven from the project or harassed to the point they quit, because no one who as the ability steps in. βcommand 05:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure who you're referring to but if that user has been indef blocked then certainly he was warned. But this is beyond the point: whether you're right or wrong, you need to stop throwing insults at other editors and you need to find ways to defuse situations rather than escalate them by venting your frustration. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
Betacommand, I have blocked you once again for a period of 24 hours for violating the community-imposed restrictions on editing listed here. Specifically, I take exception to this unnecessarily hostile edit, and the fact that despite being required to gain consensus before "undertaking in any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages)", you seem to have gone removing television logos from multiple pages without even attempting to do so, as far as I can tell.

Note that I do not object to the actual task of removing the possibly non-free images from TV station articles (in fact, I have no opinion on this), but these restrictions should not be news to you, and you really should know better by now. If you believe I have made any error with my actions, please feel free to set out a case for unblocking and I will consider it on its merits. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC).
 * I have consensus, removal of non-free content abuse has had approval for several years. if you think that asking someone to not make a fool of themselves when they have admited they have no clue what they are talking about, persons own statements, is "hostile", then you need to go back and read the restrictions, being hostile was not one of them. Civil was. I have not been uncivil, just mildly harsh about stating the truth to someone who as been trolling and baiting be for several years now. βcommand 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You ought to know by now that your edits will be scrutinised closely and that you should take extra care to avoid being seen to be incivil. Also, the community-imposed restrictions clearly require you to request permission to do large volumes of edits that might be uncontroversial when carried out by others, and I do not accept your explanation for making them as sufficient.  The block has now run out, I would counsel you to be extremely careful about making such edits in the future, and I hope not to see you on AN/I again.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
Betacommand, edits like this  are clearly edit warring. Please stop immediately or you are likely to be blocked. Also, please avoid using the term "vandalism" to refer to this sort of revert. Whatever sort of edit Emarsee was making, it wasn't vandalism. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though the existing NFC is pretty clear about galleries, it would be best to stop removing these until a clear consensus can be formed about them. I don't think that the existing discussion at NFC had any clear outcome. It might be better to start another thread and then let some uninvolved editors hash it out. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Prior discussions have clearly defined the usage of non-free content in galleries. WP:FUEXPLAIN covers the topic fairly well. NFC galleries are specifically disallowed. βcommand 14:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

image rename keeps failing
He Betacommand, keeps failing to be renamed. Multiple people have tried to initiate the rename and failed. It also seems to be the only image that keeps failing. I figured you might want to figure out why BCBot cannot handle the case, before we do the move by hand. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the simple issue is that the file extensions where not the same, see what I fixed to correct that. when renaming the file extensions cannot be changed. βcommand 03:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Duh. lol --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)