Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/OsamaKBOT 5

Sorry, I can't understand the problem. All one know ALL bots should has some problem (Even interwikisbot) My bots has a few problem and must of them has fixed. Source MUST be there. look at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 27 and Non-free content num 10-a says: "(a) Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source.". also look at Di-no source. says: "Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others." could someone tell me the problem?--OsamaK 13:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What? --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * lol, can't read it? :)--OsamaK 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like, totally, no. You need to be able to reply to queries about your bot's operation, as I already explained to you on IRC, and I'm not convinced that you can. Further, Betacommand tells me his script was intended to be used on a manually reviewed list. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? I can't see the diff between making list by hand or bot then run BC's script. It tags and tells only. no?--OsamaK 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Checking for source is impossible via bot. such checking needs to be done by hand, you are abusing my script and as the copyright holder of said script I am revoking your right to use it, you obviously have no understanding of how it works or even the understanding of the policy which you base your grounds on. βcommand 03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * mmm, impossible? did you see my bot's test? it was ok. --OsamaK 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the policy well :). but some user here maybe would not apply it. Betacommand remember.. "Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others." and "(a) Attribution of the source of the material, and of the copyright holder if different from the source." .--OsamaK 20:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the policy very well, The fact is your bot as at least a 10% rate of error. that is not good for a bot. Some sourcing is obvious if you take 10 seconds to look at the image, there are 3370 images that are from NASA the license template PD-USGov-NASA is a perfect example. the bot tags those images as not having a source, yet its clearer than daylight where the image came from. there are many other examples of how humans can label images that are not machine readable. For that reason making a bot to check for sources is not possible, while keeping the false positive hits in acceptable ranges, 1 in 10 images is not except able. βcommand 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll not check the source for images have a free licenses, screenshots or covers (My bot did not). At least in this BRFA. and I can't believe "The fact is your bot as at least a 10% rate of error." that's too many and it is not right. I have checked tagged around 1000 images at most 20 images have a wrong tag and most of them have fixed now.--OsamaK 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * by the way, I can answer user's posts about my bot. as I can speak to you!--OsamaK 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * de indent, Half the time I cannot understand what you are trying to say. and Ive seen a greater false positive rate then what would be considered no harm. your BRFA has been rejected by the community. People see the bot as very harmful. the community has spoken. βcommand 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "and Ive seen a greater false positive rate then what would be considered no harm." Could I see some examples for this "greater false positive rate". I told you " I have tagged around 1000 images at most 20 images have a wrong tag and most of them have fixed now.".--OsamaK 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)