Betacommand (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by Nhprman (talk) to last version by RussNelson |
what's the problem? He's registering a complaint. |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
::::::::*I think it's doing bang up job identifying images which fail WP:NFC #10c. Hundreds of thousands to date. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
::::::::*I think it's doing bang up job identifying images which fail WP:NFC #10c. Hundreds of thousands to date. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::I know that "rationale" is a precise technical term for you (which your bot does a horrible job of explaining), but to ordinary people the rationale for why you would use an album cover, properly tagged as a fair-use album cover, to illustrate an album, is completely obvious. [[WP:ACP|Avoid Copyright Paranoia]]. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::I know that "rationale" is a precise technical term for you (which your bot does a horrible job of explaining), but to ordinary people the rationale for why you would use an album cover, properly tagged as a fair-use album cover, to illustrate an album, is completely obvious. [[WP:ACP|Avoid Copyright Paranoia]]. [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
I'll take a middle ground on this debate: This bot is working perfectly, and as designed - it is eliminating all visual content from Wikipedia, based on foolhardy, biased and illegitimate interpretations of copyright law, which allows low-res images for illustration purposes, and publicity photos of public figures, for the same purpose. The warped interpretations of the Deletionist Jihadists here have made hundreds of thousands of articles barren of any visual content, other than the occassional poorly taken "snapshot" (many of which are also challenged, for some reason.) What a sad, pathetic way for admins to get a "power rush." It is very disheartening. - [[User:Nhprman|Nhprman]] 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:NFCC#10]] enforcement == |
== [[WP:NFCC#10]] enforcement == |
Revision as of 03:14, 14 February 2008
![]() |
If you are here to register a complaint regarding this bot's edits, before doing so please note:
|
I give up
Have fun deleting images and ruining wikipedia.--Jack Cox (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should consider that it is the policies that are supposedly ruining Wikipedia, since this bot is only do a) approved work and b) work that is entirely in line with policies. If you don't like our policies, work to change them. Insulting the owner of this bot will achieve nothing. Plenty of people have tried, and (no surprise) the work continues. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can understand Jack Cox's annoyance:
- The bot goes around tagging images faster than people can fix them up
- It gives a 7 day limit before deletion
- Many image issues could be fixed by the bot auto-adding the correct template (eg. all album covers follow a similar format for their free-use rationale) rather than leaving what some people perceive as threatening messages
- Unlike deleted articles, deleted images cannot be retrieved easily (if at all).
- -- Chuq (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are one bot that tags images and thousands of editors that can fix them. Some editors have fixed thousands of images the last month.
- It gives a seven day limit, but deletion is not carried out before reasonable time has gone and there seem to be little or no decrease in the unfixed images. I deleted the last images in Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008 yesterday. Editors had 30 days to fix the images in that category.
- Bots can't write rationales. Yes it can write most of what is needed in a rationale, but the purpose should be written by a human. This has been discussed at WP:BRFA and I belive such a bot was declined.
- Deleted images can be restored just as easily as any article. Rettetast (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- So none of you can understand how a new user might see all of these messages from a faceless bot and be completely overwhelmed by it? I've been here for years but it took me a bit of looking around to find the right template (which I just filled in with generic content - "Image:AlbumName cover.jpg" "fair use on AlbumName article", "use: to illustrate the AlbumName album" "portion: entire album cover" "replaceable - no, its an album cover" - this kind of stuff would be identical for all album art. -- Chuq (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm one of the new(ish) users who was intimidated by BetacommandBot messages. A "rationale" sounds like such a complicated, official sounding thing. "Be bold" went straight out the window for quite a long time, until I was faced with the removal of images from the article of one of my favourite childhood series (The Famous Five). I closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, held my breath, and dove in. Considering that the images in question still exist, I'm assuming the rationale was acceptable. However, it was upon seeing a dispute notice for the poster for The Bridge on the River Kwai, that the camel exceeded it's maximum straw capacity. As a result, for the last 2 days, I have been going through the Betacommandbot contrib list, and rescuing (yes, "rescuing", for that's how I see it) as many images as I can. I guess that Betacommandbot and I aren't going to get on. Whereabouts does the "I want a piece of the bot" line start? Johnmc (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It starts over at WT:NFC, where you can work to change the policy of Wikipedia such that fair use images are liberally allowed without justification. The bot is doing nothing more than upholding policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm one of the new(ish) users who was intimidated by BetacommandBot messages. A "rationale" sounds like such a complicated, official sounding thing. "Be bold" went straight out the window for quite a long time, until I was faced with the removal of images from the article of one of my favourite childhood series (The Famous Five). I closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, held my breath, and dove in. Considering that the images in question still exist, I'm assuming the rationale was acceptable. However, it was upon seeing a dispute notice for the poster for The Bridge on the River Kwai, that the camel exceeded it's maximum straw capacity. As a result, for the last 2 days, I have been going through the Betacommandbot contrib list, and rescuing (yes, "rescuing", for that's how I see it) as many images as I can. I guess that Betacommandbot and I aren't going to get on. Whereabouts does the "I want a piece of the bot" line start? Johnmc (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- On "Bots can't write rationales": but they can judge whether those rationales are correct and tag them for deletion? This is the false assumption. This bot enforces an unreasonably strict interpretation of 10c (saying that every fair use image has to have specific things called "rationales" that are readable by this particular bot, even when the rationale is completely obvious to a human). It's disheartening that the bot to do the constructive thing was rejected, while this destructive bot keeps on running. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can understand Jack Cox's annoyance:
- Most or all of the album covers tagged by the busybody bot BetacommandBot already have proper tags that clearly mark the album covers as fair use. This excessive tagging is not necessary or helpful and is just make-work interference. Hu (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hu your wrong, those images have copyright tags but no non-free rationale βcommand 18:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The spelling is "you're". Since you are so deeply into correcting other people, I hope you appreciate the correction. Hu (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This bot is seriously out of control. That is all. Enigma (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. It's behaving exactly as it should. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, cancer behaves exactly as it should as well. Which is how I've come to consider this bot. It's a cancer on Wikipedia, consuming images faster than they can be saved. Clayhalliwell (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's behaving stupidly. It's not recognizing when a fair use rationale has been written and might be missing a single piece of information, and gives the same generic message as if no fair use existed whatsoever. 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torc2 (talk • contribs)
- The example you cite shows the bot worked perfectly. The article on which the image is used is not mentioned in the rationale. This is required via WP:NFC #10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, the bot behaved stupidly. You don't issue a murderer and a jaywalker identical citations that just say "Bad". You give people clear ideas what exactly they have to do to fix it. It's certainly not apparent from the message exactly which part of it is wrong, or why a license that appears to have all the necessary information is insufficient. You give editors clear access to help so they don't feel lost in the machinery. This bot is garbage and its messages are useless. Torc2 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Torc2, so why dont you write a new message for the bot. βcommand 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's kind of like asking why I don't try to improve the image of the Klan. I don't agree that what it's doing is necessary or correct, or that automating this is the correct course of action. Want to make the bot seem like less of a dick? Limit the tagging to images that have no information whatsoever, cut the tag rate down to about 100 articles an hour, and space the search order out so that a single editor doesn't have ten photos tagged simultaneously. Torc2 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is a clear case where the bot had incorrect behavior, not "perfect" behavior. There was a clearly written rationale (even meeting your technical definition of 'rationale') saying that the album cover was reduced in resolution and was to be used to illustrate the album "!". It was, in fact, only used on the page ! (album), so any human could tell that the rationale was correct. The bot, however, incorrectly believed there to be no rationale. Your interpretation of policy is that we have to cater to a brainless bot that doesn't know that ! (album) refers to the album "!", or else images get deleted. If rationales can't be written by bots, then it's even more true that lack of rationales can't be detected by bots. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rspeer, the bot cannot determine the validity of a rationale. Our non-free policy requires the exact name of the article for where the image to be used in the non-free rational. that is what the bot checks for. ! and ! (album) are not the same page. a rational written for one page does not make it valid on another page. all the bot does is check for the article name, one part of a proper rationale. βcommand 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know that a bot can't determine the validity of a rationale, that's what I'm telling you. And you're being inundated with examples of correct rationales that don't include exact matches of the article name, and you dismiss them by defining them by fiat to be incorrect because a bot can't handle them. Which was the point to begin with: a bot cannot handle this task, so right now a bot is rather mishandling it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's doing bang up job identifying images which fail WP:NFC #10c. Hundreds of thousands to date. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know that a bot can't determine the validity of a rationale, that's what I'm telling you. And you're being inundated with examples of correct rationales that don't include exact matches of the article name, and you dismiss them by defining them by fiat to be incorrect because a bot can't handle them. Which was the point to begin with: a bot cannot handle this task, so right now a bot is rather mishandling it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rspeer, the bot cannot determine the validity of a rationale. Our non-free policy requires the exact name of the article for where the image to be used in the non-free rational. that is what the bot checks for. ! and ! (album) are not the same page. a rational written for one page does not make it valid on another page. all the bot does is check for the article name, one part of a proper rationale. βcommand 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Torc2, so why dont you write a new message for the bot. βcommand 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know that "rationale" is a precise technical term for you (which your bot does a horrible job of explaining), but to ordinary people the rationale for why you would use an album cover, properly tagged as a fair-use album cover, to illustrate an album, is completely obvious. Avoid Copyright Paranoia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This bot is seriously out of control. That is all. Enigma (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a middle ground on this debate: This bot is working perfectly, and as designed - it is eliminating all visual content from Wikipedia, based on foolhardy, biased and illegitimate interpretations of copyright law, which allows low-res images for illustration purposes, and publicity photos of public figures, for the same purpose. The warped interpretations of the Deletionist Jihadists here have made hundreds of thousands of articles barren of any visual content, other than the occassional poorly taken "snapshot" (many of which are also challenged, for some reason.) What a sad, pathetic way for admins to get a "power rush." It is very disheartening. - Nhprman 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#10 enforcement
bsd
i recently got your notice on Image:British Midland logo.svg and Image:BMI logo.svg, regarding WP:NFCC#10c, namely: linking the rationale to the article. what caused this, is a move to the article in question. IMHO, this is somewhat exaggerated, considering the image faces the axe, despite the fact that the uploader took the pains to add an appropriate rationale. i think there should be a lesser degree notice to images with inaccurate rationales, than to images with no rationale at all. you can draw a clear line between these two categories. --Ben Stone 07:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Out of compliance is out of compliance. Further, a bot would not readily be able to tell how "good" a rationale is. That is highly subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, Hammersoft, there is a difference between "no rationale" and "bad rationale" or "incomplete rationale". A human can tell that difference, but the bot can't. Ben Stone has accurately pinpointed the major failing of Betacommandbot, a failing that others have pointed out before and which Betacommand has done nothing to address. It wouldn't matter so much if the deleting admins managed to spot the images with incomplete rationales and fix them, but this doesn't always happen. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It becomes particularly tricky when, for example, one makes a typo in the article name or the article is moved to a new name. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The bot does a wonderful job of identifying images which are not in compliance with WP:NFC #10c. Occasionally, errors crop up which the owner addresses, usually quite rapidly. There isn't an error here. If an admin is overzealous in deleting an image, the error is with the admin, not the bot. Lay blame where it belongs. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please do not tell me how to tag images, I'm well aware of what is and what is not fair use. Also, by the looks of this comments page, I'd say you need to turn your bot off. You are clearly not helping Wikipedia, this is only causing a disturbance. Mets (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop
End the madness. Enigma (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- What madness? The bot is enforcing policy. Perhaps your comments are misdirected? Perhaps you wanted to work to change the policy instead? If that's the case, you may wish to start a discussion on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. The policy is fine. The bot isn't. There are better ways to enforce policy. Enigma (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This has been debated ad nauseum, with the overwhelming response being that yes, we do want the bot doing this work exactly as it is doing it now. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- At least fix its edit summary message, then. It's spelled wrong. Enigma (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which edit summary? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The overwhelming response here that the bot is wreaking havoc doesn't count? Where was this overwhelming response in favor of it? Last I saw this discussed on a prominent board (Administrator's Noticeboard, I think), there were hardly any people in favor of it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's been heavy debate on this before, with the result that the bot's work has continued. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I posted in 3 appropriate forums the exact issue about the destructive nature of this policy as applied by this bot and the people who use it, rather than thinking as a contributor and put in effort to fix the highlighted images or address why so many images are labelled correctly. Absolutely no discussion was forthcoming, or any precedents pointed out. MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll dig and find some, if you think it's necessary. This bot has performed more than 700,000 edits. Some common sense should come into play here. If this bot was *really* doing something that the community just can't get behind, don't you think it would have been permanently stopped long before it got to 100,000 edits much less 700,000? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't heard too many in support of it either. I think this bot does more harm than good. Its edit count doesn't prove a thing. Enigma (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It proves quite a bit. If this bot actually caused as much damage as you bot haters think it does, it would have been stopped a LONG time ago. But that's not the case. In fact, it's been operating for a very long time and has performed hundreds of thousands of edits. As for prior debates, have a look through [1]. There's tons of debates regarding this subject buried in there if you are truly interested. Despite all these debates, despite all the electrons that have been spent, despite all the keystrokes spent debating this....the bot continues to operate. Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because a) the bot owner refuses to listen to anyone, and nobody has the courage to block him or b) the bot is operating with the support of the community? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm going with A. The bot owner has refused to listen on multiple occasions and I can personally attest to this. Enigma (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- So it would follow that it would have been permanently blocked long before. Except, that's not happened. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tell you what; why don't you bring this up at WP:AN. Nevermind that it's been brought up dozens of times before, and the bot has passed muster every time. I'm sure this brand new discussion will result in the bot being shut down. So, start the discussion. Hell, you're talking to the wrong person anyways. I can't shut it down; I'm not an admin. You believe the bot owner ignores people, so he won't shut it down either. You're wasting your breath on this talk page. So, bring it up at WP:AN. When that fails to get you the response you want, you can try the next steps in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process and take it all the way to ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. I'm commenting on the Talk page and this is my opinion. I'm not bringing this up at WP:AN. Saying a bot has made hundreds of thousands of edits without being shut down proves absolutely nothing except that no one has taken the drastic step of shutting down the bot. The bot's owner has been shown to ignore people. You say you can't shut it down. Terrific. Am I talking to you? No. You keep inserting yourself into the conversation. Enigma (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well you don't think the bot owner will listen to you, and it's obvious you're not getting anywhere convincing me. Why was it you were complaining here again? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. I'm commenting on the Talk page and this is my opinion. I'm not bringing this up at WP:AN. Saying a bot has made hundreds of thousands of edits without being shut down proves absolutely nothing except that no one has taken the drastic step of shutting down the bot. The bot's owner has been shown to ignore people. You say you can't shut it down. Terrific. Am I talking to you? No. You keep inserting yourself into the conversation. Enigma (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't heard too many in support of it either. I think this bot does more harm than good. Its edit count doesn't prove a thing. Enigma (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've watched those AN discussions. They don't show the overwhelming support for the bot that you're claiming. Also, I know exactly why the bot gets unblocked each time. It seems that the only way to get Betacommand to listen to people is to block his bot, but we can't because RfC stops working when we do. By writing a monolithic bot without releasing the source code, Betacommand wields power over even admins. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well then I'm sure it will be a trivial thing to get the bot shut down. Let me know how it goes. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- My intent was never to convince you of anything because I know you'd never be convinced. My comments are not directed at you. Enigma (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- If they're not directed at me, and you know the bot owner won't listen to you...why are you posting on this talk page? I'm quite confused. Who is your intended audience here? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've watched those AN discussions. They don't show the overwhelming support for the bot that you're claiming. Also, I know exactly why the bot gets unblocked each time. It seems that the only way to get Betacommand to listen to people is to block his bot, but we can't because RfC stops working when we do. By writing a monolithic bot without releasing the source code, Betacommand wields power over even admins. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Double tagging
Why did the bot double-tag this page? Talk:Delaware_Otsego_Corporation I added a rationale, you'd think that would have been good enough for a rationale-seeking robot. RussNelson (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was double tagged because the bot correctly identified it as lacking proper rationale, tagged it as such [2], then you removed the warning without entirely fixing the problem [3] and it properly re-identified the image as still lacking [4]. Thus, two notifications. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
^Thanks. Sorry, I missed the part about linking to the article that the rationale covers. It's only used one one article, so I thought it would be obvious, but I guess the bot isn't smart enough. RussNelson (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Furious Dragon.jpg
I fixed the issues with Image:Furious dragon.jpg and subsequently deleted the warning. Thanks for pointing it out. Robhakari (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Point 15 is total rubbish
I have just added the title of the article to an already existing fair use rationale on an article that most likely gets very few views, and thus would have been deleted. Pure and utter laziness. MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is a bot. Not a human. A bot can't be "lazy", and further a bot can not write rationales or evaluate rationales for some characteristics because they are highly subjective. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The people operating the bot can look at the tagged images and take the 10 seconds it took to fix the issue in this instance.
- One person operates this bot. One. This bot has over 700,000 edits. 10 seconds times even 100,000? More than 11 days of editing, non-stop, to attempt compliance with the images. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you see that as a problem with the policy/tags/established procedures when there are that many edits to be made by this bot? My issue is it's operation with a complete lack of any kind of parallel good faith group effort to fix what are 99% newbie errors. These images are lost after your arbitrary time limit, often with interested parties never even seeing the tags, never mind being able to understand them. I only encounter the stupid thing once in a while, but who is systematically examining tagged images? Leaving it to the uploader is a total cop-out in my opinion, and probably puts many new editors off. Remember here, I am not talking about an image here with no rationale, it was ALL there bar one tiny mistake, on a non-busy article, thus the image dissapears forever on the dodgy premise of it's too hard to fix it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you see that as a problem when it takes that many edits to keep up with the massive influx of improperly rationaled images??? We tried doing it with humans. It failed. That's why this bot is so necessary. This attack on the bot and countless others have all been raised before. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The bot fails too, just in a different and more spectacular way. How about you have the bot deal with new images, now that the upload wizard includes tools to provide the appropriate rationales, and stop messing with old images that were uploaded with proper tags before this idea of a "rationale" existed, or had a rationale but the page was moved, or have a reasonable rationale written by a reasonable human which doesn't satisfy your bot? Then you don't have an "influx" anymore. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced when you can't link to any actual debates or established consensus over the use of the bot, in addition to the complete non-reply to me raising the issue a few months ago on all the appropriate pages. Given the amount of times you are referring to previous debates, you might at least have a handy link to them, or do you just not get the idea that I have that the same complaints are occuring every time this bot runs. Christ, even having the 17! point massive 'dont blame me' box should tell you something about the way things are currently being done. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- If a bot can't evaluate rationales, why are you trying to use it for exactly that purpose? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not being used for that purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have you ever made a good faith effort to assesss as a percentage of tagged images, how many are being dumped that are easily fixed and not actually causing a major breach of copyright? MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, nor have I made any bad faith efforts in that area either. I don't work in that arena. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- You devote so much effort to defending a bot that deletes images as purported copyright violations, but you never look at how many of them are actually copyright violations? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The bot doesn't delete any images. It doesn't have the admin flag. I think you're misunderstanding what this bot does. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bot tags image, uploader doesn't see tag in time, other good faith editors like me who see 7! similar taggings on their watchlist tonight lose the will to even investigate possible bot errors, no parallel community effort is harnessed in parallel to the bot, deleting admin is not interested in fixing as per the attitude at the top of this page i.e. it's not our job, we don't work in that field, bingo, image deleted and lost. What are you not getting about that process, and the obvious role the bot's current operation plays in it? MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Previously debated. I encourage you to view the archive index I previously cited and spend some time reading the prior debates. What I am not getting is why we are having this debate, when it's been debated before with the conclusion being that the bot continues the work. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, as it seems you get complaints a million times when you run this bot, why don't you already have a handy list of links to specific decisions and precedents for pissed off people to look at? Judging at the rate of growth of this page alone tonight, dismissing someone to go peruse the archives is a blatant bad faith attitude. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- First, I don't own or run this bot. Second, that's the second time you've accused me of bad faith. I strongly, strongly, strongly urge you to seek out another administrator to have me blocked as soon as possible to stop my bad faith edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's blatantly bad faith when you enter a discussion, take a position based on previous debates which no sane person would spend time finding in vague archive references, then claiming it's all nothing to do with you anyway. You are clearly on the wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was previously asked to find prior discussions. I did. Now you're accusing me of bad faith for finding those discussions? Who's on the wind up again? I'm confused. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You haven't found anythong. Pointing to talk archives means nothing in an issue that clearly everyone except you can see is a hotly contested bot. You are absolutely 100% on the total wind up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. Ok, look, above you asked for some feedback on prior discussions. I gave it to you. Now you're accusing me of doing something *bad* because I gave you partially what you wanted? If you don't want to go through those archives to search for the answers, what motivation does anyone have to find the answers for you? I gave you an entirely proper link to help you in your search. You just don't want to do the work to find the answers you want. I *helped* you, but that's not enough...you want me to do all your work for you. And *I* am the one acting in bad faith? *I* am the one "100% on the total wind up????? Ok, enough of this discussion, as it's clearly gone off the deep end. Please let me know when you make the request to block me and/or file an ArbCom case to get this bot permanently blocked. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be nice to see you stop pretending that it should be the many many editors being pissed off by this bot to have to repeatedly go find these what look like increasingly mythical overwhelming debates that all us stoopid people don't get. It would be nice if you could hold a discussion without bringing up ridiculous strawmen, it would be nice if you followed up with your assertions, or explain why you think there are no links on this page to these oft referenced decisions and debates, it would be nice if you addressed the actual points being made regarding the bots defficiencies and obvious flaws or even acknowledge its wider role in getting images deleted, rather than resorting to "it's not my job/remit/wikititle" (why are you even here then on a talk page about the bot?) and "if it was that bad it would be blocked" (which it has been many times), it would be nice if your whole attitude changed really and you acted less like a wind up merchant and more like a contributor. MickMacNee (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't intend to respond to your comments because of your devolution into hate filled vitriol. I suggest you read WP:NPA. I've already told you where to look. I'm not going to do you work for you, most especially when you think it a great motivator to insult me to get me to do you work. Have the last word if you like, but in the process please make sure you request I be blocked. You might try making such a request at WP:AN/I. Thank you, and good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your vague dismissals in here, your general comments such as that, and deletion of images on the grounds of what are minor errors, are all bad faith in my opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Really? Ok. Please request I be blocked. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- This comment and others on here aren't giving me the impression you know what blocks are for. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you think I'm acting in bad faith, then my edits are a disruption to the project. That's a blockable offense. I'm sure you'll be able to find an admin to agree with your conclusion that I am acting in bad faith. Therefore, I request you please go and find an uninvolved administrator to perform the block. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- That would mean finding a contributor that hasn't found a blatant error with this bot's operation, as I see it that only realy leaves you, so block yourself please and leave us to get on with our rationales. MickMacNee (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Above you stated that I was acting in bad faith. That's got nothing to do with the bot. Bad faith edits are disruptive to the project and a blockable offense. I assume you meant what you said, yes? Or did you not mean to say that I was acting in bad faith? Also, I'm not an administrator, so I can't block myself. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Question
Is it asking so much to ask that the edit count be updated and the typos in the bot's messages be fixed? Enigma (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- the typo should be fixed, and Ill update the edit count when I feel like it. βcommand 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Added a fair use rationale - I hope this appeases the Wiki gods. Cheers. Peter1968 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
What is this?
I have a load of messages saying that this bot is going to delete images. I've been through all this with another bot. Not going to bother this time. Just delete them.--Moonlight Mile (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Holy crap I can't believe people have just deleted these images just because the uploader is pissed off with this bot. So much for community effort to provide fair use rationales. MickMacNee (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- If an uploader requests deletion, it's perfectly valid to speedy delete the images. Please see Wikipedia:CSD#General_criteria criteria #7, which is the criteria under which the images were deleted. All done according to policy. Enjoy, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to calm your bot down
It is just rubbing people up the wrong way. I see 7 articles on my watchlist that the bot has tagged within the last 6 hours - the FU tagging is getting worse, and is starting to annoy me (and by the look of this talk page many others). Sure FU rationale need to be provided - and sure that is something that should, methodically, be worked on - but going around tagging thousands of images per hour as being "about to be deleted" (no they are not, dumb bot) is completely ridiculous and is just seriously annoying a lot of people. Please throttle the bot back or I will post a note on AN - sensible time frames and availabilities of editors should be used to deal with the FU issue, not the mass tagging/deletions going on here. SFC9394 (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you post to WP:AN. The rapidity of the bot's actions has been debated before, and upheld as proper. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please cite them SFC9394 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have a look through [5] searching for "betacommand". --Hammersoft (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please cite them SFC9394 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Question
Why is this bot adding deletion tags to football club logos without notifying me, the original uploader of the logos and the only contributor to them? This means that any logos I have contributed to articles that are no longer on my watchlist are highly likely to get deleted. I thought the main purpose of the bot was supposed to be to get fair use rationales fixed, not enforce the deletion of images. English peasant 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you cite some examples please? Hard to rectify a problem without some examples. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Image:ItuzaingoLogo.gif
- Image:GimnasiaCU.gif
- Image:Laflorida.gif
- Image:GrupoUniversitario.gif
to name a few. I just changed my username today, but the bot followed the redirect to my new talkpage 11 times since then, before it stopped botheringEnglish peasant 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like the bot and the rename were underway at the same time. There's no way of predicting when the renames will occur, so it's kinda hard to correct this. The bot did properly inform you on other occasions today [6]. Hope this helps, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- It informed me correctly after the rename process was complete. It stopped informing me between 23:23 and 23:38 and has not informed me of anything since then despite tagging at least 4 images I uploaded. Perhaps the should be stopped if it is not informing people of its actions? English peasant 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- the full re-name process can take several hours. βcommand 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I provided rationales for the 11 that I was notified of on my talkpage + another 20 the bot didn't even notify me of. I would have liked to contribute to the encyclopaedia this evening but I had to trawl through bot edits instead. Perhaps you could run it at a slower speed next time, I mean most editors are going to give up if they see more than 10 or so aren't they? English peasant 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- See my attempt to explain that concept above. MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that I provided rationales for the 11 that I was notified of on my talkpage + another 20 the bot didn't even notify me of. I would have liked to contribute to the encyclopaedia this evening but I had to trawl through bot edits instead. Perhaps you could run it at a slower speed next time, I mean most editors are going to give up if they see more than 10 or so aren't they? English peasant 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Scott Hahn / Rome Sweet Home
Since I happened to notice that you asked for one I've just added a free-use rationale at Image:Home-rome.jpg for its use as an illustration in Scott Hahn. I didn't upload it, but I happen to have bought a copy of the book recently, so I could supply the details required. But as I say, I have no idea whether it suffices and am not convinced the article would suffer unduly by the image's absence. I'll remove the bot-tag anyway, just so it doesn't get auto-deleted in a few days. You can re-tag if you think it necessary. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...
Whether or not an image may be used in a forum such as Wikipedia is not something I wish to challenge. If we want text only and no images, then that's okay with me. No hard feelings or anything... but I simply want to contribute to make this a better resource for everybody. I understand my weight in this forum (or lack thereof) and will simply abide by whatever decisions are made by TPTB... but I will also consider whether my time and energies are better used doing something other than contributing to this forum.
Again, no hard feelings -- it simply is what it is...
Dwacon (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dwacon, we welcome your contributions, since the bot flagged some of your images please do not be offended. there are just some issues with the images you uploaded. please see this guide on writing rationales for images and our non-free image policy βcommand 01:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/February..jpg/150px-February..jpg)
A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)